The Israel Boycott, Anti-Judaism, and the Giant Shrug

boycottThe academics of the 5,000-member American Studies Association (ASA) are boycotting Israeli universities and scholars.  The 30,000-member Modern Language Association may soon follow suit.  In their communiqué, they write that this decision “represents a principle of solidarity with scholars and students deprived of their academic freedom and an aspiration to enlarge that freedom for all, including Palestinians.”

Reading the material put forth by the ASA, one could be led to believe that the organization’s leadership is motivated by a considered act of conscience, akin to those who have called for sanctions and boycotts for humanitarian reasons in the past.  This is wrong: the ASA’s leaders, and the members who have supported this decision by more than a two-to-one ratio, are led by their egos, not their consciences.  What they’ve displayed is an extraordinary example of inflated self-importance, believing their journals and conferences in cultural studies to be far more vital than they actually are.  They are also exhibiting a classic failing of the egoist: denial of one’s true motivations, often in contradiction with one’s own claims to high-mindedness and objectivity.  Think of the man of means who gives ostentatiously to charity, while actually being motivated by tax-relief; or think of the hero of Camus’s novel The Fall, who helps a blind man across the street and then takes a bow for all to see.

What the members of the ASA deny, against reason, is that their moral crusade is informed by an irrational obsession with Israel and Israel alone, and that this obsession cannot be separated from the fact that Israel’s raison d’être is Zionism — the nationalism of Jews.  In other words, they are ultimately denying that their indignation is fueled by their attitude toward Jews and Judaism.

But can’t one criticize Israel without being an anti-Semite, you ask? Well yes, one surely can.  But not without distancing oneself from the entire world view of the ASA-crowd.  This campaign is aimed at Israel, not the Israeli inhabitants of the West Bank, and for a clear reason: the ideology behind the anti-Israel Left is not anything like the fruit of an organic humanitarianism.  Rather, there is a larger belief here: namely, that the existence of a nation-state that self-identifies with Judaism is inherently objectionable.

Even Apartheid South Africa, the regime with which Israel is so often and erroneously compared, was not delegitimized in this way.  No one was saying that South Africa shouldn’t be a country, but people are saying (either directly or by implication) that Israel should not be one.  And in a certain way, the distinction is even more gratuitous: South Africa isn’t a nation, it’s just a bunch of lines on a map (just look at its name —  it would be like calling France “Northwest Europe”); Israel, on the other hand, is a nation as well as a state.

Invariably, the anti-Israel Left claims to support the right of Jews to live in Palestine, but wants a single state with an Arab-Muslim majority in control, animated by such niceties as democratic elections, freedom of religion, and the “right of return” for all Arabs whose ancestors formerly inhabited the land that is today’s Israel.  They ignore two inconvenient facts: first, the Arab world has no history of democracy or religious freedom, meaning that a single-state solution would either produce a military dictatorship or an Islamic theocracy, not a liberal-democratic state; second, the Jewish population of the Middle East is now concentrated in Israel, when it was previously spread throughout the lands of the former Ottoman Empire, precisely because it was forced to flee all regional countries.  (In case you think that this was a mere diplomatic protest against the creation of Israel, note that anti-Jewish pogroms by Muslims, such as those in Baghdad in June of 1941 and in Tripoli in November of 1945, predate Israeli statehood.)

The desire to replace Israel with a single civic state, as the ASA exhibits with its boycott, necessarily entails support for either the subjugation of Middle Eastern Jews as second-class citizens (as they were under the Ottomans) or their extirpation from the region (as they were under autocratic Arab-nationalist regimes).  To believe otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the states and peoples who neighbour Israel.  Anything short of a secure Jewish state with a majority-Jewish population would create a plight for Middle-Eastern Jews that would make the present circumstances of Palestinian Arabs look paradisiacal.  ASA-types with any shred of knowledge and intellectual honesty must know this, which is precisely why their position is so suspicious.

* * *

I’ve long tried to understand the contemporary Left’s obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute and its tunnel-visioned view of the matter, which categorizes all Israeli actions as evil and all Arab ones as an admirable fight against oppression.  One should aim to find an explanation that does not rest on a fundamental hostility toward Jews; after all, the unfounded and premature attribution of bigotry to one’s political opponents is normally the sign of a weak argument.

The best such explanation that I can come up with rests on the radical Left’s predilection for anti-Americanism, which resembles far more a political position than a form of bigotry.  The problem, in their eyes, is not Israel per se but the fact that it is an ally of the Great Satan.  There is some empirical support for this: even figures such as Noam Chomsky were not hostile to Israel in its early existence.  The country was, as one recalls, founded primarily on the principles of democratic socialism and owed to Jewish Leftists for its establishment.  Chomsky even lived in Israel on a kibbutz for a time.  It was only when Israel aligned itself with the United States that it became complicit, in their view, with American imperialism, and hence dismissible on principle.  The Left’s anti-Israelism could thus be chalked up to the decayed ideology of anti-colonialism, which has for decades been focuses squarely on American foreign policy.

The problem with this analysis is that it still does not account for the singular focus on Israel.  (It would also redoubt a further irony upon the ASA: if the U.S. is the real evil, then the academics should surely be boycotting themselves.)  America has many allies, many of them despicable in point of respect for human rights.  Yet there have been no calls for boycotts against Saudi Arabia or Pakistan from those who want to punish Israel.  There is another problem: the present iteration of the New Left, especially on campus and as represented by such organizations as the ASA, is only tangentially motivated by anti-colonialism in the way that it was during the Cold War.  Today’s Left is descended from Marcusian cultural Bolshevism whose primary enemy is the social teachings of Christianity, which it views as oppressive and in need of complete repudiation.

What frustrates today’s Leftists about Israel is that it stands athwart their narrative.  The Jewish citizens who comprise Israel’s population are either themselves, or are recently descended from, people who have experienced oppression of an extraordinary magnitude, either in Europe, the former Soviet Union, or the Middle East.  Yet they have established their state and achieved considerable progress in terms of living standards and political circumstances through precisely the societal model of the West: free enterprise, representative democracy, respect for religion in public life, a responsible ethic of nationalism, and a duty-centric form of citizenship that encourages (and in the case of obligatory military service, mandates) that individuals put the nation before themselves.

According to the New Left, oppressed people are supposed to reject these things in favour of a Leviathan state that will neatly knock aside tradition and its demands for sacrifice in favour of unrestrained promotion of individual wants, allowing for an identity utopia that is free of all vestiges of the past.  Its beef with the Jews of the Middle East is that, despite their oppression, they don’t do such things.  And in comparison with its neighbouring Arab states, which suffer under the tyrannies of inflated grievance and conspiracy theorism, Israel thrives as a result.

One would be tempted to stop here and say that the Left’s problem with Middle Eastern Jews and their state is simply ideological, and hence not bigoted, were it not for a greater point: the praiseworthy and measurably-successful qualities of Israeli society outlined above are not incidental to the country; rather, they are intrinsic to its character as a Jewish state.  (One may object to this statement for the examples of free enterprise and representative government.  Indeed, Jews never governed themselves during the development of these ideas, so it is dubious to say that they are “intrinsic” thereto.  However, they were readily adopted as founding principles of the State of Israel, established as a Jewish state, suggesting that at the very least Israel’s founders saw no contradiction between them and their religion.)  There is good reason for the term “Judeo-Christian”: despite many religious and theological distinctions, Jews and Christians are both part of an overlapping cultural tradition.  And it is this tradition, and its demands upon the people who live under its influence, that the contemporary Left loathes and wishes to destroy.

So the anti-Israelism of the New Left is indeed a manifestation of animus toward Jews, but it is a result of opposition to what Middle Eastern Jews do and believe, rather than what they are.  One might say that it is anti-Judaism and anti-Jewish-culture instead of anti-Semitism; the latter, as we know, was a term invented to describe hatred of Jews as a “race” as opposed to practitioners of a religious creed.  The distinctions here are murky, of course, but I think that this shows how the fixation upon Israel can be anti-Jewish without involving accusations of specifically-racial bigotry.  The anti-Jewish sentiment of today’s cultural Left is less emblematic of the anti-Semitism of the 20th-century than it is of the anti-Judaism from the twenty centuries before that.

But as exemplified by the pogroms of Christian Europe and Orthodox tsarist Russia, anti-Judaism is no joke, and its promoters of today are equally deserving of contempt.  They speak the language of oppression and emancipation, but the subjects to which they refer are hardly proper for these terms.  What they see in Israel is another iteration of the “ideology” to be replaced by egalitarianism, which in the Middle East could only be achieved by having Jews stop practising the very things that underwrite their survival, and constitute their being Jews.

* * *

The most worrying element of this episode, however, is the giant shrug with which the ASA boycott has been met.  The wider public knows that it could do as well without Israel as it currently does with it, and it could certainly do without its attachments to the Jewish State.  That’s far from anti-Semitism or anti-Judaism, for such a position does not intimate a desire for an end to Israel, but one understands why many Americans are growing ambivalent.  For all the talk about triumphalist Islamic totalitarianism and its focus on the United States, it is fairly clear that, in strictly realist terms, America’s relationship with Israel constitutes a liability.  Yes, the Left’s search for “root causes” and “grievances” is disingenuous, but one doesn’t have to be of that faction to see that America could well throw its Jewish friends in the Middle East to the wolves, and perhaps save itself from the wrath of a jihadist or two.

Thankfully, many people stop short of following this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion.  There is a strong case, on the grounds of morality and inter-cultural affinity, for America to support Israel nevertheless.  At present, the ambivalence is stronger in the realm of domestic affairs than it is in the realm of foreign policy, where the imperative of American defense of Israel remains strongly supported.  It is disappointing that in the former category, however, there is not more solidarity, as would be demonstrated by a significant public outrage against the ASA decision — the kind that would make these academics fear for their very careers.

Radicals will be radicals, and no protest will change that, I can hear you saying.  Well, this is true but only to a point.  If the mainstream of the population were to display only a fraction of the latter’s passion, the whole business would be over.  Radicals will be radicals, but only if their self-interest allows for it, especially in the academy.  If a few of these professors were to be refused tenure on the expressed ground of their anti-Jewish activities, and if the demands of donors and alumni associations could shut down a few of these cultural studies programs, the tone would change very quickly.

(Before protesting on the ground of academic freedom, remember that what these people are doing is not remotely describable as academic inquiry.  This is activism emerging from the most sordid varieties of group think and political correctness, dressed up unconvincingly as an endeavour of collective professional action.)

Furthermore, the anti-Israel Left is gaining ideological ground, mostly in the wake of the mainstream’s  ambivalence.  Yes, some college presidents have spoken about their opposition to the boycott, and some colleges have withdrawn from the ASA.  Some have even scrupled to admonish the malice against Israel that is evidenced by the singular focus of the boycott.  But the key is to look at the narrow range of arguments that are permitted on the anti-boycott side.

For example, all of the articles of protest that I’ve read thus far have made the academic freedom of Israeli scholars the central argument.  Now, academic freedom is a serious thing, especially for those who engage in real scholarship, and one is right to point out that it has eroded significantly in recent decades.  But to say that the problem here is one of academic freedom is a major understatement.  The real problem here is the unwarranted singling out of a country and its citizens (and especially its intellectuals) for intimidation and punishment, on the ground that the country identifies itself as — and has a majority population that is — Jewish, to the end of facilitating the political circumstances that would actualize said country’s destruction.

Secondly, all of the protests articles that I’ve seen more or less acknowledge that the ASA is right in its official reasoning for the boycott: namely, that Israeli control of parts of the West Bank is inherently wrong and must end immediately.  The people who take such a view but oppose the boycott are of course entitled to their opinion, but there is questionable wisdom in framing the anti-boycott argument in this way.  Saying that the ASA is right on the occupation but wrong on the method of ending it, even if its insight were true, undermines the case against the ASA.

The occupation is not, as the Left believes, maintained due to sheer anti-Arab malice by Israeli Jews; it is maintained because the political leadership in Israel believes it to be necessary for the country’s security.  When the leadership believes that this is no longer the case, it will disengage as it did with Gaza in 2005.  People within and without of Israel can debate the West Bank policy, at least as long as they are allowed to do so.  But the spirit of the ASA boycott militates against the very idea of an argument. So far as the anti-Israel Left is concerned, there is no point in including anyone who disagrees  — better to just assume that the other side is evil and rob it of any opportunity to make its case.  This is especially true for Israeli academics who defend the present policy; under a boycott, the effort to exclude their contribution would be greater still.

The problem with the ASA’s boycott is not its means, but rather its ends.  On this point there is no room for an even-handed middle ground.  Those who depart from the anti-Israel world view must voice their dissent now; if they don’t, the boycotts will keep rolling in.

Jackson Doughart is an editor and columnist for the Prince Arthur Herald, a Canadian online newspaper.  His freelance work has appeared in the National Post, the Ottawa Citizen, and C2C Journal.  Please visit

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Concerned U.S. Patriot

    It’s unreal how the twisted views and lies on the web magazine distort the real truth of how EVIL zionism is and the zionist people who oppress, strip away the dignity of another people, occupy and steal their lands! …Just like the Nazis did!!!


      Concerned U.S. Traitor,

      If you are against stealing land, then pack up your crap and LEAVE Native American land of North America.

      Go back to your ancestral home in H E L L.

      P.S. Pay reparations to the Native Americans – so just leave North America with the rags on your back.

      Speaking of Nazis, Google Image “arab n a z i salute”.

      • defcon 4

        Native Americans HAVE received reparations. ANY Native American is eligible to receive a free, all expenses paid college education. Native Americans have their own semi-independent tribal lands, on which the rule of law is enforced by Native Americans and not US law enforcement agencies.

    • Softly Bob

      Well, you obviously didn’t read the article or you’re a complete idiot. People like you just don’t get it do you? No matter how many times you’re given the facts, you’re just too mentally retarded to understand them.
      There’s an irony to what you say as well. Comparing the Jews to Nazis is not only dishonest and inaccurate, but it’s thoroughly evil. People like you, honestly make me feel sick. You’re a disgusting excuse for a human being and an incredibly stupid one as well.

    • Notalibfool

      “…people who oppress, strip away the dignity of another people, occupy and steal their lands…”

      You are accurately describing what the Ottoman Turks did to the native population in Anatolia, the Balkans, etc. When will Turkey return the land it’s predecessor state STOLE from European Christians?

      • defcon 4

        When is Turkey going to make reparations to the non-muslim inhabitants of Cyprus, who were dispossessed of their lands and properties when the muslime Turks invaded and annexed part of Cyprus in the 1970’s?

    • iluvisrael

      still sore that your side lost adolph? Happy eternal nakba as$hole!

    • Steven M Tenneshaw

      Yeah, you’re about as patriotic as David Duke.

    • mackykam

      Concerned US Patriot:
      Didn’t your ancestors steal Native American lands from them, strip away their dignity by forcing them onto reservations, kill them by giving them pox-ridden blankets, oppress them by taking their children and forbidding them their native languages and religions?
      How different is Manifest Destiny from Zionism? Well, for one, the Zionists never claimed ‘a good arab is a dead arab’ as Americans did about the Indians.
      Are you sure you wish to continue down this path? The real reason you hate Jews is that you were circumcised, a Jewish invention, and you feel short-changed by it. Go back to your online porno sites, comparison shop your size and weep.

    • Guest

      They forget, but we remember.

      In 1947 the United Nations voted to create two states between the Jordan and the Mediterranean: One, the Jewish state of Israel. The other, a homeland for Palestinian Arabs. The Zionist leadership, the acting government of the Yishuv, accepted the plan. In 1947, we affirmed our desire to live in peace, side by side with a Palestinian State.

      But the armies of nine Arab states came pouring over the borders, to extinguish the nascent state of Israel and to murder yet another million Jews.

      When a truce came, the territory for the Palestinian Arab State had been devoured by Egypt and Jordan and Syria.
      And Jordan STILL occupies 80% of the original Palestian state

      They forget, but we remember that thousands of Palestinian Arabs fled in the face of that Arab invasion. But when they reached the borders of Jordan and Egypt, they were not permitted to enter. Israel, tiny beleaguered Israel managed to absorb and settle millions of Jewish refugees from Europe and the Middle East.
      But the entire Arab League and all 26 Muslim nations, with all their oil-wealth, couldn’t find room for their poor Palestinian brothers and sisters — and left them to rot in squalid refugee camps, festering in hatred and rage.

      Why was there an Israel-Gaza war in the first place? Resistance to the occupation, say Hamas and many in the international media.

      What occupation? Seven years ago, in front of the world, Israel pulled out of Gaza. It dismantled every settlement, withdrew every soldier, evacuated every Jew, leaving nothing and no one behind. Except for the greenhouses in which the settlers had grown fruit and flowers for export. These were left intact to help Gaza’s economy — only to be trashed when the Palestinians took over.

      Israel then declared its border with Gaza to be an international frontier, meaning that it renounced any claim to the territory and considered it an independent entity.

      In effect, Israel had created the first Palestinian state ever, something never granted by fellow Muslims — neither the Ottoman Turks nor the Egyptians who brutally occupied Gaza for two decades before being driven out by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.

      Israel wanted nothing more than to live in peace with this independent Palestinian entity. After all, the world had incessantly demanded that Israel give up land for peace.

      It gave the land. It got no peace.
      The Gaza Palestinians did not reciprocate. They voted in Hamas, who then took over in a military putsch and turned the newly freed Palestine into an armed camp from which to war against Israel. It has been war ever since.

    • Guest

      Israel a tiny country that occupies less than 1% of the middle east…the only Democracy in the mid-east who just wants to live in peace is surrounded by rabid Jew Haters.
      Israel has been constantly attacked since it was created……..

      The so-called Palestinians had a homeland……just like Israel….they were given a homeland…..but instead of creating a real country they decided that they needed to attack Israel instead, they wanted the land that Israel had too. 

    • Guest

      Isn’t it interesting that prior to the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, there was no serious movement for a Palestinian homeland?

      Well, you might say, “that was before the Israelis seized the West Bank and Old Jerusalem.”

      That’s true. In the Six-Day War, Israel captured Judea, Samaria and East Jerusalem.

      But they didn’t capture these territories from Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians….

      They captured them from Jordan’s King Hussein.

      And Jordan STILL Occupies 80% of the original land mandated to the “Palestinians”

      I can’t help but wonder why all these Palestinians suddenly discovered their national identity after Israel won the war.


      We keep hearing this term over and over again. “Occupied Palestine.” Every time you hear some spokesman for the Palestinian “cause,” (which is, of course, the complete and utter destruction of Israel) on any television news program you will hear the term “occupied Palestine” over an over again. So … it’s time to set the record straight here.

      There is no “occupied Palestine.” You see, in order for a country to be “occupied” it is somewhat necessary for that country to first exist. Palestine doesn’t exist. There is no country of Palestine, therefore there can be no “occupied” Palestine.

      Oh yes! The so-called “Palestinians” had their chance all right. Back after World War II the United Nations came up with an idea to set aside this plot of land over here for Israel, and that plot of land over their for Palestinians. The Israelis said fine, and Israel became a honest-to-goodness country. The Palestinians, though, weren’t happy with the arrangement. The part of the arrangement Palestinians weren’t happy with was the Israel part. They wanted all of that land that was partitioned into Israel. If they accepted the UN partitioning they would be stuck with those pesky Israeli neighbors. So — they said no to the United Nations offer and decided that they were going to strike out on their own … strike out at Israel.

      Bottom line? There is no Palestine. They had their shot … they said no. They wanted it all. So … no Palestine, no “occupied” Palestine.

  • StanleyT

    In short, the author is defining the methods of the left. Free speech for me, but not for thee. We can say all we like about the “evils” of Israel, but if you try to defend Israel, we will shut you up.

  • Clare Spark

    I am appalled by this article and by some of the comments. See “Index to blogs on anti-Semitism.” The author disregards the nazification of Arab elites during and after the second world war. Great going, moderate men.

  • catherine maneker

    Good article. Thanks. It’s an affront to the left a people who have cultural values and wish to survive. How dare they!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Habbgun

    i disagree with this article. First of all it is well beyond naive to believe that Americans will stand to the end with Israel if they aren’t even concerned with the plight of Middle Eastern Christians. They don’t care. There are lots of churches that call themselves sanctuaries for illegal aliens and are into the amnesty movement but you see absolutely no equivalent where such a movement really should exist.Where there is no solidarity between christian and christian there can be no solidarity between christian and jew.

    Secondly what makes the most sense about Leftism is not that it is ideological but that it is Euro-supremacist. It may seem far-fetched but so much becomes explained when you accept it. Why does the Left champion the Palestinians but don’t care about atrocities against arabs elsewehere? Because the Palestinians accepted the Germans as the master race in WW II in exchange for the chance to kill Jews. The alliance and the underpinnings continue today.

    Why does the Left hate Israel so much? Because Europe has always hated the Jews this much but now need to hide behind intellectual justifications. Europe isn’t strong enough any more to simply say we are better than you.

    Maybe you haven’t noticed but we have moved from the sixties black is beautiful to mixed race with white European politics better.

    Maybe anti-Americanism is not an objection to any about America as such but it is simply the desire to see all things European on top.

  • Joseph

    Zionism and Judaism are not the same. Zionism is a perversion of Judaism precepts ( I.e. Heal the world). Zionism is ugly, war-oriented, brutal. Zionism denigrates Judaism to pursue its illegal taking of Palestinian land.

    • reader

      All KGB talking points to a t. Never changed for decades. Go ask drone sources for something more creative, for crying out loud.



      Islamofascism and Islam are the same. Islamofascism is the terrorist arm of Islams. Islams precepts ( I.e. Force the world to submit). Islamofascism is ugly, war-oriented, brutal.
      Islamofascism denigrates All Humanity in its pursuit of waging jihad and its illegal taking of Infidel

      We remember 9/11. Do you?

    • Notalibfool

      YAWN!!!!!!! Back to old stolen land nonsense. You Jew haters really need to think of a new argument. This time focus on one that’s a little more realistic.

    • mackykam

      What land did the Zionists steal? Seems to me they paid good money for the lands they first inhabited. Jews around the world donated to the Jewish National Fund to buy land from absent arab and turkish landowners and create settlements.. And all those deeds were legally recorded. I’d like to see the deeds the muslims had. Oh, wait! They took the land in battle.
      Joseph: what you think you know about Judaism would fit a thimble, with room to spare. What you know about being anti-Semitic came to you in your mother’s milk.

  • Suzanne

    I think what’s ALSO going on is the left’s refusal to face facts about the origins of ANY country. First, leftists often hate nation states and think they’re ALL illegitimate in one way or another. They also especially hate the origins of nation states because they are often born through warfare. Therefore, for the left’s “tender” sensibilities, the beginnings of ALL nation states are obscene – because some things happen which are less than perfect which they can’t abide.

    As far as Israel goes, as the author points out, the Jews are one of the indigenous peoples of the middle east. Therefore, the Jews have much more of a right to live in Israel than many of the peoples who currently live in the lands they inhabit.

    The reason why this is so is because – after being defeated by the Romans in the year 70, many Jews fled to or were forcibly taken to other lands. Jewish sovereignty over the ancient land of Israel was wrested from them by the Romans. But it must ALSO be remembered that some Jews NEVER left Israel even after the Roman conquest. Somehow, they carried on in Israel and ALWAYS lived there – all through the past two thousand years. Also, through the centuries, various Jewish communities that were expelled by the Romans sometimes made their way back to Israel invigorating the Jewish presence there. For the expelled Jews who found it impossible to come back, some survived and continued in Jewish communities in lands throughout Europe and the middle east but they often found no peace from the natives in these lands.

    So, finally, after the ENORMOUS persecutions of the 20th century, the survivors of the Jews who had ended up in foreign lands finally got it together enough to want to repatriate with the one land in the world in which they thought they had a chance of surviving. So they decided to join the existing Jewish community in Israel. Once there, they got it together enough to defeat the British who were then ruling (and who had issued the infamous “White Paper” effectively leaving the European Jews in the hands of the Nazis). The Jews then they declared Israel their own national, soveriegn land. Yes, the Jews had had enough – a massive holocaust in Europe (which numerically the Jews still haven’t recovered from) and horrific pogroms in the middle east. The Jews had tried in a million ways to co-exist or assimilate within these lands but ultimately failed – and NO people in the world is going to commit collective suicide!

    Unfortunately for Israel, though, the new nation state they declared in 1948, was and is still viewed by the world as a “new comer”. And as mentioned before, the left hates nation states and they hate their origins as they assume that every one of them is illegitimate (often including their own countries). It should be noted, however, that there were also other nations declared in the 20th century, too and, as stated, although the left hates nation states and their origins, they never obsess on these other new nations – just Israel. So, I just can’t shake off the feeling, like the author of this piece, that this obsessive focusing on Israel is nothing more than good, old fashioned antisemitism.

    But getting back to 1948 and to try, again, to try and enlighten these “sensitive” leftists, the Jews INVITED the Arabs who already lived in Israel to STAY with them. That was nice of them because MANY of these Arabs had not lived in Israel for long – but were recent immigrants from surrounding countries who had traveled to Israel because of the economic opportunities offered to them by Jewish businesses. For the Jews in 1948, the new Israel would be a multi-ethnic and multi- religious nation. Would the Arabs accept this? No, they did not! Collectively, they refused and have launched a war on the Jewish population in one way or another ever since!

    In conclusion, for the sake of the “sensitive” boycotters and leftists, I personally think that the Jewish Israelis were and have been much “nicer” to the warring Arabs than any other nation would have been. As a matter of fact, no one likes to remember the fact that the entire country of Jordan was supposed to be part of Israel, too. The Jews gave it to the Arabs for the sake of peace and still got only war. If we, in the other nations, signal out Israel, we are as hypocritical as the boycotters are – as our own nations and our own ancestors who carved them out – were probably a lot less “nice” than the Israeli Jews!

    • camp7

      Well said Suzanne!

  • Marty

    I regularly teach a course on the Israel-arab conflict at a state institution and don’t hesitate to mention that Israel is the only democracy in the middle east, that its arab citizens enjoy the same rights and responsibilities as its Jewish ones, and that Isarel does more humanitarian good globally than all islamic countries combined. Students receive the facts in my class and tell their friends. Looney leftist faculty, happily, have not yet polluted the academy where I work.

    • StanleyT

      Thank you Marty! May you have many, many years of teaching and many, many students in your classes!

    • defcon 4

      Have you received any flak (from students, faculty or administration) for teaching the truth about Israel rather than propaganda? I commend you for presenting the truth about Israel and the Mid-East. Thank you.

  • georgejochnowitz

    Israel is a free country. Marxists are opposed to freedom. So are radical Islamists. They have united to fight freedom and Israel.

    • defcon 4

      Only “radical islamists” are opposed to freedom eh? How do you explain the fact that all muslime states persecute people of other faiths (or not faith at all)? How do you explain the fact that all muslime states have enforced blasphemy and heresy laws?

  • defcon 4

    “America has many allies, many of them despicable in point of respect for
    human rights. Yet there have been no calls for boycotts against Saudi
    Arabia or Pakistan from those who want to punish Israel.” It is very strange that the only democracy, the only state which recognizes equal rights for women and freedom of religion, the only state which isn’t an islam0fascist apartheid in the Mid-East and N. Africa is the one singled out for censure. Such myopia can’t be accidental.

  • Fritz Kohlhaas

    Those imbeciles can’t stand the truth.

  • Guest

    Follow the money.. Saudi Arabia is pouring millions upon millions of dollars into our universities to buy sway over thinking coming out of our universities as they are also funding extremist mosques all over the world. This is an attempt to bolster the recently awakened to the modern world, bruised egos of muslims who are told they are our betters and who see how far behind they are. Same as the foundational thinking of the jihadists. The fall of the ottoman empire dismembered them and wounded their supremacist mindset.

    This movement is purely an attempt to destroy Israel; the country at the top of the list for embarrassing them by its formation. Get the world together to discount Israel’s outstanding academic achievements (vs the negligible muslim ones), a push for total muslim takeover of Israel by demographics, the validation of insult to muslim sensibilities because of their lack of control, and most especially the inability to usurp jewish foundations as the original believers in a single godhead without muslim replacement of jews in jerusalem to validate islam’s supremacy over all other religions. These are underlying every disturbing activity on all fronts around the world.

  • WW4

    Just in case anyone thinks this is a widespread academic phenomenon:

    2/3 of 1,252 members of this 5000 member association, or roughly 834 academics, cast votes in favor of this resolution.

    Fortunately, the 47,000-member American Association of University Professors condemned it, and many are speaking out against it.