Alethocide: The Assault on Truth, and the Destruction of Education, on the Liberal Arts Campus

The Israel/Jew-Hatred Sweeping Campuses Destroys the Entire Educational Enterprise

[Be sure to check out my new two-volume book, “Israel Breathes, World Condemns,” documenting how Jew-hatred moved from the margins to the center on campuses and beyond over the past two decades. All proceeds donated to support Israel!]

On February 28, the Hate Series on my campus that calls itself an “‘Educational’ Series on Israel-Palestine” brought in its thirteenth speaker—because twelve lectures repeatedly alleging that Israel is evil, evil, evil (and therefore so are the Jews who support Israel) were apparently not enough to make their point. I’ve previously analyzed the series, and some its lectures, here and here. The sheer quantity of misinformation, distortions, omissions, and outright lies in this “educational” series boggles the mind, and perfectly illustrates the politicization, and therefore degradation, of higher education. The previous lecture, the twelfth, had left me believing that it could not possibly be topped in its overall assault on truth, morality, and common sense. Well the thirteenth, by Neve Gordon, gave it a run for the money. The echo chamber infosphere that was its primary audience enjoyed the show, but the rest of the college community—not to mention the truth, morality, and common sense—were the clear losers.

It was a talk about “human shields.” Gordon, who perhaps is an expert on the history of human shields, probably is possessed of valuable information about it, but none of that was in play as he applied his wisdom to the Israeli-Palestinian-Jewish-Arab-Muslim-Iran Conflict, or IPJAMIC (as I prefer to call it, because it’s precisely that complicated, and more). In particular he applied it to the IPJAMIC’s current manifestation in the Gaza-Israel war. Spoiler alert: he thinks Hamas may have been guilty of employing human shields in only two minor incidents, and that Israel is not only guilty of a “high volume” of such incidents, but falsely accuses Hamas of using human shields in order to legitimize their ongoing genocide of Gazans. It only goes downhill from there, though I think, in the inverted reality in which Gordon and apparently this audience lives, that might count as uphill.

Gordon began by claiming that in the long history of human shields Israel has introduced three “new processes” (ever the innovator!): (1) Dressing Palestinians in military uniforms and forcing them into tunnels, booby-trapped homes, strapping them to the front of vehicles, etc., to protect Israeli soldiers; (2) casting (nearly) all civilian structures as military in nature, thus as legitimate targets under International Humanitarian Law (IHL); and (3) using IHL as an instrument to perpetrate and justify genocide. They’re all three equally ludicrous allegations.

Re: (1): To support the allegation Gordon cited the Qatar-run Al-Jazeera “news” network, the one currently being sued for being an accomplice of Hamas, and cited only a single article at that. I cannot prove such incidents did not occur, and if they did occur, they very likely should be condemned; but I’m not very inclined to believe they have occurred, much less in a “high volume,” based only on such a source.

Be that as it may, the allegation makes absolutely no sense. Why in the world would Israeli soldiers dress civilians in “military uniforms” to do this? First, it is well documented that Hamas fights in civilian dress anyway—they film themselves doing so and distribute the videos all over the internet—so there was no need to put uniforms on the civilian shields to claim they are Hamas. If the soldiers were protecting themselves from possibly booby-trapped homes and tunnels, couldn’t they just leave the shields to explode in their own civilian clothing? If the shields survived, would the soldiers be any less subject to condemnation or prosecution if they had used Hamas members or civilians for the task? Gordon asserted that the soldiers do this to “deter Palestinians from firing upon the soldiers.” But this implies that Hamas fighters would happily fire upon their own civilians but be deterred from firing upon their own fighters. If so, that is a devastating blow to his entire thesis—because it reveals that Hamas has no compunction about sacrificing its own civilians, which ultimately will place the blame for whatever carnage has occurred in Gaza squarely on Hamas, where it belongs.

Of course Hamas is perfectly comfortable sacrificing its civilians. There are endless videos of them literally shooting their own civilians, torturing them, and openly proclaiming their willingness to sacrifice civilian “martyrs” for their holy jihad against the Jews. Not to mention, of course, their militarization of the entire Strip, starting with the tunnels under everything, making nearly everything a legitimate military target (as we’ll discuss next). And once you recognize that, the entire Gaza conflict looks different. If Hamas readily sacrifices its own civilians, deliberately embedding among the civilian population thus putting them in harm’s way, then rather than trying to explain why so many have died in Gaza (they currently allege over 50,000), the key question becomes explaining why relatively so few have. And in that light, Hamas will look very very bad and Israel will suddenly start to look a lot better.

Which brings us to (2), the heart of the matter: the allegation that Israel has cast nearly all civilian structures as military, thus legitimate targets under IHL. Here we must distinguish the theoretical from the empirical particulars: all parties in fact agree on the theoretical level that, under IHL, otherwise civilian structures (hospitals, mosques, schools, etc.) that are serving military purposes become legitimate military targets. The particular empirical question is whether and in what instances specific civilian structures in Gaza are indeed serving such purposes. Almost none of us can know with any confidence: Israeli reports will allege the military function while Gazan reports will deny, and even where Israeli reports release “evidence” the Gazan side will allege the fabrication or doctoring of the evidence etc. No third party, lacking the necessary proprietary information, can know what to believe in any specific case.

One could examine general credibility evidence: for example, which side is more likely to be telling the truth in general, which side has a better track record, which side is part of a free society with an independent press and judiciary, with a government that does not fully control the information flow, and with people with the ability and willingness to openly criticize the government, etc.? (I think we all know which side that approach favors.) But let’s take a different tack.

To his credit Gordon did mention the system of military tunnels that Hamas has built; to his discredit he did so only in passing, without seriously engaging in its implications. That system is the largest thing the Palestinians have ever built; it is also more or less the only thing Hamas has built in its 18 years of illegally ruling the Strip after its violent coup in 2007. Israel estimates the system includes between 350-450 miles of tunnels; Hamas itself stated two years before the current conflict that it consisted of 310 miles. By comparison, the New York City subway system is 248 miles long. By further comparison, the area of New York City is 303 square miles, while the area of the Gaza Strip is 141 square miles. For the record, much (perhaps most) of Gaza is actually open space, not built up; firm data is hard to come by, but rough eyeballing suggests maybe two-thirds is largely open space, which would mean the densely inhabited area of Gaza might be as little as 45-50 square miles.

Taking the extremes of the above, then, Gaza would have nearly double the miles of tunnels than the New York City subway system in an inhabited area one-sixth the size. Let that sink in.

That is the extreme case, so suppose we go with the most moderate estimates above, using Hamas’s own data and ignoring the distinction between built up and open areas. Even so, Gaza has twenty-five percent more tunnels than New York City in under half the area. Either way the conclusion is inescapable: these tunnels run under nearly everything. You do not need to believe specific IDF allegations—typically accompanied by copious video evidence—of tunnel shafts found in hospitals, mosques, schools, children’s bedrooms, etc., to know that tunnels are nearly everywhere, with shafts—estimated to number 5700—also omnipresent.

Does anybody doubt what these tunnels are used for? Some, under the border with Egypt, are for smuggling purposes, which would include civilian goods and people as well of course as arms, material for rockets and other warfare, and fighters. The rest are purely for military purposes, moving fighters and weapons, sheltering from Israeli attacks, allowing their fighters to pop up in unexpected places and ambush Israeli troops then disappear, and, of course, for stashing the hostages—often kept in utterly inhumane conditions, chained, starved, underground, in the dark. One thing they are not used for is for Gazan civilians: Hamas has openly stated as such, that the tunnels are for the exclusive use and protection of their fighters. These tunnels in Gaza are, then, 100% devoted to military purposes and thus perfectly legitimate military targets, according to IHL, to morality, and to common sense—and they are nearly everywhere in Gaza, under nearly everything.

But these indisputable facts destroy Gordon’s entire thesis. Again one cannot speak to specific incidents, attacks, etc., but in general, overwhelmingly, it is clear that Israel is fighting a legal war and attacking legal targets. It’s not Israel that has “cast nearly all civilian structures as military,” but Hamas, by literally militarizing everything—starting with building military tunnels nearly everywhere. (Never mind their in fact well documented active use of hospitals, mosques, schools, UNRWA facilities, etc., for warfare as well!) One may well wish that Israel did not destroy so many otherwise “civilian” structures in Gaza (never mind reports that Hamas itself booby-trapped up to 40% of the structures in Gaza, thus being responsible for their destruction). But to condemn Israel for this, to suggest it is acting illegally, to delegitimize it, is itself in direct contravention of IHL—for doing so directly incentivizes all military actors, starting with terrorist groups, to militarize their civilian infrastructure in the same way, thus functionally erasing the very civilian:militant distinction that is essential to IHL.

Gordon’s overall argument isn’t merely nonsensical but also deeply dishonest.

For example he asserted, citing a report by Human Rights Watch, that there were only two verified incidents of Hamas using human shields. Of course Human Rights Watch competes with Al-Jazeera for non-credibility, as I explained in my discussion of an earlier lecture in the series, but the problem here is deeper. Gordon here carefully defined “human shields” extremely narrowly, as instances where the actor “intentionally puts civilians in harm’s way,” having in mind presumably a case where (say) a militant literally hides behind a civilian while fighting. But he left out at least two key things: (1) Hamas fighting in civilian clothes, thus erasing the civilian:militant distinction essential to IHL and essentially casting all civilians as potential military targets, and (2) the extensive military tunnel system which Hamas actively uses continuously for military purposes. Perhaps neither count as “human shields” under that extremely narrow definition, yet both overwhelmingly turn nearly every single Gazan into a human shield by the proper, broader conception Gordon himself gave earlier in the talk: where Hamas relies on the enemy’s being deterred from harming civilians in order to protect itself and advance its military aims. On that more accurate conception, nearly every single way in which Hamas has waged this war has amounted to their use of human shields.

As for the third allegation, (3), that Israel is exploiting IHL in order to perpetrate and justify genocide, it too is sheer nonsense. The most direct refutation would be to demonstrate that no genocide has occurred or is occurring; I have done that in detail here and here. Suffice to say now only that the “genocide” label, that allegation, is a lie, a blatant lie, an easily demonstrable lie, a lie designed to delegitimize the Jewish people’s defending themselves from their actually genocidal, jihadist neighbors who started and continue to prosecute the war.

More immediately, there was that delicious moment when Gordon inadvertently exposed the absurdity of his entire argument. In response to a question about whether Israel may lawfully target “civilian” structures built atop military tunnels, Gordon acknowledged that indeed it was lawful to do so, but added that IHL also requires steps to minimize civilian casualties, issue warnings, evacuate, etc. Of course it goes without saying that Israel has been doing that throughout the war, but Gordon of course let that go without saying himself. Instead he cast Israel’s undertaking of such activities, of moving the civilian population out of the way, as a matter of “ethnic cleansing.” Note the neat trick: if Israel bombs the militarized target it’s committing genocide, but if it removes the civilian population it’s committing “ethnic cleansing,” so basically either way Israel is committing war crimes and it is ultimately permitted to do nothing in this war other than surrender. But even this absurdity wasn’t enough: Gordon then went on to describe this “ethnic cleansing” as a form of “humanitarian camouflage for genocide,” which is what Israel is doing by destroying so many buildings in Gaza.

Got that? “Ethnic cleansing provides humanitarian camouflage for genocide”: Israel, by saving civilians’ lives, is covering up its genocide. Or put differently: Israel, by not committing genocide, is covering up its commitment of genocide.

It’s as ludicrous as that. When one is trapped in the delusion of Israel-hate, whatever Israel does must be conceived as a radical evil—even the things they do which directly undermine the allegations of radical evil.

Gordon’s main conclusion: IHL, which was developed precisely to prevent genocide, has now become a tool to perpetrate it. Israel exploits IHL to treat (nearly) every structure in Gaza as military and thus, by destroying them, commits genocide under the protection of the law.

But all of that is precisely upside-down. Hamas, openly comfortable with sacrificing its civilian population, has militarized the entire strip and nearly entirely erased the civilian:militant distinction, blatantly violating IHL itself and hoping to exploit it by hampering Israel, which largely follows IHL, from maintaining its military campaign against it.

A civilized person now has a pretty important decision to make. To condemn Israel for its operations in this war is to give sanction to Hamas’s; it is to entirely give up on IHL by allowing it to be weaponized by terrorist groups who violate it and exploit it. The alternative is to condemn Hamas and recognize the extraordinary lengths, in nearly impossible circumstances, to which Israel has gone to preserve IHL, and thus to uphold it.

It seems to me the choice there is pretty clear.

I close with two final bits of absurdity from Gordon’s talk.

First, he attempted to “racialize” everything, casting Israel’s operations as driven by and manifesting Israeli racism. In the American Civil War, he explained, Black slaves were no deterrence for Northern attacks, only white citizens, because Northerners did not see Blacks as fully human. The implication: Israel is not deterred from bombing Gazans because of its racism toward them, because it doesn’t even see them as fully human. I won’t refute this outrageous, laughable claim except to note that it’s what happens when one’s mind is thoroughly corrupted by the reigning ideologies of the day.

Second, more importantly: There was a question at the end about this “educational” series as a whole, questioning its lack of balance and wondering if it were planning to bring in any speakers other than the thirteen so far all in the “Israel is evil, evil, evil” camp. That question should more properly be directed at the organizers of the series, but Gordon ventured a response worth briefly examining here. Academia, he said, isn’t about balance but a search for truth: for example, he wouldn’t entertain someone who was a creationist, or a Holocaust denier, meaning, I take it, that we wouldn’t and shouldn’t seek to balance an academic discussion by including the crackpots and the crazies, i.e. the dissenters from the otherwise nearly universal consensus such as those. Moreover, he alleged, most governments in the West (and perhaps most media?) are very pro-Israel, so in fact a lecture series such as this one is in fact providing the necessary balance.

Much could be said here, including challenging that last allegation. But let’s just focus on this: he just gave the general pro-Israel position the same status as a creationist and a Holocaust denier. In particular—given the actual content of this series—those who might take issue with the allegation that Israel is perpetrating genocide are akin to creationists and Holocaust deniers. This isn’t merely offensive, biased, hateful, and a whole bunch of other negative words, but a direct assault on the very mission of the university. They claim they are in the business of “truth,” but for them there is only one version of the truth, the one they are possessed of, and anyone with an alternative point of view is merely a crackpot or a crazy not deserving of consideration. They are not interested in critical questions, in challenging the biases of their sources, or platforming any alternative point of view, not even in the course of thirteen lectures. That statement is the affirmation of an ideology that shall brook no dissent. It is sheer propagandizing, a direct rejection of a search for truth, and thus a direct assault on the entire institution of higher education—all done under the guise of “education.”

I could not have provided a clearer condemnation of this entire “educational” series myself.

For the record, the series organizer nodded along vigorously while Gordon gave this answer, enthusiastically mm-hmming, even as Gordon ultimately, fully openly, and oh so painfully destroyed the entire legitimacy and credibility of their endeavor.

An “own goal” never was so satisfying.

Still, the biggest losers are the entire college community and the generation of students who are coming of age being groomed into this destructive ideology.