BY KEVIN HOWLEY
In recent weeks, college students across the country have raised their voices in support of the Palestinian people, whose collective punishment at the hands of the Israeli government and their enablers in the United States and across Western Europe is both shameful and horrific.
For conservative culture warriors, pro-Palestinian demonstrations on college campuses are a gift that keeps giving. Not only do right-wing pundits relish the opportunity to take on elite universities—those hotbeds of “radical, American-hating extremism”—but recent protests provide cover for the forces of intolerance and indifference to double down on hyperbolic claims of “indoctrination and discrimination” in higher education. Consider this inflammatory headline from The Daily Signal: “Universities Have Become Staging Grounds For American Pogroms.”
A brief survey of right-wing media reports, replete with false equivalences between support for Palestinian civilians and defense of Hamas atrocities, reveals the lengths to which culture warriors will go to demonize dissent on college campuses under the guise of combatting antisemitism:
- Elite University Students Project Pro-Hamas Messages On Campus Building. By Brandon Poulter. The Daily Caller. October 25, 2023.
- Brandeis University Student Council Fails To Condemn Hamas Terrorism. By Joel B. Pollak. Breitbart News. October 26, 2023.
- Universities Celebrate The Mass Murder of Jews. By Hugh Fitzgerald. Front Page. October 26, 2023.
Stoking antisemitism is a tough habit to break, but for the right-wing media and the Christian nationalists they pander to, the time is right to tone down their own hateful rhetoric and silence critics who dare speak truth to power in the wake of Israeli war crimes.
Hamas Is Gaza, Gaza Is Hamas
For hardliners, there is no daylight between Hamas and the people of Gaza. Writing in American Thinker, under the headline “Hamas Is Gaza, Gaza Is Hamas,” Ethel C. Fenig cannot abide an ounce of sympathy for the two million inhabitants of that long-besieged territory fleeing for their lives under a month-long Israeli military assault: “Hamas is in free and independent Gaza because free and independent Gazans want it there.”
You don’t need a political science degree to recognize that the people of Gaza have never been free, much less independent. Unlike the so-called adults in the room, college students calling for an immediate ceasefire recognize bloodthirsty hypocrisy when they see it, even as they become painfully aware of the backlash not only from right-wing extremists but from campus administrators and political leaders who likewise invoke antisemitism to provide cover for Israel’s ethnic cleansing.
Meanwhile, right-wing pundits who’ve spent years stoking antisemitism indulge a bit of virtual signaling to score political points against archrivals. Case in point: PJ Media’s Catherine Salgado writes gleefully: “George Soros’s Open Society Foundation (OSF) provided almost $6 million in donations to Columbia University, the university at which student groups issued a statement bashing Israel and empathizing with Hamas terrorists.”
Then there’s this item from 100% Fed Up: “(WATCH) Hillary Clinton Confronted During Columbia University Event For Not Criticizing Joe Biden’s Warmongering Foreign Policies.” Sure, college students ought to keep their mouths shut when it comes to calling out Israeli war crimes, but right-wingers will make common cause with “Hamas sympathizers” if they can take a swipe at Mrs. Clinton and Joe Biden in one fell swoop.
Also-Rans Weigh In
With all the turmoil at home and abroad, you can be forgiven if you missed last week’s GOP primary debate. All the same, the Republicans’ circular firing squad offered a chilling glimpse into the authoritarian tendencies among the also-rans in the 2024 primary.
Seizing the moment, NBC News invited Republican Jewish Coalition CEO Matthew Brooks to join debate moderators and ask candidates “what they would say to Jewish students who’ve felt threatened on campus in recent weeks, and to university presidents who have not forcibly condemned Hamas terrorism.”
Predictably, NBC couldn’t be bothered to bring in a Palestinian representative to quiz GOP hopefuls. Nevertheless, the candidates’ responses are worth noting for their warm embrace of campus censorship.
Taking a page from the Trump playbook, South Carolina senator Tim Scott went gangster: “Let me just say to every single university president in America, federal funding is a privilege, not a right, number one. Number two, to every student who’ve come to our country on a visa to a college campus, your visa is a privilege, not a right.”
Florida governor Ron DeSantis was quick to add that he was the first to call for canceling visas for any student who demonstrated in support of Hamas. Meanwhile, “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels”—aka former US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley—put a racial spin on the false equivalence trope: “If the KKK were doing this, every college president would be up in arms.”
It’s a sign of how upside-down things have become when motormouth and apparent front-runner for Trump’s 2024 running mate, Vivek Ramaswamy, sounds like a voice of reason. When he wasn’t dissing his opponents and the Republican establishment, the political novice condemned antisemitism but declined to endorse a clampdown on campus speech.
I don’t envy the decision college students face next November, but I support their right, and applaud their responsibility, to speak out against Israel’s settler colonial assault in Gaza and the West Bank—and for demanding the Biden administration end its complicity in the murderous land grab.
Kevin Howley is a writer and educator whose work has appeared in Journalism: Theory, Practice and Criticism, Social Movement Studies and Interactions: Studies in Communication and Culture. He is the author and editor of several books, including Media Interventions and Drones: Media Discourse and the Public Imagination.
Image obtained through Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons.
Question for the writer about this passage in the editorial:
“Taking a page from the Trump playbook, South Carolina senator Tim Scott went gangster: “Let me just say … to every student who’ve come to our country on a visa to a college campus, your visa is a privilege, not a right.”
Is it true or false that for students who come to this country on visas for college, visas are privileges and not rights?
Driving is a privilege, not a right, meaning the government can deny me a driver’s license if I don’t meet its standards of driving ability, but if the government denies me a driver’s license because of my race, sex, religion, political views, etc., that violates my rights. Similarly, even if getting a visa is a privilege, not a right, revoking a visa may violate basic human rights depending on the reason for the revocation.
Yes.
Unclear what basic human right is in play here, that — the editorialist suggests — a visa revocation would violate.
In the context, the focus seemed to be the idea of canceling visas for students who demonstrate in support of Hamas. It seems relevant that Hamas is a terrorist organization that committed a brutal and unconscionable massacre of Israeli civilians, including children.
Support for Palestinians is not the same as support for Hamas. Hence the “false equivalence” noted throughout.
“Taking a page from the Trump playbook, South Carolina senator Tim Scott went gangster: “Let me just say to every single university president in America, federal funding is a privilege, not a right, number one. Number two, to every student who’ve come to our country on a visa to a college campus, your visa is a privilege, not a right.”
Florida governor Ron DeSantis was quick to add that he was the first to call for canceling visas for any student who demonstrated in support of Hamas.”
Professor Kevin Howley rails against those in the media who are careless in their language, misapply labels, and engage in faulty arguments. In particular, he calls out “false equivalencies.” He notes that the Gazan people are not the same as the Hamas people and he is troubled when those “equivalencies” are made.
On this point, he is mostly correct. Those terms are not interchangeable.
And while there may be many Gazans who sympathize – and do whatever they can to support Hamas – there are many Gazans who do not support Hamas and who are merely hapless victims of Hamas.
Moreover, Hamas should not be confused with the other Palestinians who reside in the West Bank.
So, Professor Howley’s concern about those who use imprecise language, conflate terms, and misapply words has some merit.
Unfortunately, however, it seems that his worry about the incorrect use of language only applies to others. It does not apply to him. He, apparently, is free to use whatever false, misleading, and libelous labels he wants.
He should know, for example, that it is not dissent that is demonized (article title). Dissent is fine. What is demonized is the anti-Semitism that is infused in that dissent. For someone who bemoans the lack of clarity between the terms Hamas and Palestinians, it is troubling that he cannot see the critical distinction between dissent and anti-Semitism.
Indeed, he engages in the very same reckless and sloppy rhetoric that he deplores in others. Among his many unsupported assertions, one is particularly egregious and illustrative. He cavalierly (and ignorantly) accuses Israel of “ethnic cleansing.”
He should know, for example, that the term “ethnic cleaning” has an accepted meaning; and that meaning has no connection whatsoever to Israel’s actions or policies. He should also know that the words “ethnic cleansing” apply perfectly to Hamas; and he should know, too, that those words are a fundamental part of Hamas’ publicly stated raison d’être (see Hamas Charter).
Sadly, Professor Howley condemns others who use inaccurate and inflammatory language to persuade the uninformed; and yet, his post parrots the trendy falsehoods against Israel and, regrettably, the glaring hypocrisy in his screed is apparently lost on him.
I agree we should be careful about the use of terminology and that the term “ethnic cleansing” has an accepted meaning. But the 1948 Nakba, which made what is now Israel a Jewish-majority state, is a classic example of ethnic cleansing. By the 1930s, Zionists had long understood that to create a Jewish-majority nation in Palestine would require the “transfer” of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Over the course of 1948 hundreds of defenseless Palestinian villages were systematically emptied or destroyed by Zionist militias. Over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled in terror; virtually none of them were ever permitted to return. Instead, Palestinian villages were systematically replaced with Jewish settlements or Jewish National Fund forests.
Professor Moshman, thank you for your comment.
If you re-read the 6th paragraph where Professor Howley used the term “ethnic cleansing,” you will see that – in context – he was not referring to 1948. Rather, he was referring to the present day Israel-Hamas conflict.
And as such, he is implying that Israel’s response to Hamas’ sadistic murderous frenzy constitutes “ethnic cleansing.” It was this false characterization of Israel’s defense that deserved criticism.
Nonetheless, with regard to your assertion of “ethnic cleansing” in 1948, your quick summary of Israel’s history is, unfortunately, one-sided and lacks critical details. There were – to be sure – atrocities committed by all parties during those turbulent times. Certainly, history tells us that the birth of any country is rarely without bloodshed.
However, in your claim of “ethnic cleansing,” you noted that “700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled in terror.” You did so without revealing that many in that number were actually forced to leave by Arab armies.
Moreover, you failed to note the fact that a similar number of Jews (800,000) were expelled from their homes in the surrounding Arab countries. Nor did you recognize nor highlight this expulsion of Jews by Arab nations as true “ethnic cleansing.”
Additionally, you failed to note there was never an official Israeli policy or directive to force out the Arab population. Nor did you note that many Arabs were, in fact, encouraged to stay put despite fierce pressure to leave from Arab armies.
And most importantly, you failed to note that those Arabs who chose to stay at that time all became Israeli citizens. That fact alone – along with Israel’s present day 20% Arab citizen population – makes it difficult to reconcile any intentional policy of “ethnic cleansing” with reality.
Thanks, Bob. Yes, there’s plenty more to be said but none of it changes the basic facts of the 1948 ethnic cleansing or its centrality in understanding subsequent events. Focusing on what you identify as the most important point, the goal of the Nakba was to create a Jewish majority. Those Palestinians who left (for whatever reason) were never permitted to return and all of their property was confiscated by the new Jewish state. Those who remained became second-class citizens of a nation that favors persons of Jewish ancestry over all others and favors the Jewish religion over all others. That’s what it means to be a Jewish nation, as distinct from a liberal democracy with equal rights for all.
Professor Moshman, thank you for your follow-up comments
You are correct in that “there’s plenty more to be said.” And, unfortunately, our limited, dialectic can’t begin to unearth the truth of what actually happened in 1948 (i.e., whose hands were dirtier and in what context). Even now, this very topic is still being hotly debated by scholars.
And yet, your brief post contains several authoritative assertions that are not really as black and white as you appear to make them.
While you freely use the Palestinian word “Nakba” to describe 1948, others use the term “Israel War of Independence.” It seems that you ignore the fact that five surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel after Israel accepted the UN Partition and declared its independence. Tellingly, the Arab’s stated goal of that war was the total annihilation of Israel.
Why is this point about the war important? Because it raises serious questions: Would there still be the refugee problem we have today had there been no Arab invasion? And didn’t this war (started by Arabs) cause the Palestinians to be displaced? After the war, the five Arab nations refused to take in any of the thousands of Palestinians that left Israel at their behest. So then, who really owns the problem of the “subsequent events” you reference?
You note that Palestinians who left during the war were never permitted to return to Israel implying that this is a terrible wrong. But is it really? Having just defeated an enemy intent on Israel’s total destruction and having become a new sovereign country, Israel certainly had the right to determine who enters it. Security reasons alone favored exclusion of those who left and sided with the enemy.
You note that the Palestinians “who remained became second-class citizens of a nation that favors Jewish ancestry.” This is a compound assertion that needs unpacking.
First part, yes, Israel is a nation that favors Jewish ancestry. But there is nothing wrong or unusual with this position as you seem to imply. Indeed, about 20% of the world’s countries fall into the favored one-religion category (see for example Muslim countries).
Second part, and no, the Arabs that remained in Israel and became citizens are not, under the law, “second class” citizens as you assert. Indeed, an Arab Muslim serves on Israel’s Supreme Court and other Arabs serve in the Knesset. Still, to your point, Arabs in Israel may suffer some discrimination not unlike discrimination of minorities in the US and other countries.
And finally, you appear displeased that Israel is not a “liberal democracy with equal rights for all.”
Israel may not be that utopian country that you envision, but it does, indeed, have equal rights, under the law, for all its “citizens.” Now, there may be some merit to your point that non-citizens are treated differently… which is true everywhere. But still, in context of where Israel lives, its form of democracy is a shining beacon of freedom. And, as you well know, no other Middle East country offers its inhabitants the rights that Israel offers.
Bottom line: Again, things are not as black and white as you appear to make them.
Dear Bob.
The “forcible transfer” of Gazans in recent weeks constitutes ethnic cleansing, akin to the ’48 Nakba. What’s more, in 2023 this practice is subject to ICC jurisdiction.
As for the demonization of dissent, expressions of solidarity with Palestinians is all too frequently conflated with antisemitic sentiment. That’s the sort of false equivalence that needs to be put in check.
Taking issue with Israeli (war) policy is not antisemitic – in this country it is a form of dissent when people oppose the US govt funding, supporting and providing cover for human rights violations in Gaza and the West Bank.
When *those* expressions of dissent are dismissed as antisemitic, it is designed to demonize such opposition.
Professor Howley, thank you for your follow-up comments.
Your “ipse dixit” statement that the “forcible transfer” of Gazans…constitutes “ethnic cleansing’’ does not comport with the generally accepted meaning of “ethnic cleansing.”
And while there may not be a precise definition of the term, it has always included considerably more evil and moral depravity than what you describe. Indeed, “ethnic cleansing” is often thought of as genocide.
Merely causing Gazans to move from one part of Gaza to another part of Gaza so that military objectives can be met with the least amount of civilian casualties just doesn’t come close to any rational definition of “ethnic cleansing.”
And, of course, it must be noted, also, that once Hamas has been defeated, these same Gazans who went south will be free to go back north…another fact that is clearly inconsistent with the recognized meaning of “ethnic cleansing.”
The real problem here is the casualness with which “ethnic cleansing” and other pernicious labels are so freely and thoughtlessly tossed around. Name calling seems to be the “in” thing now, but it is never a substitute for a valid argument and shouldn’t be given any weight nor used by critical thinkers.
With regard to dissent, of course it is perfectly fine to express solidarity with Palestine. That point is not in dispute. Israel is certainly not flawless and it can be criticized deservedly so on many issues. And, of course, doing so is not ipso facto anti-Semitic.
Unfortunately, however, in expressing support for Palestine (legitimate dissent), many protestors have also expressed support for the eradication of Israel and extermination of Jews (not so legitimate).
So, it is understandable – and upsetting to fair minded people – that support for Palestine has become conflated with anti-Semitism.
If this demonization of dissent is to be addressed, then honest pro-Palestinian protestors must make every effort to disassociate themselves from the radical anti-Semites in their midst. Otherwise, their cause will continue to suffer, their voices will go unheard, and you will be compelled to do more blogging.
Final tidbit: Accusing pro-Palestinians of anti-Semitism in order to demonize dissent falls in the same fallacious reasoning category as accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” in order to demonize its prosecution of the war against Hamas.
The essay relies on context free, propaganda pejoratives such as “settler colonial” and “land grab.” The not so subtle result is an endorsement of Hamas terrorism.