Ruthie Blum: Heroes in flip-flops
The only thing giving away the theme of this makeshift amusement park—organized for weeks and funded by the attendees and donors—is an incessant loop of photos projected on two screens adjacent to a stage on which a live band is performing. The pictures show the above guys in full military gear: dusty helmets, ceramic vests and weapons.Andrew Pessin: Anti-Israel Divestment Demands Demand a “Damn no!” Response
These comrades-in-arms from a particular Israel Defense Forces company are in various poses, separately and together, alternately at a base in the south and in the Gaza Strip. There, they are battling Hamas. Here, they’re changing diapers. The contrast is both charming and jarring.
A master of ceremonies takes the mic, flanked by his young daughter and son. As he introduces the company commander, the men in the audience, children in their laps, burst into a chant familiar only to them. Like a secret handshake. But noisier.
“This is a different crowd from the one I’m used to addressing,” he says, referring occasionally to text he has written on his cellphone. “I’m used to talking to exhausted reservists questioning why they can’t postpone certain tasks until later, complaining, ‘We haven’t slept; we haven’t eaten.’ So, it’s moving to speak to this audience, all bright and beautiful.”
He goes on, “It’s important for me to begin by telling the women and children here, ‘Your husbands and fathers are heroes.’”
He then defines a hero as “someone who on Oct. 7 got up, left his house and headed south, putting on his gear and saying, ‘Here I am. What should I do?’”
But, he qualifies, “a hero isn’t only someone who arrived on Oct. 7; it’s someone who showed up for training in 2022, and in 2021 and in 2020 and in 2019 and in 2018 and in 2017 and in 2016. Even when it caused problems at home and at work. Even when it was hot and inconvenient. That’s what a hero is. Everyone in this company is a hero. And it was a privilege to have been called up on Oct. 7 to lead this company.”
Allowing the renewed cheering to subside, he continues: “I’m sure there are people present who’d be happy to report that I’m not an easy person. It’s true. I made life difficult for everybody in this room. But all you people did was ask what more you could do. That’s why this company earned the respect of the entire brigade.”
Turning to the wives, he says, “Now it’s time to mention the other heroes in this room—you women who took care of your households by yourselves with great strength of spirit, despite living in a state of major uncertainty. From our point of view, you fought alongside us against the enemy. Without you, we couldn’t have done any of it. And with you, we will keep winning.”
He concludes with a reminder and a request.
“There are still many challenges ahead,” he says somberly. “The fighting isn’t over. We’re preparing for the next phase of the war. So, I’m asking you to allow us to borrow your loved ones for another round.”
The battalion commander, a lieutenant colonel in a T-shirt and sandals, gets up to punctuate the speech with a similar sentiment about the importance of the home front and the inevitability of a third tour in Gaza. When he’s done, the M.C. announces that there is a Shabbat challah and bouquet of flowers waiting for everyone at the exit.
The reservists-on-furlough shuffle out, waving and slapping one another on the back. They know they’ll be summoned soon to replace their flip-flops with combat boots yet again.
These heroes of the IDF laugh as they leave the premises. I try not to let them see me crying.
Executive SummaryFederal court allows action to enforce the Taylor Force Act
Thanks for reading Pariah--But The Truth, You Know, Ain't A Democracy! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
1. Background and Introduction
On October 7, 2023 Hamas massacred some 1200 mostly Jewish non-combatants in the most barbaric manner imaginable. Shockingly, many campuses responded in celebration of the massacre, with months of pro-Hamas rallies, culminating in encampments. Instead of shutting encampments down, many administrators negotiated, some making significant concessions. Among the activists’ main demands is that for divestment from Israel. I argue that administrators and trustees must forcefully resist, reject, and in fact denounce any such demands.
2. No Negotiations
There should be no negotiations with people breaking campus rules or the law, especially if they are aggressing toward other community members. The proper response is: “You must desist immediately or disciplinary proceedings, culminating in possible suspension or expulsion, will begin.”
Any other response normalizes and thus incentivizes the behavior. Once you capitulate to extortion, there will only be more extortion. Negotiations also immorally privilege those violating the mission and norms of the university over those actually manifesting them.
3.-4. Recent Precedents and General Arguments Against Divestment
The proposal to divest from Israel should be publicly rejected and denounced.
There are many arguments to this conclusion, both general “content-neutral” ones and others specific to the Israeli-Palestinian-Jewish-Arab-Muslim Conflict (IPJAMC). Through a study of recent precedents, including Penn, Williams, and Cornell, we extract these arguments:
(1) Divestment is inconsistent with academic freedom.
(2) It is discriminatory in nature, thus immoral and inconsistent with inclusivity norms.
(3) It may be illegal in many states.
(4) It is divisive, while consensus is a necessary (though not sufficient) prerequisite.
(5) It’s not particularly feasible, and even where feasible likely to have negligible if any impact at all on its targets.
(6) The institution can have a far greater impact by providing a first-rate education, funded by an endowment guided by maximizing returns rather than by political considerations.
(7) Divestment may have symbolic value, but (a) onerous changes in investment strategy should not be pursued for mere symbolic gestures and (b) that symbolic value is also one of hate and exclusion for many community members present and prospective.
(8) It may actually do more harm than good even in the political arena.
(9) Maximum investment “transparency” is disastrous for the endowment and the community.
(10) Divestment is inconsistent with the purpose of the university endowment, which is not to be an instrument of political and social power and advocacy but to support the educational mission of the university. It may also violate the ethical, legal, and fiduciary obligations of the trustees and their investment managers to the beneficiaries, and it directly harms and violates the rights of every stakeholder in the institution, thus making the university vulnerable to expensive litigation.
(11) Divestment is inconsistent with institutional commitments to diversity and equity. Endowments fund financial aid and other programs essential to any university’s commitment to “make the highest-quality liberal arts education available and affordable to a diverse population of future leaders.”
5. Institutional Neutrality
Inspired by the famous Kalven Report, recently enjoying new life as universities (such as Harvard, Syracuse, Stanford, and Purdue) have begun recommitting to “institutional neutrality” as essential to the nature, mission, and inclusive values of the university, we have the final general argument:
(12) Divestment is inconsistent with institutional neutrality.
6. Rebuttal, and “Damn No!”
The only argument anti-Israelists have is that their stance is morally correct. But even if so, it doesn’t matter: universally applicable, content-neutral considerations override it.
Every administration should recognize what is going on here: activists are hijacking the institution to advance their own agenda at the detriment of all other stakeholders and the institution itself. That is why these demands must be publicly, promptly, and harshly denounced.
Astoundingly, the amended complaint mentions that the State Department has acknowledged in a non-public report to Congress that the P.A. had not ended the “pay for slay” program and that it could not therefore certify compliance with the act. Nevertheless, this did not result in a suspension of further aid payments, as required.
It is also important to note that the program is not a matter of executive fiat; it is embodied in P.A. law—an egregious violation of the Oslo Accords, which explicitly provide that “both sides shall take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime and hostilities directed against each other … and shall take legal measures against offenders.”
In essence, not only is the P.A. not preventing these horrendous acts, it is encouraging, rewarding and honoring murderers. In this regard, limitations on aid and other restrictions are also triggered under the Anti-Terrorism Law-PLO (22 USC 5201) and Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 (120 Stat. 3318) by a P.A. breach under the Oslo Accords.
The disdain for the law shown by U.S. government officials, seemingly without consequence, should be inconceivable; yet apparently, it is not. Under Article I of the Constitution, there is a separation of powers. The power of the purse was reserved to Congress.
The remedy for those in Government who may disagree with the law is to seek to change it, not to undermine or evade compliance with the law. It is unacceptable for those in the executive branch unilaterally to disregard the sacred responsibility of enforcing or complying because they think they know better and disagree with the law or the policies it promotes. This should be an issue of profound concern to everyone, no matter the party or affiliation.
Moreover, the effect of violating the law is odiously financing and promoting the murder of innocent Americans, Israelis and others. A policy of appeasement and virtuous-sounding pronouncements about a desire to promote peace has proven to be ineffective in practice. By funding evil, peace is not being achieved; it only emboldens the wrongdoers. Those acting to evade the law are, in essence, complicit in enabling despicable terrorist actions, including of Hamas and the terrorism rewarded by the P.A.
It’s time for Congress to employ its power of the purse to defund those who are violating or failing to enforce the law. Consideration should also be given to establishing an independent counsel position to enforce these laws.