More Law Review Editors Behaving Badly

The NYU Review of Law and Social Change has voted to endorse and enforce the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel.

The NYU Review of Law and Social Change has voted to endorse and enforce Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel. This includes a stated refusal to publish even "balanced" articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Think I'm exaggerating? The law review's statement says that it will boycott "Academic activities, projects, or publications "based on the false premise of symmetry/parity between the oppressors and the oppressed or that claim that both colonizers and colonized are equally responsible for the 'conflict' . . . .'8 We find such efforts to be 'intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible forms of normalization' that must be boycotted."

Now, I believe that the bulk of the fault regarding the conflict lies with the Palestinian side, and its persistent refusal to acquiesce over many decades to an independent Jewish presence in the historic land of Israel, or even to a bi-national state. But apparently, and wildly inappropriately for a purportedly academic journal, the Review of Law and Social Change would not publish an article by me or anyone else that argued even that both sides were equally to blame.

NYU and its law school have strongly criticized the law review for its stance, but it's not clear if there will be any consequences; I don't know whether the law review's announced policies violate any NYU regulations.

It would be easy at this point to get caught up in the question of whether BDS is antisemitic. To me, it's irrelevant, because it's worse than mere antisemitism; unlike most antisemites, most supporters of BDS are ok with genocide.

Here is how the law review itself describes BDS:

The N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change ("RLSC") expresses our firm commitment to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions ("BDS") movement and our solidarity with Palestinians collectively struggling towards liberation.

BDS is a Palestinian-led movement that urges action to pressure Israel to end its occupation and colonization of Palestinian land, discrimination against Palestinian citizens, and denial of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.

Anyone who knows the BDS movement knows that "Palestinian liberation" the "right of return," and stopping Israel's "occupation and colonization of Palestinian land" are code phrases for the destruction of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Muslim state. As things stand at the moment, the emergence of such a state would almost certainly result in most of the Jewish population of Israel either being killed or forced to become refugees. If there are any supporters of the destruction of Israel who include a caveat that they would withdraw such support if it became clear that these would be the consequences, I have yet to happen upon them. Even the late suave intellectual Edward Said could only muster the hope that the Jewish community would be safe in a future Palestine, but it was ultimately irrelevant to his commitment to a Palestinian state replacing Israel.

So the NYU students in question, whether are not they are complicit in antisemitism, are presumptively okay with my family in Israel, along with the rest of Israel's seven million Jews, being murdered or expelled. Again, they are ok with genocide. And if they don't realize that this is what their support for Palestinian "liberation" means in practice, then maybe they need to rethink it.

The student editors took a vote on BDS, and I don't know how many dissented, and how vigorously. But for now, in the absence of any resignations or public statements of dissent, the staff members are presumptively okay with genocide. And they are also okay with boycotts. But they may not like the upshot of the combination.

In the absence of my knowing about any internal opposition or further efforts by internal opponents, I think it would be unfair at this point to memorialize all the members of the journal. But for now, I think it's fair to hold the editors in chief, Amelie Daigle and Andrea Green, and the managing editors, Johari Menelik Frasier and Emily Truek, responsible for their law review endorsing genocidal Palestinian nationalist fantasy, though I would be happy to correct this post if they are publicly opposed to the law review's policies.

Comments

[Sebastian Cremmington]

America spent $5 trillion slaughtering hundreds of thousands of random Muslims on the other side of the world…buh Israel.

[David Bernstein]

No Jews, no news.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

I’m not sure why a young country like Israel can’t go through what every young country goes through with border disputes…it’s very common throughout history. And I’ve been to the Texas/Mexico border and Mexicans must go through border crossings and show their papers in order to work and buy things less than a mile away in Texas. Btw, that part of Texas was once part of Mexico and then part of a border dispute!?!

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

So? That part of Mexico was previously part of Indian land in general, owned by no one. Mexico was part of Spain and broke off; why couldn't the Texas part of Mexico do the same?

[Longtobefree]

Skin color?

[Seamus]

It's not a border dispute. BDS "urges action to pressure Israel to end its occupation and colonization of Palestinian land." From the Palestinian point of view, "Palestinian land" is everything that was in the British Mandate of Palestine, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan.

[DaivdBehar]

Shut down NYU Law School, a treason indoctrination camp.

[DaivdBehar]

Zero tolerance for terrorist supporters.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"But for now, I think it's fair to hold the editors in chief, Amelie Daigle and Andrea Green, and the managing editors, Johari Menelik Frasier and Emily Truek, responsible for their law review endorsing genocidal Palestinian nationalist fantasy, though I would be happy to correct this post if they are publicly opposed to the law review's policies."

Your reflexive support of Israel's immoral, ugly, right-wing belligerence -- particularly with respect to the occupied territories -- is well-known, Prof. Bernstein.

Conservatives' efforts to make support for Israel's right-wing conduct a left-right divider in American politics likely accelerates movement toward the point at which modern America will stop providing the political, military, and economic skirts Israel behind which Israel operates.

Why anyone who genuinely cares about Israel would permit that to occur -- let alone push it -- is beyond me, but I am confident those who support Israel's ugly right-wing conduct will sustain the same fate that awaits gun nuts, anti-abortion absolutists, and others who have tied their political wagon to the losing side of America's culture war.

Most Americans don't support superstition-laced right-wing belligerence at home. What is the chance they'll continue to subsidize it, at great and varied cost, anywhere else?

Carry on, clingers. So far and so long as your betters permit, that is.

[David Bernstein]

I normally refrain from responding to your response, Rev., but since you made an accusation, I'd like you to back it up with anything I've actually written, to wit: "Your reflexive support of Israel's immoral, ugly, right-wing belligerence -- particularly with respect to the occupied territories -- is well-known, Prof. Bernstein." Please enlighten us with quotations in which I've "reflexively" (or otherwise) "supported Israel's belligerence with respect to the occupied territories." I'm quite certain you won't find any, and perhaps this will embarrass you enough to quiet down.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You support Israel's conduct with respect to the occupied territories by attacking with such frequency and stridency those who oppose it.

[AtR]

I don't see any quotations ... or any reason to feed the troll.

[David Bernstein]

Ya don’t got any quotations, what a surprise! But apparently you are beyond embarrassment. So I will go back to ignoring you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If I were devote the time to checking the record, Prof. Bernstein, would you pledge to refrain from emulating Prof. Volokh, who denies he engages in repetitive, partisan, viewpoint-driven censorship and then, when I do the homework and post the details — including the precise minutes of the emails with which he repeatedly imposed such censorship — goes mute while his right-wing fans question the evidence?

Do you contend I would find evidence that you have objected to Israel’s conduct in the occupied territories, or to Israel’s cuddling with Trump, Republicans, and America’s right-wingers and hostility toward Obama, Democrats, and the liberal-libertarian mainstream?

Right-wing partisanship in this context is counterproductive from the perspective of Israel. Unless one is eager to observe how Israel is prepared to operate without enormous American support, such conduct is inexplicable.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You were challenged to put up or shut up, and of course you were unable to do either, you pathetic fool. I’d let it go before you embarrass yourself further but you’re beyond shame.

[Commenter_XY]

Like a moth to a flame, you migrate toward Israel-bashing, Arthur. It is one of your least attractive intellectual qualities.

If you want to take up the cause of Israel's judeocidal neighbors, go for it. Like everyone else who has been gunning for us for the last 5000 years, you'll be rotting, putrid in your gave while we toast L'Chaim, and truly celebrate life.

Semeach Hanukah....I hope you find the light and not a flame, Arthur.

[Ed Grinberg]

[Israel-bashing] is one of your least attractive intellectual qualities.

I'd say it's his open disdain / contempt for millions of his countrymen.

[Bob from Ohio]

"intellectual qualities"?

Kirkland? He doesn't have any.

[Rossami]

That's unfair, Bob. Negative qualities are still qualities.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I bash Israel's right-wing belligerence, its disgusting and counterproductive cuddling with Donald Trump, and the efforts of some of its lesser supporters to make support for Israel's reprehensible right-wing conduct a left-right divider in American politics.

I also am not a fan of superstition-laced, authoritarian government bigotry anywhere, including in Israel (such as the misogyny on Israeli public transportation, or with respect to the recently jostled kosher racket).

By all means, continue to marry Israel's conservative conduct with America's right-wingery if you wish, clingers. Ignore the predictable consequences of losing the support of America's educated, modern, triumphant liberal-libertarian mainstream. Why should I care much? It's Israel's funeral.

[Harvey Mosley]

"I also am not a fan of superstition-laced, authoritarian government bigotry anywhere..."

I'm sure you can back up this assertion by providing evidence of your similar attacks on the Palestinian government and other Muslim countries?

[David Nieporent]

When you compile the record, don't forget to include all the posts where you proposed as the solution to the problem deporting all Jews from the area to West Virginia or west Texas.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You lie again, Mr. Nieporent. I ascribe that to your bigoted right-wing nature.

[FourteenFour]

Why doesn't everyone have RALK on ignore is beyond me? Him and DB are both just so toxic

[Frank Drackman]

because He's out of Order!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Why doesn't everyone have RALK on ignore is beyond me?"

Concur.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" you are beyond embarrassment "

You are part of a right-wing blog that attracts and lathers disaffected, obsolete bigots, then stands aside as they wallow in racism, misogyny, gay-bashing, and xenophobia . . . and occasionally spices the mix by flaunting its periodic (every few weeks) publication of vile racial slurs.

You are not quite so culpable as a couple of your clinger colleagues, but so long as you associate with this blog I am not in the market for pointers from you on anything.

[Ed Grinberg]

You must understand: for Israel-bashers like the Rev "occupied territories" is a flexible term, which can mean a single inch of "Palestinian" land. So, as long as you oppose Israel's destruction, you're "supporting Israel's immoral, ugly...belligerence...with respect to...occupied territories."

[Don Nico]

Nothing embarrasses Artie. Don't waste your time on him.

[Malvolio]

I find the “Mute User” button the best way to deal with certain users.

[Krayt]

By the Rule of Trump, where neo Nazis full-throatedly support him, and therefore all who support him are (which would not be me but I love rhetoric), so, too, does Kirkland and BDS get tarred because of all the full-throated support of BDS by neo Nazis and actual "push the Jews into the sea" anti-semites.

I'll take my answer offline, Ted.

[Leo Marvin]

Your reflexive support of Israel's immoral, ugly, right-wing belligerence -- particularly with respect to the occupied territories -- is well-known, Prof. Bernstein.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only opinion I recall David expressing "with respect to the occupied territories" defined narrowly is his opposition to the settlements project, and more broadly, support for a two state solution.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Sigh....

I look at bits like BDS, but then look at the facts and they don't match.

Palestinian GDP per capita has more than doubled since 2000, while being substantially higher than two of its neighboring Arab countries (Egypt and Syria), and slightly below that of Jordan.

And then I look where a country is ACTUALLY committing ethnic genocide against a Muslim population, specifically the Uyghurs...and the deafening silence and lack of any type of "BDS movement" there.

And I gotta figure...do they really care about the Palestinians or Muslims? Cause it seems like they've got other priorities.

[David Bernstein]

Here's the deal: almost no anti-Israel activists actually care about the fate of the Palestinian people, including Palestinian anti-Israel activists. Virtually none of them speak up against the Hamas theocracy or the PA kleptocracy. Virtually none of them said anything when Lebanon for decades refused to allow Palestinians living there to work or otherwise do anything outside of refugee camps. Virtually none of said anything when Palestinians were attacked during the Syrian civil war. For a variety of ideological reasons with a large dose of antisemitism involved, they hate Israel and want it to cease to exist. The Palestinians present their best pr case for pursuing this end. Actual Palestinian welfare is worse than irrelevant; if the Palestinian leadership were to reach a lasting settlement with Israel, it would harm their real cause, destroying Israel.

[Commenter_XY]

Al arab jarab; the judeocidal palestinians are like the regional canker sore. As for NYU, Professor Bernstein, let's see how the faculty reacts over time.

[Sarcastr0]

There could be reasons for this other than bad faith.

For instance, that they're moved by America's active policies, and less so about general evils around the world.
It tends to come up as though Israel were part of a larger American imperialism they oppose.

At least that is what they tell me when I debate them and bring up what would happen if America stopped supporting Israel. They're not coming from a place that's at all consequentialist; it's virtue ethics.
It's absolutely a flawed moral paradigm; it's also not antisemitism.

[Michael P]

There are anti-Israel activists outside of the US, you know. Or do you think European and Middle East activists should have their nonchalance to actual oppression of Palestinians excused just because United States and because it happens outside of Israel?

[Stephen Lathrop]

VC commenter objects to constraints on whataboutery?

[Sarcastr0]

Is their activism about the policies of their own country?

Bottom line is this is whattaboutism. You can take a cause and not be obligated to take every other cause out there that's related.

I could as easily indict Bernstein for ignoring the plight of Palestinians. But of course he's not obligated to do so, no more than those critical of Israel are.

[David Bernstein]

There are all sorts of reasons that someone could intensely dislike Israel. One is simply that the person is an Arab nationalist or Islamist, and for either reason believes that Israel must be replaced by an Arab, Muslim, or Arab/Muslim state. People in these camps often are antisemitic, but there is nothing inherently antisemitic about Arab nationalism or Islamism. Jews are just in the way. But my point is that neither group cares about welfare of the Palestinians, as such, they are just a means to the ultimate goal of destroying Israel. And as noted, if Israel reached a settlment with the Palestinians that benefited the Palestinians tremendously, they would in fact be opposed, because, again, their goal is not Palestinian welfare, but destroying Israel.

[Sarcastr0]

1) One can distinguish this issue as particularly salient because it has to do with US foreign policy more than the plight of Palestinians.

2) Being for one cause relating to the welfare of a people doesn't mean you must be for every cause to help that same people, or else you have another agenda. Just like you can work for lower taxes on the working class and yet not support unions.

3) As I said below, virtue ethics completely short circuits your consequentialist analysis. People can be motivated by injustice and not Palestinian welfare, but also not have the goal of destroying Israel.

[Bored Lawyer]

Sorry, your analysis is horse puckey. If you are concerned that a particular people are being oppressed, yet you focus solely on oppression from Source A and utterly ignore Source B, even though the oppression from Source B is considerably worse, then your bona fides about concern about those people's oppression are called into question.
This, of course, is par for the course for a certain group among the left. If "colonial" powers oppress someone, then that it a cause for outcry. If the locals oppress them worse, then that is not even worthy of mention.

[Sarcastr0]

I've done activism against the death penalty, but not against the war in Afghanistan. Is that some kind of double standard?

So anyone who marched about election fraud on Jan 06 doesn't really care about that because they didn't march about election integrity or voting rights other times they could have?

This is an impossible standard you have set up.

[Bored Lawyer]

You are just digging yourself deeper. All of your examples concern unrelated things.

Here the claim is made that out of concern for the oppressed Palestinians, Israel must be fought, if not through actual war, then through BDS. Meanwhile, the same people say nary a peep about oppression of the very same Palestinians at the hands of their own government -- which is considerably worse. That is hypocrisy.

The fact that you opposed the death penalty while ignoring Afghanistan is a complete non-sequitur. Nor is your election case, because the same people may have felt that that election was stolen (which was delusional) and others were not.

What I find utterly astounding is that people like you simply want to close your eyes to reality. If Israel withdrew from the West Bank tomorrow, within a year it would be a hell-hole ruled by Hamas. Gaza is Exhibit A to what that would look like. Unpleasant for Israel, but an absolute dog for the locals. Now if your mindset is, "so long as their own people are doing it, we don't care," then it makes perfect sense. I will leave it to the other readers to determine the morality of that mindset.

[Sarcastr0]

I think the line of what's related and unrelated is not evident at all.
2 policies wherein the government is killing people are only unrelated because you say they are. And election integrity and disenfranchisement are dealing with the same issue as well.

But it is unworkable and ridiculous to say it's hypocrisy to be for one cause and not a related one. I saw the same thing about the pussy hat wearers not caring about women in Islam.

And check out my comments elsewhere in this post to see how wrong you are about 'people like me.'

[Commenter_XY]

Indeed, there could be (reasons other than bad faith). Then one looks to the track record of past behavior. Tell you what, Sarcastr0....how 'bout you look at the track record of the NYU student union on antisemitism for the last two years and report back to us. I think we both know what you'll find.

It should be.....illuminating (alluding to last day of Hanukah here).

[Sarcastr0]

Assuming your presumption is correct, you're still generalizing.

This is actually really unproductive - calling everyone on the other side antisemitic (or condoning genocide) cuts off all chance of compromise or even debate. Sure, if you're right that's already over. But what if you're not?

[Brett Bellmore]

I recall Trump got a lot of grief for pointing out that not everybody protesting in Charlottesville was a neo-Nazi. I gather you're now admitting his remarks on the topic were reasonable?

[David Nieporent]

I recall Trump got a lot of grief for pointing out that not everybody protesting in Charlottesville was a neo-Nazi.

Claiming, not "pointing out."

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Claiming, not "pointing out."

So it's your assertion that everyone protesting in Charlottesville WAS a neo-Nazi? Or just that they were probably all neo-Nazis?

[bernard11]

First, people who show up at neo-Nazi rallies are usually neo-Nazis, whether they've paid membership dues or not.

Second, it was Trump making claims. Let him produce the proof.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, that's certainly a fine example of circular reasoning. Declare the people at a rally neo-Nazis, so it must have been a neo-Nazi rally, which only neo-Nazis would attend.

[David Nieporent]

No, Brett. It was a neo-Nazi rally. This wasn't a group of people talking at a neighborhood barbecue and saying, "Hey, did you hear they were talking about taking down that Lee statue?" "Yeah." "We should get together on Saturday and hold a rally against it." "Okay."

This was a rally expressly organized by nationwide white supremacist groups and advertised as such.

[Ed Grinberg]

DB: "Anyone who knows the BDS movement knows that 'Palestinian liberation,' the 'right of return,' and stopping Israel's 'occupation and colonization of Palestinian land' are code phrases for the destruction of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Muslim state. As things stand at the moment, the emergence of such a state would almost certainly result in most of the Jewish population of Israel either being killed or forced to become refugees. If there are any supporters of the destruction of Israel who include a caveat that they would withdraw such support if it became clear that these would be the consequences, I have yet to happen upon them."

Sarcastr0: "This is actually really unproductive - calling everyone on the other side antisemitic (or condoning genocide) cuts off all chance of compromise or even debate."

Sarcastr0, did you read what DB wrote? Then what are you talking about?! "The other side" . . . of what? Of not wanting to see a country of seven million people destroyed?! And just because those seven million people happen to be Jews, it's somehow "unproductive" and "generalizing" to call such people antisemites? "Compromise"?! "Debate"?! Are you insane?!

[Sarcastr0]

Despite what Bernstein claims, there is a lot of ground between 'I think Israel's policies are oppressive' and 'I think all Israelis should be killed.'

[Bored Lawyer]

Except that is a straw man argument that Bernstein did not make.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Sarcastr0 dishonestly making a straw man argument? I'm shocked...SHOCKED, I tell you!

[Sarcastr0]

Did you see the bit about genocide?

[Toranth]

Have you ever looked up a poll on how Palestinians think Jews should be treated? There are Palestinian polling organizations that ask that question a couple times a year.

Why don't you go look up what they want to do to the Jews?

[Sarcastr0]

None of which contradicts that there is a lot of ground between 'I think Israel's policies are oppressive' and 'I think all Israelis should be killed.'

Palestinians get to to do whatever they want to the Israelis is similarly excluding a huge middle.

[Malvolio]

This is actually really unproductive - calling everyone on the other side antisemitic (or condoning genocide) cuts off all chance of compromise or even debate.

I don’t agree that Bernstein is factually correct in saying that supporting BDS is the same as condoning genocide; whether it is inherently antisemitic is a more nuanced question.

However, what makes you think there is any response that makes compromise or debate more likely? The entire point of BDS seems to be making debate and compromise impossible.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, don't talk to those guys. But calling them antisemetic genocide condoners doesn't just effect BDS people - it drives the entire debate to extremes.

[David Nieporent]

For instance, that they're moved by America's active policies, and less so about general evils around the world.

It tends to come up as though Israel were part of a larger American imperialism they oppose.

But that would still bolster DB's underlying point that the people we're discussing aren't motivated by actual concern for Palestinian welfare.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure - but that's not his underlying point, it's a lemma on the way to 'their main cause is destroying Israel.'

That I don't think is supported.

[Bored Lawyer]

In theory, it would be possible to say, " I don't give a rat's rear parts about the Palestinians, but the United States' support of Israel harms its standing in the much of the world, especially the Arab world and other parts of the the Third World. So we should reduce or eliminate that support."

That, more or less, was Pat Buchanan's position.

The problem is that the people who support BDS don't say that. They say the want to dismantle oppression of the Palestinians through Israeli occupation. Other forms of oppression of Palestinians bothers them not a wit.

[Don Nico]

"There could be reasons for this other than bad faith."
There could be, but there aren't except for active anti-Semitism

[Sarcastr0]

That is something to invoke so easily. It devalues the term.

[jimc5499]

That's because the Soviets started the whole thing in the 60's and 70's.

[Aunt Teefah]

"Uyghurs...and the deafening silence and lack of any type of "BDS movement" there."

Maybe the NYU students (and other American supporters of BDS) have a problem with their tax dollars being spent on the oppression of a minority Muslim population. If China was a US client state, maybe you would have a point.

[Ben Gerald]

Once again, conservative hatred for free speech knows no bounds. The journal is a private organization and is free to choose what it will and won't publish. It is not only grossly arrogant and entitled for Bernstein to claim that the journal must publish content that it disagrees with, it is not only disturbing to see basic principles of free speech face threats from law professors, it reveals the rank hypocrisy and double-standard just barely beneath the surface of the fake, conservative so-called free speech movement.

[Free Exercise]

The Journal may be free to take extreme positions, but that doesn’t make it, and its editors, immune from criticism for those positions. Such criticism in no way violates ‘basic principles of free speech’.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Agreed. But do you insist a notion of balance is indispensable to every academic premise? To discuss policy on slavery, you must credit alike pro-slavery and anti-slavery arguments? To discuss the Holocaust, you must credit alike Holocaust historians and Holocaust deniers? Perhaps you could find instances where that kind of balance seems academically necessary. Does that mean it is always required in every instance?

[Social Justice is neither]

There is balance and then there is your abuse of the word balance to mean equal.

The balance for the issue of slavery would be contextualized questions of why it existed and what, if anything, made the Colonies unique. The other side of basic human rights and autonomy again would need contextualization to explain why the anti-slavery movement arose how and where it did. If not you get the modern leftist conceit that slavery only existed in the US and that all white people were fine with that and did nothing about it, so ahistorical lies.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Social Justice is neither — For what it's worth, the late David Brion Davis made a distinguished career as a historian out of, "balance for the issue of slavery," in just the way you describe it. I have no notion whether he was a, "modern leftist." Do you?

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
You may have run a neighborhood newspaper, but this episode shows once again how much law reviews violate the usual standards agreed to by all responsible publishers of peer-reviewed professional journals. Having student editors is a bad idea; the practice ought to cease.

[IPLawyer]

Don, no one cares about what happens in law reviews except for the students competing to get on them, you, and DB. Get a grip!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Don Nico, take another look at your first sentence, and see if there is any part of it that is gratuitously unrelated to your point. Ask yourself why that unrelated part is in there.

[jimc5499]

Of course it violates "free speech". In the mind of Liberal Socialists anything critical of them is "hatred of violence" and violates their definition of free speech. Ben outed himself as soon as he said "conservative".

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

So your remedy is for others to shut up while you get to exercise free speech to criticize those who criticize BDS? What is this, some kind of "every even numbered criticism is ok, every odd numbered one is out of bounds" codicil to the First Amendment?

[Sarcastr0]

Is Prof. asking for the journal to be shut down, or for there to be any sanction at all?

No, he's using his speech to criticize their speech and associations.

Even though I think Bernstein takes it way too far supposing anyone who doesn't take Israel's side is supporting genocide (in fact, such hot rhetoric only hurts his case by making it clear he's not an honest broker). But I see nothing that isn't in line with free speech.

[David Bernstein]

Not "anyone who doesn't take Israel's side" but anyone who "supports the goals of the BDS movement," which is to replace Israel with a Palestinian Muslim state. And not "supporting genocide," but "ok with genocide." I take it that most supporters of replacing Israel with a Palestinian state would prefer that it not involve genocide. My point is that if you pin BDS supporter down and ask them which is their priority if it came down to it, no genocide or no Palestinian state replacing Israel, you would be hard-pressed to find many that would say directly and without caveat, "If the price of a Palestinian state replacing Israel would be the killing of many Israeli Jews, and the displacement of most of the rest, I'm not willing to pay it." Indeed, the longstanding position of the Palestinian nationalism movement has been that only Jews who can directly trace their ancestry to before modern Zionism, i.e., 1890 or so, have any claim to a right to stay in "Palestine."

[Sarcastr0]

I agree with this analysis!

But this forced choice hypothetical doesn't seem useful. Certainly it's not enough to call someone antisemetic. Though immoral, I'll give you - anyone picking genocide as the more moral choice has their compass very, very wrong.

Nor does your OP make it clear the rarified playing field you're working in.

[David Bernstein]

As I noted in the OP, I find the question of whether BDS is antisemitic not worth arguing about, because it's worse than mere antisemitism, it's focused on the destruction of an existing state to the point where most of its fervent supporters would be okay with a genocidal outcome if it led to the destruction of that state.

[David Nieporent]

The journal is a private organization and is free to choose what it will and won't publish.

Um, yes. And DB is a private person and is free to choose what he will and won't criticize. Criticizing people for their speech related choices is also an exercise of free speech.

Moreover, free speech isn't the issue; academic standards are. They have — the Supreme Court even said so — the free speech right to publish a piece saying, in its entirety, "FUCK THE DRAFT FUCK THE DRAFT FUCK THE DRAFT FUCK THE DRAFT FUCK THE DRAFT FUCK THE DRAFT FUCK THE DRAFT FUCK THE DRAFT FUCK THE DRAFT FUCK THE DRAFT FUCK THE DRAFT FUCK THE DRAFT." But that would nevertheless not be appropriate for a law review article.

[IPLawyer]

No one said DB can't post this; it's just stupid to. Like DB, you too also seem to enjoy partaking in moronic conduct.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

Once again, conservative hatred for free speech knows no bounds.

That's an odd criticism of a piece that is itself criticizing a publication for suppressing speech.

[IPLawyer]

Maybe the Academic Freedom Alliance can write a letter on behalf of the journal!!

[Cal Cetín]

Bernstein got himself lowered in a bucket into the comment section...now he ought to give a couple tugs at the rope to signal he should be lifted back out again.

[SomeGuy 2]

Since its founding, the Israeli academy has cast its lot with the hegemonic political-military establishment in Israel

This makes me chuckle. It's true, relatively few Israeli academics are advocating for their own execution, therefore ipso facto they cast their lot in with the ESTABLISHMENT. They might not like everything Israel does, but they're likely aware that Israel can't afford to lose against the Palestinians even one time. If it does, they're all dead.

[Stephen Lathrop]

SomeGuy 2, see my comment on the role of balance in academia above? You point out to me that I need to revise and extend. In general, I do think a balanced approach to predictions is more often necessary than a balanced approach to commentary about current events, or to commentary about abstractions or ethical conclusions. Something to do with the future as a uniquely unknowable subject.

[Doug Heffernan]

The answer must be stronger anti-BDS laws. 35 states have passed anti-BDS laws already, but they are not all equally as anti.

Since this issue is lively in the democratic process, record your voice with your state legislature. Stronger anti-BDS laws will stop these misguided academic types from thinking the wrong stuff, as decided by the people through the democratic process.

[Jimmy the Dane]

I used to only care about this conflict. Maybe was more on the side of Israel. Then one night I saw some previously censored videos that showed Israeli "settlers" physically evicting Palestinians from homes followed by a few similarly awesome videos of IDF soldiers taking "fun" shots at random Palestinians. Made me think twice.....

[Krayt]

Fyi I know a Palestinian who can tell you all about Jordan, I think it was, plowing under his village.

They were worse than useless, until they became a rallying cry against Israel.

[Frank Drackman]

watch "Munich" fuck the A-rabs

[Illocust]

Isreal is an interesting situation. It's one of the few situations I know of, where the side being asked to give up territory not only has been the only ones living on it in my living memory, but also where both sides agree that the side being asked to give up territory's ancestors were on the territory first.

[Seamus]

You haven't been following the dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas, I see.

[jimc5499]

Neither have you. I'm pretty sure that the residents of the Falklands voted to stay part of the UK.

[Seamus]

Not the point. Not only are the Brits are "the only ones living on [the islands] in . . . living memory," but they also were on the territory before the Argies (Fort Egmont, founded by the Brits in 1766 and manned by them till 1774, when they evacuated the fort, while maintaining their territorial claim).

Neither I nor Illocust said a word. But if voting (meaning the will of the inhabitants) were significant, how do you think a vote on the eve of Israeli independence would have gone?

[Seamus]

That should have been "Neither I not Illocust said a word about voting."

[bernard11]

While I've disagreed with a lot of Bernstein's posts on Israel, he's mostly right here.

The problem is that some of the stated aims of BDS - "to pressure Israel to end its occupation and colonization of Palestinian land," can be read to mean "stop expanding the settlements," or "stop existing." These are vastly different things, and it's easy to support the first, while being horrified at the second. But that's the trap in the whole thing.

[Sarcastr0]

His initial thesis is legit. But I can't walk with him on this:

So the NYU students in question, whether are not they are complicit in antisemitism, are presumptively okay with my family in Israel, along with the rest of Israel's seven million Jews, being murdered or expelled.

[bernard11]

I did say "mostly right."

I don't think most critics of Israeli policy want to see Israel destroyed. No doubt there are some, but Bernstein is over-generalizing here.

What I would like to hear from him is discussion of two issues:

1. What aspects of Israeli policy does he oppose, or even think it possible to oppose without being antisemitic.

2. What exactly is the end-game of current policies from Israel's POV? Where is the equilibrium? One state? Two states? Permanent second-class status for the Palestinians? We hear little about a two-state solution these days. Why is that?

[David Bernstein]

I don't have the time or inclination to answer your questions, but I do want to point out that I never said or implied that "most critics of Israeli policy want to see Israel destroyed." What I said is that seeing Israel destroyed is the goal of the BDS movement, and supporting the BDS movement is thus supporting that goal. Most critics of Israel, and certainly in the US, or not supporters of BDS, and some who support BDS rather naively or ignorantly don't understand what the goal is.

[IPLawyer]

Shocking to thing that someone this oblivious grades student papers.

[bernard11]

I don't have the time or inclination to answer your questions,

OK, you don't have to. But to me the second one, in particular, is critical. In thinking about the I-P situation ISTM that policies should be aimed at some sort of long-term peaceful equilibrium. I don't see what that is for current policies.

[David Nieporent]

I don't think most critics of Israeli policy want to see Israel destroyed.

I do, at least for most critics outside of Israel. Not because the destruction of Israel is inherent in criticism of Israeli policy; it's obviously not. But it's basic Bayesian inference. Who is likely to care (negatively) about Israel?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Who is likely to care (negatively) about Israel? "

At the moment, consequent to Israel's conduct . . . people who dislike Trump, Republican racists, superstitious gay-bashers, conservative misogynists, right-wing xenophobes, and disaffected clingers.

Figuring there should be or will be no cost to Israel's foolish alignment with America's bigoted right-wingers is destined to be a costly misjudgment.

[Sarcastr0]

I don't think it's a good idea to use Bayesian inference when evaluating individuals.

[bernard11]

I don't think it's a good idea to use Bayesian inference when evaluating individuals.

Well, let's say Sparta and Athens have the same population. Ninety percent of Spartans and ten percent of Athenians are constant liars. The rest of each group always tell the truth.

A random Greek approaches you and tells you something you know to be false. (Just to be careful, it's something that all Greeks know to be false - let's say he tells you beta is the first letter of the alphabet.)

Is this individual more likely to be a Spartan or an Athenian?

[John F. Carr]

3,600 years ago, scientists recently reported, an asteroid impact rendered the region uninhabitable. And for a few centuries there was peace in the Jordan Valley.

[Mr. Hook]

I offer to Prof. Bernstein his own advice when neo-Nazis marched in Charlottesville: Ignore them. If actual Nazis in the streets merit a shrug, why should a law journal's editorial policy generate such outrage and assertions of genocide?

[David Bernstein]

If pro-BDS forces calling a national meeting with huge amounts of publicity could only muster 300 or so adherents, they too would be worth ignoring.

[Mr. Hook]

You seriously flatter the significance of a law journal. But, nah, worse than actual Nazis.

[David Bernstein]

That's a very creative interpretation of what I wrote.

[WuzYoungOnceToo]

That's a very creative interpretation of what I wrote.

He appears to be another proud graduate of the Sarcastr0 School of Straw Man Argumentation.

[Michael P]

A mud wallow is great for pigs, so why shouldn't a law review from a prestigious university have one too?

[Jerry B.]

"...or that claim that both colonizers and colonized are equally responsible for the 'conflict'..."

So it's pretty much Israel's fault no matter what. But the Law Review's not anti-Semitic or anything.

[IPLawyer]

This is a free speech blog, so long as you don't talk about anything that offends Professor Bernstein's sensibilities!

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, because free speech means you are immune from criticism.

Are you really that much of a clown, or do you just play one on TV?

[IPLawyer]

My point wasn't that Bernstein is unfair to criticize...

[David Nieporent]

No; your point was dumber: that it was anti-free speech for Bernstein to criticize.

(Which is a self-refuting argument.)

[Kords]

I don't doubt that "Palestinian liberation" often serves as a stand-in for or includes destruction of the Israeli state, but it seems like a huge reach to ascribe that view to a bunch of student editors and journal members based on their supporting the phrase "Palestinian liberation." To someone not steeped in this debate, supporting "Palestinian liberation" seems perfectly legitimate and would not be equated with genocide by the average observer.

[David Bernstein]

Never sign on to a brief if you don't understand the relevant legal issues. They should have learned that at NYU.

[Kords]

Fair enough. But ascribing the view still seems wrong because:

(1) it ignores the reality that the journal members who signed onto it probably didn't do in-depth research into how certain terms are often used in the Israeli-Palestinian debate.

(2) it makes it impossible to express potentially legitimate grievances without having way worse views attributed to the speaker even if the words, interpreted literally, didn't express those views. For example, one can be in favor of ending Israeli "occupation and colonization of Palestinian land" through means other than Jewish/Israeli genocide, and I don't believe in ascribing the worst possible interpretation to a statement without very good reason for doing so.

(3) I just don't buy that the phrases you listed always serve as stand-ins for genocidal acts. For example, I don't take any stance on the merits of the article as a whole, but this calls for an end to Israeli ""occupation and colonization of Palestinian land," but also specifies that "any peace must be acceptable to both Palestinians and Israelis." See https://www.afsc.org/blogs/news-and-commentary/trump-netanyahu-meeting. Given the existence of non-genocidal uses of the phrases you described, I would never skip straight to "these people support genocide."

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, because free speech means you are immune from criticism.

Are you really that much of a clown, or do you just play one on TV?

[Bored Lawyer]

Whoops. DOuble posting.