The settlement doesn't make Salaita whole, or the program he would have joined whole, nor is it in any way comparable to the payout granted by the Trustees to the Chancellor who terminated him. The better way would have been to compensate him for the costs was forced to incur in fighting for his reinstatement and his reputation PLUS the offer of reinstatement, but, given the vagaries (including delays) in our justice system, even with the favorable rulings Salaita did receive, it may have been the best compromise for him at this time to support his family and continue his work somewhere else.
This is part of a larger struggle against where rich and powerful special interests have tried to hold the rest of us hostage to their geopolitical and economic goals and agenda- so, the fight must continue to educate the public at large about these issues, in order that the equilibrium can shift.
I recall the case of Kaveh Afrasiabi at Harvard University and the injustices he was forced to suffer at the hands of the school, many of which were never remedied. One only has to look at his impressive accomplishments since that time to realize that such injustices can impel one to greater heights and accomplishments.
Moreover, Mr. Salaita has kept his focus and can look forward to many good years ahead of him. So, none of this is over by a long shot.
The ''special relationship" began with Israel as a proxy to advance U.S. interests in the Middle East, and as a domestic political decision by Truman, except that the U.S. has in its own right also become a client state advancing the interests of Israel. The American people have never been told the truth by its leaders about the history of the region, as opposed to a narrative conceived to legitimize and advance those geopolitical and economic interests.
Unfortunately, if one questions the narrative of a 'special and immutable relationship' one is attacked as unpatriotic and lacking in morality. How 'special' is that? It would be better for our leaders to look at what the U.S. really needs to do to advance its interests, and for Israel to be more willing to live in harmony with its neighbors- and also to pay its debts to the U.S. and the Palestinian people.
Israel is counting upon becoming a major player in the energy industry, and the major player in the Mediterranean and Levant, but if it keeps stoking conflict and involving itself in regime change, the hatred on the other side will continue, and as other choices become available, there will be less need to trade with the Israelis and that is what will hurt them.
Right now a different alliance that includes Egypt is beginning to coalesce around Russia, China and Iran, since offers better options for peace, security and economic development for the region.
That may have been the case many years ago, but Oslo was intended to wink at settlement expansion while putting the Palestinians on ice in a multiyear strait jacket.
You are right, she is an ardent interventionist, but that language is much too soft to describe the full extent of her ardor. She never met a war she didn't embrace, and of all those wars, every one of them was a war crime. Tally how many millions of innocents or their family members died as a result, or were dispossessed and displaced. Should she escape responsibility for that?
She is a skilled politician but a disastrous policy maker. If she were elected President I am certain the country, with all its problems would either descend into chaos, or would be led into another war- and perhaps a nuclear one- to distract the public- this time with Iran, Russia and/or China. Best to fully vet her record for public consumption, and do it now.