The NYU Review of Law and Social Changehas voted in favor of enforcing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions on Israel. It also stated that it would not publish “balanced articles” about the Israeli-Palestinian war.
Do you think I am exaggerating. Statement from the law review states that they will not be supporting “Academic projects or activities” that “rely on the false assumption of symmetry/parity or the claim that the colonizers or colonized are equally responsible. . . .’ These efforts are deemed ‘intellectually dishonest’ and’morally reprehensible forms normalization’. They must be stopped.
It is my belief that the Palestinians are responsible for the majority of the conflicts. Their refusal over the decades to allow an independent Jewish presence to Israel’s historical land or to create a binational state, or to have it be recognized as such, makes me believe they are the most guilty. However, it seems that the journal is wildly unsuitable for its purported academic purpose. Review of Law and Social ChangeWould not publish articles by me, nor anyone else, that claimed both sides were equally at fault.
NYU’s law school and NYU have strongly criticised NYU’s law review. But it’s unclear if there will ever be consequences.
At this stage, it would be easy to become caught up in the debate about whether BDS constitutes antisemitism. I find it irrelevant because BDS is worse than antisemitism. BDS works with genocide.
The law review describes BDS as follows:
The N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change “RLSC” is our strong commitment to Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (“BDS”) and our solidarity towards Palestinians who are collectively striving for liberation.
BDS, a Palestinian-led organization, urges Israel to stop its colonization and occupation of Palestinian land. It also discriminates against Palestinian citizens and denies Palestinian refugees the right to return home.
BDS is a movement that promotes the elimination of Israel. It also calls for “Palestinian freedom” the right of return, and the end to Israel’s occupation and colonization. The current situation is that the creation of such a country would most likely result in the extermination or displacement of most of Israel’s Jewish population. Supporters of Israel’s destruction include a condition that they would withhold their support for such a state if these were the consequences. This has yet to occur. Edward Said, a late intellectual and suave thinker could only hope for a safe Jewish community in future Palestine. However, it did not affect his determination to create a Palestinian state to replace Israel.
So, the NYU students, whether or not they were complicit with antisemitism are assumed to be OK with my family and the seven million Jews of Israel being murdered, expelled, etc. Their acceptance of genocide is another reason. They might need to reconsider their support of “liberation” for Palestinians if this is not what they are actually doing.
Students editors voted on BDS. I’m not sure how many voted and how strongly. In the absence of resignations and public statements of disagreement, staff members seem to be presumptively OK with genocide for now. They also accept boycotts. They may not enjoy the end result.
It would not be fair to commemorate all members of the journal without knowing anything about internal opposition. But for now, I think it’s fair to hold the editors in chief, Amelie Daigle and Andrea Green, and the managing editors, Johari Menelik Frasier and Emily Truek, responsible for their law review endorsing genocidal Palestinian nationalist fantasy, though I would be happy to correct this post if they are publicly opposed to the law review’s policies.