Trending Topics:

Israel’s Dead Soul: Steven Salaita’s critical scholarship explains his dismissal from the University of Illinois

on 28 Comments

Steven Salaita’s Israel’s Dead Soul (2011) merits serious attention and ultimately effusive praise. It contains five critical essays that not only offer brilliant insight into the cultural and ideological practices of Zionism in both Israel and the United States, but implicitly explain why his conscientious efforts would be denigrated and rejected by the ostensibly liberal aspects of this culture at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Israel’s “dead soul” is not Salaita’s own accusation or conclusion; it is his way of framing the blatant and gruesome ironies entailed by Jewish Israelis’ own obsessions, and laying bare their pretentions to moral purity and political righteousness.

He concludes the introduction with two points central to the book’s argument:

First, discussion of the state of Israel’s soul has been common for so long that it constitutes a relevant political and moral discourse of its own, one that illuminates numerous important features of Zionist identity and strategy. Those who chatter about Israel’s declining soul long ago killed it by agonizing it to death. However, in doing so they have brought other matters to life, most notably a commitment to protecting Israel from recognition of its inherent iniquities, which I endeavor to contextualize here. Second, I am working form the belief that Israel’s soul died at the moment of its invention. I do not believe that states have souls, metaphysically or metaphorically. There is no soul of Palestine, of Iraq, of Papua New Guinea, of Canada, or of any other geopolitical entity with a central government and an economic apparatus. (p. 10)

At the modern corporate university, and especially at public neoliberal high-tech research universities like UIUC, multiculturalism and diversity constitute the official ideology of identity (as opposed to class) politics; civility and respect, as they have been evoked by administrators and trustees in the Salaita affair, constitute its bureaucratic and disciplinary practices. In the Chapter 1, “Israel as a Cultural Icon,” Salaita explores Zionists’ exploitation of multicultural spaces on campus:

What are the ethical consequences of the coterminous relationship of Israel and Jewishness? They are many, none of them positive. First of all, it means that Israel cannot be included in multicultural celebrations without reflecting negatively on Jewish people, many of whom do not want to be identified in any way with the nation-state or who do not want the national-state to be their primary cultural identity.

Second, it entraps Jewish people in an unsavory paradigm, one in which they perform gruesome acts because of their culture. … Herein lies the main problem of conjoining culture and national character. Hillel and other Jewish civic organizations render themselves distinctly responsible for Israel’s violence by proclaiming themselves guardians of the state’s consciousness. … It is never a good idea, even though the trope of strategic essentialism, to link an ethnic group to a military apparatus. Such a move automatically justifies discourses—in this case anti-Semitic ones—that should never be justifiable. (p. 23)

In a manner that is rarely articulated in the belly of the beast, Salaita proceeds to place this critique in a larger educational/corporate/power context:

The frequent inclusion of Zionism in multicultural spaces, both physical and metaphorical, enables us to think more closely about the utility of multiculturalism as a discourse and a practice. Zionism represents centers of power financially and politically. It is an ideology (or set of ideologies) deeply inscribed in state power all over the world. It supports an enormous military economy and an imperialism whose reach is capacious. It partakes of the capitalist structures of neoliberalism that expropriate resources from the Southern Hemisphere into the Northern. Zionism is inseparable from the forms of structural injustice that occur throughout the world.

My point here is not to suggest that Zionism corrupts multiculturalism, though that is likely the case, at least in the abstract. I suggest instead the possibility that multiculturalism itself is problematic because it so easily accommodates Zionism (and other troublesome ideologies). Is the point of multiculturalism to oppose unjust power and racism? Or is it to provide spaces within institutions where ethnic minorities can escape racism? What is the point of using multicultural apparatuses to promote Israel as the apogee of Jewishness?

Although I have rarely heard it stated that multiculturalism is supposed to oppose power, it frequently appeases it, a judgment I base on nothing more than its continued existence. Academic and corporate institutions are set up to regulate and efficiently eliminate both internal and external challenges to their modes of governance and authority. In many ways, the promotion of multiculturalism is a diversion or a delusion … deep seated racism still exists in the institutions wherein the idea of multiculturalism was invented. (p. 28-29)

41XN-ipMuQL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_Salaita accurately and ironically describes the institutional context of his own demise at the University of Illinois, embodied in Chancellor Phyllis Wise’s assertion that “What we cannot and will not tolerate at the University of Illinois are personal and disrespectful words or actions that demean and abuse either viewpoints themselves or those who express them.” Institutional power has spoken, claiming that Salaita has not just challenged “viewpoints,” but demeaned and abused them.

I would add that Salaita’s tone throughout Israel’s Dead Soul is one of engaged, thorough, fair, feisty, honest, and incisive critique, the power and persuasiveness of which are never mitigated by personal or abusive attacks on the targets of his criticism—even Abraham Foxman.

In Chapter 2 Salaita asks the question: “Is the Anti-Defamation League a Hate Group?” To answer this question is to shoot fish in a barrel, but Salaita bends over backwards to be factual and fair. He uses the ADL’s own ten criteria, and finds that it clearly qualifies in six instances: The group’s ideologies and activities perpetuate extremism and hatred; its beliefs can lead to violent acts or terrorism; its actions can affect entire communities, or even nations; it can believe in racial superiority; it seeks to harm perceived enemies or to undermine American democracy; and it engages in systematic holocaust denial (in relation to Armenia). Salaita judiciously concludes:

I cannot say conclusively that these factors make the ADL a hate group, but it is indisputable that the ADL satisfies its own conception of a hate group. … The ADL is not exceptional. There isn’t, as most people want to believe, a large gap between a civil rights and a hate group. One of the main reasons that the two sometimes shade into one another is that the affectations of radicalism by civil rights groups often conceal an unimaginative reliance on the mechanisms of juridical intervention, which are influenced by a completely different set of goals and imperatives (those of protecting the elite). There is no good way to reconcile these divergent interests no matter how insistently civil rights groups sermonize about kinder and gentler policing techniques. (p. 69-70)

In reference to civil rights as well as multiculturalism, Salaita challenges liberal complacency and rationalization. He continues this pattern in Chapter 3, “Ethnonationalism as an Object of Multicultural Decorum,” in which he considers the cases of African-American scholars Cornel West and Michael Eric Dyson as public intellectuals in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict:

The main problem with West’s point of view is his insistence, like that of his political collaborator Michael Lerner’s, that there is an equivalence between Israel’s violence actions and all forms of Palestinian resistance that in some way use physical violence. … West constantly fails to rein in Lerner’s rehearsed discourses of victimization that tacitly position Jews as eternal scapegoats of Arab and black aggression. Nearly every time West asserts a thoughtful position, he is made to moderate it or retreat from it altogether. Israel therefore becomes a protected space… (p. 73).

Salaita deals more harshly with Dyson, whom he accurately accuses of spending more time on punditry than scholarship.

Dyson’s shortcomings, as so many others’, are exposed by the topic of Palestine. It is not a topic that Dyson discusses frequently, and one that he almost never invokes voluntarily. However, given his widespread punditry, his viewpoint on the Israel-Palestine conflict is sometimes requested. His responses are uniformly mealy-mouthed and conciliatory. (p. 81)

Salaita frames both West and Dyson in a larger critique of public intellectuals in relation to multiculturalism and media punditry:

An intervention needs to occur to challenge Israel’s status as an essential component of multicultural conviviality, a status West and Dyson have played a considerable role in maintaining. Their role in its maintenance cannot be separated from their prominence as public intellectuals, though I again point to their rare intervention, despite their public eminence, in the reorganization of unjust social and economic structures. Perhaps their lack of radical intervention has enabled their public eminence. In any case, their complicity in the conflation of Israel and Jewish culture, or in the conflation of recognizing Israel as a recognition of Jewish culture, is questionable ethically and careless intellectually. For West and Dyson, accepting the premise of Zionism is a source of multicultural decorum.

In a broader sense, we need to complicate the perception that diversity and multiculturalism are intuitively valuable phenomena. … their practice is problematic because it is manifestly exclusionary. … Multiculturalism is a propitious element of West and Dyson’s market niche, not an object of their critical attention. (p. 90-91)

I would add that in the case of West it remains to be seen whether he will apply the integrity that he has clearly demonstrated in his rejection of President Obama to future pronouncements on Israel-Palestine.

In the final two chapters of Israel’s Dead Soul, Salaita turns more directly to liberal Zionist propaganda in in relation to both “pinkwashing” and cinema. Chapter 4 is titled “Sexuality, Violence, and Modernity in Israel.” Salaita, as always, places his critique in a larger and integral context of social justice:

The contestation of homophobia is of seminal importance everywhere in the world. But like all oppressive discourses, it must be contested in conjunction with an integrated focus on all social and institutional phenomena that preclude comprehensive human wellness. It is from the same set of power dynamics that racism, sexism, homophobia, and their cognates emerge. To challenge homophobia by promoting war and colonization is immoral as well as strategically ineffectual, a reliable way to ensure that homophobia continuously reproduces itself. … When StandWithUs utilizes the language of equality for LGBT people it does not extend that language to include equality for Palestinians, Muslims, and other dark-skinned victims of Israeli racism. (p. 114-115)

In the final chapter, “The Heart of Darkness Redux, Again,” Salaita critiques three films in light of Zionism and Orientalism. Again, he focuses on ostensibly liberal perspectives in relation to Conrad’s famous novel as “a psychological leitmotif of colonial self-expression”:

Zionist art has repeatedly used this sort of trope. Much of the nonfiction of well-heeled novelists like Amos Oz and David Grossman conceptualizes the Jewish encounter with Palestinians as morally stupefying or emotionally debilitating. Much of the liberal commentary in Israel recycles the same motif. The heart of darkness is prominent in Zionist cinema, by which I mean filmmaking consciously trained on the historical or ideological dimensions of Zionism or Israel.

Three recent films stand out: Ari Sandel’s West Bank Story, Steven Spielberg’s Munich, and Ari Folman’s Waltz with Bashir. … Although these are very different films aesthetically and dissimilar politically, they all endow themselves with the burden of intense psychoemotional soul-searching. All three are deeply worried about the declining status of Israel’s soul. All three rely on anonymous Palestinians to frame their central moral questions. All three are didactic, in that they desire a type of soulful restoration that they conceptualize as an ethnic birthright. (p. 118)

In Israel’s Dead Soul, Steven Salaita proves himself an informed, articulate, incisive, courageous, and compassionate critic of Zionism and its consequences, including in relation to liberal and multicultural academia, and to Jewish-American identity. This book helps explain the threat he poses to the academy, and the nature of the overtly coercive influence that Zionist institutions have had on the academy—obviously including the University of Illinois—long before he was scheduled to arrive here.

I will conclude by quoting from the first paragraph of the brief epilogue of this book:

The anxious chattering guardians of national consciousness, composed of liberal writers and eager do-gooders, killed Israel’s soul. They did not kill it through violence, however. They killed it by inventing it. This death isn’t tragic. It is to be celebrated. Israel’s soul needed to die if the many peoples of the Near East are to continue living.

By endowing a nation-state, the progenitor of militarism and technocracy, with the most abstract but sacred element of humanity, a soul, those fretting over Israel’s encounters with darkness ensured its eternal soullessness. This paradox does not threaten Israel’s future; it portends the safety and survival of the Jewish and Palestinian people. By insisting that nation-states have souls, we prevent ourselves from tending to the humans who subsist within the institutions. The nation-state does not procure a human soul. The nation-state circumscribes the human soul. (p. 141)

David Green

David Green lives in Champaign, Illinois.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

28 Responses

  1. pabelmont on October 16, 2014, 10:24 am

    Interesting, but difficult work. Some typos and mistakes (as I read them). I’ve suggested changes in [brackets]

    [1] “I am working form [from] the belief that Israel’s soul died at the moment of its invention”

    [2] “What are the ethical consequences of the [loudly asserted by Zionists, but frequently denied by others] coterminous relationship of Israel and Jewishness? They are many, none of them positive.” Comment: this “coterminous relationship” is a claim, not an unassailable fact.

    [3] “What is the point of using multicultural apparatuses to promote Israel as the apogee of Jewishness?” Comment: Agreed, good question. I don’t know what “multiculturalism” is, but I wonder if those who practice it (I imagine they do so as an argument for societal, national, and religious inclusiveness) would wish to extend their accepting embrace to enfold and protect ardent advocates of an ideology, call it a religion if you will, that promoted human sacrifice, the genital mutilation of women (or men), or the removal (or killing as the Nazis once did) of whole classes of people from a society. In short, does “multiculturalism” have rules of inclusion and exclusion? If so, what are those rules, and how do they relate to Zionism-in-practice, pro-Israelism-today?

  2. bilal a on October 16, 2014, 10:39 am

    He’s implying, but not stating outright, a conclusion others have reached, the link between multiculturalism and zionism, the former flowing from the latter:

    “My point here is not to suggest that Zionism corrupts multiculturalism, though that is likely the case, at least in the abstract. I suggest instead the possibility that multiculturalism itself is problematic because it so easily accommodates Zionism (and other troublesome ideologies). Is the point of multiculturalism to oppose unjust power and racism? Or is it to provide spaces within institutions where ethnic minorities can escape racism? What is the point of using multicultural apparatuses to promote Israel as the apogee of Jewishness? –

    No, zionism did not corrupt multiculturalism, MC is a weapon of Zionism: it breaks up national, religious class identities and replaces those unities with ghettoized skin color and sexual role identities, easily manipulated into ineffective divisive splintered body politics.

    How can we explain the Progressive except Palestine ideology, the NAACP as an organization founded and maintained by zionism, the MC embrace of an organization called ‘La Raza’, the race. ?

    Balkanization, supremacism, choseness for all, and none, at the same time. The ideology of transnational corporations – all reduced to Benetton skin color, sexual expression, and consumerism fetishes.

    • RoHa on October 16, 2014, 10:52 pm

      I don’t know what Salaita means by “multiculturalism”, but I presume he defines it somewhere in his book.

      The version I know seems to be a politically correct term for encouraging self-imposed apartheid. As you say, it splits up society into “communities”, and weakens social solidarity.

      From my perspective, another bad effect is that it enables these “communities” to burden their children with the task of maintaining the minority “culture”. All citizens should have full access to all the opportunities available to, at least, members of the majority culture in the country. Minority children can end up having the opportunities limited by the cultural limitations imposed on them by the minority culture

  3. MHughes976 on October 16, 2014, 12:04 pm

    Pb’s last question in particular is a very good one. Salaita seems to have attended the same School of Complicated Utterance as some other cultural theorists have. He’s at his best when he puts his books on the shelf and just complains about awful people in plain words.
    Salaita’s idea that a civil rights group and a hate group could be quite similar is interesting, though his reasoning – that civil rights groups are too interested in legality – seems to me to be utterly unconvincing. It is true that the main motivation for demanding civil rights for Xs could well be not belief in universal rights but hatred and detestation of some non-X group and a desire to do that group down. In this context I’d think interest in law, which does tend to be framed in universal terms, is rather a good sign.
    I can maybe see the sense of saying ‘Why use multi-cultural ideas, which by their nature include all without discrimination, in the service of Israel, which is based on a claim that excludes many people in many ways and senses?’ But then multi-culturalism can be suspected of welcoming and including all cultures provided they turn out all to be the same.

    • Donald on October 16, 2014, 6:25 pm

      “Salaita seems to have attended the same School of Complicated Utterance as some other cultural theorists have. He’s at his best when he puts his books on the shelf and just complains about awful people in plain words.”

      That’s very well put–it’s why I have little interest in the more academic theorizing sort of leftist.

    • RoHa on October 16, 2014, 10:30 pm

      Complicated Utterance, though regrettable, is necessary these days. Without it, no-one will think he is a serious academic.

    • David Green on October 17, 2014, 9:39 am

      I’m not enamored of academic jargon, but Salaita uses the words he does to express ideas that reflect cultural realities, and I don’t have a problem with his style.

  4. jd65 on October 16, 2014, 1:08 pm

    I was able to attend all of Professor Salaita’s talks/events in Chicago last week and was permitted to videotape them. If anyone is interested, here’s some of the footage:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57SPGfeCUpY (Talk at Columbia College)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMlKC7AXJBA (University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter’s Introduction of Salaita)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQZiU5kjEq8 (Revealing Q & A from U of C; also includes response from Ali Abunimah)

    There’s a bit more from these events on my channel if people want to see more.

    • David Green on October 17, 2014, 9:40 am

      Thanks for taking the time to do this.

      • jd65 on October 17, 2014, 12:05 pm

        I was lucky to have the time to be able to do it. And thank you for the article. I feel this specific aspect (stifling speech and debate on Israel/Palestine on campus) of this wider issue is crucial. And the Salaita case, possibly to the demise of a good man, is bringing it to the fore. After seeing him speak 4 days in a row, and watching him thoughtfully answer a wide array of questions from the audiences, and from speaking to him a few times briefly, my impression is that Mr. Salaita is a very knowledgable, thoughtful and thorough person. All qualities which would make him an excellent instructor.

      • jd65 on October 17, 2014, 8:57 pm

        Hey Gracie. That’s a good, concise video. But it’s not even close to the whole event. If anyone wants/needs the full statements from Leiter and Abunimah they can be found on my youtube channel (see my comment above). Leiter’s statement is 3 times as long as the one up @ EI, and Abunimah’s full statement runs 20 minutes, vs. 12. The entire statement from Bassem Tamimi, who came from the West Bank, was not included. Also, Salaita’s talk was virtually the same as the one I’ve posted above from Columbia College the following evening which runs 24 minutes, vs. 10. There’s also additional worthwhile Q & A. Again, LaborBeat did an excellent job w/ that video. I’m just sayin’…

  5. JLewisDickerson on October 16, 2014, 5:35 pm

    RE: “Steven Salaita’s ‘Israel’s Dead Soul’ (2011) merits serious attention and ultimately effusive praise. It contains five critical essays that not only offer brilliant insight into the cultural and ideological practices of Zionism in both Israel and the United States, but implicitly explain why his conscientious efforts would be denigrated and rejected by the ostensibly liberal aspects of this culture at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. – David Green

    Support Steven Salaita via Fundly

    PLEASE CONSIDER MAKING A DONATION
    Not Ready To Donate? Become a Supporter
    213 SUPPORTERS
    $19,359 RAISED (USD)
    Days Left: 1538
    Goal: $250,000
    Internationally respected scholar and teacher Steven Salaita needs your help in the aftermath of his firing by UIUC.
    LINK – https://fundly.com/support-steven-salaita

  6. JLewisDickerson on October 16, 2014, 5:52 pm

    RE: “In Chapter 2 Salaita asks the question: ‘Is the Anti-Defamation League a Hate Group?’ To answer this question is to shoot fish in a barrel, but Salaita bends over backwards to be factual and fair. He uses the ADL’s own ten criteria, and finds that it clearly qualifies in six instances . . . “ – David Green

    MEANWHILE, ADL IS WORKING TO STIFLE FREE SPEECH ON THE INTERNET:
    “Stopping Cyber Hate – A new ‘crime’ discovered by friends of Israel”, by Philip Giraldi, The Unz Review, October 14, 2014

    [EXCERPT] . . . For those who are not familiar with ADL [Anti-Defamation League], it is a group established one hundred years ago to combat bigotry directed against Jews. It is generally considered to be a major component in the Israel Lobby. The ADL National Director since 1987 has been Abe Foxman.

    ADL has recently been meeting in California with a British group called the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism, which included the Community Security Trust (CST). The CST advocates physical response to anti-Semitic incidents, to include the equipping and training of organized “self-defense” forces. CST is controversial in the UK, partly because many British Jews believe they are adequately protected by the police. It has also been criticized because its Director is the highest paid head of any Jewish organization in the country and its finances are alleged to be non-transparent.

    An article entitled “Web giants unite to fight online hate” described the purpose of the California meeting. It reported that a “game changing” agreement was reached with Twitter, Facebook, Google and Microsoft to take steps to stop “the proliferation of racist and abusive comments” and to “force racism and hatred from the web.” This will be accomplished in part by “tougher sanctions against those who post abusive messages.” The internet companies, who already have the ability to automatically block content that they disapprove of, will devise proactive strategies to deal with the problem while being guided in the process by the ADL, “a leading anti-Semitism watchdog” which has been designated the “co-convenor” of the project.

    The issue of online hate is important to all web users as efforts to define and then curb it will affect everyone who works on the internet. There are, of course, constitutional rights to free speech that would be impacted by anyone trying to define what is or is not “hate” and there will be an inevitable tendency on the part of anyone seeking to come up with definitions to expand the scope to favor particular constituencies. Given the participants and the combatting anti-Semitism theme of the gathering, there should be no doubt that the meeting in California was only concerned with criticism of Jews and Israel and quite likely will have no interest whatsoever in controlling the much more widespread disparagement of Muslims. . .

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.unz.com/article/stopping-cyber-hate/

    ■ P.S. ALSO SEE “Fire Foxman” AND “The ‘Israel First’ Industry and CEO Profiteering” AT – http://mondoweiss.net/2014/10/stifling-princeton-university#comment-716353

  7. Keith on October 16, 2014, 7:51 pm

    DAVID GREEN- “Steven Salaita’s Israel’s Dead Soul (2011) merits serious attention and ultimately effusive praise.”

    Do you really believe that? Perhaps in academia such tortured complexity of language is thought to indicate brilliance of insight, but not to me. It has been my experience that when dealing with complicated issues simplicity of language is essential to the understanding of deeper truths. Those who obfuscate through complexity usually have little to say. Your quotations suggest an academic trying to impress other academics. Perhaps he is capable of writing decent prose if he truly wants to communicate to a more general audience, but such is not the case here.

    Don’t misunderstand, it is a shame he got fired. But he didn’t get fired over “Israel’s Dead Soul,” he got fired because of his impolitic tweets. Our society is becoming more authoritarian as we progress towards a neofeudal dystopia. Those in the academy who buck the system can expect to pay a price, particularly when they visibly rebel. The UIUC administration is sending a message to their academic staff to get in line and stay in line or else. That is why I disagreed with other Mondoweiss commenters that the uproar over his firing would result in his rehiring. Highly unlikely. The powers that be aren’t going to set a precedent by backing down. This is obviously intended to intimidate the faculty into keeping a low profile. It will probably work.

    • on October 17, 2014, 9:19 am

      Perhaps in academia such tortured complexity of language –

      Are you going for irony in that statement?

    • David Green on October 17, 2014, 9:43 am

      I don’t find his language to be tortured. For someone who reads a lot about the ME, I find his insights incisive, especially in relation to the exploitation of multiculturalism. Understanding his critiques takes a little work, but I think it’s worth it. I wouldn’t lump him in with the obfuscatory aspects of lit crit.

    • David Green on October 17, 2014, 9:47 am

      His “impolitic tweets” wouldn’t have mattered in almost any other context. Of course they were exploited. At the root of his exclusion are his serious political views. The fact that his critics ignore them says a lot about the political culture on campus and in this state that persecutes him.

      • Keith on October 17, 2014, 2:16 pm

        DAVID GREEN- “At the root of his exclusion are his serious political views.”

        Oh, David! Unless his “serious political views” only manifested themselves between his hiring and firing, then his serious political views as evidenced in “Israel’s Dead Soul” didn’t prevent him from being hired. Surely it would have been easier not to hire him than to fire him. Now it may be true that his Zionist enemies may be as much or more concerned about his serious political views than with his specific tweets, but until the tweets they seemed to lack the power to get to him, otherwise he would not have been hired. Sure, his tweets probably wouldn’t have mattered in another context, but that is part of what I am saying. When you stand in opposition to concentrated power you have to exercise a modicum of prudence. Dershowitz can get away with a lot (including alleged plagarism) because he is part of the power structure. Salaita is not and needs to exercise discipline, lest he provide his enemies with the means to get him fired. And while his tweets probably wouldn’t have mattered in another context, I doubt that he would have been fired had he not made those indiscreet tweets.

      • David Green on October 17, 2014, 3:44 pm

        Necessary but not sufficient.

  8. RoHa on October 16, 2014, 10:55 pm

    This book was published in 2011! Surely the Grand Panjandra at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign would have taken it into account when they first offered him the appointment.

    (Or was it the spur for a cunning plan to offer him a post, get him to give up his tenure, and then then dump him?)

  9. American on October 17, 2014, 1:05 am

    This also very interesting

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390514/when-defending-israel-becomes-religious-discrimination-kim-mccarthy

    October 16, 2014 6:00 PM

    When Defending Israel Becomes ‘Religious Discrimination’
    A Fordham University professor is charged with a secret Title IX complaint.
    By Kim McCarthy

    snips…

    “How do you try to prove a charge of religious discrimination against a Jesuit university’s professor of history and anti-Semitism studies?

    You’d think you could ask Professor Doron Ben-Atar, who was just cleared of this accusation, leveled by another professor. But he can’t tell you either, because he was investigated by the university’s Title IX commission, he says, without ever being informed of the charges against him. “They never told me what I did wrong, because I didn’t do anything wrong,” Ben-Atar says. “All I did was stand up against anti-Semitism.”

    ”Yet there’s a broader issue than the complaint itself. “The administration failed to say to Dr. McGee, ‘Listen, you have a political disagreement with Dr. Ben-Atar. This is not something that requires bigger action,’” Ben-Atar says.”>>>>>

    Dumbo doesn’t know what he did wrong.
    Dumbo doesn’t know that shooting his mouth off in typical zionist fashion about how any other academic who is for BDS is an anti semite just might piss off some non Jewish academics who then report him for religious discrimination toward non Jews.

    Yea its stretch—- but I like it–its like a price tag for a snotty mouth zionist who thinks he can smear anyone and not be smeared back.
    And I am pretty certain the non Jewish professor who charged him with religious discrimination did it just to cause him some aggravation, cost him some legal fees and make an example of him.

    Then dumbo, true to also zionistas hypocritical form, whines about how ‘having a political disagreement shouldnt rise to the to the level of legal charges.
    Like lawfare and suing everyone on earth isnt the zionist stock and trade in ‘political disagreements.’

    More price tags please. Make their slurring of other people cost them something.

  10. American on October 17, 2014, 1:34 am

    Why is he writing about Israel’s Dead Soul?
    I don’t get it.
    Why isnt he writing on what US Zionist are doing to the US academic institutions and freedom of speech.

    You’d have to write at least a 1000 page volume if you wanted to connect Israel to the multiculturalism and pluralism and the other isms Zionist have hypocritically pushed for their own agenda in the US.

    • David Green on October 17, 2014, 12:04 pm

      He engages these topics. The struggle proceeds on multiple levels, politically and intellectually. The fact that Salaita can have no place at the U of I says a lot about the nature of that struggle in this venue. His book provides the background to understand that.

  11. Horizontal on October 18, 2014, 1:32 pm

    David ~

    Thanks for posting this. While I sometimes had to slow down to make certain I was reading what I thought I was reading, it nevertheless was worth the effort. I hope the guy gets his job back and the exposure of Zionism’s dark influence continues.

  12. jayn0t on October 19, 2014, 9:11 pm

    Great article. Salaita’s demonstration that the Anti-Defamation League, according to its own criteria, is a hate group, is surely one of the reasons the cowardly, groveling aparatchiks at the University of Illinois fired him.

Leave a Reply