walter russell mead peter berger lilia shevtsova adam garfinkle andrew a. michta
Getty Images
Published on: August 26, 2014
A Pro-Hamas Left Emerges

In the pursuit of political goals and an anti-Israel message, Historians Against the War has abandoned the standards of its profession and adopted a stance that objectively supports Hamas’s war aims.

On July 31, 2014, a group of left-leaning historians called “Historians Against the War” posted an open letter to President Obama denouncing Israel’s actions in the Gaza War and calling for a cut-off of American military assistance to Israel. On August 13, the letter was posted on the website of the History News Network. On August 13, the signers reported that “in less than twenty-four hours over two hundred US, based [sic] historians had signed the letter.” This remarkable turnout depended on the mobilization of an already existing network of an academic Left that emerged in opposition to the war in Iraq and that stays in touch via a website called “The Hawblog.” On August 14, the blog announced that more than a thousand historians had signed the statement, including a large number from Mexico and Brazil.

With a brief and unconvincing effort to sound balanced, the statement deplored “the ongoing attacks against civilians in Gaza and in Israel” but then turned its fire on Israel for what it called “the disproportionate harm that the Israeli military, which the United States has armed and supported for decades, is inflicting on the population of Gaza.” The signers were “profoundly disturbed that Israeli forces are killing and wounding so many Palestinian children.” They found “unacceptable the failure of United States elected officials to hold Israel accountable for such an act” and demanded “a cease-fire, the immediate withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and a permanent end to the blockade so that its people can resume some semblance of normal life.” Further, they urged the President to suspend U.S. military aid to Israel until there is assurance that it will no longer be used for the commission of “war crimes.” “As historians,” they concluded, “we recognize this as a moment of acute moral crisis in which it is vitally important that United States policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict change direction.”

It is old news that an academic tenured Left has a foothold in departments of history in the United States, as well as in Latin America. Also familiar is the deception involved in presenting oneself as “against war,” as if those who disagree are “for” war, and as if the issue were one of war or peace rather than anything that has to do with the substance of the conflict. Nor is it surprising that left-of-center academics are largely hostile to Israel. Hostility to Israel became a defining element of what it means to be left-wing since the early 1950s in the Communist states, and since the late 1960s for the Left in Western Europe, the United States, and the Third World as well.

Nor is it even surprising that the signers conclude, before they can possibly have access to the evidence needed to reach this judgment, that Israel has engaged in “war crimes.” The indictment of Israel before the facts are in, based on the reports of biased and often intimidated journalists, has been par for the course since the 1960s and has been a major theme of public discussion at least since the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982. It has also been standard operating procedure for the anti-Israeli majority in the UN General Assembly since the 1960s—yet in this case even UN officials, no constant friends of Israel, have intimated that Hamas is guilty of war crimes both by intentionally targetting Israeli civilians and by using the people of the Gaza Strip as human shields.

Reaching such conclusions on the basis of media reports would be, one would think, less common among professional historians who are trained to follow rigorous standard rules of evidence. In fact, in the name of a political goal these academics have abandoned the standards of their profession. The evidence to support this conclusion is hard to avoid.

First, demands for a ceasefire before Israel had completed destruction of the tunnels Hamas was using to infiltrate Israel, or before it was able to destroy Hamas rocket launchers, fit a familiar pattern of attacking Israel’s efforts to defend itself while ignoring the reasons why those actions are necessary. Similarly, second, as they have done before, indignant signers say nothing about the obvious fact that the Gaza war began with acts of aggression by Hamas, that by July 31 at least 1,500 rockets had been fired at Israel, and by August 13, the number was over 3,000. Third, and remarkably, in a statement about a war begun by Hamas the word “Hamas” does not even appear.

Finally, the signers called for ending the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza and stopping American military support for Israel in the midst of the Gaza war as Hamas was still firing rockets. This too was not surprising, coming as it did from an academic Left that largely views the exercise of American military power in world affairs as an evil to be categorically opposed rather than as a necessary part of preserving a set of key alliances and providing a global common security good. To call for an end to military aid to Israel obviously helps its enemy, Hamas. It is also worth noting what the signers did not mention: the demilitarization of Hamas, for example, which Israel and, surprisingly, even the sobered leaders of the European Union have made a condition for lifting the blockade.

The historians’ demands were, in short, essentially the same as those made by Hamas. Satisfying these demands constituted its definition of victory: Lift the blockade without demilitarization, put Israel in the dock for alleged war crimes, and preserve Hamas’s arsenal so it could continue to threaten Israel.

The interesting and historically significant aspect of these historians’ response to Hamas’s war of aggression is that it offers clear and depressing evidence of a change in the meaning of leftist ideology and politics. The leftism of the Historians Against the War statement reflects an opposition to some reactionary movements but not others. Movements of the extreme Right that are anti-Semitic, sexist, homophobic, and, of course, anti-democratic are acceptable so long as they aim to destroy the state of Israel and attack “U.S. imperialism.” This soft spot for reactionary Islamist ideology is partly the result of years of denial and timidity in the face of bogus accusations of “Islamophobia.” The moods expressed in the historians’ statement lead to forgiveness for sins committed by those attacking Israel—sins that would be denounced if they came from political currents in Europe and the United States.

In politics, we distinguish between subjective intentions and objective consequences. Subjectively, the signers present themselves as simple people on the side of the angels. They merely oppose “disproportionate” loss of civilian life and Israel’s “war crimes” in Gaza. Yet the signers are sophisticated intellectuals, and many are veteran senior scholars who understand very well that “objectively” the impact of their statement is to assist Hamas in winning what it would define as victory in the war it launched against Israel. The signers know very well that Hamas uses the civilian population as human shields and displays the deaths of civilians as a major strategy in its effort to defeat Israel in the court of world public opinion, erode Israel’s standing in Europe, and perhaps even break or weaken the alliance with the United States. As objective partisans of one side of the conflict, they are fine with all that.

Some critics of the statement have pointed out that the vast majority of the signers have no expertise in the Middle East, which is true enough. Yet it takes no expertise in the Middle East to read and interpret the Hamas Covenant of 1988. (I did so in an essay for this magazine.) The Hamas Charter has been available at the Yale Law School’s Avalon Project website for at least a decade. The Hamas authors wrote very clearly. At that website, the signers, some of whom included historians of modern European and German history, could read the Hamas authors’ selections from the Koran and Muslim commentaries to offer theological justifications for raw, murderous Jew-hatred. They could read the Hamas authors’ repetition of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories reminiscent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They would see that Hamas has no interest whatsoever in a two-state solution but has from its origins been dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel by war. With a few mouse clicks, they could read a document that included phrases, some word for word, that would remind them of the rhetoric and propaganda of the fascists and Nazis that some of these historians have written about for decades.

The signers of the “Historians Against the War” statement about the Gaza war can take one of only two positions. The first would be an argument from ignorance; that is, that they had not read the Hamas Covenant and have paid no attention to Hamas’ repeated declarations of intent to destroy the state of Israel and to its numerous expressions of open Jew-hatred, even though they are readily available on the internet in English. Yet as the signers are speaking “as historians,” it would be insulting to suggest that they have no idea that Hamas is inspired by a kind of religious fanaticism that in every other context they find repellent.

So let’s give the signers the benefit of the doubt and make the second assumption, that the signers are sophisticated and well-informed, that they have read the Hamas Covenant, have followed Hamas’s repeated expressions of Jew-hatred, and understand that Hamas has used the years since it seized power in Gaza to buy rockets, train young men how to use them, and spent millions on tunnel construction that could have been used instead to build schools, hospitals, and housing for the civilians population in Gaza. What, then, is the meaning of these historians’ letter? It is that the “Hawblog” statement of July 31 was not a statement “against war”; it was objectively and, for some, subjectively an effort in favor of the war that Hamas launched against Israel.

The emergence of this objectively pro-Hamas and pro-war Left is an historically significant event. It breaks with both the self-understanding and public image of a Left that carried a banner of anti-fascism. It rests on a double standard of critique, a critical one applied to the extreme Right in the West and another, apologetic standard applied to similarly based rightist Islamist movements.

For this historian, the “Historians Against the War” statement of summer 2014 recalls the policy of the Comintern during the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939–1941. In that two-year period, as Hitler invaded and occupied all of continental Europe except the Soviet Union, and island Britain fought on alone, the Communist Parties denounced “Anglo-American imperialism”, called Franklin Roosevelt a “war monger” for aiding Britain and abandoned verbal attacks on Nazi Germany. The Communist Parties only returned to the previous anti-fascist stance of the Popular Front era because Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941. Had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union, presumably the Communists Parties would have opposed a strictly Anglo-American attack on Nazi Germany.

The years of the Hitler-Stalin pact offer an often forgotten and embarrassing case of the Left making common cause objectively with fascism and Nazism. It was only in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s massive contribution to the defeat of Nazism that “anti-fascism” again became embedded in the Left’s essence and public presentation. The “Historians against the War” statement of July 31 revives the spirit of the infamous years of 1939-41, but does so with a confidence that many decades of Communist and Western leftist attacks on Israel and on Zionism, along with expressions of “solidarity with the Palestinian people,” has fostered. The habits of mind and emotion cultivated in the Western Left in the era of the secular PLO’s terrorist campaigns of the 1960s to 1980s have remained strikingly intact, even though the terror now comes from the Islamist extreme Right rather than the extreme Left.

Efforts by the literary scholar Judith Butler several years ago to include Hamas in the camp of the global Left illustrated a lack of historical knowledge that is simply not acceptable among professional historians. But Procrustean distortion in the name of a cause is apt to overwhelm any fealty to professional standards among ideologues of all stripes. In every sense of the word, Hamas is an organization of the extreme Right and rejects all of the values that at one point defined leftist politics ever since the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and large parts of the secular Left of the 20th century. This summer, the “Hawblog” group statement has offered support to an organization that has attacked the values that used to define the Western Left and made hatred of the Jews as Jews and the destruction of the Jewish state its primary goals. If these scholars have any criticisms of Hamas at all, they did not voice them at a time when doing so mattered.

It was probably only a matter of time before seven decades of leftist antagonism to Israel would lead to waging political warfare in support of an organization known for terrorist attacks against civilians, religious fanaticism, and anti-Semitism of a most foul and familiar sort. In summer 2014, that moment has arrived.

And “So what?” it might be asked. What does it matter that the academic Left yet again criticizes Israel and supports the aims of its enemies? In fact, it matters quite a bit, because political struggles are ultimately battles about ideas and their meaning. What begins in the universities and enjoys the prestige associated with them filters into journalism, the highbrow journals of opinion, the editorials of the media, and the policy think tanks in Washington. In the process, it fosters at best a language of moral equivalence regarding Israel and Hamas. It is also reflected in courses taught in the universities, which in turn have an impact on coming generations. A refusal to speak frankly about the ideas animating Hamas and other Islamist terrorist organizations has become a litmus test for left-wing identity. The fear of being called “Islamophobic” or “right-wing” has the effect of silencing criticism among liberals who don’t want to field criticism on their left.

Moreover, now that the Republican Party’s traditional support for vigorous American leadership is under challenge from a neo-isolationist right, it is all the more important that centrists in the Democratic Party recognize and vigorously respond to the challenge from an effectively pro-Hamas left. We need a renewed “militant democracy” in the center of American politics and intellectual life, one that fights totalitarian ideologies and movements no matter their source. Both within the academy and in the world of politics and policy in Washington, it is essential that there be much more frank speech about the nature of groups such as Hamas. There are some welcome signs that some in the political establishment are finding their voices about these issues. In the academy the voices of “Historians Against the War” are not a majority, but they shout the loudest and are well organized. For those of us in the academy who take a different view, it would be most helpful if more of our political leaders would also speak frankly on these matters. The arrows of influence in the history of ideas and politics can flow in both directions. It is important that they do so.

Jeffrey Herf is distinguished university professor in the department of history at the University of Maryland in College Park, where he works on modern European and German history, and author most recently of Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World (Yale University Press, 2009). His essay “In Their Own Words, Why They Fight: Hamas’ All Too-Little Known Fascist Charter” can be found here. His essay “At War with Israel: East Germany’s Enthusiastic Support for Soviet Policy in the Middle East” is forthcoming in the Journal of Cold War Studies.
show comments
  • dberger

    I wrote the following letter to signatories of the letter with whom I am acquainted;

    I hope that all is well.

    I am writing to express my distress at finding your signatures on the “Historians’
    Letter” regarding the Hamas-Israel war.

    I attach an article that I wrote for an anti-BDS event at the CUNY Graduate
    Center before the current hostilities that provides my perspective on the
    larger issues, and I hope that you will take the time to read it. You can also find it at

    With respect to the historians’ letter, I remind you of the following: (The
    problem is that whatever I will write is already known to you and has not
    affected your decision. Nonetheless, this will not be the first quixotic effort in which I have engaged.) Israel is faced with thousands of rockets that are being launched at its civilian population from densely populated civilian areas. Those locations were chosen precisely in order to create a situation in which attacking them would inevitably result in civilian casualties. (I refrain from addressing the ludicrous assertion that we hear all too often that because of the dense population of Gaza there are no other available locations.) The same is true of the massive, sophisticated tunnels intended for the mass kidnapping and murder of Israeli civilians.

    For this reason, Israel’s attacks have indeed caused civilian casualties. It has pursued measures unprecedented in the history of warfare to minimize such casualties. That these measures have succeeded to a significant degree is evident from the greatly disproportionate percentage of military age males killed even according to the figures supplied by Hamas entities and funneled through the UN and the media without the ability to evaluate them at this stage. The assertion that the harm inflicted on Palestinian civilians is disproportionate is, by any definition of disproportionate, misguided. If disproportionate refers to greater force than needed to neutralize the threat, then the assertion is not true. If it
    means that Israel should simply live with the attacks and the tunnels—something
    that no country in the world would do– then the assertion is immoral. And if it means that Israelis should die in larger numbers in order to make the sacrifices more balanced, then it is all the more immoral.

    All of this means that the assertion that Israel is committing war
    crimes is also immoral. As you know, one of my areas of scholarly study is medieval Jewish-Christians relations. I ask myself about the comparative moral
    culpability of medievals who accused Jews of ritual murder and contemporaries who accuse Israel of war crimes. The vast majority of those medieval Christians had no real evidence that Jews do not murder children and consume their blood.
    They knew that Jews had been executed by duly constituted authorities
    for doing precisely that. Even the few who knew that papal and imperial investigations had found the accusation baseless could have assumed in light of the accumulating evidence that the investigators had been misled. In our case,
    the evidence of Israel’s efforts to identify terrorist targets and avoid
    civilian deaths to the degree that this is possible is manifest to every
    observer who takes the trouble to learn the facts. I leave it to you to draw conclusions about comparative moral culpability.

    Despite the pro forma deploring of attacks on Israel that appears in the first sentence, the historians’ letter is devoted exclusively to urging steps that facilitate the re-arming of Hamas so that it can perfect its capacity to murder Israeli civilians on the largest possible scale with impunity. I leave it to you
    to draw conclusions about the ethical standing of this document.

    • Corlyss

      Good luck trying to present facts to the lot of knuckleheads who pride themselves on not listening to reason. I salute you for trying to make a difference, but their position is analogous to that of the True Believers in the AGW movement. Don’t be surprised if they come after you. They are practicing what John Batchelor used to call out as “feeding others to the monster in hopes that the monster will eat you last!” There’s no honor or heroism in their “stand” except in the echo chamber they inhabit.

    • Ethan56

      dberger: did you ever get any replies to your fine letter?

      • dberger

        Thank you. I sent it to two people. One has not replied. The other replied that she had read it and would read the article to which I linked. Nothing further since then. I am acquainted with a third signatory, but even my penchant for quixotic ventures was not strong enough to impel me to write to her.

  • NewClassTraitor

    That green fascists (i.e., islamists) and red fascists (i.e., the far left) would find common ground surprises me alas very little. While I gradually abandoned the left for Burkean conservatism/”classical liberalism” for many reasons, the cravenness with which the left responded to islamofascism was what finally opened my eyes and made me realize that the “bugs” of their system were actually not bugs but features.

    • Corlyss

      You sound like proudly Neocon Douglas Murray. I mean that as a compliment. There should still be a vid on C-SPAN from 8 or 9 years ago when he described the European foot-dragging indifference to what was happening in Kosovo as his Epiphany – before that he’d been a traditional Oxbridge educated Elite-type European Leftie. But Kosovo woke him up to the moral bankruptcy of the Left’s poses and attitudes and the danger presented by the operational dominance of people who couldn’t assess a real peril cultivated by their own disdain for Western culture and its virtues.

  • Rick Caird

    The solution is the end of tenure. If the trustees could act against nonsensical academics, those academics would be much more even handed when using their titles and university affiliations.

  • mbermangorvine

    Was “Hawblog” named after Lord Haw-Haw, I wonder?

  • Beauceron

    “a group of left-leaning historians”
    With the near complete takeover of academic institutions by the radical Left, is there any other kind of historian these days? Certainly not in the academies.

    • Corlyss

      There’s left, Left, and UberLeft. I’m waiting for some of them to fall off the edge in their scramble to out-stupid those of their fellows they consider too conservative.

  • Charles Dreyfus

    Superb. Needs the widest possible dissemination, and to be copied by all interested parties to the letter’s addressees.

  • Corlyss

    “For this historian, the “Historians Against the War” statement of summer 2014 recalls the policy of the Comintern during the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939–1941. In that two-year period, as Hitler invaded and occupied all of continental Europe except the Soviet Union, and island Britain fought on alone, the Communist Parties denounced “Anglo-American imperialism”, called Franklin Roosevelt a “war monger” for aiding Britain and abandoned verbal attacks on Nazi Germany.”

    I was going to mention this till I see the author “self-corrected.” I say “self-corrected” because I wonder how he can call this development “new” with such glaring and obvious antecedents as he articulates one by one throughout the article. It really isn’t new. It’s just as appalling and hypocritical and cowardly as it has always been. Just another example of why tenure needs to go. Someone called academia “tenured radicals” and their control over the “scholarship” that goes into textbooks for k-12 has delivered unto us what we have now: generation after generation exceptionally ignorant of history, scornful of American Exceptionalism, contemptuous of civic responsibility, wrong-headed, indifferent, and thankfully ineffectual at the ballot box, incapable of looking after themselves with the kind of ordinary educational competence that was common 100 years ago among college students and graduates. I could go on but I’m late for the gym . . .

  • barbaro70

    Mr Herf, this is a very thorough and comprehensive analysis of the lib/lefty historian problem, thank you. BUT I do not really understand how these lib/lefty academics, who live, work, exist, in an ivory tower, insulated from reality, who could not earn a living honestly if they had to–which they do not, can be taken seriously. These lib/lefty academics still dream of the glories of communism and simply cannot be taken seriously regarding down to earth, practical matters. In fact, they are simple buffoons, nothing more. You insist, Mr Herf, “And ´So what?´ it might be asked. What
    does it matter that the academic Left yet again criticizes Israel and
    supports the aims of its enemies? In fact, it matters quite a bit,
    because political struggles are ultimately battles about ideas and their
    meaning. What begins in the universities and enjoys the prestige
    associated with them filters into journalism, the highbrow journals of
    opinion, the editorials of the media, and the policy think tanks in
    Washington. In the process, it fosters at best a language of moral
    equivalence regarding Israel and Hamas. It is also reflected in courses
    taught in the universities, which in turn have an impact on coming
    generations. A refusal to speak frankly about the ideas animating Hamas
    and other Islamist terrorist organizations has become a litmus test for
    left-wing identity. The fear of being called ´Islamophobic´ or ´right-wing´ has the effect of silencing criticism among liberals who
    don’t want to field criticism on their left.” But the whole academy is a joke these days–top heavy with elitist researchers who specialize in nonsense, paid for and they expect it by government/tax money grants–incapable of preparing college students for the reality of the United States today, a reality that has lost a great part of what is needed to maintain economic growth.
    In summary, Mr Herf, I think a future article could be dedicated to just how pathetic American higher education, with the exception of some very fine private schools, has gotten.

  • Winston

    To this day no one has defined what a “proportionate” response to thousands of rocket attacks is supposed to look like. It is a term without any content whose main utility is that it is so nebulous that you can attack Israel with it without any defined standards as to just what it is, without presenting any grounds for the charge, without any detailed analysis of the fighting and without reference to any comparison with recent military actions elsewhere. It is the equivalent of just shouting “war criminal.”

    • SteveGW

      There have been attempts to investigate and clarify the notion of proportionality that Just War Theory uses, but with no great success. The fundamental problem is JWT is not derived from the first principles of any coherent, well-established moral theory, but has been built up by appeals to intuition

    • Corlyss

      “To this day no one has defined what a “proportionate” response to thousands of rocket attacks is supposed to look like.”

      Well, it’s fairly obvious. If the side the UN/AI/HRW crowd doesn’t like scores clear kills of their enemies and should be congratulated in an old fashioned moral universe, the response was disproportionate. Conversely, if the side the UN/AI/HRW crowd likes uses innocents as shields, hides weapons in mosques and schools and clinics, and kills journalists, they are fighting fair. In the Carter administration I characterized this proportion-disproportion nonsense thus: “If the good guys have 100 tanks, and the bad guys have only 30, the good guys should mothball 70 so any contest between the two will be fair, because after all that’s all we care about in warfare: were the good guys fair.” If they used superior forces to crush their enemies, that victory was illegitimate.” Vide the claptrap spewed by Smithsonian and other modern exhibit mounters about . . . take your pick . . . the founding fathers-slavery, the European-Native confrontations; A-bomb-Japan controversy. The West has lost all concept of what it represents vis the rest of the world cultures, and no longer can sustain their own narrative.

  • Carl Eric Scott

    Thanks for this, excellent work. You should correct the error in the first sentence about August 31, however. And, a further heads up, you might enjoy my new co-edited book of essays on the film about East Germany, The Lives of Others. The title of the collection is Totalitarianism on Screen.

  • FriendlyGoat

    Real leftists despise both Hamas and all of Islam for that matter—-because it is 1) a fib, and 2) not liberal. They (we) also believe Israel should be somewhere OTHER than where it is, so it can stop “defending” itself from enemies it need not have as next-door neighbors. Texas would be a good place to move to.

    • Doug
      • FriendlyGoat

        “Real” leftists are the ones who know a false and smothering religion from a hole in the ground. Ain’t that the point here?

        • Corlyss

          ” “Real” leftists are the ones who know a false and smothering religion from a hole in the ground.”

          First a question just looking for info on your own world view: is the left’s attitude toward religion the major element you use to identify your fellows?

          An then an observation: how do you distinguish the left’s AGW hysteria and tools they use for suppression of opposition from “a false and smothering religion?” If they behave exactly alike (with saints, icons, hyper-vigilance against apostasy and ruthless response to same, ritualistic behavior, confraternity of the environmentalists doctrine, etc.) If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, ain’t it a duck and therefore subject to your dismissal?

          “Some of us are actually liberal instead.”

          How would you distinguish between yourself and what routinely is labeled “liberal” by its fans?

          • FriendlyGoat

            I don’t pose to define all liberalism. But I am very sensitive to nonsense entertained by some from the left that “if only Israel was not oppressing Palestinians” or “if only the USA was not meddling in the Middle East” then Islam would be a religion of peace and something respectable.

            I believe Islam is first of all, simply false. Mohammad is not “The Prophet” whose sayings supposedly supersede everything else in human thought. Secondly, Islam is not liberal. No one on earth should be pretending to tell everyone else when to pray, what to pray, what language to use, what direction to face, what position to assume, and whether men and women should be separated for praying. Those, and whether to pray at all, are all basic human rights. Any philosophy which violates any of that (and so much more in the case of Islam) is NOT LIBERAL.

            So, show me a leftist who is warm to Islam, and I’ll show you someone who is lost in a fog of confusion. I favor the left for many, many social policies. But when my left-side brothers start with the mush-mindedness about Islam, I tend to start with “Please don’t pollute our philosophy with THAT. You know not what you’re glorifying”.

            This is not to say I hate Muslims. I wish to not hate ANY people. But I do “hate” Islam as a philosophy for its built-in offense against Christians, Jews, and all the other miscellaneous “infidels” who refuse to accept its statement of faith.

          • Eliyahu100

            There are actually two issues here:
            1– is global warming a reality? Consider that in 2013 the Middle East underwent a snowstorm in early December that was the greatest in more than 100 years. Snow fell as far south as Cairo. I can tell you that it was unusually cold here in Jerusalem.

            2– if so, if GW is real, is it caused by the actions of man or is it simply a matter of a host of natural causes? Perhaps there is a natural cycle of global warming and cooling.

    • chicagorefugee

      Texas, huh? Yeah, your motivations for that aren’t too transparent or anything.

      Anyway, good luck selling that move to people who have been making the toast “Next year in Jerusalem!” for almost 2,000 years now.

      • FriendlyGoat

        Yes. It would be much cheaper for world Jews, world Christians and world Muslims to contribute a few hundred billion dollars to buy up a contiguous piece of land equal to 3% of Texas than to fight world wars over a particular piece of real estate. Obviously there is a sales value for what would be left behind in old Israel, too, of course. Everyone should be asking, why not? Are we too stupid in the 21st century to solve big problems?

        • ahad_ha_amoratsim

          A commenter calling himself Arthur Kirkland used to post a similar fanstasy at Volokh Conspiracy and elsewhere. Perhaps under a similar theory, Black families in the 1960’s seeking to move into white neighborhoods in the US should have been relocated to West Germany, or perhaps Harlem or East St. Louis. I doubt they would have seen the wisdom or compassion in that plan, any more than I can see any in yours.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Admittedly, I’m joking a little bit about moving Israel because it’s unlikely. I’m also kinda serious about floating the idea BECAUSE the present arrangement is not working out. EVERYONE knows it is not working out.

            Islam is not going to accept Israel where it is. Eventually this spat is going to lead to exploded nuclear weapons in some place—-or a lot of places. That makes MANY other people in the world have a vested interest to insert themselves into the matter. We don’t have to permit nuclear war over ancient writings and the stubborn ideas of stubborn people. It is not a racial matter—-it is a matter of beliefs.

            You may think “wisdom and compassion” reside in taking sides and fighting these things out with whatever weapons we have. I don’t.

  • Peter

    Another example of why “tenure” needs to be abandoned. No one deserves a guaranteed job for life.

  • SuzyS

    Do Israelis have to live and die for Israel so that diaspora Jews can have a country to go to when they feel or have the need to live the one they legally occupy?

    • Eliyahu100

      Are you saying that Jews “occupy” the USA or inhabit the USA [along with others]?
      By the way, many French Jews are now coming to Israel after feeling that France cannot or will not protect them. Many or most of them are Jews whose families originally came from North Africa to France because the Arab states and peoples there did not want them, although Jews were living in North Africa centuries before the Arab conquest. So this group has been driven out twice by Arabs/Muslims.

  • Gabriel Noah Brahm

    Superb. Majorly important statement of plain fact and moral value, all in one.

  • oakhill1863

    the 200 signers of the letter should be indicted for aiding and abetting hamas’s war crimes.

    i will leave it up to the international court whether they are guilty and should be convicted.

    keevan d. morgan, esq., chicago

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2015 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service