Thursday, April 17, 2025

A Time of Living Dangerously – For Telling the Truth
April 17, 2025
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


"Silence", street mural by Carlos Gomilo | Image via PXHere, Creative Commons CC0


The West has long cherished political correctness as though it were a core democratic value. This drive to ‘civilise’ public discourse has been especially aimed at illiberal democracies or post-socialist societies that are still expected to become ‘true democracies’. One of the crowning achievements of this campaign has been the suppression of radical critique, particularly of capitalism and liberalism, and the normalisation of hypocrisy and even self-censorship.

While grants and ‘soft power’ projects flowed abundantly toward the East and Global South, the West itself was unravelling. It quietly abandoned the very values it claims as its civilisational hallmarks. This is now happening on both sides of the Atlantic, but nowhere is the change more glaring than in Washington, D.C. Since Donald Trump returned for his second term, political correctness has not just been questioned – it has been thrown out the window, much like Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, who was unceremoniously kicked out of the White House.

Still high on the (anticipated) triumph of Liberation Day, Trump recently explained – using the crudest possible language – how foreign leaders must debase themselves to get tariff exemptions from the US. The tariffs are now gone, but the memory of the vulgar metaphor still stings many leaders like a slap across the face. In its wake came another jarring statement – this time from Vice President JD Vance, who spoke disparagingly of ‘Chinese peasants’, a racist comment that only intensified the perception that the US is waging war against everyone, especially China.

But how does all this turbulence affect Macedonia? The citizens here are no puritans. They’ve long grown used to leaders boasting about things others would be ashamed of – like the former prime minister who once bragged before a foreign audience that he had the ‘balls’ to sell out the country’s national interests. Another played an ‘all-in’ game with national symbols. The current prime minister recently had his own subservient moment in Washington, reminiscent of those old, humiliating scenes.

But there’s a difference between merely witnessing such submissiveness and publicly naming it. Doing the latter cost me my long-standing columnist position after nearly two decades, despite never sparing any government from criticism. During Yugoslav times, there was a song: ‘Comrade Tito, we swear to you we will never stray from your path’. Today, the tune remains the same, but the comrade’s name is Trump.

Macedonia got a new government less than a year ago, but political correctness remains firmly in place. Nothing’s changed – only the faces. The effects of the so-called ‘Colourful Revolution’ that brought down former conservative PM Nikola Gruevski still shape the country. His successor, Hristijan Mickoski, appears terrified of (if not paranoid about) criticism – even with a strong electoral mandate. The safest position is silence, especially when it comes to critiquing the prime minister. You are allowed to light candles for the victims of a deadly nightclub fire in Kočani – but heaven forbid you protest, or you’ll be accused of being a leftover ‘colourful revolutionary’ trying to overthrow the government. Any attempt at serious public or intellectual debate is dangerous terrain – best avoided altogether.

Under the previous Social Democratic government – installed through a mix of foreign pressure, a liberal ‘woke’ agenda, and protest movements – a ‘real’ intellectual was defined as someone stripped of national or patriotic sentiments. Under the new conservative administration, the script has been flipped. National pride is now encouraged, even though few things in the country warrant pride. But the nation has become synonymous with the state, and the state with the ruling party. If you want to be ‘in the game’, you must align yourself with the prime minister, the ‘father of the nation’ (even though the president, a woman, was previously promoted as its ‘mother’).

A few examples illustrate the new (conservative) political correctness. First, censorship now goes by a new name: ‘legal advisors’. These are lawyers allegedly hired to help editorial teams avoid lawsuits, but in practice, they filter what can and cannot be published. Even columnists face this gatekeeping. Second, front-page headlines now question: ‘Why are some intellectual circles spreading defeatist scenarios in public discourse?’ As if being honest about the state of the country is somehow anti-patriotic. But what else should one spread in a nation drowning in corruption, cronyism, poverty, and rampant partisanship? Euphoria?

Perhaps the most ironic example of institutionalised political correctness comes from academia and civil society. Consider a British Embassy–funded project led by a local academic institution, titled ŠTET-NA (a portmanteau of the Macedonian words for ‘harmful’ and ‘narratives’), translated into English as HARM-TIVE. The project’s purpose? To regularly screen and analyse harmful political narratives – statements, stories, and ideas allegedly detrimental to democracy, public well-being, or trust in institutions. One might think Macedonia is a peaceful utopia, a thriving democracy undermined only by mean-spirited speech. Instead of critiquing actions, the focus is on controlling narratives.

According to the project’s official description, ‘undermining trust in institutions and media (without evidence)’ is categorised as a harmful narrative. Another ‘harmful narrative’ is ‘unfounded accusations of foreign interference’ – a clear reference to any questioning of NATO or EU influence in the country’s internal affairs. The project also condemns ‘encouraging extreme patriotism and nationalism’ and ‘creating a common enemy’ – even as virtually all major national decisions in recent years have been made under foreign pressure and with fearmongering tactics (‘Give up your national interests, or the state will collapse!’). Ironically, these are the very narratives pushed by the same donors now sponsoring ‘HARM-TIVE’.

This is a country where people die from corruption and negligence. Public trust in the judiciary is only 2%. The other institutions don’t fare any better. The prime minister behaves like a one-man state: the legislature, the judiciary, and the executive branch. He hurls insults at MPs and experts, waves around documents from ongoing investigations (which he shouldn’t even possess), and the media barely dare invite dissenting voices to speak. But funding is funding, and the HARM-TIVE project began under the previous government – it’s simply finishing now. Unsurprisingly, its implicit target is the only real opposition: the far-left party, which, by its very nature and ideological orientation, is anti-establishment. Its leader often quotes Robespierre, which, frankly, is still more fitting than quoting Trump.

Political correctness remains a constant. It’s a container – only the contents shift. The media and NGOs adapt like chameleons, mostly according to donor priorities. Any opinion that sounds bold, open, or off-narrative is swiftly labelled ‘hate speech’. Journalists now fear that such speech is the death of political correctness. In truth, we’re dying from political correctness and obedience when we should be raging.

The elites want us to believe that political correctness means good manners, polite words, and fair play in a battle between David and Goliath. But in Macedonia, this sanitised correctness renders us deaf, blind, and mute in the face of collapse. What we lack is resistance, not refinement. Anyone unwilling to tell painful truths just because it might upset a zombified, apathetic population and a scared government is complicit. Orwell was right: telling the truth in a time of universal deceit is a revolutionary act

This article was produced by Globetrotter.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers. Donate


Biljana Vankovska is a professor of political science and international relations at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, a member of the Transnational Foundation of Peace and Future Research (TFF) in Lund, Sweden, and the most influential public intellectual in Macedonia.
The West Is Not Blind, but It Cannot See

In cordial dialog with Jeffrey D. Sachs


April 16, 2025
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.



In cordial dialog with Jeffrey D. Sachs

I have written several texts about the transitional society we are in. Whenever I do, Gramsci’s famous thought comes to mind: neither the old has totally died nor the new has totally asserted itself; transition is a time of morbid phenomena (which some have translated as monsters). What is happening in the world makes me doubt that the concept of transition is still useful to characterize our time. With increasing conviction, I think that if we have to resort to famous and succinct manifestations of our condition, the best choice is that of Goya’s 1799 aquatint, El sueño de la razón produce monstruos (The sleep of reason produces monsters). Instead of the metaphor of movement, the metaphor of condition.

Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, I have agreed with Jeffrey Sachs’ (JS) analysis and we have even exchanged messages about our convergences. In a text published on April 11 in OtherNews, entitled “Giving Birth to the New International Order”, JS uses the concept of transition to characterize our times: from a unipolar world dominated by the West since the 15th century (in the last hundred years, by the USA) to a multipolar world centered on Asia, Africa and Latin America. His central proposal to ensure this transition lies in the rise of India (which he compares favorably to China) and the geopolitical conversion of this rise into the reform of the Security Council of the UN granting permanent membership to India.

I don’t disagree with JS’s proposal, although it is problematic to praise India at the worst moment of its democratic life thanks to the political Hinduism that turns more than 20% of the population (Muslims) into second-class citizens. I disagree, however, with the importance JS attaches to his proposal. His proposal is based on two premises that are unfortunately false: that the UN still exists with some effectiveness; and that there is a unipolar world order. Perhaps desperately, JS continues to believe in the international role of the UN. Is it possible to believe in the UN after the Gaza genocide that was broadcast live every day and to the whole world for more than a year? Is it possible to believe in the UN after all the lies tolerated in the Balkans, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Ukraine? Let’s note two tragic facts: all these lies were credibly denounced at the time they were published, and those who denounced them suffered harsh consequences: silencing, deportation, media and judicial persecution; all these lies were confirmed as such years later, often by the agencies that propagated them or by their spokespeople, be they the New York Times or the Washington Post and the huge echo chamber that they possess which transmits to the hegemonic media around the world. No one has ever apologized to those who were right when it was forbidden to be right, nor have the peoples destroyed by acts of aggression based on lies been compensated. Does anyone remember that Libya had one of the best public health services in the world?

The second premise is that there is a unipolar world order. I can’t go into the debate here about whether the world order was unipolar even at the time of the Soviet Bloc. In any case, it did exist for a while. For example, it existed when in 2005 Narendra Modi was banned from the US for human rights violations (the massacre of Islamists in Gujarat in 2002). But does it exist today, when a war criminal is given a standing ovation by the US Congress? Isn’t it rather a world disorder that can be considered unipolar only because the country with the most power is the one that causes the most disorder? Is it possible to believe what is being said about China today if what was being said about it only five years ago was true (even if what is now emerging on the surface was being prepared for a long time behind the scenes)? Is it possible to believe in the solidity of the unipolar order based on the democracy/autocracy dichotomy when the “best friends” of the president of the most powerful democratic country are all autocrats? For some years now (especially since 9/11), the American political class has been guided by the idea of imperial domination and not by the idea of world order. Just read the Project for the New American Century or the Wolfowitz Doctrine where it becomes clear that the US must act independently on the international stage whenever “collective action cannot be orchestrated”. This is not a principle of order. It is a principle of disorder.
The sociology of absences: the sleep of reason

For all JS’s clairvoyance, his analysis and proposals produce two absences, two realities which, although they exist, are produced as non-existent and as such can no longer contribute to any diagnosis or solution. The non-existence of such realities is not the result of an act of will on the part of the analyst. It stems from the epistemological presuppositions of analysis. It stems from the sleep of reason. The West’s problem lies not so much in the state to which it has led the world, but in the epistemicide it has caused along its historical path, in other words, in the knowledge and experiences of the world that it has actively destroyed in order to impose its domination and neutralize any resistance. This destruction was not just of bodies and ways of life. It was also the destruction of knowledge, wisdom and ethics, of ways of living together of people and nations, of cultures of relationship with nature, with the living and the dead, with time and space. This multifaceted destruction has produced a specific form of blindness that consists of looking without seeing, explaining without understanding, observing without knowing that you can’t observe without being observed. I distinguish, among many others, two absences: the different/useless beyond the friend/enemy; living and letting live beyond order and disorder.
The different and the useless

Colonialism and capitalism are the twin forms of modern domination. Both are based on hierarchical logics: superior/inferior, owner/non-owner. In both cases, the first category determines the second. The inferior is only inferior in the light of the interests of the superior; he can be superior in the light of many other criteria, but this is irrelevant to the superior; the owner defines what has value (material or immaterial) and who owns it; the non-owner can own a lot of things that have no value to the owner and are therefore irrelevant or non-existent. The two logics are intertwined, although they reveal different faces of domination. Being superior without having valuable property is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. These two logics have created two dichotomous types of dominant social relations: the useful and the harmful; the friend and the enemy. The first type was well theorized by Jeremy Bentham, the second by Carl Schmitt.

Western colonial capitalist thinking has systematically de-trained human beings to recognize the importance of the different and the useless because they don’t fit into either of the two hierarchical logics. For this reason, it has either ignored them or relegated them to a surplus and non-threatening area: art. It gave them the aura of the unnecessary.
Living and letting live

The two hierarchical logics of colonialism and capitalism mentioned above have conditioned life and death since the 15th century. Since the life worth protecting was that of superiors and owners, and since the overwhelming majority of the world’s population was neither, the modern era was dominated by the experience of death and even by the spectacle of death. Death was not only for inferior, non-owning human beings, but also for all living beings, for nature in general. The death of rivers, mountains and jungles where the superior could accumulate their ownership of precious natural resources was theologically, ethically, scientifically and, above all, economically justified. This is how we arrived at the time of ecological collapse in which we find ourselves. The ethnic cleansing of Gaza is just the latest heinous episode in a long history of ethno-social-natural cleansing of human beings, sub-human beings, and non-human beings.

A world order, unipolar or multipolar, based on the same epistemic and ethical premises that have dominated since the 15th century will do nothing to make the principle of live and let live triumph.
Conclusion

The transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world is not in itself good or bad. The real alternative is to expand the spaces of difference and uselessness as civilizational values: difference as diversity, uselessness as usefulness-otherwise. The real alternative lies in valuing the value of life, a value that can only be respected by living and letting live.

After five centuries of cultural, epistemic and ethical indoctrination, I have serious doubts that Western thought can conceive of or play a leading role in the creation of a multipolar world. It will never know how to be one among peers. Furthermore, the values of what is different and what is useless, of living and letting live, are much more present in the thinking that originates in the regions of the world where JS has some hope – Asia, Africa, and Latin America – than in the dominant thinking of the Western world. This fact in itself is no guarantee, since, after five centuries of global domination, Western thinking is insidiously present above all in the elites of the countries in these regions, the elites who will most likely be the ones to formulate the new (old) multipolar world. That’s why, for me, the exploited and oppressed classes of these regions are the ones who can do the most to combat the multisecular epistemicide. They will do so to the extent that they draw on their multisecular experience. This experience has always oscillated between war and revolution. Today, when we are sleepwalking towards a Third World War (if we are not already in it), perhaps we should revisit the concepts of revolution and liberation in new terms. Only then will reason wake up from the slumber to which capitalism and colonialism have condemned it.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers .Donate



Boaventura de Sousa Santos is the emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Coimbra in Portugal. His most recent book is Decolonizing the University: The Challenge of Deep Cognitive Justice.
UK Arrest Warrant For Israeli Foreign Minister

By Global Legal Action Network (GLAN)
April 17, 2025
Source: Global Legal Action Network



Arrest Warrant Sought for Israeli Foreign Minister During Ongoing UK Visit

​An arrest warrant is being urgently sought for a senior member of Israel’s security cabinet, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar during his visit to the UK.

The charges focus in particular on the siege of Kamal Adwan Hospital at the end of 2024, which culminated in the abduction and torture of the hospital director, Dr Hussam Abu Safiyeh.

​With support from medical doctors, Global Legal Action Network and the Hind Rajab Foundation have formally submitted a request to the UK’s Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions seeking their consent to make an application for an arrest warrant for Mr Sa’ar. An application for his arrest warrant has been prepared for Westminster Magistrate Court. It is alleged that he aided and abetted torture and grave breaches of international humanitarian law in Palestine including torture, wilful killing and extensive destruction of property. Mr Sa’ar was seen boarding a plane for the UK earlier on Oct 14th and it is reported that he met with UK government officials including the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy on April 17th. The prosecution would be brought by GLAN and the Hind Rajab Foundation, along with partners who cannot be currently named for security reasons, with evidence from a group of doctors who are in Gaza or have worked extensively there. A police complaint has been filed with the London Metropolitan Police by the human rights groups.

​As a senior member of Israel’s security cabinet alongside Benjamin Netanyahu — wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza—Gideon Sa’ar is deeply implicated in the collective decisions that led to mass civilian death and suffering following October 7, 2023. His central role in shaping and defending the government’s military policy makes him a key figure in the leadership responsible for a campaign the ICJ has found plausibly genocidal.

​The submissions argue that Gideon Sa’ar is criminally responsible for the following acts, which are crimes under the jurisdiction of England and Wales: 

​The attack on Kamal Adwan Hospital between the 8th October 2024 and the 27th December 2024. The detention and torture of Dr Hussam Abu Safiyeh, director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital 
The wanton destruction involved in the acquisition of large swathes of Gaza through the creation of a “buffer zone.”
The attacking of objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, under Gideon Sa’ar’s leadership, posted content in support of the siege of Kamal Adwan Hospital.1 The Groups submitted evidence showing how this hospital was besieged, attacked, and ultimately stormed, evacuated and burned by Israeli forces. Individual attacks launched throughout this period involved quadcopters and other aerial attacks which killed and injured doctors and patients. The hospital’s director, Dr Hussam Abu Safiyeh was taken, imprisoned in inhumane conditions and tortured; he was even held at the notorious Sde Teiman Detention Camp in Israel. Since October 7 2023, Israel has systematically destroyed Gaza’s hospitals, targeting healthcare facilities and killing and injuring medics. Some hospitals have been destroyed with airstrikes, whereas others are subjected to evacuation orders, siege warfare, sniper attacks and shelling.

​Sa’ar is already the subject of a complaint to the International Criminal Court (ICC) by HRF alleging his involvement in decisions that led to mass civilian displacement and siege conditions in Gaza and his support for policies that targeted civilian infrastructure.

Gearóid Ó Cuinn, GLAN’s Director said: “Mr Gideon Sa’ar’s is directly linked to mass death, destruction and suffering in Palestine; we have submitted extensive evidence detailing his role in and awareness of this. UK officials are failing to abide by the law by offering handshakes instead of handcuffs – this is why we have asked the courts to urgently step in.”​​

“Gideon Sa’ar cannot walk freely in London while Palestinian civilians lie buried under rubble. His role in the starvation, displacement, and killing of innocent people in Gaza demands accountability, no official title can excuse these atrocities.”

Dyab Abou Jahjah, Founder and Chair of the Hind Rajab Foundation

This action was supported by Dr Ghassan Abu Sitta, a British-Palestinian plastic and reconstructive surgeon who practiced in Gaza on multiple occasions including the weeks after October 7th 2023.

Dr Azra Zyada, a medical doctor and independent consultant in Healthcare Systems and Strategy of Palestinian descent who help gather evidence from Gaza said: “This is an opportunity to show that the rule of law matters. It’s an opportunity to put a stake in the sand; as citizens and as people of conscience, and show that this country believes in the moral values it has signed up for. Britain has demonstrated its strength before on those who have crossed those lines, and today is a demonstration of the strength and moral courage of the British people. We cannot turn a blind eye towards injustice, and if we tolerate this, then our children will be next.”

Case Partner

​The Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF) is devoted to breaking the cycle of Israeli impunity and honouring the memory of Hind Rajab and all those who have perished in the Gaza genocide. HRF focuses on offensive legal action against perpetrators, accomplices and inciters of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Palestine. We also invest in awareness campaigns to challenge Israeli impunity and honor the memory of the victims.

Some of Gideon Sa’ar, Israeli Foreign Minister public statements included in dossier submitted:

​ “Humanitarian aid to Gaza should be halted immediately” https://www.kikar.co.il/political-news/s8g0me

“”The release of the director of the Shifa hospital [without getting anything in return]: an undermining of the [war] aim of destroying the governmental infrastructure of Hamas.” https://x.com/gidonsaar/status/1807674219653689852

“It is clear that the systematic poisoning of the younger generation in Palestinian society (in Gaza just like in Judea and Samaria) eliminates any chance for peace.  
A root canal treatment is required.” https://x.com/gidonsaar/status/1892588158333714860



Global Legal Action Network (GLAN)

The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) is a unique non-profit organisation that works with affected communities to pursue innovative legal actions across borders, challenging states and other powerful actors involved with systemic injustice. Our vision is justice across borders.

Day of Action on 150+ Campuses Across US Target Trump Attack on Higher Education

Source: Common Dreams


Great Oak High School students leave campus in protest of the disctrict’s ban of critical race theory curriculum at Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park in Temecula on Friday, Dec. 16, 2022. (Photo by Watchara Phomicinda, The Press-Enterprise/SCNG)



“What is at stake is the defense of our fundamental democratic rights and constitutional freedoms,” said one organizer.

With universities across the U.S. facing attacks from the Trump administration that “have been compared to the worst of McCarthyism,” as one professor said, students, staff, and faculty on more than 150 college campuses are planning to participate in a National Day of Action for Higher Education on Thursday.

“What is at stake is the defense of our fundamental democratic rights and constitutional freedoms,” said Blanca Missé, an associate professor at San Francisco State University.

The day of action is being sponsored by a number of groups that have been active in protests against Israel’s U.S.-backed war on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, including Faculty for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Palestine Legal; as well as groups including the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and Higher Ed Labor United.

Staff and faculty unions at New York University and the City University of New York are organizing the largest action, planned for 4:00 pm in Foley Square in Manhattan, while other events are being organized from the universities of Alaska and Hawai’i to schools across the Deep South.

The events are being organized amid “accelerating attacks on academic freedom, shared governance, and higher education as a public good,” said the AAUP.

Student organizers and activists including Mohsen MahdawiMahmoud Khalil, and Rumeysa Ozturk have been detained by immigration agents in recent weeks for their pro-Palestinian advocacy, while the Trump administration has threatened universities with billions of dollars in funding cuts.

After Harvard University announced it would not comply with President Donald Trump’s demands for a crackdown on what he claims is “antisemitism” on college campuses, the White House said Tuesday it would freeze more than $2 billion in funding.

Columbia University, meanwhile, has collaborated with the Trump administration—reportedly handing over the names of students to the government and refusing to protect international students including Khalil and Mahdawi—prompting campus protests and  condemnation from the school’s philosophy department.

“We are committed to beating back creeping fascism in higher ed, advancing worker control of campuses, and fighting for Palestinian liberation as part of the liberation of higher education,” said Bill Mullen, a member of the Coalition for Action in Higher Education and one of the co-organizers of the national day of action.

The day of action will include rallies, informational discussions, teach-ins, and marches like the one planned at American University.

Students and supporters plan to march to the university president’s on-campus house where they “will post a list of demands on his door.”

“These demands include protection of the most vulnerable, protection of academic freedom, and protection of our university’s core mission of teaching and scholarship,” said organizers.

The events come as a number of universities including Harvard have taken action to fight back against Trump’s attacks on First Amendment rights and academic freedom on campus. Representatives of Yale and Stanford expressed support for Harvard’s move on Tuesday, and the number of Big Ten Academic Alliance schools that have passed resolutions to defend campus communities has grown from one to four in recent weeks.

“As campus workers and citizens, educators and researchers, staff, students, and university community members, we exercise a powerful collective voice in advancing the democratic mission of our colleges and universities,” said organizers. “It is our labor and our ideas which sustain higher education as a project that preserves and extends social equality and the common good—as a project of social emancipation.”

“On April 17, 2025, we will hold a one-day action on and around our campuses to renew this vision of higher education as an autonomous public good,” they said, “and university workers as its most important resource.”


No Resurrection: The Life and Death of the Modern University

Source: Steve Salaita

The Gaza solidarity encampment at the Columbia University's campus

My first academic job was at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater.  I was extremely lucky to have landed that job.  I was fresh out of graduate school and had mailed off around 150 applications between September and December.  It was 2003.  These things were still done in hard copy back then. 

I got a few screening interviews at that year’s MLA Convention—who else remembers sitting awkwardly on hotel beds, trying to describe your pedagogical philosophy to grouchy hiring committees?—but nothing came of them.  By early February, things weren’t looking good.  Then I got an email from the dean of Whitewater’s College of Letters and Sciences.  I had presented at the MLA and the dean was in the audience.  He had approached me afterward to say that he loved my research and we exchanged information.  I had a flicker of hope at the time, but it appeared that nothing had come of our encounter.  A month later, I accepted a job at Whitewater. 

After a lifetime in religious, conservative states, I was excited to move to Wisconsin.  Most of Whitewater’s faculty lived in Madison—about a fifty-minute drive, give or take—and my wife and I decided to do the same.  I had great hopes for a vibrant political life.  Madison was known to be one of the most progressive cities in the United States. 

That reputation turned out to be true, but it led to disappointment rather than vibrancy.  It didn’t take me long to understand that “progressive” came with its own problems—namely, that it is mostly just conservativism with a different aesthetic. 

The point was driven home during my second year at Whitewater.  A group of activists from UW-Madison was trying to implement divestment resolutions at the various UW campuses.  These were the early days of BDS—Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions—and the activists were more often met with hostility than curiosity.  One of their leaders was a philosophy graduate student named Mohammed Abed, who was an absolute dynamo.  Persistent and brilliant, Mohammed left his fingerprints all over the movement. 

It wasn’t only Zionists or individuals/institutions invested in Zionism that early BDS leaders had to persuade; many, if not most, radical faculty at the time were reluctant or lukewarm.  Some were outright hostile to the idea of boycotting Israel.  People now recognize BDS as what the youth like to call “the bare minimum,” but at the start we had a hell of a time getting leftist faculty on board.  The hesitancy corresponded to a person’s stature or the prestige of their institutional affiliation.  As is typical of professors, they came aboard only when BDS became a marketable commitment. 

Anyway, that was the context in which Mohammed and his friends were operating.  They had made significant progress in Madison and were eager to organize Whitewater’s faculty.  I met with them and explained that there was a decent chance of succeeding.  My department was filled with people who considered themselves scholar-activists and always seemed to be agitating for or against something or other. 

We managed to get the question of divestment onto the agenda of the next faculty senate meeting, which the crew from Madison would attend.  The agenda item attracted notice and I heard some of my colleagues whispering about it.  They were planning to go, I gathered. 

It was with great excitement that I turned up at the senate meeting, confident that divestment was the perfect issue for intellectuals who had opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, who were disgusted by racism, and who spent most of their time complaining about reactionaries.  Indeed, a number of colleagues from my department were there, along with folks from throughout the college.  We chitchatted until the meeting was called to order.  After Mohammed’s group had presented the case for divestment, the chair opened up the floor for comment. 

One by one, my colleagues stepped forward to oppose the resolution. 

*****

What I remember most isn’t anger or shock, but loneliness.  The feeling was pronounced.  I was saddened by what I viewed at the time as a betrayal.  (I view it now as normal protocol.)  But the sense of being alone on the issue, embedded in every Palestinian’s consciousness, felt almost brutal.  Indeed, calling Zionist colonization an “issue” feels a bit obscene.  It’s not an issue limited to rhetoric or opinion; it’s a matter of survival and sustenance, of justice and reparation, of dignity and self-respect.  How could educated people miss something so obvious?  How could society’s leading lights be so hard-hearted? 

Like many before me, I was left to wonder how Palestinians are supposed to exist in this world when the world in its current incarnation requires our nonexistence. 

The moment made clear to me a yawning discrepancy between self-branding and praxis among the professoriate.  When something more than performance is at stake, or when a real threat arises against the status quo, a great many people immediately retreat into liberal orthodoxy.  Few things induce this retreat more effectively than Palestine. 

I knew this already.  I was a maladjusted kid, often in trouble.  A good kind of trouble, I’d say, though I suppose my parents would disagree.  Resisted any sort of religious indoctrination.  Didn’t want to pay homage to the flag before pep rallies.  Hated my teachers and thus made low grades on purpose. 

Despite my dim reputation, I was sharply observant.  I watched for potential allies.  The rich kids were out, for obvious reasons.  The nerds, as well.  The jocks were straight-up enemies.  That left the metalheads, the hillbillies, the minorities, and the stoners.  They also proved useless.  Black combat boots.  Snuff rings on the back jeans pocket.  Nose piercings.  Facial hair.  Unmitigated hate for the man.  But by God they always stood for the national anthem. 

I’ve known for four decades that you can’t expect anything but disappointment from self-appointed rebels.  In Wisconsin, I was hoping for something different.  The ensuing years have been unforgiving of my naivete. 

Some things don’t change but the timelines and adornments.  Now I scan an industry whose tenured stratum appears to fit the part.  Fashionably shabby or slickly stylish clothes.  Transgressive vocabularies.  Vintage glasses.  Smirks.  Tattoos.  Incredible credentials.  Lots of rebelliousness in the features.  But take a closer look.  They always go back to the Democrats.  They always disavow violence.  They always caution pragmatism.  They always soft sell U.S.-sponsored coups and counterrevolutions.  In other words, they always end up standing for the flag. 

I can sense lots of inner-monologues right now about exceptions, personal or otherwise.  Yes, of course.  I agree!  There are many exceptions.  Remember, though:  an exception by definition contravenes the norm.  We can acknowledge the exceptions.  We can celebrate them, even.  But ultimately we have to deal with the norm.  The terrible situation now facing higher education wouldn’t exist if the exceptions were significant enough to become unexceptional. 

This terrible situation I speak of should be self-evident, but I’ll highlight some of its features:  systematic persecution of students, including suspension, expulsion, police brutality, arrest, doxing, defamation, and deportation; a corresponding persecution of faculty, including job termination, cancellation of classes, and vigorous surveillance; and a virtual embargo on anti-Zionist sentiment for anybody boasting an institutional affiliation.  All this as both major political parties underwrite and frequently celebrate genocide. 

The modes of repression now on display aren’t novel; they’re more intense and overt.  Anti-Zionism, as with any other revolutionary movement, for years has evoked the wrath of universities and the centers of power they serve.  Professors long have been fired, denied tenure, or otherwise disciplined at the behest of Zionist organizations.  Each time it happened, the interested parties would plead with colleagues throughout the industry to develop sites of countervailing power.  Some tried, but most went on with life secure in the knowledge that managerial persecution would happen only to other people, most of whom were probably asking for it. 

And now here we are:  the government is disappearing student activists, outlawing certain forms of speech, revoking work and study visas, and demanding that administrators transform their campuses into police camps if they want federal money.  Everyone is rightly terrified.  But I insist on pointing out that plenty of us were terrified all along.  That should have been enough to disrupt the status quo. 

I also insist on pointing out that the current situation is no surprise to anybody who has been paying attention to Zionist tactics on campus over the past few decades, although the depth and intensity of the persecution has been jarring.  There has never been a moment when Zionists allowed for expressions of dissent.  They’ve been targeting Palestinian students and professors since at least the 1960s.  It was never quaint.  They were just as brutal thirty years ago as they are today.  Only the dynamics have changed.  

Too many people who pretended to know better humored their nonsense.  Why?  I’m not always sure.  Could be ambition, could be tacit affinity, could be self-preservation, could be old-fashioned cowardice.  Whatever the reason, not enough faculty with power, or with access to power, stood up for the vulnerable—not just Palestinians, but contingent faculty, Black people, immigrants, grad student unionizers, and workers usually absent from the conversation altogether (gardeners and custodians and cafeteria staff and bus drivers).  Some of those faculty outright aligned with management.  This compliance is how they earned proximity to power in the first place. 

Herein exists the great danger of not abiding by a set of principles vis-à-vis the dispossessed and acting on those principles as necessary.  A bunch of nobodies get punished.  Everyone shrugs.  Friends of those nobodies urge somebody, anybody, to act.  Everyone shrugs, but with a careful eye on the situation.  When the issue hits the news cycle and becomes a controversy, they finally act, but not to support the nobodies who are now somebody.  Oh, they may say the right things, but it’s the spotlight, not the injustice, that has piqued their attention.  Their role now is to temper or coopt any radical potential emerging from the discontent.  They are no longer shrugging.  Now they are intellectuals.  Now they are leaders. 

Does this sound fanciful?  I guess, if you want it to.  All I can tell you is that I lived it, more than once.  And I’ve observed the process in action dozens of times since.  It’s like an emerging fashion trend:  once you notice it the first time, it suddenly becomes ubiquitous.  I’m not trying to theorize from afar; I’m explaining in practical terms how so-called radicals can perpetuate the very system they apparently oppose. 

This culture of social climbing meant that the professorial class was completely unprepared for the Zionist genocide and the intensified persecution that came along with it.  By “unprepared,” I mean intellectually, politically, and organizationally.  Intellectual unpreparedness was evident in the many think-pieces pathologizing Palestinians as latently warlike and by the compulsion to prioritize the angst of Israeli settlers and diasporic Jews.  Political unpreparedness came about through a longstanding addiction to Westphalian buzzwords like “democracy,” “human rights,” and “authoritarianism” without a concomitant recognition that in practice they usually reify the logic of U.S. imperialism.  Organizational unpreparedness was probably the most damning problem.  Few campuses had structures in place that could repel managerial abuse.  More people needed to be strike-ready, for example.  (Not that striking appears to have been a consideration.)  Faculty should always try to develop networks that allow them to move quickly against administration in moments of crisis.  Enough faculty need to want this kind of network for it to even be a consideration, which is a proto-problem perhaps greater than the subsequent one.  

So now, as the Zionist entity continues to triumphantly steal land and terrorize its neighbors, and as universities have become open participants in this terrorization, our options appear to be twofold:  speak up and risk being neutralized or pretend that higher education will course correct because it is inherently virtuous. 

The second option no longer exists.  It never did, to be clear.  The virtues of higher education were always tethered to capital accumulation.  I’m speaking in a more literal sense:  it’s too late for nostalgia or romanticism.  The university can no longer pretend to be a benighted site of inquiry and erudition, some peaceful, hermetic landscape outside of “the real world.”  It killed its own mythology.  And it’s not getting resurrected. 

*****

The vicious campaigns of repression we’re seeing throughout the West (and in many Arab countries) are both an extension and byproduct of the Zionist genocide.  I mentioned earlier that there is plenty of precedent for what we’re currently seeing.  That precedent goes well beyond Palestine and originates with Black and Indigenous peoples, communists (or perceived communists), and so forth.  However, there are some new developments worth attention. 

For instance, we’re seeing an unprecedented marshaling of administrative resources, which allows for a large volume of repressive acts.  The repression affects both individuals and organizations.  Safety in numbers no longer exists for the activist, but the numbers benefit management because despite the increased capital it requires, mass punishment exhausts the diminishing resources of the oppressed.  Management, like the state it wishes to protect, has opted for collective punishment. 

The most noteworthy development is emphasis on Zionism as an inborn characteristic.  The notion of Zionism as somehow being an immutable feature of Jewishness has been around for a while, although Jewish scholars of various ideological leanings have cautioned against it.  Now Zionist organizations are putting it forward as an indisputable truth to be codified in law.  Maura Finkelstein, for example, was fired from a tenured position at Muhlenberg College, just up the road, based on this rationale.  According to Muhlenberg, Finkelstein didn’t create a hostile atmosphere for Jews (although this accusation was evident in the complaints about her); she created one for Zionists, which required nothing more than empathy for Palestinians. 

Other universities have run with the precedent.  Currently, politicians across North America and Europe are rushing to make “Zionist” a protected category even as they roll back or eliminate hard-fought civil rights victories for other minority groups.  It’s a curious move.  Although it will clearly have some short-term benefit to the pro-Israel crowd, it has potential to be a long-term disaster.  It used to be that anti-Zionism was conflated with antisemitism to create a pretext for recrimination; now the anti-Zionism itself is verboten on grounds of racial intolerance.  I can see no happy ending for either Jews or Palestinians in this scenario. 

Speaking of “antisemitism”—and here I put it in quotation marks to denote the accusation and not the act itself—let me speak directly to self-described anti-Zionist Jews who insist on shoehorning antisemitism into conversations about Palestine.  I don’t know how else to say it, so I’ll just say it:  nobody’s interested in entertaining that bullshit any longer.  Nobody has the capacity to entertain it any longer.  We’ve spent eighteen months watching corpses pile up in Gaza.  Our families.  Our friends.  Our compatriots.  We’re seeing the Zionist entity steal more land by the week and bomb four countries at the same time.  We’re being silenced with brute force throughout the Global North.  All in the name of safety and security for the Jewish people.  Pardon us for not being in the mood to humor the rationale for our own obsolescence. 

Not to mention that for decades these haphazard allegations of “antisemitism” have caused us—Palestinians, Muslims, Black people, dissident Jews—tremendous harm, as individuals and communities.  Nevertheless, out of courtesy and a sense of compassion innate to our politics, we went out of our way to reassure you that our opposition to Israel has nothing to do with animosity toward Jewish peoplehood or to Judaism in general.  We often set aside our own concerns to highlight these distinctions.  We wanted an inclusive space and I’m deeply proud to have been part of many movements boasting a multi-ethnic and -confessional disposition.  We tried to practice a vision of liberation and more often than not we succeeded. 

And still countless people had their reputations destroyed, lost their jobs, got snatched up and deported.  Now we can see the endgame.  It wasn’t just our problem as Palestinians or Muslims or Black people or as anti-Zionists in general.  No, it was an obvious prelude to rightwing dominion.  Phony charges of antisemitism led to the destruction of Corbyn’s movement in the UK; while that movement had some flaws, it also showed real promise and offered a sense of hope to people otherwise treated as surplus.  These phony charges are a reliable way to undermine revolutionary Black politics and have been used to impede the momentum of every decolonial formation in recent history.  Now they’re the main justification for police brutality, expulsion of students, revocation of degrees, cancellation of visas, travel bans, speech restrictions, and judicial hostility.  “Antisemitism” has become the soundtrack to fascism. 

I also want to point out that the Palestine solidarity movement never needed to be educated about the distinction between Zionists and Jewish people, certainly not by Westerners with little to no understanding of Palestinian culture and history.  Our intellectuals and freedom fighters already made that distinction.  It’s there in Antonius, in Habash, in Kanafani, in Bernawi, in Said, in Khaled, in Odeh.  It’s there in the communiques of every single political party formed in Palestine since 1900.  The inherent racism of Zionism, even in its humanistic iterations, should have been a much greater focus.  Instead, well-meaning (and bad faith) observers spent decades excusing Zionism as a mere disagreement.  This emphasis on the ontology of the settler is a source of great frustration in the Palestine solidarity movement.  Gratuitous accusations of antisemitism have functioned as the one of the most effective counterrevolutionary tactics of the past hundred years.  

Those accusations merely provide the government a reason to make lots of good people miserable.  

*****

We don’t need to resurrect what once was.  Yes, academe has visibly gone downhill, but the past can be seen precisely in what exists today.  The endpoint we want arises from a different beginning. 

Looking at the state of things on campus these days, it would require some pretty strong denial or servility to say that academic freedom is real; to view labor conditions as acceptable; to be satisfied with the job market; or to envision a stable path forward for the industry.  Whatever any of us might imagine to be the glory days aren’t getting resurrected. 

This moment constitutes what we might call a revolutionary impasse.  Two forces are struggling to implement wildly different visions of higher education.  One of those forces has the weight of militaries, governments, and corporations on its side.  The only option for the opposing party is to vanquish the more powerful force altogether.  Obviously this is a tall order, perhaps fantastical in both rhetoric and action, but we should nevertheless position it as our ultimate aspiration.  A reformist approach will at best reinforce the impasse.  Let’s not allow our imaginations to be constrained by bourgeois common sense.  If all we manage to accomplish is a legacy sustaining the idea of freedom, then we will have fulfilled a critical responsibility to ensuing generations. 

Because of the revolutionary impasse, more anti-imperialists are being forced to understand that the modern university is central to the system they oppose.  The university isn’t a world apart or a parallel entity.  It is both a guarantor and beneficiary of U.S. power.  We don’t agitate against campus policies without also proffering opposition to capitalism and militarism, intentionally or not.  If we fail to make the connection, then we’ll eventually lose the energy and vision needed to sustain us. 

As a student, I was active in various organizing efforts, mostly to do with Palestine.  This activity continued into my academic career, although I’ve slowed down in recent years.  Or maybe I’ve become active through different ideas of engagement.  Somewhere along the way, I realized that we weren’t organizing against corrupt campus administrators; we were up against capitalism distilled into its most beautified form.  Everything about campus presented a utopian veneer at odds with a simmering class antagonism.  This kind of realization is easy to come by.  Now that management and their wealthy donors again have decided to bare their teeth, the antagonism is out in the open. 

We should bare our teeth in return.  I suggest moving away from civil liberties as an organizing principle and intellectual approach.  Access and redistribution are more important goals.  More difficult, yes, but more impactful, with much greater potential.  Faculty have to seriously think about various forms of refusal or withholding labor altogether.  Forms of refusal might include walkouts, cancelling classes, not turning in grades, and declining to participate in assessment and other bureaucratic hassles (this one should be an easy sell).  Any refusal should come with an explanation highlighting its purpose and specifying what is needed to resume operations.  Withholding labor can come in the form of authorized or wildcat strikes.  Sometimes a campus needs to be shut down.  When a university is actively harming its own students and employees, then making that university inoperable is more than a strategy; it is an ethical commitment to the well-being of those suffering the harm. 

I would also recommend refusing to collaborate with anyone known to back the genocide, whether the backing is loud or lowkey.  This tactic is less impactful than direct action, and might be seen as a form of personal satisfaction, but if it’s widely adopted as a practice then it will prevent Zionism from being accepted as normative, one of the few sources of power available for us to leverage.  

Likewise, go ahead and quit paying dues to scholarly associations that refuse to adopt BDS or are otherwise complicit in Zionist aggression.  Workshops 4 Gaza has a page set up where you can direct the money to organizations working on the ground in Palestine, instead.  Donating in general is a good idea.  Money is never not useful to the oppressed. 

In any case, we’re not at a disadvantage because we lack ideas, but because we lack power.  Human beings have incredible capacity to devise creative forms of resistance.  The best contribution I can make to the process is a firm suggestion that amid the current impasse, we cannot let revolutionary sentiment be lost to nostalgia about a free and open-minded university that never actually existed. 

*****

I still believe in the ability of universities to serve the collective good.  I hope to someday inhabit a society in which this kind of university can exist; the current one is salted against the possibility.  The universities in the United States are too invested in imperialism—that is, extraction and accumulation—to serve the needs of the people.  Because of Palestine, they no longer bother to hide their allegiance. 

I spent five years away from campus and when I returned in 2022 it was a different scene.  Many things were the same, of course.  Some students are serious, some are immature.  Some know what they want to do, some are waiting to decide.  Some are ideologues, some are apolitical.  Almost all immerse themselves in the excitement of new relationships.  As a group, they possess an infectious sense of curiosity and promise.  These things, I reckon, are universal. 

But technology and politics had moved into new territories since my last gig in 2017.  Machine learning models were just hitting the market.  Bureaucratic obligations for faculty had increased.  Contingent and part-time teachers took on an even greater load.  Upper administrators had proliferated.  Many of our tasks were now automated, which ironically increased the amount of time they required.  And the youth somehow seemed older.  They understood, if only implicitly, that they were entering into a world of economic scarcity, a world of ecological precarity, a world of ideological crisis.  I had experienced some rough times in academe, but still I found it to be more depressing than ever. 

Palestine remained a controversial topic, but student activists had done a terrific job of making it legible to their peers and working for policies to address their institutions’ complicity in Zionist colonization.  I nonetheless had a distinct sense that management adhered to a tenuous detente which would collapse if activists became too unruly.  The events following October 7 bore out the feeling. 

There was always a latent hostility to Palestinians underlying managerial professions of tolerance and inclusiveness, punctuated by moments in which the hostility became explicit.  Now the hostility has become the default and I can’t imagine any path to reconciliation in the current environment. 

We’re talking about places that are punishing students and employees for opposing a genocide.  Let me repeat:  they are punishing students and employees for opposing a genocide.  A genocide which their government underwrites.  A genocide in which the same universities they attend are implicated.  The only way this observation fails to resonate is if you don’t appreciate the exceptional gravity of genocide, a problem that seems to afflict lots of people in the Global North. 

What does an education mean amid so much brutality transmitted onto our screens?  And what does it say that we view attending class and concern for the genocide as separate pursuits, if not dialogic opposites?  Sure, there can be overlap and even synergy, but the reality is that those of us who follow the news about Palestine find education to be a distraction or a nuisance.  What we do suddenly doesn’t feel so goddamn important.  Indeed, it feels almost vulgar to be padding around campus while so many people are suffering, their pantries empty, their universities destroyed. 

We’re long past the point where we should have dropped the notion of a sanctified campus, but now the very idea of the university is in question.  Gaza has no universities left.  Class mobility through education only applies to people located in centers of wealth, and even then wealth accumulates unilaterally.  We shouldn’t abide notions of uplift that are predicated on destitution. 

It’s hard anymore to pretend to students that our classes should be the most consequential thing in their lives—and this was the case before the Zionist genocide.  More and more I’m making allowances for aspects of life that are meaningful in a world filled with dread and sorrow:  iftar dinners, childcare, family visits, fieldtrips, and so forth.  It’s not always the outside world that creates distress.  Campuses are now part of the hostile externalities from which students need an escape. 

I’ve put aside whatever allure I once associated with life on campus.  It’s a job.  I used to think of being a professor as an avocation, but I can no longer append a sense of passion to an industry so corrupted by greed that it suppresses opposition to genocide.  I haven’t grown cynical, only more devoted to the ideals of justice and liberation that originally led me into this profession.  I’ve merely realized that those ideals are incompatible with our surroundings.  I’m happy that others are coming into the same realization. 

This is the time of year when Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.  It’s an excellent occasion to reflect on questions of violence and renewal.  The story of the resurrection has a universal dimension that goes beyond the political dominance of Christendom.  Everybody contemplates the implications of the story, whether they consider it literal or metaphorical.  In the narrative, humanity’s sinfulness is interpolated onto one person who is then humiliated and killed by an unjust government.  By returning to life, the one who suffered intends to redeem us of our wrongdoings and allow for the emergence of a better society. 

It is a resonant story.  We constantly resurrect fantasies of salvation, whether spiritual, economic, or ideological.  It’s one way that we manage to keep going despite the seeming impossibility of change.  There’s an important analytical component to these fantasies:  we have to figure out what is worth resurrecting and what is beyond redemption.  What better place to contemplate this question than our temples of higher education?  After all, the death of belief was always the lifeforce of the modern university.