Showing posts with label Judith Butler. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judith Butler. Show all posts

Thursday, September 29, 2022

Last week, member of Congress Rashida Tlaib said  at a Palestine Advocacy Day event, “I want you all to know that among progressives, it becomes clear that you cannot claim to hold progressive values yet back Israel‘s apartheid government.” 

The formulation asserts both the lie that Israel is an apartheid state and that people cannot be both progressive and support Israel. 

One does not see similar litmus tests for progressives. Indeed, the virtually unanimous support that the anti-Israel crowd has for the emphatically Islamist, regressive groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad shows the absurdity of the idea that these supposed progressives support only progressive causes.


This was already evident back in 2006 when gender theorist Judith Butler said, "Yes, understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important." 

If Hamas is part of the global Left, and an Israel where there are equal rights for Arabs and women and gays is cast as part of the bigoted far-Right, then the terms have lost all meaning.

But there is another political theory that is far more powerful than the arbitrary Left/Right divide. 

Jew-hatred explains the obvious contradictions between what "progressives" claim to believe and what they actually believe. 

And it works both ways. Far right Jew haters, who are far more willing to take pride in their bigotry, regularly pretend to be pro-Palestinian - happily quoting the most far-Left personalities. The racist shooters at Overland Park and Pittsburgh  were partly fueled by the antisemitism of the Left. 

The far-Right pretense of caring about Palestinian human rights is as transparently false as the far-Left pretense of caring about women's and gay rights while supporting Hamas. 

Another proof that antisemitism trumps Left/Right politics comes from the new West Bank terror group, called The Lion's Den. As Khaled Abu Toameh reports:
This is the first organized armed group that consists of gunmen belonging to a number of Palestinian factions – including Fatah, Hamas, IJ and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
The PFLP is a Communist group. Islamic Jihad and Hamas are Islamist groups. How can they work together?

Because for antisemites, there is no Right and Left. Those political affiliations are excuses for their hate of Jews, not the reasons for it. Arab antisemites are far less wedded to their supposed Leftist or Islamist Rightist causes than they are to hating Jews - but it is the exact same logic that allows Western "progressives" to be as hypocritical as Western white supremacists who pretend to love Palestinian Arabs. 

The only consistency is Jew-hate. 

Perhaps it is time to resurrect the political parties like the late 19th century Deutschsoziale Antisemitische Partei whose primary ideological basis was antisemitism, so these people on the Right and Left can join together and enjoy consistent political positions. 

The Lion's Den is a model for how today's antisemites can put aside their differences for the greater good of ethnically cleansing Jews from the planet.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Friday, June 03, 2022



Earlier this week, Haaretz published an op-ed by B. Michael which I still cannot tell if it is parody or not. Excerpts:

I’m a proud exilic Jew. I’m an internationalist and a cosmopolitan. I’m also devoid of any relationship to my geographic birthplace, and “land” to me is just the dirt in which food grows and people are buried. It doesn’t have a single milligram of sanctity, and it isn’t worth even a single drop of blood.
...
In our own day, we’ve learned that we owe our survival to being geographically dispersed rather than geographically concentrated. To diversity rather than unity. To communities rather than a state.

We’re really terrible at being a “nation.” We very quickly become as stupid, violent and greedy as most of the other nations of the world, and within a short time we brought destruction and exile on ourselves. Only there, in exile, do we regain the sense we lost and resume being a people that survives.

Apparently, being a majority doesn’t suit us – ruling, running an army and a state. We’re good at being a minority. Even a little persecution suits us. It brings out the best in us.

And now, we’re once again playing at being a “nation.” Ostensibly, that’s our eternal answer to the Holocaust that befell us. But in reality, it’s the continuation of the Holocaust. Not, heaven forbid, the burning of our bodies, only the crushing of our souls.

It’s the growth of another shoot from the Jewish tree that does harm to everyone around it. A rotten, poisonous brother of the Zealots, the Sicarii, Rabbi Akiva’s blind students and Simon bar Kochba’s foolish disciples. They ought to be called Jew-oids. They’re like Jews who took the trivial and wicked parts of Judaism and turned it into the essence.

... Consequently, there’s no choice but to admit that Zionism was a naïve mistake and to go into exile again to regain our strength and refresh our values.
B. Michael is the pen name of Michael Bryzon, a screenwriter and satirist. At first glance this seems like satire, but there is no punchline - and people with no sense of humor like Judith Butler also believe that the Diaspora is where Jews properly belong.

But satire or not, Arab media is reporting heavily about this article without the slightest doubt it is meant seriously. Many Haaretz articles excite Palestinians, but this one is being reproduced all over. 

It reminds me of the interview last month where Ehud Barak expressed his worries about Israel making it successfully past its eighth decade. Arabic articles are still being published about the "curse of the eighth decade." 

There is nothing wrong with self criticism, but the Arab world always misinterprets anyone asserting Israel has made mistakes as an indication of the demise of the Jewish state, rather than an indication of a thriving, open society.

The anti-Israel Arab world, humiliated at their inability to destroy Israel in 1948., pathetically grab onto any Jews who says that Jews will destroy the state themselves. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Tuesday, December 28, 2021




Jewish Voice for Peace sent out a fundraising email from Judith Butler, where she says:

As the largest Jewish organization that has declared itself anti-Zionist, JVP has taken on an indispensable role in public life that is singular, timely, and critical. JVP offers a way for Jews to re-imagine what Jewishness can look like without nationalism and state violence, for Jews and other Palestinian allies to enact true safety and solidarity in our communities, while showing up and speaking out in the hard moments — the moments that really count.

JVP is at the forefront showing what a powerful and meaningful Jewish life can look like now, and helps all of us imagine the future. Help me make sure that future comes to fruition.
What kind of Judaism can JVP offer?

Given that the entire point of the organization is to oppose Israel, that makes its public activities all political. The only vestiges of religion are the ones that they can twist into politics.

JVP is trying to create a "Judaism" beyond just anti-Israel activities. They set up something called the JVP Havurah Network:



We are an emergent network that gathers, supports and resources diasporist, anti-zionist and non-zionist Jews and Jewish spiritual communities. We yearn for a vibrant Jewish life beyond nationalism that condemns and challenges white supremacy within and outside Jewish communities. The JVP Havurah Network supports collaboration and leadership development in service of the movement for Palestinian freedom and all liberatory movements.
Unlike their events, their ritual sheets are not centered exclusively on anti-Israel activities. They try to take whatever they can from Judaism and remove anything that has anything to do with Israel.

Which leaves them with very little.

Their Kabbalat Shabbat worksheet includes parts of the service. But it has to remove the middle paragraph of Sh'ma, which talks about the ties between Jews and the Land of Israel. 

If they would create a prayer book, they would need to excise much of the Amidah and much of the Grace After Meals. Their Passovers must not include where Pharaoh should let the Israelites go. Their Pentateuch would not include much at all, since it is filled with promises from God to give the Land to the children of Israel. Chanukah turns from a holiday of rededicating the Temple in Jerusalem to...Palestinian olive oil. 

They realize that Judaism without Israel isn't Judaism, so they are literally trying to create a new religion that they want to pretend is a legitimate branch of Judaism. The hoops they need to jump through prove what a sham they are.






Tuesday, December 29, 2020


Jewish Voice for Peace sent out a fundraiser yesterday written by Judith Butler, the anti-Israel professor who twists Judaism itself to justify her bizarre opinions (which include that Hamas and Hezbollah are part of  the global Left.)

Butler complains about rumors that Facebook will adopt the excellent IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which is - she says - an assault on free speech. Nothing new there.

She also claims:

Apart from a chilling effect on social media, any definition of antisemitism that includes anti-Zionism would, if accepted, threaten free speech, scholarly inquiry on the Middle East, academic freedom on campuses, and the ability of nonprofits to support projects in and for Palestine, while establishing a dangerous norm for governments across the world.
According to Butler, it is impossible for scholars to discuss the Middle East or nonprofits to raise money for Palestinian causes without violating the IHRA working definition. This is patently absurd. One does not need to claim Israel is racist or that Israeli Jews are Nazi-like to be pro-Palestinian, and her assertion to the contrary proves that anti-Israel rhetoric goes way beyond what is considered acceptable discourse for any other nation on Earth - because the IHRA definition explicitly states that criticism of Israel similar to that of any other nation cannot be considered antisemitic. 

Butler is saying that it is impossible to support Palestinians without holding Israel to a standard that no other nation is held to. That is quite an amazing argument. 

Her next statement is even more absurd:
To dismantle antisemitism, we have to know its history, how best to identify its forms, and how to devise strategies for defeating its every instance. Conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism makes this work impossible...
Over the past month we saw the first anniversaries of the Jersey City massacre and the Monsey Chanukah machete attack that left several Jews dead. Jewish Voice for Peace and its socialist Left allies who pretend to be against antisemitism did not say a word about them.

The reason is simple. The attackers were Black. Which means they weren't white supremacists. And to the "brilliant" Judith Butler, that means that these attacks  targeting Jews weren't antisemitic!

Butler has the chutzpah to say that "we have to know its history" but she and JVP will never discuss Soviet antisemitism, or Arab antisemitism, or Muslim antisemitism, or Black Hebrew antisemitism, or Nation of Islam antisemitism, or last summer's online Black celebrity antisemitism. If it isn't Christian or right wing, it doesn't exist in their minds.

Which means that they are erasing lots of antisemitism from the history books. And they then claim that they "have to know its history!"

The hypocrisy of Judith Butler and JVP is off the charts. 



We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Tuesday, September 24, 2019



For some reason, Jewish Currents chose rabid anti-Israel ideologue Judith Butler to review Bari Weiss' "How to Fight Anti-Semitism," a book that describes in detail why modern anti-Zionism is a new form of antisemitism just as toxic as white supremacism, a thesis with which Butler violently disagrees.

Butler's "gotcha" of Weiss is this:

Intersectionality theory does have much to say about the possibility of being oppressed in one respect and responsible for oppression in another respect—a part of that theory that Weiss does not address. The mechanics of the concept do not seem to elude her; in fact, we might describe her as arguing in an intersectional spirit when she claims, for instance, that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is subject to racist attacks at the same time that, in Weiss’s view, she is guilty of antisemitism. “Two things can be true at once,” Weiss reminds us. Indeed they can. This situation is well-known by many Jews who vigilantly oppose antisemitism and yet also bear responsibility for a continuing and unjust occupation of Palestine.

But that tension remains oblique in this ahistorical text. Weiss regards Israel’s founding as a state based on Jewish political sovereignty as the end of a “clear line” that ran from biblical times through the aftermath of the Holocaust, spanning “two thousand years of history [which] have shown definitively that the Jewish people require a safe haven and an army.” The Holocaust, in other words, necessitated “the fulfillment of a biblical promise” to establish a homeland for the Jews in Palestine. And yet another line of history runs through and past the Naqba, a history that intersects with the story Weiss tells: state Zionism provided sanctuary for Jewish refugees even as it dispossessed more than 700,000 Palestinians from their homes, producing more refugees for whom there is no clear sanctuary. 1948 was a year in which multiple histories intersected. There is no one line of history. If we accept wholesale Weiss’s proposition that Israel exists and is therefore legitimate, then we are excused from asking too many historical questions about why it was established in the way that it was—on what legal terms, and at what price, and through the vanquishing of what alternative possibilities.

But if two things can both be true at once, shouldn’t we be able to think through the paradox of a dispossessed population gaining sanctuary only through the dispossession of another population? Shall we not name this as a founding contradiction, one that remains unsolved, and whose resolution could lead to less violence and more common life—cohabitation on equal grounds?  Unfortunately, that order of complexity does not enter into this book and seems rather rigorously excluded. 
OK, let's deal with the issues that Butler brings up that she says is excluded. (I haven't yet finished reading Weiss' 'book.)

Butler falsely claims that Weiss is referring only to the Holocaust when she says “two thousand years of history have shown definitively that the Jewish people require a safe haven and an army.” This is obviously wrong, since the Holocaust took place over only a tiny slice of the two thousand years of Jews being persecuted that Weiss refers to. Butler chooses to ignore that in implying that the Holocaust is the only reason for Israel to exist, to provide sanctuary for Holocaust victims and no one else, and therefore the Shoah is used as an excuse for dispossessing Palestinian Arabs. It isn't. Zionism came before the Holocaust and its arguments are based on Jews being treated as any other nation.

Butler then moves onto her next false assumption: that considering Israel to be a legitimate state somehow stops people from delving into the details of how it was established, a process that Butler clearly thinks was on the whole immoral. This is also obviously not true. The United States and Australia may have done immoral things to aboriginal peoples when they were founded, but no one questions the legitimacy of those and most other countries the way Israel's legitimacy is questioned daily, including in this very essay. No one says that one cannot question the historical details any state including Israel Yet to Butler, only Israel's very legitimacy is dependent on the moral "price" she claims it paid. Butler even seems to also be saying that Israel's legality is open to question - a Jewish state that the UN itself recommended be established, that the UN accepted as a full member, a Jewish homeland accepted by the League of Nations decades earlier - it is difficult to find a state that has more legitimacy in international law than Israel.

If the only state whose legitimacy is questioned is the only Jewish state, then we also have the right to ask questions: Why it Israel singled out to adhere to standards that no other state has ever reached? Why is the Jewish state the only one that is assumed to be illegitimate? Why are people like Butler obsessed over Israel and only Israel?  The only answer that fully explains the visceral hate for Israel  is indeed antisemitism. Weiss shows how the Soviets used Jews to spearhead antisemitic initiatives - and how those Jews ended up being persecuted themselves, despite their being as "good" as they could be. Butler fits exactly into that mold. It is not surprising she doesn't mention that part of the book.

Butler claims that Zionism necessitated the dispossession of Arabs from the land. This is nonsense; one has to truly cherry pick Zionist quotes from the first half of the 20th century to build that case (which is exactly what anti-Zionists like Butler do.) If one reads actual Zionist literature from the period - just peruse any random issue of the Palestine Post during the 1930s - the idea of ethnically cleansing Arabs not considered. On the contrary, it is assumed that Jews and Arabs would live together in harmony and that the influx of Jews would improve the lives of Arabs. One could argue whether that is true or even if that is a colonial mindset, but one cannot seriously argue that Zionism caused the flight of Arabs from the area. War is what caused the flight, and it was not a war that Zionists started.

Judith Butler has a different vision of a wonderful world where Jew and Arab live together in peace, one that necessitates dismantling the Jewish state and replacing it with a single state where Palestinians can "return" and make the Jews a minority. Instead of relying on Jewish ideas of equal rights for an Arab minority we should rely on the Arab majority to protect the rights for a Jewish minority. This will, she says, resolve the "founding contradiction" of Israel - by destroying the Jewish state.

But this is no longer 1948, and we have over seven decades of evidence of what these competing visions look like. On the one hand, we have an Israel that provides legal equal rights to its Arab minority and that, in fits and starts, has been trying to live up to that vision in all spheres. On the other hand, we have abundant evidence of how Arab nations treated their Jews both before and during Israel's establishment.

Egypt created nationality laws in the 1920s that defined as someone who was an Arab or Muslim, pointedly excluding Jews. Libya stripped Jews of the right to vote in 1951. In Iraq, Jewish history and Hebrew language instruction were prohibited in Jewish schools during the 1920s and Jews were expelled from public service and education in the 1930s. In Yemen, Jews were excluded from public service positions and the army during the 1920s. Jews could no longer purchase property in Syria in 1947. In 1948, Iraq prohibited Jews from leaving the country, and Yemen followed in 1949. In 1951, Libyan Jews were no longer allowed to have passports or Libyan nationality certificates.

These Arab laws were aimed at all Jews, citizens of their countries, not "Zionists." And today, Jews who venture into Arab areas controlled fully by the Palestinian Authority put their lives at risk. Israel was and remains the only country in the Middle East where Jews can live without fear. Pretending that a binational state would protect the Jews is to ignore a century of evidence that proves otherwise - Jews ostensibly had equal rights in Egypt and Libya and Algeria and Lebanon, and they were forced out. By any rational yardstick, Arabs are more protected under Jewish rule than Jews ever have been under Arab rule.

Considering Butler's kumbaya solution and comparing it with the reality of Israel today is indeed what gives Israel its moral legitimacy. The Holocaust was unique, but Jewish persecution is not. Israel is the refuge for Jews from Arab lands untouched by the Holocaust as well as from the Soviet Union, Ethiopia and other places they were persecuted or tolerated as not-quite full citizens. Weiss reminds us of the statement of the prime minister of France in 1980, Raymond Barre, after a synagogue bombing that killed two Jews and two non-Jews: ”They aimed at the Jews and they hit innocent Frenchmen.” With few exceptions, Jews have never been considered full citizens of the countries they lived in, and today's white nationalists as well as leftists who want to exclude Jews from student government on campus show that this thinking exists even in the US today.

No one is silencing anyone. All questions about Israel should be asked and forthrightly answered. But Butler isn't just asking questions - she is attacking the very idea of Jews as a people having the same rights as any other people to self-determination. She is disingenuous when she characterizes her criticisms as merely asking questions, since she is not interested in the answers, which an honest academic would welcome. She is singling out Israel for vitriol that is way out of proportion to its supposed crimes, to the point that it is the only state in the world that is assumed to be illegitimate. That isn't debate - that is hate. And it is hate that is identical to the hate that Jews have been subjected to throughout history, that also was justified as merely asking questions.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Monday, August 28, 2017

The virulently anti-Israel "Jewish Voice for Peace" has released a book that is ostensibly about antisemitism. But it doesn' ttake much to realize that the book is really about justifying the merciless criticism of the Jewish state, and only Israel, beyond any context and beyond criticism of any other country, as legitimate.

The foreword is by Judith Butler, the fundamentally dishonest academic who twists Judaism itself to find a philosophical framework for her hatred of Israel. She is also the person who absurdly called Hamas and Hezbollah "progressive."

Her foreword shows more of her duplicity in trying to reframe the question of what antisemitism is into the charge of how Zionists supposedly use the charge of antisemitism to silence criticism:


Given the contemporary framework in which the matter of antisemitism is discussed, the conflict about how to identify its forms (given that some forms are fugitive) is clearly heightened. The claim that criticisms of the State of Israel are antisemitic is the most highly contested of contemporary views. It is complex and dubious for many reasons. First: what is meant by it? Is it that the person who utters criticisms of Israel nurses antisemitic feelings and, if Jewish, then self-hating ones? That interpretation depends on a psychological insight into the inner workings of the person who expresses such criticisms.But who has access to that psychological interiority? It is an attributed motive, but there is no way to demonstrate whether that speculation is a grounded one. If the antisemitism is understood to be a consequence of the expressed criticism of the State of Israel, then we would have to be able to show in
concrete terms that the criticism of the State of Israel results in discrimination against Jews.
Already Butler is purposefully distancing herself from any definition of antisemitism that includes being against Israel. And one part of that definition is quite easy: opposition to the Jewish people's right to self determination. The more expansive definition is Natan Sharansky's 3D test: if the criticism is based on demonization, delegitimization and double standards it is antisemitic.

Naturally, Butler wants to obfuscate the issue rather than deal with it, because, well, she agrees with all three and she doesn't want to be called an antisemite.

Instead, she floats the straw man that some nefarious people are claiming that any criticism of Israel is antisemitism.
If modern democratic states have to bear criticism, even criticisms about the process by which a state gained legitimation, then it would be odd to claim that those who exercise those democratic rights of critical expression are governed only or predominantly by hatred and prejudice. We could just as easily imagine that someone who criticizes the Israeli state, even the conditions of its founding-coincident with the Nakba, the expulsion of 800,000 Palestinians
from their homes
-has a passion for justice or wishes to see a polity that embraces equality and freedom for all the people living there. In the case of Jewish Voice for Peace, Jews and their allies come together to demonstrate that Jews must reclaim a politics of social justice, a tradition that is considered to be imperiled by the Israeli state.
Here she uses the myth, and then she actually promulgates another myth. 800,000 Arabs were not expelled from their homes in 1948. Not even close. But Butler isn't interested in facts; she is interested in using big words to pretend that she is not avoiding the real issue of left-wing antisemitism such as is practiced by JVP.

Her zeal to divide antisemitism from anti-Zionism would be comical if only she was being honest. She admits that saying that Jews control the media and the banks is antisemitic; what about those who claim the "Zionists" do the same thing?  What about those who claim the Zionists control the US and other governments? I bet most of the authors in this collection believe that fervently.

Finally Butler gets to the crux of her misdirection:
So to answer the question, why is antisemitism attributed to those who express criticisms of the Israeli state?, we have to change the terms of the question itself. We have been asking, under what conditions can we decide whether or not the charge of antisemitism is warranted? What if we ask: What does the charge of antisemitism do? ...
When the charge of antisemitism is used to censor or quell open debate and the public exchange of critical views on the State of Israel, then it is not exactly communicating a truth, but seeking to rule out certain perspectives from being heard. 
Butler's straw man is complete. No one is saying that all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but her thesis that this is what is happening allows her to create an entirely new spurious charge: that critics of Israel are being silenced by false accusations of antisemitism.

Therefore, this preface to this volume supposedly about antisemitism is really showing that the book is about justifying modern antisemitism.

Indeed, the first essay by Antony Lerman starts off with his rejection of any definition of antisemitism that includes demonization, delegitimization and double standards concerning Israel:

For activists battling daily against the abuse of antisemitism to stifle free speech on Israel/Palestine, on university campuses and in Jewish religious and communal bodies of all kinds, it may seem something of a luxury to dwell on the reasons why contemporary understanding of antisemitism has become so politicized, bitterly contested, and controversial. 
 A look at the authors of essays in the volume show that every one is not just a critic of Israel but they question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish homeland:

Preface by Judith Butler

Introduction by Rebecca Vilkomerson

Part I: Histories and Theories of Antisemitism
Antisemitism Redefined: Israel’s Imagined National Narrative of Endless External Threat by Antony Lerman
Palestinian Activism and Christian Antisemitism in the Church  by Walt Davis
Black and Palestinian Lives Matter: Black and Jewish America in the Twenty-First Century by Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Intersections of Antisemitism, Racism, and Nationalism: A Sephardi/Mizrahi Perspective by  Ilise Benshushan Cohen
On Antisemitism and Its Uses by Shaul Magid
Antisemitism, Palestine, and the Mizrahi Question by Tallie Ben Daniel

Part II: Confronting Antisemitism and Islamophobia
Trump, the Alt-right, Antisemitism, and Zionism  by Arthur Goldwag
“Our Liberation Is Intertwined”: An Interview with Linda Sarsour
Centering Our Work on Challenging Islamophobia by Donna Nevel
Who Am I to Speak? by Aurora Levins Morales
Captured Narratives by Rev. Graylan Hagler
“We’re Here Because You Were There”: Refugee Rights Advocacy and Antisemitism by Rachel Ida Buff
European Antisemitism: Is It “Happening Again”? by Rabbi Brant Rosen

Part III: Fighting False Charges of Antisemitism
Two Degrees of Separation: Israel, Its Palestinian Victims, and the Fraudulent Use of Antisemitism by Omar Barghouti
A Double-Edged Sword: Palestine Activism and Antisemitism on College Campuses by Kelsey Waxman
This Campus Will Divest! The Specter of Antisemitism and the Stifling of Dissent on College Campuses by Ben Lorber
Antisemitism on the American College Campus in the Age of Corporate Education, Identity Politics, and Power-Blindness by Orian Zakai
Chilling and Censoring of Palestine Advocacy in the United States by Dima Khalidi

Conclusion
Let the Semites End the World! On Decolonial Resistance, Solidarity, and Pluriversal Struggle by Alexander Abbasi
Building toward the Next World by Rabbi Alissa Wise
Omar Barghouti? Linda Sarsour? Dima Khalidi? These are the experts on antisemitism that contribute to this volume?

As far as I can tell, only one writer here does not support boycotting Israel, and that is Shaul Magid. Everyone else seems to support it, meaning that they are guilty of double standards towards Israel (no one boycotts other countries nowadays.) So the entire book is an apologia on how singling out the Jewish state for punishment for crimes that, at worst, are committed by every other nation in active conflicts is not really antisemitic.

Moreover, the nature of the arguments visible from the preview available of the book indicates that the authors not only deny that any leftist criticism of Israel can possibly be antisemitic, but also that any Arab criticism of Israel can be antisemitic. A glance through this blog, Palestinian Media Watch and MEMRI shows hundreds of examples of explicit Arab antisemitism, so when Arabs cloak their criticism of Israel in human rights or international law terms, they are obviously masking their true motives. How many "progressive" critics of Israel share those same antisemitic motives? I can't say, but to ignore the issue altogether is not scholarship.

It is propaganda.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Monday, May 22, 2017



Skeptic has a hilarious article about a new hoax paper successfully published in a peer-reviewed journal. The article is named “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.

Our paper “argues” that “The penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a gender-performative, highly fluid social construct.”

Assuming the pen names “Jamie Lindsay” and “Peter Boyle,” and writing for the fictitious “Southeast Independent Social Research Group,” we wrote an absurd paper loosely composed in the style of post-structuralist discursive gender theory. The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions. We made no attempt to find out what “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” actually means. We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal.

We didn’t try to make the paper coherent; instead, we stuffed it full of jargon (like “discursive” and “isomorphism”), nonsense (like arguing that hypermasculine men are both inside and outside of certain discourses at the same time), red-flag phrases (like “pre-post-patriarchal society”), lewd references to slang terms for the penis, insulting phrasing regarding men (including referring to some men who choose not to have children as being “unable to coerce a mate”), and allusions to rape (we stated that “manspreading,” a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide, is “akin to raping the empty space around him”). After completing the paper, we read it carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither one of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.
They point out that they chose to lampoon "gender studies" because "we suspected that gender studies is crippled academically by an overriding almost-religious belief that maleness is the root of all evil. On the evidence, our suspicion was justified."

I have noted in the past that the academics who support Israel and oppose boycotting the Jewish state tend to be concentrated in fields where truth matters: law, physics, medicine, engineering.

On the other hand, anti-Israel pseudo-academics are heavily involved in social sciences, gender studies. art history and other fields where the truth is what you pretend it is.

An extreme example was when the National Women's Studies Association supported BDS, with the same sort of nonsensical verbiage that "The Conceptual Penis" lampooned:

As feminist scholars, activists, teachers, and public intellectuals we recognize the interconnectedness of systemic forms of oppression. In the spirit of this intersectional perspective, we cannot overlook the injustice and violence, including sexual and gender-based violence, perpetrated against Palestinians and other Arabs in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, within Israel and in the Golan Heights, as well as the colonial displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians during the 1948 Nakba. 
Who needs facts when you can have assertions and back them up with specious, overreached concepts like "intersectionaliuty"?

Judith Butler, the Goddez* of gender studies (*I just made up that word between god and goddess so as not to appear to be sexist by ascribing a gender to her godlike status) who is in the forefront of anti-Israel academics, writes things that are nearly as incomprehensible.  In this paragraph from "Undoing Gender", Butler seems to embrace her unintelligible writing as a wonderful thing.


Maybe there is a universe where this nonsense is regarded as insight.

However, when I analyzed Butler's analysis of something I know a little about - her attempt to justify her hatred of Israel in Jewish sources - I showed that the emperez* (ditto) has no clothes, lacking even basic knowledge of history and Judaism (she claimed that ancient Egyptians are Arab, for example.)

The people who hate Israel build an edifice of lies and add scaffolding onto the edifice - and then claim that the scaffolding proves their theory since it doesn't collapse in their self-defined and quite fictional universe.

In short, the morons who fell for "The Conceptual Penis" are the type of morons who pretend Islam is progressive and the type of morons who tend to hate the most progressive state in the Middle East - in the name of progressivism.




We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Thursday, April 14, 2016

The "Jewish Voice for Peace" group seems very upset that McGraw-Hill removed a textbook from circulation after I showed that it included a false piece of anti-Israel propaganda.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 12, 2016

Dozens of Prominent Academics Urge McGraw-Hill Education to Reverse Decision to Censor Palestinian Loss of Land Maps

Last month, publishing giant McGraw-Hill Education withdrew and destroyed copies of a US college level textbook because of complaints from supporters of Israel over a series of maps showing loss of Palestinian land from 1946, shortly before Israel was established, to 2000.

In response to this shocking and outrageous act of censorship of the Palestinian narrative from US schoolbooks, dozens of respected Palestinian, Israeli, and American academics have signed onto the enclosed open letter calling on McGraw-Hill Education to reverse its decision. Signatories include Rashid Khalidi, Noura Erakat, Noam Chomsky, Judith Butler, Sarah Schulman, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappé, and Angela Davis.

Here is the letter they signed. Keep in mind that these people are considered "academics."

Academics Urge McGraw-Hill Education to Reverse Decision to Destroy Textbook

We, the undersigned, urge McGraw-Hill Education to reverse its recent decision to withdraw and destroy the US college level textbook, “Global Politics: Engaging a Complex World”, which was made following complaints about a series of maps showing loss of Palestinian land from 1946 to 2000.

This blatant act of censorship, in response to complaints from those who seek to suppress a free exchange of knowledge and ideas about Israel and Palestine, is shocking and unacceptable.

The maps in question are historically accurate and vividly illustrate Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinian people and appropriation of their land, which is why the Israeli government and its supporters wish to suppress them. If there were in fact any minor errors with the maps they should have been corrected rather than removed altogether. Last year, in a similar act of censorship, the cable news network MSNBC apologized for airing a similar series of maps and retracted them.

It is imperative that students be able to visualize history, including through the use of maps, in order to learn how to analyze and understand it. Further, it is essential that faculty and students have access to educational materials that speak to the dispossession Palestinians have experienced, and continue to experience today. We cannot have a truly comprehensive understanding of Palestine or Israel without this information.

We urge McGraw-Hill Education to reverse its decision and reinstate the maps and textbooks in question.
First these academics say that the maps are historically accurate, but they they admit that the maps may have "minor errors" that "should have been corrected." Which is it?

It is neither. The maps are lies from beginning to end, both individually as well as in the way they are presented as a series. But you wont find any of these "academics" actually answering the proofs that they are propaganda. If they were true academics, who wouldn't lower themselves to answer my proofs, they should answer the objections of Yaacov Lozowick, who really is a historian unlike virtually all of the signatories.

If you need more proof that these "academics" are academic frauds, think about this: I am willing to bet that not one of them has actually seen a copy of this textbook. They are defending this propaganda map without knowing if it even fits in with what the text is saying! They argue that "it is essential that faculty and students have access to educational materials that speak to the dispossession Palestinians have experienced" but without reading the book, how can they know that this is appropriate in this case?

Here are the facts, since I've seen the full context and they haven't. The section of the book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is less than two pages. The text  mentions the separation fence and refers to the series of maps as showing where the fence is - but the maps don't show that.

I don't know whether it is the authors or copy-editors of the book who are to blame, but the reference the book gives for the Map that Lies is an obscure article, written in Arabic, that was published in a now defunct website. It was not published as an academic paper anywhere as far as I can tell.

Furthermore, the map was not created by the author of that paper; it was grabbed from some propaganda site and thrown in by the webmaster just to add an illustration. The paper was about possible security-specific solutions between Israel and a Palestinian state and had nothing to do with supposed land loss.

In short, there is no academic source for this series of maps. It was placed in the textbook even though it had nothing to do with the text, referencing a paper that had no relationship with the map to give it academic cover. There was some effort involved on the part of someone to include this piece of propaganda and to hide its origins from anti-Israel hate groups.

The academics who signed this don't give a damn about truth. They are saying that anti-Israel lies must be inserted in every possible medium and venue. In this sense they are echoing what professor Amy Kaplan said at a BDS conference on how to try to incorporate anti-Israel propaganda in courses that have little to do with the topic.

McGraw Hill did the right thing because the maps are filled with lies, the source for the maps was falsified (or laundered, if you prefer,) , and the graphics had nothing to do with the actual text. The Isrsel-haters know that the maps are a great propaganda tool and they cannot stand the fact that its lies have been exposed so publicly, both in this case and by MSNBC last year.

There are 37 signatories of this absurd letter. Being a signatory of this letter defending the indefensible is a very good indicator that these "academics" are simply frauds who are willing to sacrifice the truth in their hatred for Israel.

So here is the list of these academic frauds, courtesy of JVP.  I include links where I previously showed them to be liars and deceptive (or quoted others who did.) Note also that there is at least one prominent J-Street member, Rebecca Alpert.


  • Nadia Abu-El-Haj, Professor at Barnard College and Columbia University
  • Rebecca Alpert, Professor of Religion, Temple University
  • Sofya Aptekar, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Boston
  • Sa’ed Atshan, Visiting Assistant Professor of Peace and Conflict Studies, Swarthmore College
  • Elsa Auerbach, Professor Emerita, University of Massachusetts Boston
  • Daniel Boyarin, Hermann P. and Sophia Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture, Departments of Near Eastern Studies and Rhetoric, University of California at Berkeley
  • George Bisharat, Emeritus Professor of Law, UC Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco
  • Judith Butler, Maxine Elliot Professor in the Department of Comparative Literature and the Program of Critical Theory at the University of California, Berkeley
  • Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Omar Dajani, Professor of Law at the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law
  • Angela Davis, Author and activist
  • Estelle Disch, Ph.D., Professor Emerita of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Boston
  • Lisa Duggan, Professor of Social & Cultural Analysis, New York University
  • Nada Elia, Program Manager, Global Cultures Program, Northwest Language Academy
  • Noura Erakat, Assistant Professor at George Mason University
  • Andrés Fabián Henao Castro, Political Science Department, University of Massachusetts Boston
  • Margaret Ferguson, Distinguished Professor of English at the University of California, Davis
  • Katherine Franke, Sulzbacher Professor of Law, Director of the Open University Project, and member of the steering committee of the Center for Palestine Studies at Columbia University
  • Marilyn Frankenstein, Professor of Media and Society, University of Massachusetts Boston
  • Randa Jarrar, President of Radius of Arab American Writers
  • Rashid Khalidi, Edward Said Professor of Modern Arab Studies, Columbia University
  • Martha London, University of Massachusetts Boston
  • David Lloyd, Distinguished Professor of English, University of California, Riverside
  • Saree Makdisi, Professor of English and Comparative Literature, UCLA
  • Ussama S. Makdisi, Professor of History and Arab-American Educational Foundation Chair of Arab Studies, Rice University
  • Bill V. Mullen, Professor of American Studies, Purdue University
  • Nadine Naber, Associate Professor, Gender & Women’s Studies and Asian American Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago
  • David Palumbo-Liu, Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor, and Professor of Comparative Literature, Stanford University
  • Ilan Pappé, Professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter, director of the university’s European Centre for Palestine Studies, and co-director of the Exeter Centre for Ethno-Political Studies
  • Rachel Rubin, University of Massachusetts Boston
  • Sarah Schulman, Distinguished Professor of the Humanities, City University of New York, College of Staten Island
  • Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations, St. Antony’s College, Oxford
  • C. Heike Schotten, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Boston
  • Jack Shaheen, Distinguished Visiting Scholar at New York University’s Asian/Pacific/American Institute and The Hagop Kevorkian Center for Near Eastern Studies
  • Simona Sharoni, Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh
  • Barry Trachtenberg, Director, Judaic Studies Program, University at Albany – SUNY
  • Judith E. Tucker, Professor of History, Georgetown University
This is a very useful list - a list of so-called academics who act in opposition of what academia is supposed to stand for. Anyone who attends any of their schools - or pays tuition for someone who does - should really ask their deans whether they are proud to have educators who explicitly favor hate and lies over the truth.

(h/t Alyssa)


We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Thursday, October 04, 2012

The latest stunt to try to blame all of Palestinian Arab woes on Israel, called the "Freedom Bus," flew completely under the radar.

From Bikya Masr:
On Monday, the Freedom Bus marked the final stop of its tour across the Israeli-occupied West Bank by hosting a concert in Bet Sahour.

Over a hundred people came to Bet Sahour’s old city to watch Palestinian performers such as the rap group DAM, Haifa-based reggae band Ministry of Dub-key, and Toot Ard, a Syrian band from the occupied Golan Heights.
It sounds like there were more people in the bands and their crews than there were in the audience.
Outside of this article, there seems to have been no media attention given to yet another stunt designed to ensure that Palestinian Arabs do nothing to better their situation and put all of theior efforts into blame, blame and more blame. The "Freedom Bus" website even calls its purpose to wage a "cultural intifada." (And it has a quote from Judith Butler supporting the infantilization of the cause.)

972mag, abandoning what little pretense it had of being a news site, simply copied a press release from the Freedom Bus' spokesperson instead of bothering to actually report on what appeared to be a major fail. The "pro-Palestinian" crowd simply hasn't figured out that the world is sick of their whining and refusal to take even a scintilla of responsibility for their lives.

But let one of the featured bands talk about their view of how the Middle East should look:
Palestine Street, a local rap group from the nearby Dheisheh refugee camp in Bethlehem, brought the crowd to their feet during their performance, dedicating their closing song to Palestinian refugees living in exile. “Palestine will be free, from the Jordan River to the sea,” they shouted at the end of their set, arousing immense applause from the crowd.
As long as they choose to deny the reality of Israel, there will be Freedom Bus-like gimmicks for another 65 years, and beyond.

Continued Palestinian Arab fantasies, fed by stunts like this, are the biggest impediment to peace. Which means that this "intifada" will ultimately be as counterproductive for the daily lives of average Arabs in the territories as the last two were.

Saturday, September 01, 2012

Judith Butler, who has been in the news recently because of the controversy over her receiving the Adorno Prize, has also just released a book called "Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism." The blurb describes it in dense Butlerian prose:
Judith Butler follows Edward Said's late suggestion that through a consideration of Palestinian dispossession in relation to Jewish diasporic traditions a new ethos can be forged for a one-state solution. Butler engages Jewish philosophical positions to articulate a critique of political Zionism and its practices of illegitimate state violence, nationalism, and state-sponsored racism. At the same time, she moves beyond communitarian frameworks, including Jewish ones, that fail to arrive at a radical democratic notion of political cohabitation. Butler engages thinkers such as Edward Said, Emmanuel Levinas, Hannah Arendt, Primo Levi, Martin Buber, Walter Benjamin, and Mahmoud Darwish as she articulates a new political ethic. In her view, it is as important to dispute Israel's claim to represent the Jewish people as it is to show that a narrowly Jewish framework cannot suffice as a basis for an ultimate critique of Zionism. ...

Butler considers the rights of the dispossessed, the necessity of plural cohabitation, and the dangers of arbitrary state violence, showing how they can be extended to a critique of Zionism, even when that is not their explicit aim. She revisits and affirms Edward Said's late proposals for a one-state solution within the ethos of binationalism. Butler's startling suggestion: Jewish ethics not only demand a critique of Zionism, but must transcend its exclusive Jewishness in order to realize the ethical and political ideals of living together in radical democracy.
In her book she seems to be trying to use "Jewish ethics" to prove that Zionism is illegitimate. The blurb indicates that she falls short in her quest, so she must recruit Arab thinkers like Said and Darwish to round out her philosophical basis.

And yet she is telling the media that her critiques of Zionism are based on Jewish tradition. As she wrote in her response to the Adorno critics:
In my view, there are strong Jewish traditions, even early Zionist traditions, that value co-habitation and that offer ways to oppose violence of all kinds, including state violence. It is most important that these traditions be valued and animated for our time – they represent diasporic values, struggles for social justice, and the exceedingly important Jewish value of “repairing the world” (Tikkun).

...[I seek] to affirm what is most valuable in Judaism for thinking about contemporary ethics, including the ethical relation to those who are dispossessed of land and rights of self-determination, to those who seek to keep the memory of their oppression alive, to those who seek to live a life that will be, and must be, worthy of being grieved. I contend that these values all derive from important Jewish sources, which is not to say that they are only derived from those sources. But for me, given the history from which I emerge, it is most important as a Jew to speak out against injustice and to struggle against all forms of racism. This does not make me into a self-hating Jew. It makes me into someone who wishes to affirm a Judaism that is not identified with state violence, and that is identified with a broad-based struggle for social justice.
She is saying that her adamant rejection of Israel is solidly based on Jewish sources and the Jewish ethical tradition.

This is an absurd theory.

What Butler is really doing is trying to find a Jewish philosophical framework on which to hang her own hate. And she will twist facts, history, Jewish law, and anything else that gets in the way of her ultimately untenable beliefs.

The first indication that Butler is Jewishly ignorant comes from the quote above, where she talks about "the exceedingly important Jewish value of 'repairing the world' (Tikkun)." The modern concept of "Tikkun Olam" is a purely liberal invention; the words come from Jewish tradition but not how Butler understands it. The phrase is not mentioned once in the Tanach. Its Talmudic formulation has nothing to do with social justice. Perhaps its best definition comes from its most popular usage, in the thrice-daily Aleinu prayer, where it says:
We put our hope in You, the Lord our God, that we may see Your mighty splendor, to remove detestable idolatry from the earth, and false gods will be utterly cut off, to perfect the world through the Almighty's sovereignty; then all humanity will call upon Your name...
Is removing idolatry and seeking a world that accepts the God of Israel something Butler seeks? Of course not. Her concept of "Jewish values" has nothing to do with Judaism and everything to do with shoe-horning today's progressive politics into a Jewish-sounding mold.

Butler's concept of Judaism is not only naive. It is knowingly deceptive.

The first chapter of Butler's book opens with a bizarre theory about Moses that is emblematic of her dishonesty about Judaism:
It came as a surprise to me, and also a gift, to read one of Edward Said’s last books, Freud and the Non-European, not only because of the lively reengagement with the figure of Moses it contains, but because Moses becomes for him an opportunity to articulate two theses that are, in my view, worth considering. The first is that Moses, an Egyptian, is the founder of the Jewish people, which means that Judaism is not possible without this defining implication in what is Arab.’ Such a formulation challenges hegemonic Ashkenazi definitions of Jewishness. But it also implies a more diasporic origin for Judaism, which suggests that a fundamental status is accorded the condition by which theJew can not be defined without a relation to the non-Jew. It is not only that, in diaspora, Jews must and do live with non—Jews,and must reflect on how precisely to conduct a life in the midst of religious and cultural heterogeneity, but also that the Jew can never be fully separated from the question of how to live among those who are not Jewish. The figure of Moses, however, makes an even more emphatic point, namely, that, for some, Jew and Arab are not finally separable categories, since they are lived and embodied together in the life of the Arab Jew....One key foundational moment for Judaism, the one in which the law is delivered to the people, centers upon a figure for whom there is no lived distinction between Arab and Jew.
The first problem is that Butler (and, apparently, Said) don't even seem to be aware that ancient Egyptians were not Arab.

Beyond that, outside of Cecil B. DeMille, what evidence is there that in Jewish tradition Moses accepts himself as an Egyptian at all?

The answer is, of course, none.

Butler might regard actually looking at Biblical sources to be beneath her in her quest to find reasons for her hate, but I'm not quite so conceited. Here is the description of Moses' upbringing in Pharaoh's palace in Exodus:
And the daughter of Pharaoh ... saw the ark among the flags, and sent her handmaid to fetch it. And she opened it, and saw it, even the child; and behold a boy that wept. And she had compassion on him, and said: 'This is one of the Hebrews' children.' Then said his sister to Pharaoh's daughter: 'Shall I go and call thee a nurse of the Hebrew women, that she may nurse the child for thee?' And Pharaoh's daughter said to her: 'Go.' And the maiden went and called the child's mother. And Pharaoh's daughter said unto her: 'Take this child away, and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages.' And the woman took the child, and nursed it. And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses, and said: 'Because I drew him out of the water.' And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown up, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens; and he saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew, one of his brethren. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he smote the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. ... Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian...
According to the Biblical story, Moses never once identified as an Egyptian. He nursed as a Jew and he identified as a Jew when he grew up. (Notably, his step-grandfather Pharaoh also didn't identify him as one of the family, seeking to kill him for murdering a regular Egyptian, rather than covering it up as he would have for his own relative!)

It is telling that Butler uses an Arab to interpret the story in a way that she can twist to fit her pre-existing bias. For Butler, the ideal Jew lives in the Diaspora, without a home; this is what she calls "diasporic values." Yet even the straight Biblical text contradicts her thesis; Moses was always a Jew who was forced to live outside his Land, the one unfulfilled wish of his life. Moses, as a Jew during the first Disapora, sought exactly what real Jews have sought in successive disaporas - to return to Israel, the land of their forefathers.

This is not only a theme of Moses' life, but also of other Biblical figures - there are lengthy narratives of Jacob and Joseph's lives outside Israel and how they tried to maintain their ties to the land, even to the point of making their descendants promise to bury them in Israel.

You would know none of this from reading Butler. She can't be bothered to base her ideals of Judaism in something as prosaic as the Bible, preferring instead Said and Hannah Arendt, (Similarly, Butler cannot be bothered to base her definition of gender on something as distasteful as biology.)

Butler is so conceited (her writing style is meant to show off her supposed brilliance at the expense of clarity) that she cannot be bothered with reality, preferring to reside in the ivory tower of her mind. She as much as admits this in her book:
It may be that binationalism is an impossibility, but that mere fact does not suffice as a reason to be against it.
There is one simple reason why binationalism is an impossibility - it is because the Jews would be slaughtered. But that isn't enough of a reason to be against it! 

Don't call her anti-semitic, though. The Jews would only be slaughtered in reality, which is a world Butler seems to find distasteful. In her mind, they would live together with Arabs in wonderful harmony. It's worth the risk, when you are Judith Butler.

Finally, it is notable that Butler's entire book about how Jewish ethics cannot abide war does not mention the actual Biblical conquerors of the Land of Israel once. I imagine that Butler would argue that King David, composer of the Psalms, does not adhere to Jewish values.

If one wants to argue a point on the basis of Jewish ethics or history or religion, then one must at least make an attempt to explain the many counterexamples that prove the opposite. Butler, however, relies on New-Agey concepts far removed from Judaism like "tikkun olam" instead of tackling real Jewish concepts, ethics and history. Again, reality is not her friend.

If the goal of a philosopher is to reveal the truth, then Butler is more like an anti-philosopher - someone who obscures the truth in order to force reality into her bizarre mindset, much of which is filled with irrational hate towards the only Jewish-majority state.

This is why she does not deserve awards or accolades, but rather derision.

Monday, August 27, 2012

From JPost:
The city of Frankfurt is slated to present the prestigious Theodor Adorno Prize, which comes with a 50,000 euro award, to a US professor who advocates a sweeping boycott of ties with Israel’s cultural and academic establishment and has defended Hezbollah and Hamas as progressive organizations.
The prize recipient, Dr. Judith Butler, a professor in the rhetoric and comparative literature departments at the University of California, Berkeley, has courted intense criticism in Germany, Israel and the US ahead of the September 11 ceremony.

Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, a Frankfurt-based Middle East expert, told The Jerusalem Post on Saturday that by presenting the Adorno Prize to Butler, the city of Frankfurt is legitimizing a “de facto boycott of its partner city Tel Aviv’s academic and cultural institutions,” because Butler supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign targeting the Jewish state.

Von der Osten-Sacken sparked the effort to rescind the award to Butler in a widely read early June article on the website of the Berlin weekly Jungle World titled “Adorno prize for Hamas fan.”
Judith Butler defended herself in Mondoweiss and denied describing Hezbollah and Hamas as progressive:
My remarks on Hamas and Hezbollah have been taken out of context and badly distort my established and continuing views.... I was asked by a member of an academic audience a few years ago whether I thought Hamas and Hezbollah belonged to “the global left" and I replied with two points. My first point was merely descriptive: those political organizations define themselves as anti-imperialist, and anti-imperialism is one characteristic of the global left, so on that basis one could describe them as part of the global left.
Really? Let's look at the video:


Butler says:

 I think, yes, understanding Hamas/Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive that are on the left; that are part of a global Left is extremely important....Again, a critical and important engagement, I mean I certainly think it should be entered into the conversation on the Left."

While she goes on to say in Mondoweiss that she is personally against violence (in the video she is slightly more equivocal, only saying that some on the left might oppose violence or encourage other non-violent options), the fact remains that she adamantly described Hamas and Hezbollah as being on the left - and insistied that describing them as such is "extremely important."

She is clearly lying in the Mondoweiss article. She was giving her own opinion as to where in the political spectrum Hamas and Hezbollah fall, not explaining how they describe themselves.

But besides the lie, her stated opinion in the video is nothing short of amazing. A celebrated academic who is unabashedly left-wing goes out of her way to describe Islamist groups - groups that are anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-human rights and really totally opposed to everything that progressives say they hold dear - as part of the fabric of the Left, her Left, the political philosophy that she is proudly part of.

And there is only one possible reason why she can describe these regressive Islamist groups as part of her Left: because they are anti-Israel. 

Butler's views are so twisted that she believes that hating Israel is really the only criterion one needs to be considered progressive! 

Giving such a person a major academic award is indeed outrageous.

Friday, March 30, 2012

From Times of Israel:

An academic conference planned for next year in New York will use Israel’s largely positive record on gay rights to denounce its treatment of Palestinians.

City University of New York last week announced Homonationalism and Pinkwashing, a gathering that will provide “an opportunity to examine Queer Resistance and Complicity globally” — but with a special emphasis on Israel. Hosted by CUNY’s Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies, the conference will take Israel to task for “pinkwashing,” a term that accuses the country of promoting its progressive treatment of sexual minorities as a way of diverting attention from its conflict with the Palestinians. “Faced with intensifying criticism and the threat of economic boycott,” the conference website states, “the Israeli government expanded their marketing plan by harnessing Homonationalism to reposition its global image.”

Based on the list of proposed topics, conference organizers don’t plan to examine the persecution of gays in the Muslim world, except as it pertains to generating Islamophobia and to “justify military assault” in Iraq and Iran.

Coordinating the gathering is Sarah Schulman, a humanities professor at CUNY’s College of Staten Island. Schulman raised the profile of the “pinkwashing” accusation last fall in a controversial New York Times op-ed, in which she argued that Israel’s “gay soldiers and the relative openness of Tel Aviv” shouldn’t be used to distract attention from “the Palestinians’ insistence on a land to call home.”

Scheduled speakers include Berkeley professor Judith Butler, a veteran of Israeli Apartheid Week, and Haneen Maikey, the director of Palestinian LGBT group alQaws.

AlQaws, which appears to hold its recurring “Palestinian queer party“ in Israel, is headquartered in Jerusalem Open House, a gay center in the Jewish-majority part of the city.
The official description of the conference is a must-read for its pretentious tone and sheer vacuity.
The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies is pleased to announce a conference “Homonationalism and Pinkwashing” to be held April 10-11, 2013 at the CUNY Graduate Center.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in all configurations around the world have always experienced dramatic differences in representation and power. Today, after generations of sacrifice and organization, some LGBT people have won full legal rights with different degrees of implementation. Once hard to imagine, protection from discrimination, full relationship recognition, and inclusion in representation are now daily possibilities for some. In the United States, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have been invited into an equality defined, not by rights, but by the ability to participate openly in immoral wars. The co-opting of some LGBT people by anti-immigrant and in particular anti-Muslim political forces is widespread and growing. Rutgers Professor Jasbir Puar has coined the term “Homonationalism” to define collusion between LGBT people and identification with the nation state, re-enforcement of racial and national boundary, and systems of supremacy ideology no longer interrupted by homophobia. Homonationalism has spread far from its roots in European xenophobia and US militarism to become an increasingly potent tool in the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Faced with intensifying criticism and the threat of economic boycott, the Israeli government expanded their marketing plan by harnessing Homonationalism to reposition its global image. The campaign intended "to improve Israel's image through the gay community in Israel," The Jerusalem Post quoted one government supporter of the campaign. This deliberate and highly funded program is what anti-occupation activists have named "Pinkwashing."The campaign not only manipulates the hard-won gains of Israel's gay rights movement, but it also ignores the existence of Palestinian gay-rights organizations. These groups rightly note that the oppression of Palestinians crosses the boundary of sexuality; as Haneen Maikay, a keynote speaker at our conference and the director of Al Qaws:For Gender and Sexual Diversity in Palestinian Society, said in a recent lecture tour in the United States, "When you go through a checkpoint it does not matter what the sexuality of the soldier is."

Homonationalism and Pinkwashing mark a crucial turning point for Queer Scholars and Activists. This conference provides an opportunity to examine Queer Resistance and Complicity globally, in all of their complexities, with a political maturity that acknowledges the responsibility of access, the activism of necessity, the potential and impossible communities, identifications, solidarities, unities and consequential calls for action. Acknowledging these conditions make it imperative for Activists and Scholars to convene and bring together the theoretical and the applied, repositioning our resources to focus on a rejuvenated Queer future, movement, movements, efforts, actions, organizing and focus towards a vision of freedom that finally includes us all.

Do you get that? Do you see how a nation that doesn't discriminate against gays is to be held accountable by gays because some of its soldiers are gay? Do you understand how the entire concept of national boundaries is inherently immoral? Finally, do you understand that when Activists and Scholars capitalize certain Words, they show how vitally Critical their pretentious and self-contradictory Ideas are?

But wait - it gets better!

Possible topics we would love to include but are not limited to:

-Expanding our understandings of Queer Resistance and Complicity
-Hindus, Islamaphobia and Queer Emergence [apparently some Queer Adacemics cannot Spell]
-Arab Jews (Mizrachis) and Occupation/Pinkwashing/Diaspora
-Iran, Iraq and the Use of anti-LGBT Persecution to Justify Military Assault
-Transfeminism and the Global LGBT
-Race, Sexuality and the US Military
-Queer and The Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions Movement
-Christian Evangelicals: Differing strategies for Uganda and Israel
-The rise of LGBT wings of European Right Wing Movements
-HRC, GLAAD, and the Gay Corporate Auxilliaries [Again!]
-AIDS, NGO’s and Partnering With Global Pharma
-Homonationalism, Hollywood and Popular Culture
-Pinkwashing and Israeli Queer Cinema

"Pinkwashing" and "homonationalism" as such catchy terms. We need to create a new term to describe people who want to use their sexual orientation as a means to bash states that support them and to support states that bash them.

Homocrites?

(h/t Ian)

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive