The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Two Posts Relevant to Current Campus Conflicts Over Israel and Hamas
My October 2023 posts on the roots of far-left support for Hamas and the reasons why some "cancellations" are justified remain sadly relevant.

Recent conflicts over anti-Israel protests at college campuses highlight the ongoing relevance of issues I addressed in two posts written back in October, in the immediate aftermath of the horrific October 7 Hamas terrorist attack:
"Some Cancellations are Justified," Oct. 15, 2023
"Far-Left Support for Hamas is not an Aberration" Oct. 30, 2023
The first explained why some "cancellations" of people with abhorrent views are justified, depending on the nature of the views, the type of job they are barred from, and whether stigmatization is likely to be an effective tactic in dealing with these ideologies.. I had in mind people who supported the Hamas terrorist attack and others with comparably awful views. which surely includes those current protest organizers who promote anti-Semitism and terrorism. But my reasoning also applies - perhaps with greater force - to people who go beyond expressing awful views by engaging in violence, disruption, and harassment, as some (though by no means all or even most) anti-Israel protestors have since October 7.
The post on the far left and Hamas explains why far-left support for Hamas terrorism is not an aberration, but rather is part of a long history of support for repression and mass murder by the likes of Lenin, Mao, and Castro. Many of these atrocities were on a far larger scale than anything Hamas has so far been able to pull off.
Obviously, not all anti-Israel protestors are far leftists. Some are radical Islamists or Arab nationalists. Others just think Israel is using excessive force, or the like. Many more may be just hangers-on without much in the way of clear ideological commitments - "more Woodstock than Weathermen," as my co-blogger David Bernstein puts it. Nonetheless, far-leftists (as I defined them in my post), are prominent among the leaders of disruptive protests that feature support for terrorism and anti-Semitism. Their influence on college campuses is far greater than in most other parts of society. We should not be surprised that adherents of an ideology that justifies terrorism, Gulags, and mass murder would not blanch at the kind of (fortunately) much lesser forms of violence and disruption that we see at some campus protests.
I should emphasize that both posts include a variety of caveats and distinctions. For example, it is not my claim that people with awful views should be "cancelled" from employment of every kind. Much depends on the nature of the job in question. I also don't claim that all left-wingers or anyone to the left of me qualifies as "far left" in the sense used in my post on that topic. In addition, there is a crucial distinction between private refusal to hire or otherwise associate with people, and government suppression of speech. Sadly, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's response to some of the campus protests in his state falls into the latter category, and thereby violates the First Amendment.
I will also take this opportunity to reiterate a point made in the post about the far-left, to the effect that various right-wing political movements also have awful histories of justifying atrocities, and of anti-Semitism. Having recently coauthored "The Case Against Nationalism," and argued for the prosecution and disqualification of Donald Trump, I cannot easily be accused of being soft on reprehensible right-wing movements.
The posts include other qualifications and nuances, as well. This is is a set of issues where it is more than usually necessary to "read the whole thing," and not just rely on headlines and social media rants.
But, caveats aside, the issues raised in both posts remain relevant. And that relevance is likely to continue, even after the current wave of unrest subsides. It probably won't be the last time far-left awfulness manifests itself, or the last time we have to consider when and if cancellation is justified.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Prof. Somin doesn't seem to have much to say about -- let alone substantial criticism of -- Israel's disgusting, lethal right-wing belligerence (Gaza, West Bank, a government of superstitious bigots who subjugate people based on religion and ethnicity, etc.).
He doesn't seem sympathetic toward those who object to Israel's despicable conduct, which is sorely testing America's willingness to provide the skirts Israel operates behind.
Carry on, clingers.
You're just not a good troll anymore. You never really were, tbh; most of the people who interacted with you were just insane, bored, or didn't recognize your game, but now even new and unfamiliar people ignore most of your many comments. When people do respond, they're usually making fun of you or making tangential comments. It's time to give it up. How long have you wasted doing this and have you really gained anything?
What about this comment bothered you?
That is disrespects conservatives' convenient and temporary hop aboard a bandwagon with a right-wing government gone rogue and lethal?
Who is accomplishing anything at this blog, in your judgment? Volokh bigot-talked his way off campus. Zywicki, Kontorovich, Barnett, and a couple of others crawled away after becoming punching bags.
Blackman is mired at one of the worst law schools in America. A half-dozen legitimate schools, meanwhile, have had their reputations misappropriated and stained by association with this flaming clustermuck of backwardness and bigotry. I would bet my house that most Volokh Conspirators are shunned, disrespected misfits among their faculties.
Many, perhaps most, of the regular conservative commenters have established themselves to be old-timey gay-bashers, misogynists, religious kooks, Islamophobes, antisemites, xenophobes, white supremacists, on-the-spectrum misfits, Christian dominionists, half-educated hayseeds, un-American insurrectionists, white nationalists, transphobes, and/or disaffected culture war roadkill. An unhealthy number fixate on homosexuality or a trans fetish, likely from a closet.
My game is winning the culture war (improving my country) and calling obsolete right-wing bigots obsolete right-wing bigots (because bigots should be known as bigots). What is yours?
You’re just not a good troll anymore. You never really were, tbh; most of the people who interacted with you were just insane, bored, or didn’t recognize your game, but now even new and unfamiliar people ignore most of your many comments. When people do respond, they’re usually making fun of you or making tangential comments. It’s time to give it up. How long have you wasted doing this and have you really gained anything?
(hat tip to gormadoc)
Funny how Somin thinks that being a Trump-hater gives him credibility.
And of course he wants open borders for the USA, but not for Israel.
Not even the US, just the red sections near the border. He was fully behind calling in the national guard to forcibly remove the poor asylum seekers from MV after all.
Israel had the moral high ground on October 8. Having killed tens of thousands of civilians and engaged in what is by any reasonable definition ethnic cleansing, it no longer does. Yes, Hamas needs to be eradicated; no, ethnic cleansing is not the way to go about it.
"what is by any reasonable definition ethnic cleansing"
Nothing "reasonable" about that definition.
Hamas hides in tunnels under civilian houses. You have to go in and destroy the tunnels or October 7s will re-occur. So civilian deaths will occur because Hamas is willing to fight to the last non-hamas civilian.
So how many civilians are you willing to kill, Bob? The last non-hamas civilian?
Hamas has the entire moral responsibility. The murdered and took hostages, including young children. They started it, they resist well past military justification exposing their people to harm and refuse to release the hostages and surrender.
But sure I'm the one killing civilians.
Yes, Bob, Israel is the one killing civilians. "See what you made me do" is rarely a legitimate defense.
Krychek,
Hamas bears the culpability for any civilian deaths. They're using civilians as human shield, like strapping a Palestinian baby to a Hamas fighter's chest, then having the fighter charge an Israeli line of soldiers.
That's profoundly stupid, but perhaps that thought can provide comfort to you when America stops supporting Israel and Israel learns about life without American skirts to hide behind.
It may be a brief, intense lesson.
But you'll still have your 'Hamas made Israel engage in indiscriminate killing of women and children and Hamas made Israelis steal land and kill people in the West Bank' bullshit.
If America stops supporting Israel, there will be a lot more death.
Right now, Israel can be relatively restrained in its actions, because the US is helping with its defense. See the recent defense to the Iranian missiles for example.
Remove America, and Israel needs to strike first to eliminate any aggressive elements, in order to survive.
I doubt you believe Israel will survive the loss of American support.
Oh, Israel will survive. Tehran may be a radioactive hole in the ground, but Israel will survive.
You're trying to hide Israel's despicable, criminal conduct in the West Bank, Bob from Ohio. That makes you as big as asshole as any member of the Netanyahu government -- and, like Israel, an obsolete loser headed for plenty of failure, loss, and pain as better people hold you to account for your deplorable conduct and nature.
Hamas bears the culpability for any civilian deaths.
That is the essential truth here.
In the West Bank, you bigoted hayseed?
with apologies to Josef Stalin, as many as it takes
You have to go in and destroy the tunnels or October 7s will re-occur.
First, you are assuming destroying the tunnels does more to prevent a terrorist attack than "fight[ing] to the last non-hamas civilian" does to ensure another terrorist attack against Israel does happen.
Second, there has only been one October 7th in how many years of Israel's existence? So framing it as if there will be multiple continuing October 7ths is a bit of hyperbole. The October 7th terrorist attack was facilitated by Netanyahu cynically participating in the funding of Hamas and only succeeded due to major security failures by the Netanyahu led government. There are other things to fix than tunnels under houses, some of which may obviate the need for killing civilians.
Third, you take it as a given, apparently, that any number of civilian deaths on the Palestinian side, no matter how high, is worth preventing potential future deaths of Israeli citizens in a mass attack killing in the same neighborhood as 1,300 people. I'm not sure what moral calculus worthy of the name would allow that.
In short, your short post assumes its conclusion and includes a number of highly questionable assumptions.
How many dead US civilians in WW2? How many German civilians? How many Japanese civilians?
You argue like a child. War is not if you lose X dead you can only kill X in return. The civilians killed are "collateral damage" while Hamas murdered in cold blood.
Hamas bears the entire moral burden and responsibility, like Japan and Nazi Germany did.
Look at this fucked up feedback loop you've made.
The more Israel kills civilians, the worse Hamas is, and the more Israel has the moral imprimatur to kill civilians.
This is not only morally bankrupt, its logically stupid.
You are not re-stating my argument at all.
Israel is justified in attacking Hamas until victory because Hamas launched an unprovoked attack murdering and kidnapping civilians, not all Jews either. The responsibility for every death is Hamas. Despite Arab propaganda, Israel does not intentionally kill civilians, unlike Hamas that uses it as a tactic..
Israel's bullshit in the West Bank is enough to cause better Americans to stop supporting Israel. Israel has aligned with the losing side of America's culture war and the cost of the mistake, I sense, is going to be severe.
But, as I say with respect to America's homegrown superstitious right-wing bigots . . . fuck 'em.
Not kind or gentle. Now I'm thinking you really are Jerry Sandusky.
Despite Arab propaganda, Israel does not intentionally kill civilians
But by your logic they could, if it meant degrading Hamas.
This is your dumb argument, multiple people picked up on it.
"But by your logic they could, if it meant degrading Hamas."
Huh? Where did he say that?
civilian deaths will occur because Hamas is willing to fight to the last non-hamas civilian.
Hamas bears the culpability for any civilian deaths
Note the lack of limits to these statements?
I did. And NOVA Lawyer. And Krychek_2.
Looks who is back, and once again arguing against the Jews. Always seems to happen. But he’s not antisemitic…no. Just always seems to be arguing against the Jews, their rights, their right to defend themselves from murder and genocide….
So you can't back up your claim that Bob claims that Israel could intentionally kill civilians?
civilian deaths will occur because Hamas is willing to fight to the last non-hamas civilian
Read that again, 12.
You can try to split a hair and say that if Israel killed every last non-Hamas civilian, then they didn't do so intentionally. But if the police had thrown a hand grenade into the classroom at Uvalde to get that terrorist, I'm pretty sure we would all agree they did, in fact, intentionally kill the students too. Under Bob's logic, the police would have no moral responsibility for the student deaths because the terrorist was hiding behind them.
It's a dumb fucking argument.
Under the laws of war, such as they are, it's perfectly legal to knowingly kill civilians.
You can bomb a dam powering munitions factories, despite knowing the resulting flood will kill civilians.
You can kill innocent shields used by combatants.
What you can't do is go out of your way to kill civilians, it can't be the objective, it has to be incidental to the military objective.
You can knowingly kill civilians, but not intentionally kill civilians. The military objective has to be your intention.
Israel is fighting in compliance with this rule, Hamas is radically in violation of it.
Israel is free to kill every last Hamas terrorist from here to eternity. Who's arguing against that?
No, the question is, obviously, how many non-Hamas terrorists Israel can legitimately kill in the process.
You seem to want to recognize no law, no limits. But there is a law, and there are limits. If Israelis violate that law, they should--and will be--held accountable.
"You seem to want to recognize no law, no limits. "
Nobody's claiming that. Israel can't intentionally target civilians, and expected civilian casualties in any attack can't be grossly disproportionate to the military advantage sought. But as long as Israel adheres to the laws of war, Israel is free to defend itself, even if Hamas' tactics result in the death of every civilian in Gaza.
What's Israel doing in the West Bank, you bigoted right-wing stain?
Er, Bob recognizes no law and no limits. I'm sure there are others.
"The more Israel kills civilians, the worse Hamas is"
Um, yeah. That's because using human shields is a war crime, just like raping and murdering civilians is.
Having civilian collateral damage is an unavoidable consequence of war, and war is the inevitable result of crossing into another country and raping and killing a large number of civilians.
The responsibility here lies entirely with Hamas.
At least you seem to recognize that "war crimes" exist.
Now, if only there were some way to determine if "war crimes" have been committed...
Well, we know that Hamas committed loads of war crimes on October 7th, and is committing war crimes by using human shields.
Yes. Perhaps you get that one war crime doesn't justify another?
I haven't seen anyone here defending Hamas. They're evil. Everyone sensible recognizes that.
What Military Branch did you serve in? the "KISS Army"??
Reprisals are allowed under the Laws of War, after the Germans murdered a bunch of our POW's at Malmedy, we executed a bunch of theirs. It's like when a pitcher plunks a batter after one of his teammates gets plunked.
Indeed, we do. Those responsible should be prosecuted and, if found guilty, punished accordingly.
It's almost a rule you could apply across the board!
No, that's a fucked up strawman in classic Gaslight0 style.
War is not if you lose X dead you can only kill X in return
Strawman much? No one said that.
Hamas bears the entire moral burden and responsibility, like Japan and Nazi Germany did.
You are aware that the Allies committed war crimes and bear moral responsibility for their own war crimes? Being on the right side of the war does not, in fact, justify any and all conduct. All is not, in fact, fair in war.
It's a rather childish view that, if someone started an altercation, you can do whatever you want to them and innocents around them....and it's all their fault. In fact, you remain morally responsible for your own actions.
A smarter argument would have been to admit what I said was true, but defend Israel's actual choices in this war, rather than going all in with the childishly evil argument that, by definition, Israel is not morally responsible for anything that happens after October 7th.
" The October 7th terrorist attack was facilitated by Netanyahu cynically participating in the funding of Hamas "
Blaming the victim. "She was asking for it by wearing a short skirt."
The can't get over Bibi not kissing Obama's ass.
Israel has chosen to align with the Republicans.
This is a mistake not only because Republicans tend to be bigots, but more important because right-wingers have lost the American culture war, and Israel has gotten in line with anti-abortion absolutists, gun nuts, religious kooks, and a few others to take hard stomping for picking the losing side in America.
The Republicans support the Jewish people, and preventing another Holocaust.
The Democrats...well...
You know, not a lot of people are gonna accuse the Dems of allowing another Holocaust.
But then there's Armchair.
Ask Ilhan Omar, (D)...
Yes, President Omar, leader of the Democrat Party...
Where does she say Holocaust things?
Oh, the "Some People did something" on September 11 Ilhan Omar?
and me, and a shitload of my "Tribe"
I don't agree with the Netanyahu blame narrative, but pretending this is about domestic partisan concerns really underscores how narrow your perspective is.
You're not even coherent anymore, Armchair.
I didn't blame the victims of the attack. Netanyahu is not a victim of October 7th. In fact, he's arguably a beneficiary of the attack, given he'd likely be out of office if Israel wasn't at war.
As a defense of Netanyahu, this is pretty weak. Even for you.
Israel was the victim. By blaming Israel's PM and Israel's policies, you in essence blame the victim.
But if we're going to cast blame based on policy choices made, for all these Jewish and Palestinian deaths, here's where we start.
1. Hamas
2. Iran for funding Hamas and giving them all the weapons and training
3. The UNRWA, for continuing to be a front to fund Hamas and its allies
4. Joe Biden for funding Iran and the UNRWA
5. You all for supporting these policies. Ultimately, the blood is on your hands.
How has Joe Biden "funded Iran"? You're not still peddling that lie about the frozen assets, are you?
His Boyfriend Barry Hussein Osama sent billions in cold hard cash to Ear-Ron to get them to sign the bullshit Nuke-ular treaty. How's that one working?
Israel was the victim. By blaming Israel’s PM and Israel’s policies, you in essence blame the victim.
That's not how that works.
1 and 2 are great.
3. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/28/1247702980/an-independent-review-finds-no-evidence-for-israels-claims-about-unrwa-and-hamas
But you'll continue to peddle the lie, because that's what you do.
4. As this relies on the lie (pointed out by Obviously) about Iran and the lie about UNRWA. Two lies for the price of one!
But if indirect funding was the issue, weird you didn't put Israel itself at 3 or 4 given their direct participation in supporting and intent to support Hamas. Even if your lies about Iran and UNRWA were true, Netanyahu engaged in the funding for the purpose of supporting Hamas which, obviously, has more culpability than any participation in funding that was redirected to Hamas though that wasn't its purpose. In other words, even accepting your lies, your takedown proves too much, even then Israel is more to blame than Biden.
5. "You all...." LOL What a loser.
" Having killed tens of thousands of civilians "
If you redefine Hamas fighters as "civilians" then sure.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/25/bbc-admits-reporting-gaza-civilian-deaths-inaccurate/
Israel has killed tens of thousands of armed Hamas fighters. Or as Hamas likes to call them for propaganda purposes "Civilians".
Okay, how many civilians has Israel killed?
Sounds like you should be looking up some solid Israeli sources. You know, the organization that has a multicultural state, with more than 2 million Arabs living in it. And not from the organization that decided sticking knives up women's vaginas was a good idea.
You're the one who seemed to take issue with the Hamas figures, but, as it turns out, you didn't have a factual basis for doing so. Just the feelz, was it?
But if you ever do find support for your argument, please share the figure. It would be interesting to know what the "truth" is.
"what is by any reasonable definition ethnic cleansing"
Why don't you give a definition of "ethnic cleansing" then?
But I'll give a definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
"Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making a region ethnically homogeneous. "
Typically this means making it ethnically homogeneous for the group doing the cleansing.
Is Gaza now "Homogenously Jewish"? Is it anywhere close to that? Has a single Jewish settler moved into Gaza? What about Israel proper? Is that "homogenously Jewish?" Have the Israelis eliminated more than million+ Arab population from Israel? Have they engaged in "ethnic cleansing" there?
But please, tell me your "reasonable definition" of ethnic cleansing instead.
Israel is a bit farther along with its ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, but it would have pursued Gaza next . . . except that the loss of American support will mean Israel will be too busy trying to survive to afflict the Palestinians any more.
Hamas in Gaza succeeded in its Ethnic Cleansing. Not a single Jewish civilian was left alive. Gaza was 100% Arab. (Except for those Jews they kidnapped from Israel and were busy raping)
Maybe we should just wash our hands of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and a few others. No good guys in this situation. Just grievance-blinded, superstition-addled, old-timey, greedy assholes.
Again, we see the argument that being a victim is what constitutes the "high ground." And that standing up for oneself derogates from that high ground.
I do think being a victim is one way to get the moral high ground. Just how humans work.
The issue people are taking with Israel is that it's making some choices in standing up for itself that are not great.
Glad Israel finally acquiesced to let a small proportion of the aid shipments through.
But Israel is caught in the same COIN trap we've been in before, and which lots of people talked about as they went in.
We've learned you can't kill your way out of this kind of thing, at least not in the modern era.
And those reflexively saying yeah go for it Israel try to kill you way out have an agenda different from wiping out Hamas.
K_2,
All you have done is buy into the whole Hamas rationale for using human shields.
There is no way to eradicate Hamas without significant casualties among its captive Gazan shields
Having recently coauthored "The Case Against Nationalism,"
Moscow Marjorie the past few days has been running around talking about how cool is Nationalism.
FWIW I was competing at Penn Relays yesterday. I decided to wear a yarmulke as I would be on UPenn grounds most of the time (and raced in it, too.) No UPenn students seemed to mind or care, but a few other masters athletes made approving comments.
Most people don't dislike Jews (far fewer than was encountered a half-century ago, in my experience). I expect that circumstance to continue to improve, although like all superstition-based religion Judaism seems destined to fade in modern America. America is making great progress in dealing with its bigots.
It's Israel they dislike, for good reason. I expect that situation to improve, too, although not in a manner supporters of the current iteration of Israel are going to like.
How did you do?
We won both our relays 🙂 They no longer hand out the traditional plaques to masters athletes, though, so I'm pleased I already have one.
Yes, "some 'cancellations' of people with abhorrent views are justified, depending on the nature of the views, the type of job they are barred from, and whether stigmatization is likely to be an effective tactic in dealing with these ideologies."
It is currently unclear if those who have in any way contributed to what the United States of America describes as 21,000 unlawful killings in one year should be "cancelled" or arrested, tried, and, if found guilty, incarcerated. Agreed that those who "who go beyond expressing awful views", such as Jewish supremacy over indigenous peoples, "by engaging in violence, disruption, and harassment" as Israelis "have since October 7" deserve our collective scorn. What Israelis continue to do is indeed, as noted by various courts, "part of a long history of support for repression and mass murder by the likes of Lenin, Mao, and Castro." Israel and all Israelis certainly should be punished severely for crimes against humanity!
Agreed, "This is is a set of issues where it is more than usually necessary to 'read the whole thing,' and not just rely on headlines and social media rants," including rants by university-affiliated personnel of certain ethnicities. Surely, Israeli atrocities over the past 75 years cannot be dismissed by the woeful, yet amusingly unremorseful and unrepentant, cry of "Calling an Israeli murderer a murderer is anti-Semitic!"
How can we forget the Jewish Defense League: quoting Darrell Issa, one of the Jewish Defense League's targets: "I have no way of knowing why they have focused their targets on these individuals. Like most Americans, I hope and wish is that there is a peaceful resolution to the Middle East conflict. Unfortunately, there are extremists on both sides who oppose a peaceful resolution and instead choose violence. Although this plot apparently involved members of the Jewish Defense League, I know that Jewish Americans, of which I have some of my colleagues with me here today, are appalled to hear of a plot like this originated in their community and in my community in California, just as Arab Americans have appalled these terrible attacks of September 11."
Quoting Steve Israel (who may or may not be Jewish) -- "A few months ago, Congressman Issa and I went together to the United States Holocaust Museum and toured every floor of that building. He saw what terrorists did against Jews in Nazi Germany, and he shouldn't be subject to terrorism by people claiming to defend Jews. THESE PEOPLE ARE BEYOND THE PALE. TERRORISM BY ANY NAME, FOR ANY CAUSE, IS STILL TERRORISM; there is no moral relativism to this."