Sunday, August 03, 2025
Elder of Ziyon
The academic journal Educational Philosophy and Theory recently published a "Collective Writing" set of mini-essays entitled, "Gaza - We Need to Talk!"
The practice of collective writing is meant to offer multiple perspectives on a topic. Unlike research papers, it does not require peer review, only editorial acceptance.
In this case, the "multiple perspectives" all agree that it is philosophically moral for educators to focus on Gaza and demonize Israel, even when there are plenty of other conflicts in the world that students would not ever know about.
The reasons given vary, but all the mini-essays have one thing in common: the absolute knowledge that Israel is evil. The essays don't say this directly, but there is not one perspective that considers that this war is just.
Instead of truly showing different opinions, these essays all argue (with varying affective tones) that Israel is perpetrating a genocide, Zionism is a racist colonial regime, and Gaza is a symbol of civilizational collapse.
We get a chorus: Israel as genocidal aggressor, Palestinians as sacred victims, Gaza as the new Auschwitz. And if you think I’m exaggerating, read Zalloua, Yancy, Robins, or Maldonado-Torres—pieces that trade in Holocaust inversion, dehumanization charges, and sweeping declarations of collective guilt. (Plus a trace of "As-A-Jew" to justify Holocaust inversion.) Every structural check on academic inquiry - comparative reasoning, counterposition, standard of evidence - has been abandoned. This isn’t discourse. It’s declaration. It’s epistemic foreclosure, weaponized through academic format.
The result is a seamless moral consensus masquerading as dialogue.
- No essay defends Israel's right to self-defense.
- No one explores Hamas’s ideology or war crimes.
- No one challenges the use of the word "genocide."
- No one considers the pedagogical risks of reducing complex conflicts to moral binaries.
- No one notices the basic fact that Hamas' entire military strategy is to maximize civilian casualties while Israel's is to minimize them
Instead, we get Holocaust inversions, totalizing anti-Zionist frameworks, and the idea that any opposing view is not just wrong - but complicit in violence. The collection creates the illusion of multifaceted discourse, but it is in fact ideologically uniform.
.png)
The language of moral urgency becomes a smokescreen for ideological obsession. And that’s exactly what’s been laundered through this academic journal.
There is one gentle counter-position that doesn’t challenge the overall framing of Israel as aggressor or Gaza as pure victim. He only critiques the form - the lack of inter-author dialogue, missed educational opportunity, and the unsubstantiated Holocaust analogy. But there is nothing to challenge the premise.
And the premise is not just wrong but antisemitic. It doesn't matter how many "scholars" say Israel is guilty of genocide - when all of them admit that they had to change the definition of genocide to shoehorn Israel's actions into that concept, they are not being honest when they use the term and they know it.
Bias is nothing new, but here it is being laundered into how to transmit hate to students. And that is utterly immoral. This issue replaces inquiry with activism, and turns education into ideology transmission.
Propaganda is laundered here through academic legitimacy. Abandon review standards for “open format, ” curate voices from a single ideological spectrum, present variation in tone or emphasis as “diverse perspectives," exclude a major worldview entirely - but don’t say that part out loud.
That’s not educational philosophy. It's hate disguised as educational philosophy. And it is far worse when it is being presented as a sober justification for how to teach students themselves to be biased and unable to think objectively about Israel.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy
