Friday, May 26th | 1 Sivan 5777

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
October 16, 2015 4:56 am

UC Berkeley Professor Compares Israelis to American Racists

avatar by Cinnamon Stillwell

Email a copy of "UC Berkeley Professor Compares Israelis to American Racists" to a friend
The campus of the University of California, Berkeley. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

The campus of the University of California, Berkeley. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Can an accurate analogy be drawn between American race relations and the Arab-Israeli conflict? UC Berkeley ethnic studies assistant professor Keith Feldman advocates this particular “special relationship” in his 2015 bookA Shadow over Palestine: The Imperial Life of Race in America, the subject of a recent lecture sponsored by the University’s Center for Race & Gender (CRG).

CRG is home to the notoriously politicized Islamophobia Research & Documentation Project (IRDP) whose 2012 annual conference featured a jargon-riddled talk from Feldman. He was in similar form for CRG’s September 24 Thursday Forum Series, which included “commentary” by Judith Butler, a UC Berkeley comparative literature professor best known for her virulent anti-Israel activism. Feldman, a fellow endorser of the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, stood at the podium, while Butler was seated at a front table. An audience of approximately sixty comprised mostly of students filled the large classroom in Dwinelle Hall.

Feldman, whose manner was humble and, at times, apologetic, began by thanking Butler for being his “interlocutor” and CRG for its “Islamophobia project,” which he described as “unique globally” and a “community” that he had “been able to engage . . . in the construction of this book.”

Related coverage

May 25, 2017 4:55 pm
0

Trump’s Middle East Visit, New Alliances, and a Terrified Iran

The reaction seen from Iranian state media outlets to the visit paid by US President Donald Trump last week to...

Turning to his book, he explained that it covers the period from 1960 to 1985, and draws connections between “the post-civil rights movement” in the U.S. and “Israel’s post-1967 occupation of Palestinian lands.” Signaling the largely incomprehensible rhetoric and post-colonialist jargon that would dominate the rest of the talk, Feldman declared that:

This coupling . . . drew on material linkages to Israel as a military, economic, and geopolitical partner for the U.S. state to Zionism as a symbolic storehouse for the hegemonic articulation of liberal freedom and colonial violence.

Accusing both nations of being warmongers, Feldman, ignoring the unrelenting Arab aggression at its root, pointed out that “Israel since 1948 [its founding] has been in a state of perpetual war,” while the U.S. has been “animated by a seemingly permanent war making structure.” He chalked both up to what he called the “racialized practices of threat production adhering in the enduring violence of white supremacy and settler sovereignty.”

While discussing Zionism in the wake of the Holocaust and “the Nazi project,” Feldman launched into a bizarre stream of consciousness that drifted back and forth between Israel and the U.S.:

American ghettos are like . . . Warsaws, Palestinian refugee camps, or like prison, or like occupied territory. Israeli sovereigns are like Western Europeans or American pioneers, while Palestinians are like African-Americans. . . . Jews are like white people or African-Americans. African-Americans are like Jews.

If the audience had no idea what he was talking about, they did a good job of hiding it, as heads nodded and brows furrowed approvingly.

Referencing the “artists, intellectuals, state agents, [and] scholars” who have “written through Palestine solidarity,” Feldman made a revealing admission about how Palestinians have successfully adopted the “politics of black liberation” for their own purposes:

“In the early 1960s, race was already a well-developed heuristic through which the project of Palestinian liberation advanced its analysis of power and history.”

Although “U.S. imperialism” was a frequent target, Feldman omitted the Soviet Union’s role in the Arab-Israeli conflict and particularly its influence in casting Israel and Jews as the oppressor and Palestinians as the oppressed in the popular imagination. This narrative of Israeli “settler-colonialism” — a term Feldman repeated ad nauseam — forms the basis for his own work and that of far too many of today’s Middle East studies academics.

Butler followed with a series of “questions” that, in reality, constituted a short, rather critical lecture. Although she described the book as “a gift and a provocation in many ways,” she pointed out that by omitting Arab nations’ “isolation” of the Palestinians, “Palestine is not given a regional existence.” Butler also chided him for not consulting Arabic archives for his research, to which he responded lamely, “My Arabic is horrible.” Afterwards, Feldman conceded that, “I’m realizing this might have been a conversation that I wanted to have when this [the book] was in manuscript form,” which was met with laughter from the audience.

Feldman’s analogizing of African Americans and Palestinians draws more on 1960s radical ideology, buttressed by Soviet and contemporary anti-Israel propaganda, than on historical reality. A more rigorous and truthful effort to elucidate the plight of Palestinians today would call out the Arab states for their repeated wars on Israel, their failure to accept Palestinians as citizens, and the billions of dollars they spend to keep Palestinians in a state of constant upheaval and misery. Then again, a jargon-laden, morally relativistic, historically blind approach to a complex reality might be just the ticket to a position at an elite university.

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum. She can be reached at stillwell@meforum.org.

This article was originally published by FrontPage Magazine. 

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • DANTE

    feldman is a poseur, a fop, a fool, a fraud.

    perhaps, one should not be surprised that his stream-of-consciousness riff on on popular academic tropes finds a receptive academic audience, but I admit that I am surprised.

    to take one inexcusable feldman failure: did Israel choose to become nasser’s target in 1967? would Israel have preferred to have been left in peace? did Israel threaten to destroy Egypt? did Israel mass its troops at the border? did Israel demand the removal of the UNEF? did the Israel media become relentless purveyors of vile and hysterical anti-Arab agitation? in the war’s aftermath, which countries declared “no peace, no recognition, no negotiations…”? did Israel make such a declaration or did Israel hope for normalization of relations with its neighbors?

    one could, on the basis of the evidence that feldman has provided, fairly conclude that feldman is a careerist-ignoramus who covers his moronic “theories” with the usual verbal gingerbread and, then, flings them at his students. but, such a description would be incomplete: feldman has demonstrated that he is a bigot and a hater and is a willing accomplice of individuals and groups who openly declare their genocidal aims. he is a disgusting little man.

  • Yoel Nitzarim

    I think a fair title for the book might be All Ado About Nothing. It appears that the premise of this book–analogising the plight of African-Americans and Palestinians–is so out of history that the book in toto might just as well be disregarded as irrelevant, meaningless, incoherent, obtuse, and amateurish in its conception of a cogent, scholarly thesis as well as its development of that thesis into a realistic statement about the Palestinian or non-Israeli Arab people in Israel, the PA, the Gaza Strip and beyond.

  • rbockman

    What did anyone expect from a university professor, that represents “higher learning”. That’s Berkeley, did you expect anything different?

Algemeiner.com