In December the prestigious academic journal Critical Inquiry published an article by Saree Makdisi—a professor of English literature at the University of California, Los Angeles—with the ungainly title “Apartheid / Apartheid / [       ].” Therein Makdisi argues that the situation of Arabs in Israel is very similar to that of blacks in apartheid-era South Africa but worse, explains away the shortage of explicitly racist laws in Israel as evidence of a policy of “radical erasure” and “necropolitics,” and makes clear that no outcome other than Israel’s absolute destruction can be morally or politically justified. Cary Nelson and Russell Berman respond with a point-by-point refutation of the article’s claims, which rest on few facts, outright distortions, a failure to investigate the subjects about which the author writes, and convoluted logic, not to mention a dismissive attitude toward the depredations of actual apartheid. These problems, they contend, are symptomatic of something larger:

Whatever Critical Inquiry’s practices may be, there is also a fundamental breakdown in the peer-review process in the humanities and interpretive social sciences. A publisher—the University of California Press and the University of Minnesota Press are telling examples—with a strong anti-Zionist bias submits a manuscript to a highly sympathetic reviewer who lauds the manuscript’s “courage” and recommends publication. This is symptomatic of a widespread institutional corruption that extends far beyond the debates over the Middle East.

The other major pattern in humanities debates about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that they divide starkly into attacks on or defenses of Israel. Disinterested reviews of evidence are difficult to find in some disciplines. Makdisi’s essay unfortunately falls without reservation into the attack category. That leads to yet another fundamental question: what purpose do either polemical essays or polemical essays dressed up with footnotes actually serve? Makdisi seeks unreservedly to demonize Israel. . . . [Furthermore, his] language invokes the classic anti-Semitic trope that Jews are duplicitous, deceptive, calculating, conspiratorial, slippery, and untrustworthy. . . .

When the terminology of a body of theory [in this case, the ideas of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Edward Said, and their disciples] is marshalled in the service of preexisting political convictions, it can take on the character of sacred incantation. The deployment of its vocabulary for some readers itself sufficiently proves the case being made. That is a problem not just for Makdisi and apparently for Critical Inquiry but for the humanities and interpretive social sciences more broadly.

Tamir Hayman analyzes the latest reports about an offer by Hamas to release three female soldiers in exchange for 150 captured terrorists, of whom 90 have received life sentences; then, if that exchange happens successfully, a second stage of the deal will begin.

If this does happen, Israel will release all the serious prisoners who had been sentenced to life and who are associated with Hamas, which will leave Israel without any bargaining chips for the second stage. In practice, Israel will release everyone who is important to Hamas without getting back all the hostages. In this situation, it’s evident that Israel will approach the second stage of the negotiations in the most unfavorable way possible. Hamas will achieve all its demands in the first stage, except for a commitment from Israel to end the war completely.

How does this relate to the fighting in Rafah? Hayman explains:

In the absence of an agreement or compromise by Hamas, it is detrimental for Israel to continue the static situation we were in. It is positive that new energy has entered the campaign. . . . The [capture of the] border of the Gaza Strip and the Rafah crossing are extremely important achievements, while the ongoing dismantling of the battalions is of secondary importance.

That being said, Hayman is critical of the approach to negotiations taken so far:

Gradual hostage trades don’t work. We must adopt a different concept of a single deal in which Israel offers a complete cessation of the war in exchange for all the hostages.