Why Four Professors Are Suing the American Studies Association

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.

Read more at The Hill

More about: Academia, Academic Boycotts, American Studies Association, BDS, Israel & Zionism

What a Strategic Victory in Gaza Can and Can’t Achieve

On Tuesday, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant met in Washington with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Gallant says that he told the former that only “a decisive victory will bring this war to an end.” Shay Shabtai tries to outline what exactly this would entail, arguing that the IDF can and must attain a “strategic” victory, as opposed to merely a tactical or operational one. Yet even after a such a victory Israelis can’t expect to start beating their rifles into plowshares:

Strategic victory is the removal of the enemy’s ability to pose a military threat in the operational arena for many years to come. . . . This means the Israeli military will continue to fight guerrilla and terrorist operatives in the Strip alongside extensive activity by a local civilian government with an effective police force and international and regional economic and civil backing. This should lead in the coming years to the stabilization of the Gaza Strip without Hamas control over it.

In such a scenario, it will be possible to ensure relative quiet for a decade or more. However, it will not be possible to ensure quiet beyond that, since the absence of a fundamental change in the situation on the ground is likely to lead to a long-term erosion of security quiet and the re-creation of challenges to Israel. This is what happened in the West Bank after a decade of relative quiet, and in relatively stable Iraq after the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 2011.

Read more at BESA Center

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hamas, IDF