Scholars who study the Middle East are afraid to speak out | Hacker News Reader

Scholars who study the Middle East are afraid to speak out

chronicle.com

63 pointscempaka74 comments

It's flagged submission now. But for record, I want to add that there is a website that complies list of people that criticize isreal, boycott it or even join any of the organizations that they consider anti-isreal. Of course they paint it as anti-semitism. They focus on people on American campuses. They even add Jewish people from Jewish Voice for Peace organization to the list/blackliet. There are some rumors that Isreali authority use this list to deny entry to isreal/Palestine.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canary_Mission

Peak free democratic society is when scholars are afraid to speak truths inconvenient to the military complex & co.

The self-censoring is to avoid speaking opinions unpopular among their own peers and fellow academics.

They don’t care the slightest what the military industrial complex thinks.

Not just peers and fellow academics, but also students and notably, as the article mentions, “external advocacy groups.”

I don’t think the military-industrial complex is what they are worried about

They're worried about pressure from the Jewish lobby.

https://www.axios.com/2023/12/07/upenn-antisemitism-magill-1...

I think it's far more accurate to call this the Israeli lobby. There is plenty of Jewish opposition to the Israeli government's actions, both inside and especially outside of Israel.

What about the story in that link implies a conspiracy of Jewish lobbyists? It's a story about an asset manager who was due to donate and then changed his mind. You don't need to posit a shadowy cabal of Jewish or Israeli conspirators to make sense of these stories

There's no shadowy Israeli lobby, there are very obvious and high profile people lobbying for Israeli causes. The groups denouncing BDS as "antisemitic", the ones that got many US states and the federal government to require employees to sign a pledge not to participate in BDS, for example.

Also, I should have noted that I wasn't referring to the Axios article, but to the larger problem being raised by the article we're commenting on.

AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) is literally one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States.

That's a link about a donation, from an asset management company, not some "lobby". It doesn't even say that the donor is Jewish.

I don't think it's okay for you to draw a straight line, from an asset management company, to the Jewish lobby bogeyman.

You don't need to posit a Jewish conspiracy when reading that link. It's about someone who was due to donate money and then changed their mind.

When has that not been the case though? Arguably less so now then then.

false flag.

Post is relevant because the issue of self-censorship in academia has a direct impact on scientific positions which has a direct impact on the administration of tech.

Also relevant because the same movement that is targeting academics is targeting tech leaders.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38572076

Aaand it's flagged. This kind of discussion is suppressed on HN too, not just on campuses.

I clicked flag. It's not suppression. Actually your knee-jerk "suppression" claim is pointing in the direction of why I clicked flag.

It's because people are unable to handle these topics without delving into conspiracy theories.

You had two paths you could have gone down.

Path one - it's active suppression, which means mens rea, which means someone is out there silencing me, which means a conspiracy is active, to shut down criticism of Israel. Which means the Elders of Zion are at it again.

Path two - hn users have clicked flag, so it's flagged

Why did you choose path one? What about this topic is breaking peoples' brains so badly? That's why I clicked it. I don't want hn users to verbalise their anti-jewish theories.

100%. Contentious political discussion is supposed to be something we avoid on HN.

do emacs vs vim uncontentiously.

Or Tabs versus Spaces.

"I deliberately suppressed this discussion and any claims of the discussion being suppressed are the reason I suppressed it and are also conspiracy theories and not real, even though I did suppress it."

ya uh... ok

It's because people are unable to handle these topics without delving into conspiracy theories.

That's not a reason to flag a submission, that's a reason not to read the discussion.

An article whose follow-on discussion is mostly offtopic conspiracy theories (which they were) ought not to be here, imo, but maybe I'm wrong on the guideline etiquette

> Path one - it's active suppression, which means mens rea, which means someone is out there silencing me, which means a conspiracy is active, to shut down criticism of Israel. Which means the Elders of Zion are at it again.

What a load of bullshit. "Anyone who thinks users are flagging this submission in deliberate bad faith must also believe xyz conspiracy theory"

The user I was replying to wrote

> This kind of discussion is suppressed on HN

Typically people wouldn't use "suppressed" to mean: "there are disconnected users of this website who are, without coordination, independently flagging this submission in deliberate bad faith".

Typically "suppression" would refer to a coordinated deliberate act.

So I was simply replying to the most common interpretation of the user's words.

I understood them to be saying that a deliberate (and not accidental) attempt is being made to prevent "this kind of discussion" from happening.

You literally suppressed the discussion.

TBH, I don't think it's uniformly suppressed on HN. Any discussion of the topic tends to remain off the front page, regardless of its viewpoint or perspective (with rare exceptions, such as recently over the weekend).

It seems fair to me, and it is probably healthier for all of us the less we are inundated with news and discussion about it. Nobody will change anybody's perspective about it, and none of us can do anything positive to help the situation.

It is true though that a lot of people who were previously decrying things like "cancel culture" are pursuing it vigorously with regard to people drawing attention to Palestinian suffering, and/or at least keeping quiet when they see it happen.

> Just over 81 percent of those self-censoring said they primarily held back their criticism of Israel, while 11 percent said they held back from criticizing Palestinians.

I read this article a while ago that I think had an interesting take on the matter: "Yes, Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic. But It’s Still Protected Speech." https://forward.com/opinion/430307/yes-anti-zionism-is-anti-...

One one hand you have people saying that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic and should therefore be suppressed, and on the other hand you have people saying that indeed, any critics of Israel is antisemitic but it should nevertheless be permitted. I think this goes a long way to explaining the lopsided suppression of academic voices.

Both statements rely on a false prior however, so there is no value in either of the two conclusions. Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism, just like criticism of Sharia law is not islamophobia and criticism of the Republican party is not anti-Christian.

Of course both claims are false, but they are nevertheless popular points of view, and the popularity of these points of view explain why academics feel suppressed. That's the point I'm making here, I thought that was clear.

I 100% agree that free speech and academic freedom protections must include even reprehensible speech. I also think that criticism of Israel on an international/California forum like this is probably anti-Semitic, but at least misinformed.

I also dispute that the "middle east scholars" are afraid to voice their anti-Israel opinions. It makes no sense. Everybody and their grandmother is voicing criticism of Israel. BBC, WHO, UN, Harvard, U Penn, MIT, HRW, Justin Trudeau, even Paul Graham, on and on. On the contrary, assuming Israeli good faith gets you called a white supremacist, disturbed, a genocide supporter, a Jew (used as an insult) (source: happened to me here on HN, I can give you the actual post urls). Even simple expression of condolence to an Israeli gets nasty insults and downvotes (yep, here in HN).

What is legitimately horrible is the call to genocide "Zionists".

I think the issue is ignoring that a big part of the criticism of Israel is not actually a criticism of Israel, but criticisms of post Sharon government (or post Rabin for true leftists). We know who propped up, armed and supported Hamas in Gaza.

Also, yes, actual urls of people throwing insults like this are more than welcome. Hopefully if they're down voted enough they'll be banned.

> a big part of the criticism of Israel is not actually a criticism of Israel

I wish I could bring myself to believe that. I'm trying to understand why so many just reflexively assume Israel is lying, to the point that raising any mitigating or nuance at all is met with relentless, seething hostility.

Here we go, cavalcade of nastiness.

In response to "My condolences" to a poster who said that he knew some of the children who died in the October 7th attack: "this person is lying..."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38577765

"Maybe you're not a white supremacist but you sure act like one like all Israeli allies" Added bonus is that he tracked down my full name and used it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38581383

"Blaming Hamas is the mark of a seriously disturbed mind"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38591023

In response to my saying that yes, actually anti-Semitism means anti-Jew: "Ask me how I know you're Jewish"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38585503

There's more, but that's enough for now.

"Blaming Hamas is the mark of a seriously disturbed mind" Is missing a lot of context. Typically i think, he isn't blaming Israelis or Jews, but Israel as in "Israel's government policy of bombing children".

The others are from people i hope are banned.

>I wish I could bring myself to believe that.

The reason i said "a big part" and not "a majority", is because sadly i think what was a majority in 2007 declined in the last 13 years. My father cried when Rabin died. Since 2018 and what happened to the mosque esplanade, i think he has a hard time making any difference between the government and the people of Israel ([edit] i convinced him this weekend it wasn't).

> I'm trying to understand why so many just reflexively assume Israel is lying, to the point that raising any mitigating or nuance at all is met with relentless, seething hostility.

I always assume Israeli government is lying. Why? My father was born in Jerusalem-east, in a christian hospital, and his godmother (who was 25 at the time) is a Sister, and probably the most caring, forgiving person i know. She worked there for 50 years, at a school/hospital used by christians and muslims, operated by all three religions. The man who woodcarved my father's nativity scene, one piece a year for 18 years, was expulsed from his own home in the 2000s, by colons. The school/hospital was also expulsed, quite recently (2018 i think), with promises for "help" with relocation. Promise from the Israeli government. The staff is halved, as most workers couldn't follow the relocation. I went there once (family trip, except my father was forbidden to enter at the last moment). I discovered Haaretz, which is now my primary source for what happen in Israel. When they agree with Netanyahou, i believe him (and now re-read the 1rst sentence :) ).

> The man who woodcarved my father's nativity scene, one piece a year for 18 years, was expulsed from his own home in the 2000s, by colons.

That sucks. What was the legal justification for it? I assume he tried to go to court and got no justice?

> "Blaming Hamas is the mark of a seriously disturbed mind" Is missing a lot of context.

I have to admit, when I read this, I assumed it was more of the same and so I was almost too quick to dismiss the rest of your post. I'm glad I didn't.

So, given your experience, when the IDF says they are not targeting civilians and that Hamas is using them as human shields, do you think they are lying and are actually targeting civilians? Or just being reckless?

I don't know, he was expropriated like 15 years before I went to Israel. The justifications to relocate the maternity/orphanage/school is that the land would be used for other social services, the orphanage part wasn't really used anymore, and charity work would be more useful outside of Jerusalem city.

I don't have any experience. I trust the Mossad to resist political pressure (the fact that their Qatar meeting to secure funds for Hamas in 2021 leaked the day after to me is the last data point). I don't trust the IDF generals to do the same sadly. But I do trust that some IDF members will try to do the right thing, and will take initiatives to limit civilian casualties. I think the pressure from IDF soldiers towards their likud-supported generals was high and that's why the last two weeks, less war crimes were reported on: a lot less were happening. I do think the Likud did not change since '95, and that their less intelligent supporters are all as manipulated as Yigal Amir was, only now, they are snipers, drone pilots and even generals.

I really appreciate your perspective. Got an idea of a way out for Israelis and Palestinians? Is there a path toward peace and no genocide?

Not in the short or medium term, sadly. In 50 years?

The one state solution was impossible, since at least the 6 day war, but probably earlier.

The issue is that the PLO pushed for a one-state solution until 89. Then the PLO and Israel's government agreed on a two state solution, with only the likud as a major party against it. Rabin was assassinated, the talks failed, at least temporarily (as revanchism died, the PLO main parties all agreed two state was the solution). But the process existed and could start again. Then Hamas arrived, saying they supported a two state solution too, but they were less corrupt than Fatah (and probably also appealed to mix of radicalized islamists and revanchists, ex-Fatah armed groups). They were elected, and immediately removed elections, removed all UDP members (pesky democrats!) and whatever was left of free speech in Gaza disappeared. Also they now support a one state solution, and are genocidal. So as long as Hamas and Likud exist as strong political entities, the two state solution is impossible imho (as Hamas will prop up Likud, Likud with fund Hamas, and savvy politicians from other parts of the Middle East will do both to weaken Israel and take over as the area powerhouses. Which they already did)

One way, and at this point it might be Israel policy (hopefully it's that and not worse), is that the Gaza strip is bombed so hard, the UN has to take over. Wait for 10 years, create a two state solution without Gaza at first (with Gaza still under UN rules), then after 30 more years (so revanchism has time to die), incorporate Gaza, however they vote for: as a Palestinian enclave, or as an Israeli state.

I'm really sorry for Gazaouis, because it's unjust, they fucked up one election and it fucked up their autonomy, Likud politicians helped Hamas almost as much and will never feel a thousand percent of the pain Gazaoui are suffering and will suffer, but it seems like the best option right now, the only one that doesn't involve a war or a genocide.

Gah. Grim.

Noam Chomsky said something once that has stuck with me over the years. That, in a situation like this, moderate voices get drowned out because the extremist perpetrators of violence exchange prestige. The violent extremists of one side perpetrate violence and so the opposing extremists get to say to their own side "See? Our side's moderates are inadequate! Only violence will see us through!" I have come to disagree with Chomsky about a lot, but his model of prestige exchange, where violence between two opposing sides is in some sense cooperative, has stayed with me. Pernicious, if valid. Has resonance with what you testify, here.

This is a way better way of saying what I'm tried to say. I'll remember it.

What is an example of a call to "genocide 'Zionists' " which you have observed? Every example I have seen just amounts to a mistaken or dishonest interpretation of "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" or the term "Intifada."

"globalize the intifada" has to mean the genocide of Jews. How could it mean anything else? "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is at least up for debate, but any amount of thought would quickly lead to conclusion that the jews living in Israel would be genocided if that happened. There is no realistic scenario where palestinians and israelis live together in peace, any call for a one state solution necessarily includes the killing of the side that doesnt control the government.

My theory is that when Westerners, especially Americans, hear "Free Palestine" what resonates is "Free Tibet", or Martin Luther King Jr intoning "Free at last!", or "Free South Africa". They imagine Free means sovereignty, independence, peace, freedom to pursue happiness. How can one not get behind that?? "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will enjoy peace, freedom, prosperity, tolerance, ease, high quality of life, individual autonomy, diversity!" It sounds wonderful!

There's certainly more than a little projection at work in this insistence that the only way to establish a free sovereign state is to commit genocide against one group or another.

There's certainly more than a little naivety at work in this insistence that israelis and palestinians could somehow live together without killing each other. I think a two state solution is possible, but there is absolutely no chance of a one state solution that doesnt involve kicking out one of the two groups. This misunderstanding is the whole issue here, people calling for a one state solution have no vision of what the state would actually look like. "oh they'll just live together in peace and forget about their utter hatred of each other" is not a realistic vision

I actually believe that Israelis would be quite delighted by a peaceful, prosperous neighbor. If they could trust Palestinians not to murder them in their sleep, they would even be fine with Palestinian citizens. That last is an asterisk, but I do not think Israelis in general feel an ongoing malevolent hostility towards Palestinians. I think mostly they would like them to chill tf out.

Is that why they started relentlessly colonizing the west bank the moment the west bank stopped the armed struggle? What a peaceful neighbor indeed.

I do not know much about those settlers, but I wonder if those guys will be dealt with when a more leftist government is elected.

Many of them absolutely would, the question is how do we get to a place where they can trust Palestinians to not murder them in their sleep? There's also the problem of the growing right wing Israelis who believe god gave them the entire levant and are unwilling to give up on that vision. This group is not the majority in Israel, but their birth rate is much, much higher, so they eventually will be. The current defense minister is in this group which is a huge problem as it eliminates palestinian incentive to negotiate in good faith since they know the current government will not settle for anything less than full control of the west bank.

> the question is how do we get to a place where they can trust Palestinians to not murder them in their sleep?

You'll know that I mean no snark when I say 'LOL'.

After all of the emotionalism on this topic, it's so nice to finally meet someone who has a clear-eyed understanding of what's going on over there.

But to answer your question about how to bring Palestinians where they could accept a 2 state. Hmm. It's going to be tough. Really tough. PSAs? Denazification campaigns? A real puppet government? How to mitigate outside influences like Hezbollah and Iran? Intractable.

There must be a visible, palpable model for a better way that is easy for people to embrace. "Maybe I can't have all of Palestine for my people, but I can have a home and safety for those I love, and a good life."

> There's certainly more than a little projection at work in this insistence that the only way to establish a free sovereign state is to commit genocide against one group or another.

I agree that it's not necessary to commit genocide to establish a sovereign state! In fact, it's getting in the way.

Is it really a misunderstanding? Let us investigate! Perhaps you are right! First, tell me, cempaka, when a Palestian says "Free Palestine", what do you think they mean by that? What does Free mean there? Let's also just agree that "end the occupation" is a synonym for "Free Palestine". What does "end the occupation" actually mean? Like, what would the social and political organization of the region be when Palestine is finally "free"?

Not sure why this was flagged. Explain.

Different people using the slogan have different intentions. Some want a two-state solution, some want a single secular state without all of the Israeli ethnostate garbage. I am sure there are also a handful of Islamists (99.99999% of them nowhere near American university campuses) who also want to kill all Jews, but their relatively small proportion speaks to why interpreting the slogans as inherently genocidal is, again, mistaken or dishonest.

> Different people using the slogan have different intentions

Ok, so just to be clear, we want to investigate what Palestinians mean by the phrase, since they ultimately will determine what "free" means when Palestine is free. Does that make sense?

Let us not muddy the waters with what American college students believe the phrase means. 99.9999% of American college students will be nowhere near Palestine when it is freed. Only Palestinian voices matter, here, agreed?

So, it's your belief that Palestinians have a diverse opinion on the topic? Some want a 2-state solution, some want a 1-state secular democracy, and only a very tiny miniscule minority want an ethno-state with no Jews or other infidels?

Is there any evidence that would change your mind on that, no matter how unlikely? Like, if I could wave a magic wand and present to you with incontrovertible evidence that actually the overwhelming majority of Palestinians want Jews entirely gone "from the river to the sea", what would that evidence look like? Would it look like poll results?

> when a Palestian says "Free Palestine", what do you think they mean by that? What does Free mean there? Let's also just agree that "end the occupation" is a synonym for "Free Palestine". What does "end the occupation" actually mean?

The two territories that are currently nominally under palestinian "control" are the strip of Gaza and the West Bank. However, they are both controlled by Israel in various ways. I will briefly list just a few of those ways below (simple googling will reveal far more), with citations, focusing primarily on the West Bank which does not have any recent history of violent resistance against Israel's occupation, and which is pursuing a peaceful resolution.

Under this context, Palestine being free would involve not being subject to the occupation and having the ability to self-govern, instead of about 50% of the population of the entire territory (Israel + occupied Palestinian territories together) living under what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch call apartheid [5, 6]. It is not difficult at all to understand that absolutely no group of living humans would want to willingly live under such conditions, and would want to be free from it. Those who oppose their freedom will often jump to interpreting their call for freedom in the worst possible way, arguing that it implies violence against those occupying them, and thus cannot be allowed. It is the responsibility of the occupier, the party holding overwhelming military strength and currently enforcing the occupation, to figure out a way to a peaceful resolution that allows the occupied party to live with dignity. That they might be afraid of lifting the occupation, in many ways speaks about their conduct and perhaps justified fear of possible revenge; and that is still absolutely not a valid argument to maintain the occupation and keep denying liberty to about 50% of the population of that land.

- Funding for both territories [1]

- Strict control of the borders of both territories and an actual military occupation. Even Joe Biden who has proved himself strongly on the side of Israel calls this what it is [2]

- Regular night raids and arrests in West Bank [3], arresting and holding minors prisoners under military law, many prisoners being held without being charged with any crime at all

- To add to the previous two points, Israel even exercises the ability to forbid Palestinians of West Bank to celebrate when their family members are released [4]

[1] https://www.axios.com/2023/10/31/israel-hamas-war-tax-palest...

[2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/state-dept-confirms-us-views-i...

[3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/12/7/israel-intensifies-...

[4] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ahead-of-slated-palesti...

[5] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2022/02/israels-...

[6] https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/04/27/threshold-crossed/isra...

Are you Palestinian, C6JEsQeQa5fCjE? We want to understand what Palestinians mean by "free".

What Westerners such as Joe Biden, HRW, Amnesty and American college students think it (should) mean is important, but at the end of the day, when Palestine is free, these people will not be there and Palestinians will.

> Those who oppose their freedom will often jump to interpreting their call for freedom in the worst possible way...

Perhaps so! Let's apply the Principle of Charity at all times to Palestinian calls for freedom and interpret them in the best possible way!

But before we investigate, I will ask you the same question that I asked GP: what evidence if any, no matter how unlikely, would it take to convince you that when Palestinians say "free" they generally mean "free of Jews and other infidels"?

Questioning the purity and peacefulness of thoughts and intentions of (a subgroup of) a people living under colonial occupation is satire at best. Check out [1] for one of many well-written articles on this topic.

I will only say that if Russia invaded and occupied Finland (again), that the Finnish probably would not appreciate being questioned whether their calls for their freedom are made under absolutely no ill will towards the Russian occupation forces and settlers that are colonizing their territory.

[1] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/10/how-internatio...

> Questioning the purity and peacefulness of thoughts and intentions of (a subgroup of) a people living under colonial occupation is satire at best.

There is an answer to the question "What do Palestinians generally mean when they say Free Palestine" and it is directly relevant to what will happen when Palestine is freed.

Discovering the answer to that question is what we would attempt to do here. And at all times applying the best interpretation possible given the evidence. That is to say, where more than one interpretation is possible, assuming good faith. Perhaps it means only "individual autonomy and personal freedom for all". We make no assumptions. Would you like to investigate with me?

Applying history in that way is thinking by analogy, not from first principles. Finland is not Palestine, Russia is not Israel.

What principles are you applying to bring you to your political stance? Do they apply equally to Palestians and Israelis? If not why not? What is the principle involved? Is genocide always bad or sometimes ok in the right cause, in your opinion?

But to your point, if there were a serious movement to "Free Karelia" that meant ethnic cleansing of Russians from the area, I would vehemently oppose it. Finland's position wrt to Karelia is more like Jordan wrt the West Bank: released all claims, the Finnic peoples there are governed by Russia, for better or worse. But the analogy is a bad one, really not worth discussing.

I had the impression the consensus was that Hamas are terrorists and the Israel government consists of right-wing nutjobs.

Being on the side of the people, not on the side of warmongers, etc.

Your impression of a consensus is shaped by lopsided censorship and suppression of the other side.

98% of assistant professors say they self-censor, and 81% of those say they're self-censoring views critical of Israel. That's 79% of assistant professors who would be voicing opinions against Israel if not for the pressure they perceive to silence themselves. If anything, your perception of consensus is completely backwards.

> If anything, your perception of consensus is completely backwards.

But the suggested consensus was the roughly symmetric “Hamas are terrorists and the Israel government consists of right-wing nutjobs.”

If its backwards, the actual consensus would be “The Israeli government are terrorists and Hamas consists of right-wing nutjobs", which doesn't really change much. (Since right-wing nutjobs and terrorists are overlapping group, its even compatible with the original form.)

And, bonus, consensus or not, both forms are true.

I'd be pretty surprised if less than 90% of those who are suppressing their own views didn't agree with the relatively bland and descriptive statement "Hamas are terrorists and the Israel government consists of right-wing nutjobs."

I don't know, a decent proportion might quibble with the political assumptions embedded in the term "terrorist," while others might accept the term itself but argue that some forms of terrorism, like that used by Mandela's ANC, are justified in certain contexts.

I would certainly hope they distinguish between Hamas's attack and the attacks by the ANC, which, to my knowledge, generally targeted infrastructural or military targets, and not civilians.

> 98% of assistant professors say they self-censor, and 81% of those say they're self-censoring views critical of Israel. That's 79% of assistant professors who would be voicing opinions against Israel if not for the pressure they perceive to silence themselves.

That's not how reality works.

First, you magically turn "could" into "would".

Also, you also ignore the fact that "self-censoring" does not mean "I want to speak out but I can't". It means something as innocuous as not speaking out regarding topics that aren't related to their field of expertise and thus, as smart people do, they don't just blabber on about things that they don't have a solid and well-formed opinion and don't concern them.

Moreover, your percentages don't really add up, nor do you spend any moment considering why 98% (virtually all) claim to self-censor but a far lower number feels they need to put a focus on Israel. I mean what other topics do they consider worthy of self censoring? That would be helpful to gain insight on the phenomena, but it seems the goal was to shoehorn a prejudiced point.

Don't you agree that your comment sounds like a conspiracy theory to justify why your pet scapegoat isn't being attacked enough?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com