Trending Topics:

The problem with apology

on 23 Comments

Two Saturdays ago, I was relaxing in my pajamas while my child watched cartoons and my wife tapped at her laptop when our calm morning was interrupted by a loud, menacing knock.  I opened the door to a smiling man holding a thick manila envelope in both hands.

“Are you Steven Salaita?” he asked.

“I am.”

“I have some paperwork for you,” he announced, handing me the envelope.  Before spinning around, he bid me a nice day.  I was taken aback by his lack of passive aggression.

I knew what was in the package:  the hard copy of a legal complaint.  I had again been named as a defendant in a frivolous lawsuit—part of a Zionist harassment tactic that’s come to be known as “lawfare”—stemming from the 2013 American Studies Association [ASA] resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions.  A group of scholars who opposed the resolution, and were trounced in a painstakingly democratic process, filed suit against the ASA and a handful of its members (all women and/or people of color), with the backing (and likely encouragement) of Kenneth Marcus’s Brandeis Center.  After a lot of haggling and headache, a judge threw out the suit.  Now it’s being filed in a different court.  The mopey dunderheads want to give their doomed proposition another go.

I opened the envelope and removed a stack of papers about two inches thick, bound with a single rubber band.  I deposited the papers into a kitchen drawer and returned to the cartoons.

Zionists have been knocking on my door for years.  They’re goofier than Sponge Bob, more tedious than Teen Titans, and less eloquent than Pikachu; in turn, I generally don’t give a shit what they’re complaining about today.  So sue me.


You probably know that pro-Israel activists are intense, but unless you’ve been their target it’s hard to imagine the level of intensity.  They never stop.  This relentlessness separates them from garden-variety fanatics.  A single punishment, no matter how vicious, is never enough.  Their goal is to force targets into destitution, and then they’ll keep going until observers are destitute by association.  The belligerence honors the settler colonial entity to which they’re devoted.

If you fight back (the correct decision), they’ll smear you as anti-Semitic.  If you ignore the noise, they’ll grow louder.  And if you apologize, well, it would be a bad idea.  They’ll see it not as a victory, or an opportunity for reconciliation, but as an invitation to be more exasperating.

The list of journalists, academics, writers, artists, politicians, musicians, and activists punished for affirming Palestinian life—or merely for running afoul of right-wing Zionist orthodoxy—illustrates that recrimination is its own kind of stimulus.  It’s been so effective, may as well accelerate the model.  It’s hard to imagine the model’s demise without reshaping the anatomy of US political discourse.

And forget about avoiding it.  If you criticize Israel’s behavior—or condemn Zionism, the more important approach—you simultaneously risk defamation, or at least the nattering inanity of both voluntary and professional trolls.  Institutions exist around the world to protect Israel’s reputation and to inoculate the state against the kind of inquiry any healthy community understands as normal.  Those institutions are funded by billionaires and various government agencies.  It can lead to the bizarre scenario of a solitary Twitter critic getting pitted against the world’s most powerful forces.


I once was that solitary critic.  After a series of tweets profanely critical of Israeli war crimes during 2014’s Operation Cast Lead, a vicious 51-day bombardment of the Gaza Strip that killed thousands and destroyed the territory’s infrastructure, I found myself in a protracted legal and political battle against a distinguished research university, a Kennedy (albeit one of the family’s lesser specimens), the central Illinois business community (including the founder of Jimmy John’s), US Senators Dick Durban and Mark Kirk, a healthcare conglomerate, and the Israel lobby.

It’s never ceased being surreal (and disturbing) how so many superficially disparate institutions can mobilize against threats to their dominion, no matter how small or isolated.  Israel plays a critical role in the culture of reprisal against radical ideas, especially those proffered by queers and people of color.  Zionism is a devastatingly effective instrument for ruling class intimidation.

After my battle ended (with a court settlement and a new job overseas), Zionists kept at it.  They’re always on guard to submarine career opportunities, in keeping with the sensibility that criticizing Israel warrants lifetime punishment.  I’d take solace in knowing that they’ll finally relent after my death, but, like all colonizers, they have a history of unearthing graves of the subaltern.

When I used to give speeches, attendees regularly asked if I regret posting the tweets that caused so much trouble.  I was supposed to say yes, humble myself with obliging contrition and thus complete an age-old healing ceremony in which the native assuages the settler’s anxiety.  Depending on my mood, I could be terse or whimsical, but I never apologized or copped to remorse.  There are hundreds of things for which I feel obliged to seek forgiveness; upsetting advocates of ethnic cleansing isn’t among them.

My reluctance was also expedient.  Why apologize?  It won’t appease Zionist partisans.  They’ll only extract more conciliation and keep at it until I’ve become so pathetic that I sound like Wajahat Ali.

Beyond the pointlessness of the gesture, I had no right to apologize.  My presence behind a microphone was in service of Palestine’s national struggle, not for the sake of conquering the opportunistic ecosystem of US punditry.  Pacifying my interrogators would betray legions of people in and beyond Palestine who fight oppression with pluck and dignity.

In any case, these justifications are beside the point.  Zionists have decades of racism to account and atone for before we even consider the matter of Palestinians’ behavior.


Apology is a simple concept, but in practice it’s devilishly complicated.  It’s an inconsistent custom, spanning cathartic to passive aggressive.  Contingent on specific qualities of harm and redress, apology informs and encounters the range of human behavior.

The idea is to make amends with someone you’ve harmed or to resolve a conflict.  Apologizing can be an admission of error.  It’s compulsory in some types of therapy, but doggedly avoided in most civil and criminal trials (until, of course, the sentencing phase).  It’s also crucial to notions of forgiveness and repentance, so it conjoins wide-ranging phenomena and exposes otherwise unnoted disparities of power.

Public apologies are a popular entertainment.  Who can forget Bill Clinton, predatory lout par excellence, hoarsely expressing remorse about his infidelities in front of countless flashbulbs and microphones?  He refuses to personally apologize to Monica Lewinsky, though.

How about Michael Vick after he was busted for running a dog fighting ring?  Vick didn’t merely articulate regret, but vowed to redeem himself.  Sports radio praised his apology.  Vick’s emphasis on becoming a better person pleased the meatheaded arbiters of US exceptionalism.

A venerable subgenre is the tearful apology, perfected by horny televangelists with furtive drug habits and private jets.  When people weep behind closed doors, it can be powerful, but when they do it in front of the camera, audiences are apt to treat the tears as disingenuous.  Ridicule ensues on social media.  A symbol of vulnerability becomes an opportunity for derision.  Apology is dialectical, achieving maturity only after the reaction of both recipient and spectator.

We understand the mechanics of apology—as a discursive rite, a calculated performance, a device for political airbrushing, or the bedrock of artful dissembling—more readily than its emotional characteristics.  It’s expected in certain situations, surprising in others, a perfunctory exercise or an oratorical art.  We’re conditioned to revere its status as a civilizing force, evoking the humility of genuflection or the satisfaction of closure, an essential feature of linear time.

Non-apologies (also known as nonpologies) can induce rage:  sorry you were offended; sorry you misunderstood me; sorry you’re so sensitive; sorry you felt hurt by what I did.  These aren’t simply refusals to take ownership; they implicate the aggrieved party in some kind of failure.  Another variation of the non-apology disavows agency:  I didn’t know; the situation was complex; I meant well; something something moving parts; I was confused.

War criminals love this genre.  Robert McNamara, architect of numerous US atrocities in Vietnam, spent his final years rehearsing pitiful non-apologies.  “I’m very sorry that in the process of accomplishing things, I’ve made errors,” he proclaimed, sounding both ghoulish and robotic.

Tony Blair followed McNamara’s model when he stepped forward to lament his role in the US-UK invasion of Iraq.  Bemoaning the “hardest, most momentous, most agonising decision” he’d ever made, Blair confessed to “more sorrow, regret and apology than you can ever know or believe,” before absolving himself of culpability:  “I did it because I thought it was right.”

Neither McNamara nor Blair apologized to the actual victims of their depravity.  The war criminal non-apology is a strictly metropolitan affair.

Sometimes apology is a policy issue, as when governments face down ugly histories (almost always involuntarily).  The German government has been apologizing for Nazism since the late 1940s.  The Canadian government apologized to Indigenous peoples for residential schools (i.e., concentration camps for kidnapped children), something to which its US counterpart is disinclined.  Mexico recently called on Spain to apologize for the brutality of its conquest, but received a negative response.

These acts have legal and economic implications.  A formal governmental apology is understood to also entail some form of remuneration (which is why the adjective “formal” is so important).  It’s also supposed to indicate more humane priorities, but that’s no guarantee.  Canadian colonization hasn’t slowed a whit since its government purported to make amends.

Friendship, ceremony, sport, worship, parenting, trade, politics, intercourse—none would be possible without apology.  No matter its provenance or intent, it forces us to acknowledge our reality as social creatures.

Sometimes, however, a refusal to apologize can preserve existence, even when death is the competing option.


Demanding apologies from people they harm is a Zionist specialty.  When lickspittles for settler colonization urged me to repent for anti-Zionism, I constantly had to remind myself that I, and not the lickspittles, was the aggrieved party.  It’s a sad but necessary reminder, because aggravation is the Zionist’s cardinal sensibility.

Zionist demands for apology also inhabit a political rhetoric.  They transfix the settler into a permanent subject-position.  By conferring to themselves a unique capacity to be offended, they tacitly proclaim the native to be incapable of sentience.  The world is refracted through their anxiety, which is both exceptional and ordinary, a leitmotif of majorities around the world who imagine themselves to be imperiled.

To demand apology without considering reciprocal sites of grievance nurtures a world conditioned to serve the needs of power.  For Zionists, it is yet another way to ensure that Palestinians acquire no claim to freedom.


Apology as political bludgeon was recently on display vis-à-vis Ilhan Omar, a first-term congresswoman from Minnesota.  Although Omar isn’t Palestinian (she’s Somali), her comments critical of the Israel lobby (and to a lesser degree of Israeli policy) inspired tremendous hostility.  Omar’s Muslim faith (along with her blackness and immigrant origin) became a focus of those displeased by her criticism.

Forward opinion editor Batya Ungar-Sargon helped set the episode in motion by admonishing Omar on Twitter:  “Please learn how to talk about Jews in a non-anti-Semitic way.  Sincerely, American Jews.”  Chelsea Clinton, no doubt raised to seize the lucrative opportunities available from punching down, chimed in to register her mortification.  Soon every beltway tosser with an establishment fetish was dragging Omar.

Omar and her detractors came to represent irreconcilable polarities in an online brouhaha, which elided a host of issues, not least the anti-colonial struggle of actual Palestinians.  The debate became a referendum on one person’s singular heroism contraposed to the atavistic depravity of Islam.  US political discourse knows no other approach.

Had observers examined Omar’s views on Palestine-Israel, a more banal conversation may have emerged.  (Let a lonely writer dream.)  It’s difficult to nail down Omar’s positions because they’re inconsistent; we only know that she’s against Israel, a vague intellection largely engendered by Zionist foot-stomping.  As is their custom, Omar’s antagonists invented a sinister emblem to suit colonialist fantasies of persecution.

Omar’s actual politics are less dramatic.  She has both affirmed and downplayed BDS; her post-election affirmation of BDS set her up for defamation.  She apparently approves of the Oslo peace process.  She cites groups like If Not Now, J Street, and MoveOn, but doesn’t promote outfits led by Palestinians.  In an op-ed that can reasonably be described as milquetoast, she proffered support for the two-state solution amid boilerplate about security and values.

She voted for a budget resolution (HR 21) that provides billions in aid to Israel (along with other unsavory foreign policy initiatives).  While gridlock between Donald Trump and congressional Democrats had provoked a government shutdown, the issue at the heart of HR 21, Omar made no effort to distance herself from its imperialist spending.  (For example:  “I voted for the budget because it was important to get federal employees back on payroll, but I deplore its lavish expenditures for a serial human rights violator.”)

Omar has made anti-Israel statements and antagonized AIPAC, but has nothing to say about Zionism.  The distinction matters.  Without analysis of Zionism as a settler colonial ideology central to a capitalist order that fosters massive global iniquity, we end up reifying the notion of a fundamentally decent United States prone to incomprehensible lapses of judgment, a perspective Omar likes to utilize.  In fact, reducing US support for Israel to effective lobbying absolves the architects of genocide on both sides of the Atlantic.  Omar’s position in Congress inhibits her ability to be radical, but observers of that institution suffer no such limitations.

In short:  although Omar is capable of sharp commentary, her public record on Palestine-Israel more or less hews to the international consensus.  Her canonization as anti-Zionist heroine was largely in response to racist abuse.  And Zionists abused her in no small measure because of her positionality as a Black Muslim woman.  Her defamation was foreordained.  Ungar-Sargon’s tantrum mobilized a simmering anxiety that preceded Omar’s arrival in Washington.


Omar ought to be defended from Zionist defamation on principle, but it’s important to keep Palestine solvent in our analyses.  The ongoing debate about her comments, real and imagined, taps into an essential motif of US exceptionalism:  a solitary hero confronting an indomitable adversary.  Context is displaced from the site of anti-colonial struggle onto a public contest involving metonymical antagonists.  The Palestinian people, by design, disappear amid the noise of spectacle.

Only those who personally interact with Omar know her private thoughts, motivations, concerns, aspirations, or worries.  Sure, we can infer strategy or intent based on what she chooses to make public, as is our right, but the complete scope of a controversy is unavailable to spectators.  I try to remember that victims of smear campaigns aren’t proxies for my desire, but vulnerable human beings apt to intense feelings of loneliness and betrayal.

I’m nevertheless comfortable suggesting that Omar’s apologies were a mistake.  Two main reasons inform this belief:  1) apologizing only empowered the mob, and 2) it set a bad precedent for Palestine solidarity activists.

We can return to Ungar-Sargon to illustrate the first point.  Even after Omar met with various “Jewish groups” (where she presumably continued expressing regret), Ungar-Sargon kept condemning Omar—at one point she juxtaposed Omar with the KKK—and deemed her contrition inadequate.  It’s unclear what would satisfy Ungar-Sargon’s exacting standards, but following her orders doesn’t seem to work.

Ungar-Sargon is the product of a distinct political culture.  In personal relationships, apology is critical to forgiveness, but power never forgives dissent.  It deploys a rhetoric of conciliation as a pretext to maintain jurisdiction over acceptable critique.  For the settler, insistence on redress is a weapon, less destructive than bombs and bullets, yes, but a worthy complement to their physical terror.  Colonial self-indulgence governs even the most intimate aspects of our behavior, mediating our emotion, authorizing our resistance.

As to the second point, apologizing to Zionists for deploring their ideology, or merely for having said an unkind word about Israeli brutality, doesn’t absolve the offender; it invigorates the Zionists’ commitment to discipline.  (Here I am not concerned with legitimate harm, but with the notion that condemning Israeli deeds, or the awful ethics of the state’s defenders, is the type of harm worthy of redress.)  It likewise excludes Palestinians from the public domain except as ontological devices for liberal sanctimony.

If pro-Israel operatives don’t understand the difference between anti-Zionism, a movement deeply invested in equality, and racial hatred, the bread-and-butter of the state they defend, then it’s the operatives’ problem to sit with.  We needn’t internalize the fallout of voluntary ignorance.

And if they can’t distinguish everyday practices of culture—the lived reality of history and religion—from a chauvinistic nation-state committing war crimes in the name of cultural vitality, then their anxiety is warranted.  We certainly shouldn’t let them project that anxiety onto the unprotected.  It’s not the native’s responsibility to ensure the settler’s comfort.


When Zionists demand apology from Israel’s critics, to whom are those critics meant to apologize?  It’s supposed to be self-evident, but only because whiteness is so legible as a site of humanity, of logic, of feeling.  The demand is remarkably complicated, in fact, but few observers interrogate problems that in a smarter political environment would be obvious.  So absorbing is the tabloid character of colonialist whining that even the simplest questions disappear.

To whom, then, do provocative Palestinians apologize?  American Jews?  Israeli Jews?  All Jews everywhere?  Or only Zionist Jews?  Including IDF bureaucrats?  West Bank settlers?  What if not everyone who identifies as Jewish wants an apology?  What if some of them feel offended or exploited by the demand?

How about Christian Zionists?  (They comprise the largest demographic in this drama, after all.)  Do they get to enjoy the spectacle, too?  Why shouldn’t they, right?  Apparently, Palestinians have nothing better to do than validate settlers’ insatiable sense of victimhood.

And what of the politicians who work so hard to lavish Israel with money and weapons?  As Israel’s benefactors, surely they deserve a bit of relief, as do the corporations earning billions in the marketplace for carnage.  Do Boeing and Lockheed Martin get a cut of Palestinian remorse?

Would it help to issue a personal apology to the self-appointed exemplar of world Jewry, Benjamin Netanyahu?

You see, even leaving aside moral and philosophical questions, Zionist demands for apology don’t make a goddamn bit of sense.

A few years ago, when people implored me to apologize for anti-Zionist comments, I would ask for clarification.  “Apologize to…?”  Answers inevitably settled on some variation of “the Jewish people” or “the Jewish people in this room.”  Arriving at that answer sometimes required nifty interpolation:  “The people you hurt,” one guy replied.

I’m sorry, I told him, but I’ve already apologized to my family.


Apology is far too complex for synthesis.  Even limiting analysis to its role as a discourse in relations of disparate power will omit something important.

However, we know enough about Zionist rituals of forced atonement to understand that they don’t belong to the category of détente, but coercion.  Apology is merely a pretext, a simulation of penance that reinforces the primacy of Israeli life.  If Palestinians cannot verbalize sensibilities fundamental to their identity, then it means Zionists have effectively severed them from the insuppressible proclivities that comprise a human being.

We learn a lot about racialized hierarchies of civil society in settler colonies by exploring which groups are expected to demand apology in contrast to the groups for whom apologizing is natural.  Those expectations correspond with proximity to ideals of normative citizenship.  In other words, fewer people would entertain Ungar-Sargon’s narcissism if she weren’t Extremely White.

Consider why it’s a given that Palestinians should apologize to their oppressor, or why it’s a longstanding Zionist practice to defame Black radicals as anti-Semitic and then use the targets’ refusal to apologize as evidence for the defamation.  These practices are indispensable to the settler’s rhetorical arsenal.  They work so well because real Americans know where to find barbarity.  Even in the absence of racist intent, racism is structured into the demand.

Reifying Zionism is no way to combat anti-Semitism.  And chaperoning resistance from a position of authority keeps the world on a trajectory that soon promises to make all of us sorry.

This article was first published on on April 14, 2019.

Steven Salaita

Steven Salaita's most recent book is Inter/Nationalism: Decolonizing Native America and Palestine.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

23 Responses

  1. bcg on April 16, 2019, 5:08 pm

    This is entirely relevant to the topic here: today Michelle Goldberg had a column in the New York Times about how Omar Barghouti was denied entry to the U.S. – her column is titled “Anti Zionists Deserve Free Speech”. You should be able to freely express your anti-zionism without being hassled by the Hasbara Brigade.


    • amigo on April 16, 2019, 6:05 pm

      bcg, I followed that link and got this in reply.

      “We’re sorry, we seem to have lost this page, but we don’t want to lose you. Report the broken link here.”NYT

      Antisemitic content I guess.

      • Citizen on April 20, 2019, 2:55 am

        I had no trouble.

    • johneill on April 17, 2019, 12:39 am

      copy-pasted from my ‘free views’ of nyt (who wants to pay for an opinion?)

      The Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, was supposed to be on a speaking tour of the United States this week, with stops at N.Y.U.’s Washington campus and at Harvard. He was going to attend his daughter’s wedding in Texas. I had plans to interview him for “The Argument,” the debate podcast that I co-host, about B.D.S., the controversial campaign to make Israel pay an economic and cultural price for its treatment of the Palestinians.

      Yet when Barghouti, a permanent resident of Israel, showed up for his flight from Israel’s Ben Gurion International Airport last week, he was informed that the United States was denying him entry. When I spoke to him on Sunday, he still didn’t know exactly why the country where he went to college and lived for many years wasn’t letting him in, but he assumed it was because of his political views. If that’s the case, Barghouti said, it was the first time someone has been barred from America for B.D.S. advocacy. He has proceeded with his public events, but he’s been appearing at them via Skype.

      In recent years, the American right has presented itself as a champion of free expression. Conservatives are constantly bemoaning a censorious campus climate that stigmatizes their ideas; last month, Donald Trump signed an executive order on campus free speech, decrying those who would keep Americans from “challenging rigid far-left ideology.” The president said, “People who are confident in their beliefs do not censor others.”

      If that last line is true — and, uncharacteristically for Trump, I think it is — it says something about the insecurity of Israel’s defenders. There have indeed been illiberal attempts to silence conservative voices on college campuses, but they pale beside the assault on pro-Palestinian speech, particularly speech calling for an economic boycott of Israel. Around two dozen states have laws and regulations denouncing, and in many cases penalizing, B.D.S. activities, and the Senate recently passed a bill supporting such measures. According to the American Association of University Professors, some public universities in states with such laws require speakers and other contractors to “sign a statement pledging that they do not now, nor will they in the future, endorse B.D.S.” It’s hard to think of comparable speech restrictions on any other subject.

      What are pro-Israel forces afraid of? The B.D.S. movement doesn’t engage in or promote violence. Its leaders make an effort to separate anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism; the Palestinian B.D.S. National Committee recently demanded that a Moroccan group stop using the term “B.D.S.” in its name because it featured anti-Semitic cartoons on its Facebook page.

      Barghouti couches his opposition to Zionism in the language of humanist universalism. The official position of the B.D.S. movement, he says, is that “any supremacist, exclusionary state in historic Palestine — be it a ‘Jewish state,’ an ‘Islamic state,’ or a ‘Christian state’ — would by definition conflict with international law and basic human rights principles.”

      The movement is agnostic on a final dispensation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it calls for the right of Palestinian refugees — both those displaced by the creation of Israel and their descendants — to return to their familial homes, which would likely end Israel’s Jewish majority. Barghouti told me he personally believes in the creation of a single state in which Israeli Jews, as individuals, would have civil rights, but Jews as a people would not have national rights.

      I’d planned to argue with him about this view, which is largely dismissive of Jewish claims on Israel, and would likely lead to oppression or worse for Israeli Jews. My guess is that many if not most Jews find such a position offensive, even frightening.

      But for years now, the right has been lecturing us all about the need to listen to and debate ideas we might consider dangerous. Barghouti wants this sort of dialogue. “We’ve been dying to debate anyone on the other side,” he told me. “We would debate anyone except Israeli government officials and professional lobbyists.” A government that tries to prevent Americans from engaging with his views cannot claim a commitment to free speech.

      You could argue, I suppose, that Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state should not be up for discussion. If you do, realize it’s the exact same sort of argument that certain campus leftists make when they refuse to debate people they see as racist, sexist or otherwise bigoted. Sometimes this refusal is justified, because certain ideas shouldn’t be dignified with discussion. But sometimes it just makes the people unwilling to test their ideas in public look scared.

      Ultimately, Barghouti threatens Israel’s American defenders not because he’s hateful, but because he isn’t. Israel has aligned itself with the global far right. Recently re-elected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to unilaterally annex the West Bank, which would create a single state where Jews rule over Arabs. That prospect makes it ever more difficult for Israel’s American defenders to make coherent arguments against the sort of one-state solution that Barghouti espouses. “Israel is winning the far right around the world,” Barghouti said at an N.Y.U. event last week, where the journalist Peter Beinart interviewed him remotely. But, he added, “it is losing its moral stature around the world.” American authorities may be able to quash this message on some college campuses, but it won’t stop being true.

      • amigo on April 17, 2019, 11:22 am

        Thanks John.

    • YoniFalic on April 17, 2019, 8:28 am

      Joachim was still a hasbarah-monger in the late 80s when the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was enabled in US federal code of statutes. He says that Israeli lobby propagandists were panicked that open discussion uncontrolled by Zionists could lead to indictments of leading Zionists. For example, Adelson could be indicted. If convicted, he could be hanged, and the fines would bankrupt his estate.

      Zionists have imposed a Gramscian cultural hegemony that prevents open honest discussion of the genocidal nature of Zionist ideology, but (kudos to Barghouti and colleagues) BDS strikes exactly at the weak point in this cultural hegemony.

      From my studies I have the impression that some Zionist leaders immensely fear that a significant number of Americans will conclude Zionists committed genocide in 47-8 and continue ongoing acts of genocide.

      Discriminatory enforcement of federal code (giving Jews a pass to commit genocide, to incite genocide, to attempt genocide, or to conspire to commit genocide) is unconstitutional. Failing to enforce the law violates the fourteenth amendment by giving Jews a privilege that threatens all non-Jews (e.g., Rachel Corey) and that is used to deprive non-Jews of Constitutional rights (e.g. first amendment).

      The relevant precedent is Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356. The relevant statute is 18 U.S. Code § 241 (Conspiracy against rights).

      Lawfare can work for Palestinians: al-Tamimi et al. v. Adelson et al. and Martillo v. Twitter.

      It will be interesting to see how far these two lawsuits get.

  2. Sibiriak on April 17, 2019, 6:59 am

    Labour MP expresses regret over anti-Zionist comment in 2014 video

    Richard Burgon, the shadow justice secretary, has expressed regret over a video in which he said “Zionism is the enemy of peace” in 2014, which prompted Jewish groups to call for an apology.

    The senior Labour MP said this was not his view after freelance journalist Iggy Ostanin published the video, which was branded “shameful” by the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

    Burgon had denied using the phrase when challenged over it on the BBC in 2018. He said on Tuesday that he had no recollection of making the comment and had previously asked for evidence that he had said it, because it was not his view.

    The footage showed that he said: “The enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Jewish people, the enemy of the Palestinian people are Zionists and Zionism is the enemy of peace and the enemy of the Palestinian people. We need to be loud, we need to be proud in support of a free Palestine.”

    The comments were criticised by Mike Katz, chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, who said the vast majority of Jewish people identified as Zionists.

    “Insulting a core part of their identity and then dissembling about it is shameful behaviour from a senior frontbencher in our party, let alone someone who aspires to administer our justice system,” he said.

    Jonathan Goldstein, chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council, also challenged Burgon to issue a “full apology and a clarification as well as a pledge to use responsible language henceforth”.


    • MHughes976 on April 17, 2019, 8:34 am

      One day loud and proud, the next day apologising after dissembling. We have seen variations on this theme so often. Maybe he should have said “Peace is often understood in terms of 2ss, whereas Zionism is a claim to sovereignty over territory, that territory being understood in Biblical terms and those terms being based on ‘the inheritance of the children of Israel in the Land of Canaan’ in all, not just in some, of its specified component parts. Therefore Z is an obstacle in the way of 2ss style peace – let alone of peace in any more radical guise – unless strongly modified. How far we are from that modification is illustrated by the insistent Israeli use of the term ‘disputed territories’ for the West Bank, indicating the clearest intention to pursue their dispute with the Palestinians over the rightfulness of their exercise of power there.’

    • eljay on April 17, 2019, 8:41 am

      || Sibiriak: …

      Richard Burgon, the shadow justice secretary, has expressed regret over a video in which he said “Zionism is the enemy of peace” in 2014, which prompted Jewish groups to call for an apology. …

      The footage showed that he said: “The enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Jewish people, the enemy of the Palestinian people are Zionists and Zionism is the enemy of peace and the enemy of the Palestinian people. … ”

      The comments were criticised by Mike Katz, chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, who said the vast majority of Jewish people identified as Zionists. …

      Jonathan Goldstein, chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council, also challenged Burgon to issue a “full apology and a clarification as well as a pledge to use responsible language henceforth”. ||

      Given the facts…
      1. A British MP takes care not to anti-Semitically conflate Zionism with all Jews before he rightly denounces Zionism as an enemy of Palestinians and peace.

      2. Jewish Zionists in Britain deliberately and anti-Semitically conflate Zionism with all Jews in order to:
      – smear the British MP with destructive accusations of anti-Semitism; and
      – deflect attention away from the past and on-going (war) crimes of Zionism, the enemy of Palestinians and peace.

      …the obvious conclusions are:
      1. Zionists are truly hateful and immoral people.

      2. It’s a pity that the MP succumbed to the destructive accusations of anti-Semitism and apologized for stating a fact.

  3. eljay on April 17, 2019, 8:54 am

    Excellent article, Mr. Salaita.

    It amazes me that every day Zionists show up here and in a most f*cked up way proceed:
    – to sneer at moral ideals like justice, accountability, equality and respect for human rights and international laws;
    – to smear with destructive accusations of anti-Semitism and “Jew hatred” the people who advocate those moral ideals; and
    – to boast about the effectiveness of the brand of evil they hypocritically yet very proudly advocate, engage in, support and/or defend.

  4. Elizabeth Block on April 17, 2019, 9:29 am

    “the insecurity of Israel’s defenders” – yes, indeed. They’re on the defensive these days. I heard Noam Chomsky the other day, on Democracy Now, say that he used to have to have police protection from Zionists when he spoke on campuses. Not any more.

    As for apologies: Apologizing for something you said that was true, or something you did that was right, is wrong! Maybe you can say, “I’m sorry you were offended by what I said, but it’s true – too bad you can’t endure the truth.”

  5. YoniFalic on April 17, 2019, 9:43 am

    If Germany had defeated the USSR and Nazism were a core part of German identity, would it be shameful to call Nazism a murderous genocidal ideology?

  6. Ossinev on April 17, 2019, 10:23 am

    What Labour MP Burgon said:
    “The footage showed that he said: “The enemy of the Palestinian people is not the Jewish people, the enemy of the Palestinian people are Zionists and Zionism is the enemy of peace and the enemy of the Palestinian people. We need to be loud, we need to be proud in support of a free Palestine.”

    Burgon has apologised for this so called “anti – semitic” statement. At the end of the day the enemy of the Palestinian people in this scenario are spineless Labour MP`s who under pressure from Fifth Column lobby groups acting on behalf of a foreign regime cravenly apologise for having stated truths.

    A note for all Labour Party supporters who support the Palestinian cause – when you go to your local Labour MP constituency clinics,workshops or coffee afternoons put them on the spot with regard to their exact postion on what they consider to be “anti- Semitism” and their views on Zionism and criticism of Israel. Following the example of the “esteemed” Dame Margaret Hodge why not take along and use a secret recording device. She was happy to do so when meeting with Jeremy Corbyn and if it`s OK for Zionists then it should also be fine for normal plebs.

    Remember the BDBJ and the other Zionist jackals in the UK are only encouraged to carry on with more of the same by these “apologies” and there appear to be very few Labour MP`s who have the guts to fight back. If the MP`s won`t do what is necessary then it is down to the actual membership of the Party to take on the job of fighting back and the most effective way of doing this is to make your constituency Labour MP aware of the fact that in following the Zio A/S script they are making themselves vulnerable in terms of deselection when it comes to the next UK election.

  7. Vera Gottlieb on April 17, 2019, 11:17 am

    I am of Jewish background but I have turned 100% anti Zionist. And I’ll be damned if I am going to apologize to people who are bringing so much shame on Judaism.

  8. Keith on April 17, 2019, 5:27 pm

    STEVEN SALAITA- “Zionism is a devastatingly effective instrument for ruling class intimidation.”

    Witness Jeremy Corbyn.

  9. Peter in SF on April 18, 2019, 3:14 am

    The mopey dunderheads …
    Zionists have been knocking on my door for years. …
    They’re goofier than Sponge Bob, more tedious than Teen Titans, and less eloquent than Pikachu …
    You probably know that pro-Israel activists are intense …
    conferring to themselves a unique capacity to be offended …
    Zionist foot-stomping

    Careful, those might be anti-Semitic tropes that you need to be educated about.

  10. pabelmont on April 18, 2019, 9:26 pm

    Very interesting article, if maybe too long (too inclusive).

    Quite valuable describing Ilhan Omar’s problems with the complexities of US political culture vis-a-vis Zionism. Evidently she knows too little and/or has tied in with J-Street which is Zionist and this makes a clear vision of Zionism (or a clear attack on Zionism) difficult. But consider — around here, people have been learning and thinking about this dismality for many years and Omar is a beginner. Quite a dangerous deep-water to be thrown into without swimming lessons.

  11. Kay24 on April 19, 2019, 6:02 am

    You can bet AIPAC will organize their hate squad to attack her:

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for slashing US Aid to Israel over Netanyahu Reelection

    • echinococcus on April 19, 2019, 9:32 am


      In fact, she should be properly criticized for “slashing US Aid to Israel over Netanyahu Reelection”! There is no need for a Yahoo re-election top cut all aid to Azrael. All aid to the Zionist entity is criminal, no exceptions at all, and these liberals who favor one Zionist faction over another are no help.

  12. annie on April 19, 2019, 4:12 pm

    this is an incredible article with too many choice quotes to reflect on them all here (see my many tweets). but for some reason it made me reflect on lee atwater’s apology before he died. he was really a despicable character throughout his life. and then he got a brain tumor and tried everything. i think he knew how bad he was and he was seeking some kind of atonement for his past sins. it was if he realized he was truly suffering the karma for his deeds.

    someday, perhaps zionists will truly seek atonement for the suffering they have caused.

    • Citizen on April 20, 2019, 4:00 am

      Maybe when they’ve been tracked down and put on trial when they are in their 90s.

Leave a Reply