Together with two of their colleagues, Simon Bronner and Michael A. Rockland have filed suit against the American Studies Association (ASA), for violating the terms of its charter by boycotting Israel. They explain their rationale:

[T]he academic boycott of Israel has nothing to do with the ASA’s purpose of “broadening knowledge about American culture.” Indeed, the boycott is at odds with the ASA’s mission by reducing the ability of U.S. and Israeli scholars and students to work collaboratively on the study and teaching of American culture. The boycott even prevents ASA members from working with the many Arabs who study at Israeli universities. Thus, under well-known principles of corporate law, the boycott is illegal. . . .

Just as it would be wrong to take control of a church, temple, or mosque and use its resources to promote another faith, it is wrong to take a scholarly organization such as the ASA and turn into a political organization aimed at “social change.” . . .

In addition to betraying us and our efforts, the anti-Israel warriors running the ASA have created a distraction at substantial cost to the ASA in terms of membership and lost revenue. They have also exposed our group to ridicule. . . .

We strongly support free speech. Indeed, one reason why we are against the boycott is that it chills speech and the free academic exchange of ideas. We believe that the proponents of the Israel boycott should be allowed to voice their opinions, and that the truth will win out. But they are not entitled to use the ASA—funded by the annual fees of over 5,000 American-studies scholars—as a megaphone for demonizing Israel.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.