Is That Legal?

I think you may have inadvertently set up a strawman. Tim's statement makes sense without insertion of the extra "freedom struggle" and I see no reason to add it. First, examination of the role of violence (and it's legitimacy or lack of such) is valuable and valid in looking at any political conflict, whether that violence is global war, a border skirmish, or an insurgency, regardless of the specific aims of each party in the struggle. Second, there is a very specific similarity between the two struggles mentioned that impacts the kind of violence mentioned - the fact that both are struggles of the weak against the strong. Generally, the types of force ruled "acceptable" are those to which only the powerful have access. Killing soldiers with a cruise missile is seen as legitimate while killing soldiers with an IED is not. Similarly, the Allies firebombing Dresden or Tokyo was seen at the time as acceptable while blacks burning down a warehouse was not. I'm not claiming that the weak are justified in using any tactic simply by virtue of their weakness. I'm saying that the same principles applied to other conflicts (although possibly not the specific rules evolved for full-scale wars between nation states) should be applied. For example, is the target appropriate? A checkpoint manned by occupying troops might be while a random group of civilians would clearly not be. And, of course, the legitimacy of the goals and actions of both sides are key elements in determining the legitimacy of any specific attack. But having a noble cause would not justify extreme actions such as genocide while excesses by some in a struggle doesn't invalidate all other actions taken.
Most importantly, comparison is not the same as equating. In comparing the violence in the black movement for civil rights with the struggle in the Middle East you might come to the conclusion that one was justified while the other isn't - but ruling out making a comparison in the first place simply locks everybody's blinders firmly in place.

Again, it seems to me, at least, that Eric is playing fierce rhetorical games. He says we cannot compare the black struggle in the American South with the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians--and then he himself compares them in quite a useful way. The two situations are strikingly different, which he establishes by comparing them.

D.G. Martin said much, much less. There is still not a shred of evidence that Martin thinks that the case for African American cause in the South "mirrors" the Palestinian cause. Nothing he said can be read that way. And Eric still thinks "compare" means "equate," except when HE compares things, when he understands them as quite different. But if Martin mentions them in the same context, he has done something offensive, and Eric says Martin is one of these Americans who thinks the issues "mirror" one another.

Meanwhile, everybody just lets pass the fact that on this blog Martin has been accused of anti-Semitism without the faintest hint of evidence. Even if Martin had made an inappropriate comparison, even if we accepted (and I do not) that to mention these things is to equate them, how could we possibly conclude that Martin did this because he hates Jews? This accusation is unkind and also mistaken, I feel certain. Do we think anti-Semitism is such an unimportant charge that we hurl it at anyone who doesn't quite completely agree with us? I find anti-Semitism to be a twisted and contemptible thing, not something you say lightly and move on.

I have on occasion gotten all up in people's faces for subtle anti-Semitism or denial of the full extent of crimes against Jews, even at otherwise polite dinner parties hosted by people who happen to read this blog, now that I think about it. But how can Eric let one reader call Martin anti-Semitic and then jump on Martin (and me) for loose language? This conversation seems skewed by defensiveness and partisanship and double standards.

I have a tendency to ignore comments in this forum with which I disagree, Tim, but let me make it explicit: I think there is nothing at all to the commenter's charge of anti-semitism against D.G. Martin. Nothing. It is entirely possible to criticize Israel wholeheartedly without even a touch of anti-semitism, and there's no reason to think that this isn't what D.G. Martin was doing.

Eric, Tim, please be clear. I don't think Israel is off limits from criticism. For a nation formed by holocaust survivors, it has shown a regular and callous disregard of western norms of human rights. Not only do Muslims bear the brunt of this, but Christians suffer from Israeli oppression as well. Criticism of Israel is often well merited.

That said, the presumption that Hamas is engaged in a "freedom struggle" akin to the civil rights struggle is absurd and borders on an offensive argument. The civil rights struggle was at heart a moral movement, led largely by the clergy. In the name of morality and justice, it sought equality and an end to a particularly heinous form of oppression. “Treat us as equals, as men, as you would be treated” was the sentiment at the heart of it.

In contrast, one of the premises of Hamas' political philosophy, a core belief, is that Jews are vermin, the state of Israel is an atrocity, and both should be exterminated. This notion is much closer to the arguments underlying Jim Crow and segregation, than it is to MLK’s or Thurgood Marshall’s philosophy.

Insofar as portions of the PLO and other Palestinian groups are legitimately political - a vexing line drawing exercise akin to hairsplitting "political" Sinn Fein from the P.I.R.A. - those portions of the PLO (and other groups) are engaged in legitimate protest. However, much as the P.I.R.A. delegitimizes much of what Sinn Fein claims to stand for, Hamas and the militias and bombmakers of the PLO tend to delegitimize the legitimate struggle for self determination. It’s very difficult to take one of Hamas’ political leaders seriously, when in one breath he decries Israeli oppression and yearns for a Palestinian state, then in the next breath talks about wiping out Israel and driving the Jews into the sea.

The problem is that their virulent anti-semitism taints their cause rather completely. Having seen where it got us with a string of middle eastern strongmen, I'm no longer willing to give “yes, but” answers about bastards. The utter and absolute failure of Hamas and the PLO (not to mention their comrades in arms in Hezbollah, and funders in Iran, Syria, Saudi and Egypt) to denounce the particularly virulent form of anti-semitism that dominates thinking in the Arab world renders their political cause largely untouchable.

Yes, I know I’m un-nuanced. But then it’s un-nuanced to write off the advances in science, military tactics, and logistics (autobahns, etc) in Nazi Germany just because the Reich’s anti-Semitism was one of the motivating forces behind its actions. If their philosophy taints the advances in rocketry and genetics and physics made under their regime, why does Hamas’ rabid anti-Semitism not taint their cause? Admittedly, many Arab leaders merely admire Hitler and his actions w/r/t the Jews, and none have shown his potential for implementing a comprehensive genocide; not yet anyhow. Given the anti-Semitism at the core of many of the strains of pan-Arab nationalism, it isn’t argumentum ad hitlerum to compare the Hamas situation to the Germans, circa 1933. But equating Hamas’ fight to the civil rights struggle? Is there no great moral distinction there? I believe there is a very large distinction and that is why I believe the acceptance of Hamas’ fight as comparable to the civil rights struggle constitutes intellectual acceptance of one of Hamas’ primary motivators, their anti-Semitism.

Nevermind their suicide bombing, their gangsterism with foreign aid money, and their willingness to kill Americans.

Tim, there is a difference between comparing two things and contrasting them. Lest I be accused of playing lawyerly semantic games here, I'll note that I learned the importance of the distinction between "comparing" and "contrasting" things in the 10th grade, when we would have to write whole essays doing one or the other of these things.

I do not think that the roles of violence in the Middle East and in the American civil rights struggle can be usefully "compared." To compare is to bring focus to two things' similarities. For the reasons I've stated, I don't find them similar at all, except insofar as they are both instances of violence.

I do think, for the reasons I've stated, the two can be usefully contrasted. To contrast the two is to bring into focus their differences.

D.G. Martin made an analogy, which is an exercise in comparison, not contrast. He analogized Southern whites to Israelis. He analogized the burning of an unoccupied tobacco warehouse to Palestinian terrorism. What was the point of including this analogy in the column--a late addition to points Martin had made earlier, as Sally Greene has noted--if not to press the reader to ponder the similarities?

Tim, I think you may do something similar (though I'm not entirely sure) when you say that while you don't think much of Martin's analogy, you find value in it because it "pushes us to the end of our logic" on the question of the role of violence in forcing change. Here I read you to say that the Oxford warehouse burnings you wrote about in "Blood Done Sign My Name" and Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel stand at quite different points on the same continuum of logic -- that one can get from discussion of the warehouse burnings to discussion of the suicide bombings by continuing down a logical path.

What is that path?

It's entirely possible that the commenters in question aren't trying to make the advocacy that Professor Muller ascribes to them. However, that doesn't change the fact that what Professor Muller is critiquing is a very real part of anti-Israel discourse in America. The incorporation of a type of oppression as equivilant to all types of oppression (which rapidly morphs into "our type of oppression") is all too common amongst thus discussing Israel/Palestine (as well as a host of other issues).

Given that reality, I say that the post is a spot-on indictment of that argument--even if the particular folks who inspired it aren't making it.

Professor Muller,

As a former student of yours, I'm a little surprised at how easily you've concluded that D.G. was in fact comparing the struggles of African-Americans and the struggles between Israelis and Palestinians, rather than the reality that violence may play a role in the outcome of both.

There has been a lot of talk about the phrase "freedom struggle" and whether it is implicit in Tim's comments or DG's column. But wishing it was there doesn't make it magically appear. I was never much of an originalist, but at least somewhat of a textualist and the first place my Crim Prof taught me to look was the words used by those we try to interpret.

Having read a few of DG's columns, and knowing the cramped confines of the Chapel Hill News for which he writes, I think he's taking a lot of guff for working with a tight word limit (he writes on paper, remember, actual real paper, grows on trees and gets stained by coffee - no electronic abyss to catch all the nuance.

Maybe it's not DG's best column - the reference to cheering basketball fans is a crude way to show racial progress. Then again, as a poverty lawyer, I can tell you there is something poetically ironic about that measuring stick. And perhaps he should have introduced his analogy to the Middle East earlier, to lay it out better.

But you can't assume from his giving the discussion short shrift that he means to morally equate African-American's and Palestinians' causes. Indeed, what DG says is that considering the potential effectiveness of violence is very difficult, in either case. And I would think it is virtually undeniable that violence has had some effect in both situations. No doubt it is much harder for an Israeli to ponder the effectiveness of suicide bombings than a tobacco farmer pondering lost profits, and there is definitely where DG's analogy loses strength. But, though others may wish to take it further, DG didn't. DG simply suggested an Israeli might have to consider the role of violence in influencing his country's decision.

Perhaps, as part of a peer reading group discussion, this discourse on how he hasn't explained himself would be useful - if he were part of it. And perhaps his writing would benefit. Otherwise, we're just projecting our worst fears onto wholly different words.

As it happens, I know DG well, have worked for him, and I know that anyone who would call him anti-semetic does not; it's pathetic and should therefore keep there idiotic assumptions quiet. Professor Muller, I'm glad that you made it clear he didn't jump to that conclusion. I just wish you hadn't jumped to any other conclusions. There's a tendency in your comments to assume a lot about the man. The "white readers" comment is a tad bit inartful don't you think? Do you have evidence that DG writes columns in code so that non-white Chapel Hillian's don't get it?

Nonetheless, you gave us more of the gem that is Tim Tyson. I had the great fortune of reading his book this past week. It's one that has meant more to me than perhaps any book I read since John Lewis's autobiography and To Kill a Mockingbird. The focus should be on Tyson's book, and on the need for us to not just hug each other, but to unearth as much of the south's rapidly disappearing tragic history as possible. As a southerner with a similar bashed-liberal background, but of later vintage, I felt after reading the book I had been robbed of my history, robbed of an understanding of black friends, by the previous generations desire to whitewash my heritage. That's the story, that the South is losing itself because of itself. Perhaps its the last tragic Act in the play, but that doesn't mean it's time to go on a diversionary popcorn run of a blogging session.

WC

Hey, WC! Thanks for chiming in!

A few responses to what you've written:

You say

you can't assume from his giving the discussion [about the Middle East] short shrift that he means to morally equate African-American's and Palestinians' causes. Indeed, what DG says is that considering the potential effectiveness of violence is very difficult, in either case. And I would think it is virtually undeniable that violence has had some effect in both situations. No doubt it is much harder for an Israeli to ponder the effectiveness of suicide bombings than a tobacco farmer pondering lost profits, and there is definitely where DG's analogy loses strength. But, though others may wish to take it further, DG didn't. DG simply suggested an Israeli might have to consider the role of violence in influencing his country's decision.

If we really "turn to face these hounds," this part of our history ought not to be so easy for us to confront. Like an Israeli who asks himself whether Palestinian terrorism was a major factor prompting Israel to withdraw from Gaza, we do not want to acknowledge that violence was effective in pushing us do the "right" thing. At a time when we are committed to a war on terrorism, it is serious business to concede that violence and the threat of more violence may have been necessary to bring about racial justice and equality in our home region.

Certainly Mr. Martin "took the analogy further"--and didn't just say that considering the role of violence is "difficult." His whole column is devoted to the proposition that as much as we may wish not to, we need to look beneath our prettified history to see a lesson that white Southerners learned--namely, that violence was part of what moved us toward racial justice and equality. Apparently Mr. Martin believes that the analogy to Israel and the Palestinians will help (or force) us to see something about ourselves that we might prefer not to see. (I would imagine that, with the recency of the Gaza withdrawal in mind, this is why he inserted the Israel analogy into a group of ideas he had earlier expressed without the analogy.)

Right? Do you see him doing something else with the analogy?

This is a normative analogy, WC. Mr. Martin is not just saying "gosh, but it's hard to reflect on whether violence is necessary"; he is saying it's hard for us to admit to ourselves that the violence that took place in Oxford in 1970 was in fact necessary. That's why he offers the analogy: it's as if he's saying, "maybe it'll be a little easier for you to accept this if you think about what an Israeli has to accept about the necessity of Palestinian violence."

Do you think this is right? It's not enough just to say "no"; I think you need to show a truly neutral, non-normative role for the analogy Mr. Martin chose.

If you agree with me that the analogy is playing this role, then you have to confront this: Mr. Martin presumably likes where we've gotten on racial matters in the South. I can't imagine that he's arguing that although violence was necessary to effect change, we are worse off for it. So he's arguing that the violence in Oxford in 1970 had a salubrious effect on society. It was, after a fashion, justified (or at least excusable) violence--violence to attain a greater good.

This is where the analogy to Israelis and Palestinians reaches the danger zone. In his pondering, is an Israeli also supposed to reach the conclusion that Palestinian violence was beneficial? That, after all, is the uncomfortable idea that Mr. Martin is urging on us: it took violence to bring us Americans to a better place. Presumably Israelis must grudgingly admit that to themselves too, or else, well, the analogy just doesn't really do anything.

I really don't think this is "jumping to conclusions" at all, WC. I think it's just careful thinking about the actual role that a highly provocative analogy played in this column.

You also say that you think the "white readers" comment was inartful. I don't think it was. To whom is Mr. Martin ultimately speaking in this column? Yes, of course, his audience is all Chapel Hillians. But he is ultimately speaking to the "Israelis"--those who, because of the cognitive dissonance it would entail, resist acknowledging that they and their forebears had to be pushed by violence to "do the right thing." So no, I don't think it inartful to say that the prime audience for this particular column is whites.

Finally, you say that "this discourse on how [Mr. Martin] hasn't explained himself would be useful - if he were part of it." Tim Tyson has participated in this discussion in ways that exceeded my expectations. I alerted Mr. Martin by email to my commentary, we corresponded briefly and genially, and he has not chosen to weigh in here. That's his right, naturally, and I don't blame him for not doing so. But I just wanted to make clear that he is certainly not excluded from this discussion, and his contribution would be most welcome.