If the objective is victory at all costs, then by all means continue to vilify Hamas and plan for its defeat. If the objective is peace, then America, Israel, and the Palestinian people must deal with the Palestinian right of return. We all need to put aside whataboutism and keep our eye on peace if that is what we really want.
If you look back at the history of Palestine, it has been a pawn in the Ottoman empire, the British empire, and the new state of Israel starting in 1948. The PLO was corrupt, the Palestine Authority is toothless, Fatah was useless, and the various peace deals over the years did not include recognizing the Palestinians' right to return to their homes and homeland. The Palestinians in Gaza voted for Hamas in desperation in 2006. I think we need to ask ourselves why they were that desperate. Yes, Hamas is reprehensible. But they are in power for a reason. Desperate people make desperate decisions. That's not a double standard, that's human psychology.
Peace will come when Article 13(2) is honored and the Palestinians have the right to return. It's not a double standard; it's a simple fact. Why do you refuse to discuss it?
Joe, you wrote: “This December 10th marks the 75th anniversary of the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Please look at Article 13 which states: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
---According to Wikipedia: “Israel enforces restrictions on the freedom of movement of Palestinians in the West Bank by employing a system of permanent, temporary and random manned checkpoints, the West Bank Barrier and by forbidding the usage of roads by Palestinians.”
Article 13 also states: (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country.
--- Also according to Wikipedia: “Palestinians refer to it as the Nakba, or ‘catastrophe.’ An estimated 700,000 Palestinians, a majority of the prewar population, fled or were expelled from what is now Israel in the months before and during the war, in which Jewish fighters fended off an attack by several Arab states.” They were not allowed then and are not allowed now to return to their homes in what is now called Israel.
The right to return is central to the Palestinian question. There will be no peace until this basic human right and other essential freedoms are addressed.
Many thanks for your interest, Steve. As a long-time professor of human rights at several universities, a close reading of the Universal Declaration figured in my curriculum for many years. You are assuredly correct - Israel has violated several of the articles of the Declaration, article 13 among them. (I should mention that all nations do.) The right of return for Palestinian refugees was one of the key issues of the Oslo Accords, and was deferred as a "final status" issue once other issues had been resolved. Tragically the peace effort failed, but hopefully, (a slim hope) in the light of the current horrors, it will be revived. There had been talk of the return of a limited number of refugees as part of the deal, but again, this has not eventuated.
We should not sidestep Israel's human rights violations. But, I must admit, in the current climate, I find it contradictory (and personally upsetting) that many, while condemnatory of Israel, are readily willing to give Hamas a pass. Admittedly, Gaza is not a recognized independent state, and it suffers greatly from the Israeli and Egyptian blockade. However it is not occupied, and Hamas is the identified governmental agency. If we are to hold Israel accountable for its human rights standards, why are those who critique Israel ready to give Hamas a pass? Hamas is a despotic, theocratic, misogynistic, homophobic, and woefully corrupt organization, for which respect for human rights is irrelevant. Yes, Gaza is under blockade. But I suspect that if the blockade were lifted tomorrow, Hamas would not transform itself into a sterling paragon of human rights observance. My own ethics doesn't allow for double standards.
Thanks Joe and nicely put. The Chronicle of Higher Education had a great article today from two professors from the University of Arizona. In it, they point out that the rush to supposedly increase the "marketplace of ideas" through unfettered free speech actually diminishes the role of the university to challenge and contest ideas. They argue that "academic freedom, as distinct from free speech, entails intellectual responsibilities. Far from a license to voice just any opinion, it protects the processes by which scholars distinguish what is warranted, credible, and true from what is not." While campuses should be places of free speech and student dialogue, academics have a responsibility to uphold the "battle-tested" process of research and analysis to test which opinions hold more truth.
I believe that what we're experiencing within Ethical Societies (and within many progressive organizations) is the same thing; the idea that anyone can have any opinion which is equally "true." That waters down ethics to pure personal expressions and suggests that ethical ideas should not be open to philosophical rigor. I personally resist such a move.
Many thanks, Curt, for your interest. I concur with the view of the professors you cite. Academic freedom ought not to promote unfettered expression. It implies a range of responsibilities - to the community of inquirers, the funded knowledge of one's discipline, to the educational needs of students, and to honesty and integrity. Such encumbrances ought not to stifle dissent. But even here, there needs to be an understanding of one's heterodox views in light of positions from which one is departing. In short, all freedom takes place within a context.
Free speech is a broader concept. In a strict sense, it is a right held by individuals in regard to speech in the public sphere. It provides immunity from government interference. It is a so-called "negative right." Given my communitarian sensibilities, I believe that persons need to be responsible in exercising that right. But from society's standpoint, and in a political sense, the right to free speech needs to be protected, even if the person exercising it is irresponsible. The consequences of suppressing it are far worse. I remain a First Amendment romantic, but, again, academic freedom is a different case.
My question is about the difference between being anti-Israel and being antisemitic. My guess, and my hope, is that college students' sympathies with Palestinain civilians is genuine, well-placed and not mainly antisemitism. I imagine, as you do, that they are unaware of much of the history and the fact that, again as you point out, Israel has long received a disproportionate share of the world's opprobrium. As always, I am far for more fearful of brutish antisemitism on the right than I am of misguided college students expressing sympathy for the oppressed in Palestine.
During the 1960s, I too participated in civil rights demonstrations and anti-war marches and activities. We were a bit naive but our center of ethics was based on 1) discrimination is wrong and legal obstacles to equal treatment under the law must be changed, and 2) the government is lying about Vietnam - including the domino theory. We did not scapegoat minorities to further our goals. And we felt free to criticize groups on the left and right when they done wrong. I too am saddened that the left has adopted toxic tactics that I attributed in right-wing, ultra conservative Republicans. Thanks for this thoughtful and necessary post.
Here is something I just picked up from an Exempt Organizations specialty tax newsletter. “Some of the most visible left-wing fundraising organizations in America have been funding pro-Hamas groups and ‘sponsoring’ others as millions of dollars flow into the coffers of antisemitic organizations. Organizations connected to George Soros’s foundations, as well as the group ActBlue, which is the major fundraising arm of the Democratic Party, are among the primary donors to and sponsors of antisemitic organizations like the Adalah Justice Project, Palestine Legal, The Arab Resource and Organizing Center, and The Catalyst Project. ‘The disturbing reality is that Hamas’s allies in the U.S. have a significant foothold in the non-profit sector,’ Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst at the Capital Research Center, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. ‘Major left-wing organizations are funding Hamas’s sympathizers and those who indirectly help Hamas by waging a political war against Israel.’”
Thanks, Marvin, for your observations. It is true that the civil rights and anti-war movements had laudable ethical ideals at their core. Yet, as noted there was naivete as well. Lambasting "the establishment" was certainly unnuanced, and calling for "revolution," devoid of substance and specifics as to what a post-revolutionary America would look like. But you are also correct that there is toxicity and ugliness to contemporary politics that is different. It is very dangerous.
The inroads made by Hamas is very upsetting, and the deep pockets of antisemitic support. It is more than mere name-calling and smearing. You note that organizations affiliated with Soros are complicit, but not Soros himself. I have seen George Soros as a positive figure, who himself has been an object of antisemitism. His Open Society Foundation does many good things, and I was pleased to have had students in my classes at Columbia who worked for it. I would like to hear his views on this.
I picked up the second paragraph from a tax journal that is usually reliable. However, this item was from a conservative source and it is without foundation. When I did a bit of research, it is clear Soros' foundations do not support Hamas. They do support humanitarian efforts for Palestinians and others. Appologies. I did bring it to the attention of the editor of the newsletter - sadly he told me that some subscribers are conservatives and they eat this stuff up. Bye, bye EO Tax Jornal.
IMO. This generation, like others do, manifest in the consciousness, the undercurrents or unconscious passions of their parents. You briefly mention the social media factor but I believe it’s playing a bigger role than the influence of University culture. The influence of classroom learning wanes in comparison to the hours and hours of mindless scrolling on tik tok that is essentially a constant stream of confirmation bias.
It is great to hear from you, Sandra. You mention parents of the current generation. Though I look back at the activism of the 60s with nostalgia (it was, after all my generation) I am reminded that that period was also marked with its own ideologies and simplistic excoriation of the putative enemy. Yet this time it feels different, and with democracy on the edge, more perilous. I concur with regard to the pernicious effects of social media. But here I need to confess that I don't personally deal with it much, so my critique comes from the critique of others.
If the objective is victory at all costs, then by all means continue to vilify Hamas and plan for its defeat. If the objective is peace, then America, Israel, and the Palestinian people must deal with the Palestinian right of return. We all need to put aside whataboutism and keep our eye on peace if that is what we really want.
If you look back at the history of Palestine, it has been a pawn in the Ottoman empire, the British empire, and the new state of Israel starting in 1948. The PLO was corrupt, the Palestine Authority is toothless, Fatah was useless, and the various peace deals over the years did not include recognizing the Palestinians' right to return to their homes and homeland. The Palestinians in Gaza voted for Hamas in desperation in 2006. I think we need to ask ourselves why they were that desperate. Yes, Hamas is reprehensible. But they are in power for a reason. Desperate people make desperate decisions. That's not a double standard, that's human psychology.
Peace will come when Article 13(2) is honored and the Palestinians have the right to return. It's not a double standard; it's a simple fact. Why do you refuse to discuss it?
Joe, you wrote: “This December 10th marks the 75th anniversary of the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Please look at Article 13 which states: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
---According to Wikipedia: “Israel enforces restrictions on the freedom of movement of Palestinians in the West Bank by employing a system of permanent, temporary and random manned checkpoints, the West Bank Barrier and by forbidding the usage of roads by Palestinians.”
Article 13 also states: (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country.
--- Also according to Wikipedia: “Palestinians refer to it as the Nakba, or ‘catastrophe.’ An estimated 700,000 Palestinians, a majority of the prewar population, fled or were expelled from what is now Israel in the months before and during the war, in which Jewish fighters fended off an attack by several Arab states.” They were not allowed then and are not allowed now to return to their homes in what is now called Israel.
The right to return is central to the Palestinian question. There will be no peace until this basic human right and other essential freedoms are addressed.
Many thanks for your interest, Steve. As a long-time professor of human rights at several universities, a close reading of the Universal Declaration figured in my curriculum for many years. You are assuredly correct - Israel has violated several of the articles of the Declaration, article 13 among them. (I should mention that all nations do.) The right of return for Palestinian refugees was one of the key issues of the Oslo Accords, and was deferred as a "final status" issue once other issues had been resolved. Tragically the peace effort failed, but hopefully, (a slim hope) in the light of the current horrors, it will be revived. There had been talk of the return of a limited number of refugees as part of the deal, but again, this has not eventuated.
We should not sidestep Israel's human rights violations. But, I must admit, in the current climate, I find it contradictory (and personally upsetting) that many, while condemnatory of Israel, are readily willing to give Hamas a pass. Admittedly, Gaza is not a recognized independent state, and it suffers greatly from the Israeli and Egyptian blockade. However it is not occupied, and Hamas is the identified governmental agency. If we are to hold Israel accountable for its human rights standards, why are those who critique Israel ready to give Hamas a pass? Hamas is a despotic, theocratic, misogynistic, homophobic, and woefully corrupt organization, for which respect for human rights is irrelevant. Yes, Gaza is under blockade. But I suspect that if the blockade were lifted tomorrow, Hamas would not transform itself into a sterling paragon of human rights observance. My own ethics doesn't allow for double standards.
You make a great case for the need for universalism on college campuses which is not evident in anti-Israel protests.
Thanks Joe and nicely put. The Chronicle of Higher Education had a great article today from two professors from the University of Arizona. In it, they point out that the rush to supposedly increase the "marketplace of ideas" through unfettered free speech actually diminishes the role of the university to challenge and contest ideas. They argue that "academic freedom, as distinct from free speech, entails intellectual responsibilities. Far from a license to voice just any opinion, it protects the processes by which scholars distinguish what is warranted, credible, and true from what is not." While campuses should be places of free speech and student dialogue, academics have a responsibility to uphold the "battle-tested" process of research and analysis to test which opinions hold more truth.
I believe that what we're experiencing within Ethical Societies (and within many progressive organizations) is the same thing; the idea that anyone can have any opinion which is equally "true." That waters down ethics to pure personal expressions and suggests that ethical ideas should not be open to philosophical rigor. I personally resist such a move.
Many thanks, Curt, for your interest. I concur with the view of the professors you cite. Academic freedom ought not to promote unfettered expression. It implies a range of responsibilities - to the community of inquirers, the funded knowledge of one's discipline, to the educational needs of students, and to honesty and integrity. Such encumbrances ought not to stifle dissent. But even here, there needs to be an understanding of one's heterodox views in light of positions from which one is departing. In short, all freedom takes place within a context.
Free speech is a broader concept. In a strict sense, it is a right held by individuals in regard to speech in the public sphere. It provides immunity from government interference. It is a so-called "negative right." Given my communitarian sensibilities, I believe that persons need to be responsible in exercising that right. But from society's standpoint, and in a political sense, the right to free speech needs to be protected, even if the person exercising it is irresponsible. The consequences of suppressing it are far worse. I remain a First Amendment romantic, but, again, academic freedom is a different case.
My question is about the difference between being anti-Israel and being antisemitic. My guess, and my hope, is that college students' sympathies with Palestinain civilians is genuine, well-placed and not mainly antisemitism. I imagine, as you do, that they are unaware of much of the history and the fact that, again as you point out, Israel has long received a disproportionate share of the world's opprobrium. As always, I am far for more fearful of brutish antisemitism on the right than I am of misguided college students expressing sympathy for the oppressed in Palestine.
During the 1960s, I too participated in civil rights demonstrations and anti-war marches and activities. We were a bit naive but our center of ethics was based on 1) discrimination is wrong and legal obstacles to equal treatment under the law must be changed, and 2) the government is lying about Vietnam - including the domino theory. We did not scapegoat minorities to further our goals. And we felt free to criticize groups on the left and right when they done wrong. I too am saddened that the left has adopted toxic tactics that I attributed in right-wing, ultra conservative Republicans. Thanks for this thoughtful and necessary post.
Here is something I just picked up from an Exempt Organizations specialty tax newsletter. “Some of the most visible left-wing fundraising organizations in America have been funding pro-Hamas groups and ‘sponsoring’ others as millions of dollars flow into the coffers of antisemitic organizations. Organizations connected to George Soros’s foundations, as well as the group ActBlue, which is the major fundraising arm of the Democratic Party, are among the primary donors to and sponsors of antisemitic organizations like the Adalah Justice Project, Palestine Legal, The Arab Resource and Organizing Center, and The Catalyst Project. ‘The disturbing reality is that Hamas’s allies in the U.S. have a significant foothold in the non-profit sector,’ Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst at the Capital Research Center, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. ‘Major left-wing organizations are funding Hamas’s sympathizers and those who indirectly help Hamas by waging a political war against Israel.’”
Thanks, Marvin, for your observations. It is true that the civil rights and anti-war movements had laudable ethical ideals at their core. Yet, as noted there was naivete as well. Lambasting "the establishment" was certainly unnuanced, and calling for "revolution," devoid of substance and specifics as to what a post-revolutionary America would look like. But you are also correct that there is toxicity and ugliness to contemporary politics that is different. It is very dangerous.
The inroads made by Hamas is very upsetting, and the deep pockets of antisemitic support. It is more than mere name-calling and smearing. You note that organizations affiliated with Soros are complicit, but not Soros himself. I have seen George Soros as a positive figure, who himself has been an object of antisemitism. His Open Society Foundation does many good things, and I was pleased to have had students in my classes at Columbia who worked for it. I would like to hear his views on this.
O tempora! O mores!
I picked up the second paragraph from a tax journal that is usually reliable. However, this item was from a conservative source and it is without foundation. When I did a bit of research, it is clear Soros' foundations do not support Hamas. They do support humanitarian efforts for Palestinians and others. Appologies. I did bring it to the attention of the editor of the newsletter - sadly he told me that some subscribers are conservatives and they eat this stuff up. Bye, bye EO Tax Jornal.
You are so right on.
Many thanks, Alice.
IMO. This generation, like others do, manifest in the consciousness, the undercurrents or unconscious passions of their parents. You briefly mention the social media factor but I believe it’s playing a bigger role than the influence of University culture. The influence of classroom learning wanes in comparison to the hours and hours of mindless scrolling on tik tok that is essentially a constant stream of confirmation bias.
It is great to hear from you, Sandra. You mention parents of the current generation. Though I look back at the activism of the 60s with nostalgia (it was, after all my generation) I am reminded that that period was also marked with its own ideologies and simplistic excoriation of the putative enemy. Yet this time it feels different, and with democracy on the edge, more perilous. I concur with regard to the pernicious effects of social media. But here I need to confess that I don't personally deal with it much, so my critique comes from the critique of others.
I share your concerns! I’ve been debating the issues with my own kids. It’s very frustrating.