The Pope mentions Gaza on several occasions in the book. At one point he expresses concern about migration crises around the world, colored as they are by “violence and hardship,” in the Sahara, the Mexican-US border, and the Mediterranean, “which has become a large cemetery in the past decade.” He adds, “also in the Middle East,” because of the “humanitarian tragedy” in Gaza.

Pope Francis says that Christians must feel the pain of migrants forced to leave their homes, noting that for many it is easier to empathize with the hopes of an entrepreneur who emigrates to found a business or a retiree who goes abroad to make their pension stretch further than with the hopes of refugees forced abroad by violence or famine, seeking a more peaceful existence.

He makes an interesting point here. I wonder if the difference is agency. We see ourselves in persons who take decisive steps to achieve a goal, but are alienated from those who are forced to do something against their will. Those with agency are admirable to us, are self, while those deprived of it are lesser and Other. I tell my students that they think of becoming a refugee as something that happens to others, but it can happen to anyone. I was trying to study in Beirut in my youth when war broke out and I had to flee to Jordan. My money was frozen in the bank because the banks all closed when war broke out. A kind man, at the American University of Beirut, Dean Robert Najemy, arranged for my parents to wire me airfare. He was later killed by a gunman. Of course, I wasn’t a refugee the way the Palestinians are — I still had my homeland and could ultimately return there. But I gained sympathy regarding those who suddenly have to abandon their domiciles. I don’t think of them as lacking agency or being Other, which I hope comes through in my new book on Gaza.

The Catholic leader laments that so many Ukrainians have been forced to flee, and praises countries that took them in, such as Poland. He then turns to the Middle East, where, he says, we have seen something similar. He praises the way Jordan and Lebanon welcomed refugees. He was obviously writing before mid-September, when Lebanon got caught up in the Israel-Hezbollah feud. Some 1.5 million Syrians had taken refuge in Lebanon from the Syrian civil war. Ironically, hundreds of thousands of Syrians and Lebanese have fled this fall to Syria. Jordan took in so many Palestinian families that a majority of Jordanians today have Palestinian ancestry. Jordan also took in hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Syrians.

Francis said he was thinking especially of those who leave Gaza in the midst of the famine that has hit the Strip. We think about 100,000 Palestinians from Gaza managed to flee to Egypt before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu occupied the Rafah crossing with Israeli troops.

Then Pope Francis dropped his bombshell. According to some experts, he wrote, “what has been happening in Gaza has the characteristics of a genocide.”

He insisted that a painstaking investigation be carried out to determine whether the situation fits the technical definition formulated by jurists and international organizations. He is likely referring to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Genocide Convention of 1948, on the basis of which the International Court of Justice is deliberating on whether what the Israelis are doing in Gaza is a genocide.

Although he appeals to international law in this passage, he is pessimistic that war is ever compatible with it. Elsewhere in the book he points out that no war avoids indiscriminately killing civilians. He recalls the images we have all seen coming out of Ukraine and Gaza. “We cannot,” he says, “allow the killing of defenseless civilians.” These are war crimes. Inflicting wounds on these innocents to the point where they have to have limbs amputated or their natural environment is destroyed cannot be dismissed, he says, as mere “collateral damage.” “They are,” he asserts, “victims whose innocent blood cries out to heaven and begs for an end to all war.”

“Pietà,” Digital, Midjourney / Clip2Comic, 2024

His last mention of Gaza comes in a passage where he recalls a photograph of a Palestinian grandmother in Gaza, her face not visible, holding in her arms the lifeless body of her five-year-old granddaughter, who had just been killed in an Israeli bombing, along with other family members. He notes that the image has been called “The Pieta of Gaza.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica explains, “Pietà, as a theme in Christian art, depiction of the Virgin Mary supporting the body of the dead Christ. . . . the great majority show only Mary and her Son. The Pietà was widely represented in both painting and sculpture, being one of the most poignant visual expressions of popular concern with the emotional aspects of the lives of Christ and the Virgin.”

Michaelangelo, “Pietà,” Public Domain.

He says that the photo, taken in a hospital morgue, conveys strength, sorrow and the unimaginable pain inflicted by war. He ends by again insisting that innocents must be protected even in the midst of warfare, a principle, he says, that is engraved on the hearts of all people.

The consequence of the Pope’s comments throughout is a humanization of the Palestinians — a humanization of which US and British media outlets have largely proved themselves incapable. The only way they can be all right with over 17,000 dead children in Israel’s campaign against Gaza is that they do not see them as truly human. Otherwise, even the death of one little granddaughter would have us all weeping uncontrollably.

Not only does the Pope humanize Palestinian suffering, refusing to lose his empathy in the face of the magnitude of the slaughter and the sheer number of children in burial shrouds, but in a sense he even divinizes Palestinian suffering. The dead little girl in her grandma’s arms is a Christ-like figure — Christ-like in her innocence, which did not prevent her from being brutally killed. And the heart-wrenching mourning of her grandmother is like the grief of the Mother Mary over her crucified son, himself the incarnation on earth of the divine.

The two guards were tasked with securing the area ahead of a scheduled visit by French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot. This move reflects Israel’s insistence on continuing its actions that violate the historical and legal status quo in occupied Jerusalem, stressing that Israel has no sovereignty over it.

The official spokesperson for the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Sufyan Qudah, stressed in a statement the Kingdom’s absolute rejection of all Israeli measures aimed at changing the identity and character of East Jerusalem, including the Old City, and changing the historical and legal status quo in Jerusalem and its Islamic and Christian holy sites.

He also reiterated the Kingdom’s support for France and its position against the attacks of the Israeli occupation forces.

Via Middle East Monitor

This work by Middle East Monitor is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Bonus Video added by Informed Comment:

WION: “French FM Refuses To Enter Holy Site In Jerusalem In Protest | World News | WION”

Al-Dayah begins by quoting an unnamed Hamas leader who condemned critics of the organization’s attack on Israel.

The politician castigated as “fools” those who argued that it would have been safer to avoid armed conflict rather than losing tens of thousands of lives. The politician denounced such persons as a fifth column for Israel, aiming to weaken “this nation and its determination.” The Hamas leader alleged that Israel killed 500 Palestinians at West Bank checkpoints in 2022, even though the Palestinians were not engaged in violent struggle that year. He implied that Israel would kill Palestinians even if they were passive. The price for being occupied was being paid then, but, he said, “you have to choose whether to pay it freely as a fighter and a victor, God willing, or to pay it in humiliation, disappointment, and loss.”

Al-Dayah refutes this militant, reminding him that struggling in the way of God is not a straightforward, simplistic duty, but is predicated on conditions, purposes and principles. It is necessary to consider matters such as the character of one’s leaders and soldiers, the terrain, the weaponry available, and the character of the opponent (whom he calls “the aggressor,” suggesting he believes this warfare is defensive).

[The issue of “terrain” is an important one. I quote Mao Zedong in my new book, Gaza Yet Stands, to the effect that having rugged terrain that affords hiding places is essential to a guerrilla movement. Otherwise, Mao said, the insurgents are just roving peasant rebels, doomed to fail. Gaza is not a promising place from which to fight a guerrilla struggle.]

Al-Dayah repeats that “aggression against religion” is one of the grounds for launching such a military struggle, as are “life, honor, family, land or property.”

Since it is a religious struggle, it has to be predicated on faith and sincerity, the righteousness of the individuals involved, and their cohesiveness and preparation, as well as logistical matters.

But there are, al-Dayah says, also counter-indications that might weigh against launching such a struggle. If the prerequisites listed above are lacking or defective, it cannot be undertaken.

Most important, you can’t launch a struggle for the faith if it seems likely that it will fail: “it is essential to avoid it if it is likely to bring harm to religion, life, honor, family, or property.”

He points out that the Qur’an, the Muslim scripture, promises that pious Muslims can prevail when the odds are 1 to 2 (Q. 8:66). The conclusion we may draw from the verse is that the believers cannot win against just any odds. If they are overwhelmed 3 to 1, they should avoid entering the fray. He quotes the Prophet Muhammad’s cousin, Ibn Abbas, as having said: “If a man retreats from two, he has fled, but if he retreats from three, he has not fled.”

His implication is that the Israeli armed forces are far superior in numbers, training, and equipment to the 30,000 members of the al-Qassam Brigades, the paramilitary of Hamas. Given this reality, it is “permissible to refrain from initiating combat.”

He also repudiated the Hamas leader for his harsh accusations against suffering Palestinians mourning the gravity of the disaster that has befallen them. They don’t, he insisted, deserve to be called agents or cowards for wishing it could have been avoided.

He points out, “These are the sentiments of the majority of people, whose homes are gone, their loved ones have perished, and they endure all forms of suffering.”

He concludes, “I ask God Almighty to return us to the right path and hasten relief. Amen.”

Prof. Dr. Salman bin Nasr Al-Dayah

The legal opinion has six sections, with this having been the first. In subsequent broadsides, he went on to elaborate his arguments. For instance, he quotes a saying of the Prophet that “it is not for the believer to humiliate himself” by undertaking a campaign clearly doomed to failure. I think, however, we get the point.

Al-Dayah rejects secular states and even the fundamentalist governance of Hamas, arguing for a restored Muslim caliphate or theocracy. However, he belongs to the quietist branch of Salafism or revivalism, since he generally rejects violence as a path to his aspirations, especially if the violence is stupid. Al-Dayah has refused to leave North Gaza, even though the Israeli authorities are attempting to ethnically cleanse it.

Similar debates were conducted between quietist Salafis in Jordan and the proponents of ISIL (ISIS, Daesh), the so-called “Islamic state” group.

Before the 2006 election, nearly half of the voters in Gaza supported the secular, nationalist Palestine Liberation Organization, and it is not clear that 18 years of Hamas rule will have altered this proportion. Indeed, the evidence from countries that have a state religion is that it tends to drive people away from religion or make them apathetic toward it. Al-Dayah as a quietist Salafi may not represent a very large proportion of Palestinians in Gaza. His discontents with Hamas, however, are likely widely shared.

The Arabic text of the fatwa was posted to Facebook.

Alex Galbraith at Salon reports that disgraced former New York mayor, Rudi Giuliani, went out of his way to bash Palestinians. Giuliani has been ordered to turn over most of his wealth to Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, African-American election workers whom he defamed with hate speech and false allegations. He has been disbarred for his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

Giuliani alleged that Hamas trains Palestinian toddlers at two years old to hate Americans: “The Palestinians are taught to kill us at two-years old.”

In his fact-free universe, he alleged that Kamala Harris is attempting to bring Palestinian refugees to the US, saying, “She wants to bring them to you.” He added, “They may have good people. I’m sorry I don’t take a risk with people who are taught to kill Americans at two.”

Since Giuliani’s own children are embarrassed by his descent into whatever that is, he may not be much in touch with them or remember much about them. But my recollection is that when you tell two-year-olds to do something, they typically reply “No!” Actually I think that is their standard response to most assertions, though they will say “yes” if you ask them if they want to go to a toy store or go see a cartoon at the movies.

I actually know something about Palestinians and their history. See my new book, Gaza Yet Stands.

Let’s just recall who Giuliani is talking about when he talks about Palestinians in America, who are listed at Wikipedia. John H. Sununu, who served both as governor of New Hampshire (1983–89) and as George H. W. Bush’s chief of staff in the White House, had a Greek-Palestinian ancestor from Jerusalem. His son, John E. Sununu, served as a senator for New Hampshire. The Sununus are Republicans.

Gibran Hamdan played in the NFL for the Washington Redskins. Tarek Saleh also played in the NFL for the Cleveland Browns.

We have Hashem El Serag, a renowned medical researcher on liver cancer who chairs the Medicine Department at Baylor University. I don’t know about you, but I want Dr. El Serag here and working on treatments for liver cancer and other diseases. He’s a million times more useful to America than a scoundrel like Giuliani.

Then there is retired Col. Peter Mansoor, a professor of history at the Ohio State University, who served in Iraq and was part of General David Petraeus’s brain trust there. He is half Palestinian.

Justin Amash represented Michigan’s Third Congressional District from 2011 to 2021. Amash was a Republican but became a Libertarian to protest Trumpism. That is, this Palestinian American is a more loyal and patriotic American than Giuliani can ever dream of being.

Or DJ Khaled, who responded to Trump’s visa ban and wall-building this way, “Bless up 🙏 I am a Muslim American love is the 🔑 love is the answer. It’s so amazing to see so many people come together in love ! I pray for everyone I pray we all love and live in peace .. #NoBanNoWall 🙏.”

DJ Khaled once took his family on a trip across America, visiting numerous cities, out of love for his country. He raps peace and love, and said that the lack of love in Trump is what repelled him.

DJ Khaled, “God Did”

Then we have Dean Obeidallah, an actually funny American comedian and savvy political commentator whose father hailed from the British Mandate of Palestine.

Or take Bella Hadid, the Palestinian-American supermodel who loves America so much that she moved to Texas and adopted a cowboy lifestyle.

Or her sister Gigi, also a supermodel, and an activist in encouraging voting. Tommy Hilfiger went so far as to suggest that Gigi Hadid could help create a love between the US and the Middle East.

While you wouldn’t want to underestimate the influence of a dynamic supermodel, that hope may be unrealistic. Still, no one thinks Rudi Giuliani has the potential to create peace between anyone and anyone else. It is Gigi Hadid who is the real American, Palestinian heritage and all.

Dear President Harring, Provost Furge and Professor Dowd:

We write on behalf of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) and its Committee on Academic Freedom to express our grave concern about the announcement by Muhlenberg College that it intends to terminate Dr. Maura Finkelstein, a tenured member of the college’s faculty, because of an Instagram post that she had reposted. Even if some people may find the post objectionable, we believe that Professor Finkelstein’s reposting is protected by the First Amendment and by the principles of academic freedom. It cannot reasonably be construed as a violation of Muhlenberg College’s equal opportunity and nondiscrimination policy or justify her termination.

MESA was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes the prestigious International Journal of Middle East Studies and has nearly 2,800 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and outside of North America.

Dr. Finkelstein is a cultural anthropologist whose research has addressed multiple geographies and theoretical realms. Her first book, The Archive of Loss: Lively Ruination in Mill Land Mumbai, charted the experiences of textile mill workers in the city of Mumbai. She is currently at work on a second book about equine-assisted therapy. Her scholarship and pedagogy have also engaged a range of issues relating to Palestine/Israel; her teaching includes a course on Palestine and she has published peer-reviewed work on her experiences teaching this material.

In the aftermath of the 7 October 2023 assault on Israel, Professor Finkelstein was subjected to intense attacks as a result of the criticism of Israel and of Zionism that she expressed in published work, academic forums and social media posts. Among other things, a number of donors to and alumni of Muhlenberg College circulated a petition demanding her removal from her tenured position. In January 2024 Professor Finkelstein was placed on administrative leave after reposting someone else’s Instagram post which was critical of Zionism and Zionists. The Muhlenberg College administration subsequently claimed that Professor Finkelstein’s reposting had violated its equal opportunity and nondiscrimination policy.

An outside firm hired by the college to investigate the case determined that Professor Finkelstein’s Instagram post had not constituted a violation of college policy. However, an ad hoc committee appointed by Muhlenberg’s Title IX office subsequently reversed this determination, without specifying the grounds for its decision. In late May 2024 Professor Finkelstein was informed that the college intended to terminate her for cause, because her Instagram post allegedly “met the standard for online discrimination and harassment involving hateful speech. It was severe and objectively offensive, and it denies or limits the ability to participate in the College’s programs.” She has appealed and is awaiting the decision of the college’s Faculty, Personnel and Policies Committee.

We note that Muhlenberg College has declared that it “endorses the robust, stimulating and thought-provoking exchange of ideas, which requires in-depth and complex educational experiences as well as the space for divergent perspectives.” We further note that neither college policy nor federal law defines those who adhere to or advocate for particular political ideologies (such as Zionism) as members of legally protected classes. As we have pointed out elsewhere, critiques of Israeli policies or of Zionism must not be conflated with antisemitism, nor should expressions of political opinion be sanctioned.

In these fraught times, college and university leaders have a heightened responsibility to protect the freedom of speech and academic freedom of all members of their communities. This country’s institutions of higher education should be places in which a broad range of perspectives can be expressed, debated and criticized without fear of defamation, harassment or termination. As MESA’s Board of Directors put it in a statement dated 18 December 2023: “We call on university leaders and administrations to affirmatively assert and protect the rights to academic freedom and freedom of speech on their campuses. We reaffirm that there can be no compromise of the right and ability of students, faculty, and staff at universities across North America (and elsewhere) to express their viewpoints free of harassment, intimidation, and threats to their livelihoods and safety.”

We therefore call on you to immediately reverse the decision to terminate Professor Finkelstein and to publicly declare her exonerated of the charges brought against her. We further call on you to vigorously reaffirm your commitment to uphold academic freedom and freedom of speech at Muhlenberg and to actively foster an atmosphere of free academic inquiry and discussion, including the unhindered right of faculty and other members of the campus community to express their political opinions in the public realm.

We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Aslı Ü. Bâli
MESA President
Professor, Yale Law School

Laurie Brand
Chair, Committee on Academic Freedom
Professor Emerita, University of Southern California

The driving force behind Trump’s alleged “love” for Israel is to strengthen his hold on the Evangelical community; not the Jewish one. That has driven what Republican support there is for Israel since Christian Zionists took over the party beginning in the 1980s. Trump argues that Jews have an obligation to support him because he’s been Israel’s “best friend;” when in reality, he has abetted and enabled Israel’s political-economic suicide by granting PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s (Bibi) entire wish list. This includes appointing David Friedman as ambassador to Israel, whose understanding of Israel-Palestine history is limited to Temple Sunday School myths, which ignores and whitewashes the Palestinian Nakba (Holocaust). It includes Trump and Bibi’s evil political alliance, all but positioning them as running mates on the same ticket. 

Trump earned his popularity among wealthy, Republican Jews by pandering. Except when he said, “You have to support me because you’re all brutal killers.” But they forgave that because they believe his con about “loving Israel,” and also buy the myth that he’s been good for the investment economy. There can be destructive ignorance among intelligent people, as not all bright and successful people are deep thinkers.

Many progressive Jews have abandoned support of Israel over the genocide in Gaza and fascist elements of Bibi’s government. The alliance between Bibi and Trump is as destructive as the alliance between Elon Musk and Trump. It’s become a Fascist Axis among very wealthy entrepreneurs and deeply corrupt politicians, more interested in their wealth and political survival, rather than the health, wealth and security of the countries and corporations they govern. Or in Trump’s case, want to govern again from a purely statist, Fascist standpoint.

Trump is already forecasting his upcoming electoral defeat, and pro-actively placing blame on outside agents, including Jews who don’t vote for him and even Taylor Swift. While he whines about “all he has done for Israel,” the reality is that his policies have severely weakened Israel by granting impunity to its most self-destructive elements, and thus helped turn it into a global pariah by pledging support for the genocide in Gaza, and promising to grant Bibi his wish list of being free to terrorize and murder innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. It was Trump who initiated the move of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in violation of International Law. Jerusalem is just as much a Muslim and Orthodox Christian city as it is a Jewish one. (There, I said it!)

“Demagoguery,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

The alliance of Trump and Musk has dragged American political discourse to an all-time low. Trump has brought the Republican Party to an unprecedented low of dysfunction, abetted by Musk buying Twitter/X. As Trump has marginalized the Republican Party into a clownish state of lurid sensationalism, Musk has turned Twitter/X into a platform for unfettered defamation, hate, racism and divisiveness. Musk is allied with Trump to better secure his wealth, and is investing $45M per month in his campaign.

Why is Musk so deeply invested in Trump’s return to the presidency? Because like Russia in Ukraine, Trump will let Musk “do whatever the hell he wants.” Trump will let Russia take over Ukraine and bully other European countries. He’ll let the Israeli Likud Party continue its reign of terror over Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank; thereby placing more kindling and gasoline onto an already-explosive situation. And he’ll let the Supreme Court continue to undo many generations worth of protective and progressive judicial rulings.

Trump’s campaign strategy is to tell so many lies so fast and furiously, that it’s hard to keep up, and impossible to address and debunk each one in the time allowed for rebuttal? As Hannah Arendt wrote, “If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer,” enabling totalitarianism. Part of Trump’s strategy is also to undermine the free press, and depict journalists as “the enemy of the people.” That’s the dynamic of gaslighting. Or is it an effort to befuddle and flummox the mases to the point that people don’t know what to believe and stop caring?

Some are revising these policies to include swift consequences for those who dare to follow what have been student protest norms for decades. Similar threats loom for university staff and faculty – not only those who protest, but even some who simply speak out. 

Such policies will ultimately hamper universities from accessing a path towards their own goals of diversity and inclusion. 

In recent months, I visited more than half a dozen pro-Palestinian college encampments in North America, from the US Midwest, to the West Coast, to Canada. As an anthropologist, I was interested to observe that each called itself the “liberated zone”. 

At one encampment, I heard a participant laugh at the notion of university policies on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), saying: “It should be DIE, not DEI. They’re using it to justify killing us.” 

The camper articulated a common frustration regarding the increasingly performative function of DEI initiatives on college campuses across the country. What does this term mean without liberation?

Protesters themselves seem to be doing a better job of upholding such ideals. At the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, during the Jewish holiday of Passover, campers held a Seder meal and welcomed everyone at the encampment to join in the celebrations. 

They did not interfere with a group of opposing protesters who gathered nearby, holding pro-Israel signs. It struck me that even in the context of allowing space for peaceful dissent and opposition, the encampment was liberated. 

‘We keep us safe’

From what I observed, these protest encampments aim to live by the ideals they are protesting for: freedom and justice for all, without the racially and economically infused hierarchies that dominate the world. 

At the University of California, Los Angeles, which was attacked by external Zionist agitators, campers protected each other while police stood by. The officers did not intervene, and the campers did not call on them. “We keep us safe,” campers chanted.

The morning the Ann Arbor encampment was raided and forcibly dismantled, Muslims had just completed the Fajr prayer and an interdenominational Christian worship service was in progress when officers moved in.

Several encampments I visited also observed Indigenous rituals, including a Cree tobacco ceremony – exactly the type of event one imagines taking place on a college campus. During meals, campers made an effort to include kosher, halal, vegetarian, vegan and gluten-free options.

Being in a community together is the healthiest way for students to learn about, and from, each other, without objectifying or essentialising norms that might be unfamiliar to some. 

The encampments also featured diverse activities, from film screenings, to holiday celebrations, to topic teach-ins with expert guest speakers. One professor who lived more than an hour away from the encampment he was visiting told me: “I will drive down here if the students host an organising workshop. What they’re coordinating here is unbelievable.” 

Such sentiments were shared with me by many others from coast to coast. 

“Protest,” Digital, Dream / Dreamworld v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024

Endless cycle

After I was hired in 2017 in the first cohort of a fellowship that was a part of my university’s five-year DEI 1.0 plan (we are now on DEI 2.0), I asked a school official who was guiding the project to explain the use of the term “inclusion”.

What does it mean, I asked, for the institution to pursue inclusion, when this very concept entails a hierarchy, ie, one superior group gets to be the “includer”, while another inferior group is excluded until the former allows them in?

To his credit, he did not articulate a defence of this term, suggesting instead that we view it as a “placeholder”.

The administrations have aligned themselves with far-right interests, at the expense of the very cause of inclusion for which they’re supposedly fighting

Still, the concept itself remains a pursuit. Like past efforts to foster “multiculturalism” and “tolerance”, it seems that liberal-left initiatives to address histories of marginalisation and racism just can’t quite get it right. Higher education institutions have become the epicentre of both the responses to address these historic struggles for equality, and the critiques of these responses – an endless cycle. 

For years, I have studied how diversity’s self-contradictory reality in higher education institutions can lead to self-exclusion. Some campuses have grappled with this by substituting other words for the standard DEI label. New York’s Cornell University whittled their office name down to “Belonging at Cornell”.

What I didn’t predict when I began this journey more than a decade ago was the accompanying attack on DEI at universities and beyond by the far right, leading some states to restrict funding for DEI work at public colleges. 

Thinking about it more deeply, this move shouldn’t have come as such a surprise. DEI work is centred on identity politics, and for obvious reasons, it doesn’t make space for identities that are not marginalised, which has spurred some to revolt. 

This situation also puts critical progressives in a corner: do they continue to critique DEI, or pivot to defend it from right-wing attacks as the primary vehicle in higher education aiming to address histories of systemic bias and discrimination?

Valuable lesson

Amid this backdrop, I have been stunned by the response of most higher education institutions to the encampments on their campuses. 

Colleges are imagined to be sites of free speech and expression, intellectual inquiry, and encountering differences. For many, they form a bridge towards independence as adults. Most colleges have spent the better part of the new millennium ramping up their investments in DEI work.

But today, at a moment when students have united to erect encampments that have organically achieved – even amid their internal disagreements – pluralistic communities that welcome people from myriad backgrounds, universities are not embracing them, but rather treating them as a threat. 

Instead of joining the encampment communities and trying to learn from their students about how to foster a culture of liberation, most university administrations have at best kept them at arm’s length, or worse, violently dismantled them. Thus, the administrations have aligned themselves with far-right interests, at the expense of the very cause of inclusion for which they’re supposedly fighting.

Rather than continuing to target students and tear down encampments, university administrations should go out and witness liberation in action. Perhaps then it could dawn on them that to centre DEI without centring liberation is a futile endeavour, resulting in DEI initiatives being viewed as performative by the very communities they claim to serve.

Liberation should not be complicated. It is most definitely possible on university campuses and around the world, if people believe in it rather than fearing it. The student encampments, at the very least, have taught us that.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Reprinted from the Middle East Eye with the author’s permission.

Here are my two cents. Americans generally know nothing to speak of about Islam. I mean, almost zero. But a majority of them know that they do not like the Islamic religion, at least in the post-Cold War period. Actually Islam and Muslims in general were quite popular with Americans in the 1950s and 1960s, when they were mainly fighting godless Communism and appreciated having allies. In all the Muslim world, only little South Yemen went Communist, whereas a lot of Christian-majority countries did. The Eisenhower administration hoped to build a Muslim bloc to oppose the Soviet Union and Ike funded better railway links with Mecca because he wanted to encourage Muslims to go on pilgrimage and be pious and reject dialectical materialism. That’s right, the US used to promote sharia law.

Nowadays a lot of Americans say that “Islam” is incompatible with American values. Personally, I think they say this because they like the idea of being the sole superpower and don’t approve of any group that is hard to dominate. There has been a lot of opposition to American dominance in Latin America, Africa, and Asia — even Europe — but somehow that flies under the radar. Muslims overthrowing the Shah in Iran, a close US ally, somehow really ticked them off. And of course the main guerrilla groups opposing the US in Iraq and Afghanistan were religiously-driven or at least -identified, though secular groups were more important in Iraq than was generally recognized.

This perception of Muslims as generally oppositional, however, doesn’t comport with reality. Muslim-majority countries account for one NATO ally pledged to defend the US (Turkey) and for 8 of the 18 formally designated major non-NATO allies of the US — Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, and Tunisia. Even without the designation, the US has close security ties to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Indonesia. Of the non-NATO allies only one, Argentina, is in Latin America. The Muslims are more tightly allied to the US than is the Western Hemisphere!

Americans like Muslims slightly better than they like Islam. Go figure.

In 2015, at the height of ISIL, the so-called ‘Islamic State’ group, which had taken over northern Iraq and eastern Syria and blew up Paris, only 48% of Americans said they were favorable toward Muslims. Actually that wasn’t bad given the circumstances, of nearly a decade and a half of the Bush “War on Terror” and invasions of lots of Muslim countries, the citizens of some of which fought back.

Possibly because Donald J. Trump was so mean to them, Muslims rose in the opinions of Americans after 2017. In 2021 and 2022 they reached a 78% favorability rating. That’s actually fantastic. It means most Americans really thought well of Muslims by then.

“Muslim Americans,” Digital, Dream / Dreamland v3 / Clip2Comic, 2024.

But by February of this year, Muslims had lost 11 points and were down to 67% favorability. Although 80% of Muslims in the world are not Arabs, and the majority of Arabs are not religious fundamentalists, Hamas seems to have managed to cast a large shadow on the community. As for Islam, it had gone up to 57% favorability in 2021, but plummeted back down to 48% this year (i.e. back down to what it was in 2015 at the height of ISIL). Although, remember, most Americans couldn’t tell you for the life of them what Islam is.

Telhami notes that Muslims especially lost favorability with Democrats this year, and implies that President Joe Biden’s rhetoric is likely to blame. Biden has shown not the least sympathy for the plight of millions of Palestinian civilians and has often repeated false propaganda against them, to the point that the State Department’s dissent channel slammed him roundly as a major source of disinformation on the Gaza situation.

But it isn’t only Muslims. Many Americans at least perceived that there was “a lot” more prejudice this year against Jewish Americans (29%). Presumably this is because Jewish Americans are seen to be unfairly tarred with the brush of the far right, extremist Israeli government and its total war on Gaza civilians.

Some 22% thought there was “a lot” more prejudice against Muslim Americans in 2024. The perception of a substantial increase in prejudice toward other minorities, including Blacks and Hispanics, was much lower, in the range of 13%- 16%.

Paradoxically, although Americans had a high opinion of Muslims in 2022, they didn’t think Muslim Americans were of much account. Only a little over a fourth of Americans thought Muslims strengthen the fabric of US society. That’s terrible. And very unfair, since Muslim Americans produce physicians, engineers, entrepreneurs, inventors and others who demonstrably strengthen US society. When Trump needed a czar to head up the joint US government-Moderna moonshot to produce a COVID vaccine, he turned to Moncef Slaoui, a Moroccan-born Muslim, one of the world’s top immunologists.

On the other hand, I wonder if Americans didn’t object to the tenor of the question, since only 41% thought white people strengthen the fabric of US society. I suspect a lot of the 58% didn’t so much disrespect white contributions to the country as they just didn’t think an ethnic approach to the problem of the American fabric was very useful. Still, the 28% figure for Muslim Americans is substantially lower.

Most Americans in 2022 were all right with a Protestant, Catholic or Jewish president, with only about 11% or 12% opposed. On the other hand, many had qualms about a Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu or Agnostic one, with over 20% opposed in each case. But about a third really did not want an atheist or Muslim president (32% opposed, rising to over 50% among Republicans).

Ironically, they may well get a Hindu-ish president, since Kamala Harris seems to practice a syncretic mix of her mother’s Hinduism and her father’s Jamaican Christianity.