Well said. Slow Boring's younger staff are obsessed with gaslighting Jews that they're imagining the breadth and depth of left-wing antisemitism, especially on campus. It's pretty weird how many different articles on Slow Boring attempted to tell us to ignore what we're seeing, pro Hamas students and faculty aren't actually anti Jewish. It's so tedious that I set my subscription to cancel after this year. That's not a centrist publication any more - it's one more place where Gen Z staffers from elite universities turn news and opinion every more antisemitic, or in this case make excuses for the antisemitism of the "just anti Zionist, not antisemitic" (but actually) anti Jewish left.
Interesting analogy, Dr. Graboyes. I grew up in the lower-middle class of the South in the 60's and 70's, and saw a lot of the "omicron" variant antisemitism, which like most racial prejudice was just absorbed with the RC Cola. I knew the terminology and a lot of the jokes; what I didn't know was any actual Jews. How surprising, in college, to find out they were pretty much like everybody else, except maybe on Friday night.
The "delta" variant I haven't personally experienced, but it seems more dangerous because it is intentionally learned. As per Josh Billings, it's not what they don't know, it's what they know for sure that isn't so.
I think Prof Al Gharbi should quit the gaslighting. We know what we saw October 7 and we know what we saw on American and other universities since then.
The Americans who told Jewish jokes and made snide remarks about Jewish noses in the 1960s were country-club types, or even urban street types. These antisemites didn't boycott Jewish businesses, crowd around Jewish delis plastering ugly signs on the walls or breaking windows, keep Jewish scientists from delivering lectures, or get hold of bricks and smash the faces of Hasidim.
Or chase Jewish students into libraries.
Or amass and mob in the hundreds and thousands and block major thoroughfares and transportation hubs, leaving broken glass and graffiti in their wake.
What's happening now is what happened early on in Nazi Germany.
If I thought young people woefully undereducated last year, and I did, I am more than ever convinced that going easy on students, praising every bit of drivel they did, and awarding them participation prizes, policies ill-advised. That they can be swayed by murderous religious fanatics in headscarves to do what they're doing is no wonder.
Which doesn't mean I do not remember the "RESTRICTED" sign posted in the 1950s on the lawn of a well-known cooperative apartment complex in Washington Heights. It was the first long word I ever sounded out, and my father told me what it meant.
It wasn't nice, but it wasn't what we have out there now either.
What you are seeing now, to use your analogy, is the virus mutated and let loose upon a body already wracked by another disease, DEI. The young people, already prone to do what young people do - rebel, have been fed decades of hate and the belief that people of various backgrounds must be separated and judged accordingly. The outcome, if considered in those terms, is fairly predictable. Thus the wry "welcome to the club" that you see amongst many conservative white males. Unless and until we once again begin teach that people are individuals, not members of some monolithic group with their moral value cooked in at birth by their immutable characteristics, the path will get harder and darker for anyone on the "wrong" side of the road.
Dr. al-Gharbi says “[S]urveys suggest that more than 80 percent of scholars who work on Middle East issues self-censor on the subject of Israel and Palestine. Overwhelmingly, self-censorship entails *refraining* from criticism of Israel …” and, amazingly, adduces this datum as evidence those 80 percent of scholars are *not* antisemitic!
I keep thinking about this comment. The full quote is: "And far from pushing politics in the classroom, surveys suggest that more than 80 percent of scholars who work on Middle East issues self-censor on the topic of Israel and Palestine. Overwhelmingly, this self-censorship entails refraining from criticism of Israel, typically out of fear of retaliation by external stakeholders, university administrators or student mobs." An uncharitable reading would be, "80% of Mideast Studies profs despise Israel but keep their mouths shut out of fear of pro-Israel mobs. 20% don't keep their mouths shut."
I taught in universities for 19 years and can truly say that I never self-censored. The reason was simple. I viewed my job as presenting facts and questions. I dealt with highly controversial topics and was equally harsh in my demands on students who agreed with me and those who didn't. In 2007, I won a prof-of-the-year award, and part of the citation was "we never knew where he stood on any issue." I didn't self-censor. Quite the opposite. On any given issue, I would take both sides and argue each of them fervently. Five years later, I received an equivalent award at a different university from students who knew that I disagreed with most of them, but who appreciated my ability to argue their side effectively when I had to.
I have not been close to that field, so I can't judge firsthand. It has long been my sense--and my perception goes way back. In high school (probably 1968-69), my Latin teacher regularly took a couple of us high-performing students to another city to attend meetings of a group interested in things related to the Mediterranean. Many of the members came from PoliSci and language departments, along with business types, etc. This was a year or two after the Six Day War, and there was already a hostile, albeit quiet, vibe at those meanings. Someone advised me that it was something to watch for. (This is was a bit noticeable as most people around there were solidly pro-Israel after what had happened.)
People who profess sympathy over cruelly victimized Jews are seldom reliable allies of victorious Jews, even though those are the only available choices.
Of course, Middle East Studies (the academic field, not the field of study in the abstract) both attracts and forms people who profess no sympathy even for cruelly victimized Jews.
Re: "if one argues that Israel is engaged in genocide, apartheid, or U.S.-style racism, one is employing antisemitic tropes—plain and simple": How so? All three of these items have definitions that have nothing to do with antisemitism, and the fact that a former Israeli prime minister and former top-level people in the Israeli government, not to mention many thoughtful Jews, have said that Israel is an apartheid state makes the charge of antisemitism against these people hard to accept. Do you agree that the Israeli government has been harsh, to put it mildly, in its treatment of the Palestinians since 1948 and astonishingly barbaric to innocent Palestinians since October 7? Even if you don't think so, many people do, including, again, many Jews. And when you see videos of Israeli soldiers celebrating the killing of innocent people (Glenn Greenwald, who hosted a debate/conversation between a pro-Israel/Zionist Jew and a pro-Palestinian journalist or scholar, had some pretty shocking such videos on his show recently), a possible explanation, though not approval, of the rising antisemitism might suggest itself. Netanyahu, who is captured on tape talking about how he propped up Hamas, is not a good man, not a man of peace, and he is fueling some of the antisemitism that is very painful to watch.
I stand by the statement because genocide, apartheid, and U.S.-style racism bear no resemblance to anything Israel does or has done in the past. Antisemites use the terms ceaselessly because they get the adrenaline flowing in both outright antisemites and in gullible people prone to animus against Jews. The fact that quite a number of Jews are among the gullible is not in any way dispositive. To call Israel an "apartheid state" demonstrates only a profound ignorance of both South African and Israeli history, and anyone employing the term is disqualified from the designation "thoughtful."
The fact that you ask about Israeli treatment of Palestinians "since 1948" is telling. For the first 18 years of that period, most Palestinians were under Egyptian and Jordanian control. Those who remained in Israel after Independence included members of Parliament from Day One. While their place in Israeli society was less than perfect, it was far better than anything experienced by minority groups in the Arab World--especially Jews. In 1948, Israelis pleaded with Arabs NOT to leave Israel. Those who did so and became refugees did so because the invading Arab armies persuaded or forced them to do so.
In the 76 years since 1948, Arab nations have kept Palestinians refugees and their descendants behind barbed wire, unlike Israel, which welcomed in most of the 900,000 Jews who were expelled from Muslim countries in a determined, coordinated program of ethnic cleansing of ancient Jewish communities.
Meanwhile, under Israel's pre-Hamas administration of Gaza, that piece of territory had (arguably) the highest economic growth rate of any land on earth. Neglected by prior Turkish, British, and Arab administrators, Palestinians experienced a burst of economic and educational opportunities under Israeli rule. Unfortunately, Palestinians either chose or were saddled with murderous regimes for whom killing Jews took priority over Palestinian well-being.
I do not in any way agree that Israel has been barbaric since October 7. To the contrary, it is difficult to name any country involved in urban warfare that has been more humane toward civilian populations or proactive in warning them of impending actions. The gullible and the Jew-haters lap up Hamas's fabricated casualty numbers and are incurious about the fact that the ratio of civil-to-combatant casualties in Gaza is lower than in almost any other urban war in recent memory. Hamas has violated every law of warfare and civilization. Israel has been fastidious in observing those restraints on warfare.
So there are widespread, credible (including in Jewish news outlets) stories about Palestinian babies having to have a limb amputated without anaesthesia because the Israeli government is not allowing humanitarian supplies to get through, and you're saying that a person, including a Jew, who reads about that and objects can only be an antisemite, gullible, or supporter of Hamas? Really? You think Amira Hass is antisemitic? Gal Gadot? Natalie Portman? How about Hannah Arendt? Masha Gessen? Why is human suffering, whoever is the sufferer and whoever is the cause of the suffering, not objectionable? If you covered up the names and just described what one side was doing to the other, I'd wager than any normal human being with a conscience or a heart would say the Israeli government is committing atrocities and being barbaric. Yoav Gallant, Israel's Defense Minister, said on Oct. 9, "I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly." Chris van Hollen, U.S. Senator and staunch supporter of Israel, recently said, "Kids in Gaza are now dying from the deliberate withholding of food." In what world is this not barbaric? I can understand taking Israel's side in terms of wanting to wipe out Hamas, but justifying or lightly dismissing what Israel is doing the way you do is truly astonishing to me. And to say that Jews who are critical of the Israeli government are themselves Jew haters is likewise incredible to me. Thankfully, I can say with certainty that this is simply wrong.
To shift the focus, what books would you recommend to nonexperts? What books have shaped your view of the whole conflict, going back to the Balfour Declaration?
Thank you for the detailed essay and for setting the example of charity of mind towards those who earnestly disagree with you. If everyone on the internet and in media did that, we would all be enjoying a happier and more productive intercourse of ideas.
Well said. Slow Boring's younger staff are obsessed with gaslighting Jews that they're imagining the breadth and depth of left-wing antisemitism, especially on campus. It's pretty weird how many different articles on Slow Boring attempted to tell us to ignore what we're seeing, pro Hamas students and faculty aren't actually anti Jewish. It's so tedious that I set my subscription to cancel after this year. That's not a centrist publication any more - it's one more place where Gen Z staffers from elite universities turn news and opinion every more antisemitic, or in this case make excuses for the antisemitism of the "just anti Zionist, not antisemitic" (but actually) anti Jewish left.
Interesting analogy, Dr. Graboyes. I grew up in the lower-middle class of the South in the 60's and 70's, and saw a lot of the "omicron" variant antisemitism, which like most racial prejudice was just absorbed with the RC Cola. I knew the terminology and a lot of the jokes; what I didn't know was any actual Jews. How surprising, in college, to find out they were pretty much like everybody else, except maybe on Friday night.
The "delta" variant I haven't personally experienced, but it seems more dangerous because it is intentionally learned. As per Josh Billings, it's not what they don't know, it's what they know for sure that isn't so.
I think Prof Al Gharbi should quit the gaslighting. We know what we saw October 7 and we know what we saw on American and other universities since then.
The Americans who told Jewish jokes and made snide remarks about Jewish noses in the 1960s were country-club types, or even urban street types. These antisemites didn't boycott Jewish businesses, crowd around Jewish delis plastering ugly signs on the walls or breaking windows, keep Jewish scientists from delivering lectures, or get hold of bricks and smash the faces of Hasidim.
Or chase Jewish students into libraries.
Or amass and mob in the hundreds and thousands and block major thoroughfares and transportation hubs, leaving broken glass and graffiti in their wake.
What's happening now is what happened early on in Nazi Germany.
If I thought young people woefully undereducated last year, and I did, I am more than ever convinced that going easy on students, praising every bit of drivel they did, and awarding them participation prizes, policies ill-advised. That they can be swayed by murderous religious fanatics in headscarves to do what they're doing is no wonder.
Which doesn't mean I do not remember the "RESTRICTED" sign posted in the 1950s on the lawn of a well-known cooperative apartment complex in Washington Heights. It was the first long word I ever sounded out, and my father told me what it meant.
It wasn't nice, but it wasn't what we have out there now either.
What you are seeing now, to use your analogy, is the virus mutated and let loose upon a body already wracked by another disease, DEI. The young people, already prone to do what young people do - rebel, have been fed decades of hate and the belief that people of various backgrounds must be separated and judged accordingly. The outcome, if considered in those terms, is fairly predictable. Thus the wry "welcome to the club" that you see amongst many conservative white males. Unless and until we once again begin teach that people are individuals, not members of some monolithic group with their moral value cooked in at birth by their immutable characteristics, the path will get harder and darker for anyone on the "wrong" side of the road.
Dr. al-Gharbi says “[S]urveys suggest that more than 80 percent of scholars who work on Middle East issues self-censor on the subject of Israel and Palestine. Overwhelmingly, self-censorship entails *refraining* from criticism of Israel …” and, amazingly, adduces this datum as evidence those 80 percent of scholars are *not* antisemitic!
I keep thinking about this comment. The full quote is: "And far from pushing politics in the classroom, surveys suggest that more than 80 percent of scholars who work on Middle East issues self-censor on the topic of Israel and Palestine. Overwhelmingly, this self-censorship entails refraining from criticism of Israel, typically out of fear of retaliation by external stakeholders, university administrators or student mobs." An uncharitable reading would be, "80% of Mideast Studies profs despise Israel but keep their mouths shut out of fear of pro-Israel mobs. 20% don't keep their mouths shut."
I taught in universities for 19 years and can truly say that I never self-censored. The reason was simple. I viewed my job as presenting facts and questions. I dealt with highly controversial topics and was equally harsh in my demands on students who agreed with me and those who didn't. In 2007, I won a prof-of-the-year award, and part of the citation was "we never knew where he stood on any issue." I didn't self-censor. Quite the opposite. On any given issue, I would take both sides and argue each of them fervently. Five years later, I received an equivalent award at a different university from students who knew that I disagreed with most of them, but who appreciated my ability to argue their side effectively when I had to.
My experience of Middle East Studies faculty is that the uncharitable reading is exactly correct.
In this respect is yours different?
I have not been close to that field, so I can't judge firsthand. It has long been my sense--and my perception goes way back. In high school (probably 1968-69), my Latin teacher regularly took a couple of us high-performing students to another city to attend meetings of a group interested in things related to the Mediterranean. Many of the members came from PoliSci and language departments, along with business types, etc. This was a year or two after the Six Day War, and there was already a hostile, albeit quiet, vibe at those meanings. Someone advised me that it was something to watch for. (This is was a bit noticeable as most people around there were solidly pro-Israel after what had happened.)
People who profess sympathy over cruelly victimized Jews are seldom reliable allies of victorious Jews, even though those are the only available choices.
Of course, Middle East Studies (the academic field, not the field of study in the abstract) both attracts and forms people who profess no sympathy even for cruelly victimized Jews.
https://www.darahorn.com/
Check out her podcast, “Adventures with Dead Jews.”
That I shall do.
I have not yet read “People Love Dead Jews,” but it’s on my list; and my post is (obviously) derivative from the meme.
Re: "if one argues that Israel is engaged in genocide, apartheid, or U.S.-style racism, one is employing antisemitic tropes—plain and simple": How so? All three of these items have definitions that have nothing to do with antisemitism, and the fact that a former Israeli prime minister and former top-level people in the Israeli government, not to mention many thoughtful Jews, have said that Israel is an apartheid state makes the charge of antisemitism against these people hard to accept. Do you agree that the Israeli government has been harsh, to put it mildly, in its treatment of the Palestinians since 1948 and astonishingly barbaric to innocent Palestinians since October 7? Even if you don't think so, many people do, including, again, many Jews. And when you see videos of Israeli soldiers celebrating the killing of innocent people (Glenn Greenwald, who hosted a debate/conversation between a pro-Israel/Zionist Jew and a pro-Palestinian journalist or scholar, had some pretty shocking such videos on his show recently), a possible explanation, though not approval, of the rising antisemitism might suggest itself. Netanyahu, who is captured on tape talking about how he propped up Hamas, is not a good man, not a man of peace, and he is fueling some of the antisemitism that is very painful to watch.
I stand by the statement because genocide, apartheid, and U.S.-style racism bear no resemblance to anything Israel does or has done in the past. Antisemites use the terms ceaselessly because they get the adrenaline flowing in both outright antisemites and in gullible people prone to animus against Jews. The fact that quite a number of Jews are among the gullible is not in any way dispositive. To call Israel an "apartheid state" demonstrates only a profound ignorance of both South African and Israeli history, and anyone employing the term is disqualified from the designation "thoughtful."
The fact that you ask about Israeli treatment of Palestinians "since 1948" is telling. For the first 18 years of that period, most Palestinians were under Egyptian and Jordanian control. Those who remained in Israel after Independence included members of Parliament from Day One. While their place in Israeli society was less than perfect, it was far better than anything experienced by minority groups in the Arab World--especially Jews. In 1948, Israelis pleaded with Arabs NOT to leave Israel. Those who did so and became refugees did so because the invading Arab armies persuaded or forced them to do so.
In the 76 years since 1948, Arab nations have kept Palestinians refugees and their descendants behind barbed wire, unlike Israel, which welcomed in most of the 900,000 Jews who were expelled from Muslim countries in a determined, coordinated program of ethnic cleansing of ancient Jewish communities.
Meanwhile, under Israel's pre-Hamas administration of Gaza, that piece of territory had (arguably) the highest economic growth rate of any land on earth. Neglected by prior Turkish, British, and Arab administrators, Palestinians experienced a burst of economic and educational opportunities under Israeli rule. Unfortunately, Palestinians either chose or were saddled with murderous regimes for whom killing Jews took priority over Palestinian well-being.
I do not in any way agree that Israel has been barbaric since October 7. To the contrary, it is difficult to name any country involved in urban warfare that has been more humane toward civilian populations or proactive in warning them of impending actions. The gullible and the Jew-haters lap up Hamas's fabricated casualty numbers and are incurious about the fact that the ratio of civil-to-combatant casualties in Gaza is lower than in almost any other urban war in recent memory. Hamas has violated every law of warfare and civilization. Israel has been fastidious in observing those restraints on warfare.
But none of this really matters, does it?
Wow. Excellent response. Thank you for this substack ❤️
So there are widespread, credible (including in Jewish news outlets) stories about Palestinian babies having to have a limb amputated without anaesthesia because the Israeli government is not allowing humanitarian supplies to get through, and you're saying that a person, including a Jew, who reads about that and objects can only be an antisemite, gullible, or supporter of Hamas? Really? You think Amira Hass is antisemitic? Gal Gadot? Natalie Portman? How about Hannah Arendt? Masha Gessen? Why is human suffering, whoever is the sufferer and whoever is the cause of the suffering, not objectionable? If you covered up the names and just described what one side was doing to the other, I'd wager than any normal human being with a conscience or a heart would say the Israeli government is committing atrocities and being barbaric. Yoav Gallant, Israel's Defense Minister, said on Oct. 9, "I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly." Chris van Hollen, U.S. Senator and staunch supporter of Israel, recently said, "Kids in Gaza are now dying from the deliberate withholding of food." In what world is this not barbaric? I can understand taking Israel's side in terms of wanting to wipe out Hamas, but justifying or lightly dismissing what Israel is doing the way you do is truly astonishing to me. And to say that Jews who are critical of the Israeli government are themselves Jew haters is likewise incredible to me. Thankfully, I can say with certainty that this is simply wrong.
To shift the focus, what books would you recommend to nonexperts? What books have shaped your view of the whole conflict, going back to the Balfour Declaration?
NOTE: I'm not ignoring this. Responding requires a bit of time, and I might do so as a separate column. Thanks for the input.
My response to your comment is now available in this essay: https://graboyes.substack.com/p/hamas-and-the-shill-game
Robert,
Thank you for the detailed essay and for setting the example of charity of mind towards those who earnestly disagree with you. If everyone on the internet and in media did that, we would all be enjoying a happier and more productive intercourse of ideas.
Best,
42W