Philosophers Petition APA to Issue Statement on Gaza (updated)
“We, the undersigned members of the APA and the wider philosophical community, write to express our dismay and deep disappointment regarding the APA’s conspicuous silence concerning the genocide unfolding in Palestine.”
[Jabalia, Gaza Strip (January, 2025. Photo by Dawoud Abu Alkas)]
- Unequivocally condemn the ongoing atrocities and war crimes against Palestinians that are financially and politically supported by our governments in the US and Canada.
-
Express solidarity with Palestinian scholars, intellectuals, and students who are enduring immense suffering under war crimes, siege, and mass starvation.
-
Honor the APA’s commitment to the mission of SAR and create a fellowship program to support displaced scholars and students from Palestine.
The petition, started by two philosophy professors, Sara Aronowitz and Reza Hadisi, currently has over 200 signatures.
The petition notes the contrast between the APA’s speed in condemning the Russian attack on Ukraine with its lack of official statement on the horrors Israel has visited upon the Palestinians.
Anticipating one kind of objection to such a statement, the petition’s text includes the following:
The APA’s stance is of course insignificant for global events, but your continued inaction in addressing this crisis sends a chilling message. It suggests that war crimes perpetrated against Brown, Arab, or Muslim people and scholars are of less concern to this organization. This stark disparity in expressing support makes the APA an unwelcoming place for a significant number of students and scholars. Further, the suppression of speech on Palestine at universities in America and around the world lends to the impact of silence by academic organizations like the APA.
The APA’s policy regarding Board Letters is here. (My understanding is that the Board has been approached at least once before about issuing such a statement, though I am not sure of the details regarding its proposed content or the deliberations over it.)
You can sign the petition here.
UPDATE (7/31/25): I am informed by Amy Ferrer, Executive Director of the APA, that the APA board plans to discuss the petition at its next meeting in August.
Related: “American Philosophers Should Condemn the War in Gaza“
Perhaps the APA understands—unlike the signatories of the letter—that there are significant disanalogies between Ukraine and Gaza, which might well explain the differing institutional responses. Or perhaps the APA has a more sober grasp of the grim realities of war—unlike the signatories, who seem convinced that silence can only mean racism, as if the world were merely a giant critical studies seminar, populated by academics forever “deeply offended,” where every hesitation is an act of colonial violence. Apparently, unless the APA speaks in precisely the expected register, it must be because the victims are “brown, Arab, or Muslim”—as though global institutions exist to validate the moral reflexes of tenured indignation. If anything, the APA ought to issue a statement condemning the never-ending torrent of open letters themselves: each one a performative gesture that does little but offer the entire discipline a stinging indictment of its own intellectual and moral poverty.
As philosophers, we have been shamefully aloof compared to almost every other discipline in the humanities. Yet some of the most actively callous responses have come from bioethicists.
No one claims Gaza and Ukraine are exactly identical. The point is that both involve mass death and displacement—and only one prompted swift, moral clarity from the APA. That is the real analogy.
Calling this “tenured indignation” is a low-effort misdirection. Many without tenure have been sanctioned or lost jobs for speaking up about Gaza. Philosophers were mostly silent when it was hardest to speak. If anything, this is delayed indignation. This has nothing to do with neutrality. The real posture mistakes detachment for depth, as if withholding judgment signals superior rationality.
As for the sneer at open letters: yes, resisting even that minimal gesture is a retreat from responsibility. But that’s not what truly bothers you. What offends is that this letter centers “brown, Arab, or Muslim.”
I will agree with you on this: silence alone is not always racist.
That is well said. The only thing I’d add (and maybe slightly disagree with) is that it is about neutrality—specifically, when and where this insistence upon “neutrality” is made. Because when and where people decide to insist upon “neutrality” often isn’t neutral. It can be, and often is, used strategically to minimize and otherwise break down efforts at building solidarity, even scholarly solidarity.
Regarding the open letters themselves. In one respect, they are characterized as being merely performative gestures. In another, even these are enough to offend apparently, and they’re just the bare minimum. One wonders how much pearl-clutching must go on in the hallowed halls when something louder than the scrape of pen on paper is heard.
Definitely massive dis-analogies there Mr. Lucas: one is genocide (Gaza); the other is not (Ukraine). Another dis-analogy: war against Muslim, brown people (Gaza); war against Christian, white people (Ukraine). Both horrible; yet, for anyone who half sane and not a ardent racist, disturbing differential treatment.
So sad to see that people calling themselves philosophers have been this brainwashed by left-leaning media. Do you think that the Jews in Israel are generally white? Might want to do some research on that.
The main dis-analogy is that Ukraine was straightforwardly invaded by a more powerful nation. Whereas in Gaza there was a huge terrorist attack by one of several proxies of a country that is and has always been openly genocidal against Israel (Iran) that led to a counterattack/war. Another huge difference is asymmetric warfare in that HAMAS (said proxy) openly uses their own civilians as human shields and does nothing to protect them, despite being required to do so under international law.
And if you really have so much kindness in your heart for non-white suffering, I’m guessing you’re as appalled as I am by the ongoing Sudanese Civil War, which rivals the suffering in Gaza on just about every dimension and is morally wrong by just about every moral theory that we teach about in our ethics classes.
You have PhD in truthology from Christian Tech?
Yup, I indeed “have PhD.” Do you “have argument” or just a clever zinger?
No, I think that response was commensurate with the quality of your comment. So I’m happy with it.
Ah, so on a philosophy thread you don’t have an argument. The irony is apparently lost on yourself and a few people who’ve strangely upvoted your comments. Academia continues its decline.
As I said, my response was commensurate with the quality of your comment. Not every comment deserves to be treated with seriousness; yours does not. More broadly (outside the context of this conversation and our particular judgments), academia isn’t in decline because we treat garbage as garbage.
Israel is the true proxy here, but only of the United States – a massive airbase with nuclear weapons that no one on earth outside of “Israel” can come and inspect. And yes, we know people inside of “Israel” are generally white, not less the Arab half inside of “Israel” (read: occupied Palestine) who are relegated to second class citizenship and apartheid according to all sorts of legal organizations inside of “Israel”. Now, tell me about the West Bank: new settlements are being built daily against international law. No Hamas there. Apartheid state in the region surrounded by 300 million muslims. Who thought that would be a good idea? The lack of understanding of what is happening in the region is downright embarrassing. You all need to exit your little media bubbles in the west.
Depending on how it’s calculated, Mizrahi Jews make up somewhere around 50% of Israel’s population. These are Middle Eastern Jews whose ancestors typically fled from Arab countries due to persecution. They are native Middle Easterners and aside from clothing you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between them and Arabs from Jordan, Egypt, Iran, etc. They’re not white.
Around 30% are Ashkenazi, who are indeed white. And around 20% are Palestinian Arabs, who are not white.
This is inside Israel and does not include the occupied territories. Additionally the Palestinian Arabs within Israel enjoy the rights (including running for office) that many minorities in Arab countries do not.
Unlike yourself, I distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Israel (and of things in general). So I agree with you that the building of settlements in the West Bank is worthy of condemnation. Though even here you’re simplifying things because HAMAS is there in smaller numbers and WANTS to be there, it’s just that Israel tends to crack down on their operations more.
I hope this has helped you develop a deeper understanding of the region.
You’re also equivocating on the term “proxy.” Groups like HAMAS and Hezbollah are literally funded by and sometimes groomed by Iran, an entire sovereign state with the stated intention of wiping Israel off the map. This in no way describes the relationship between the US and Israel.
As a general rule, I hope the APA Board will be wary of making statements on political issues. There is significant evidence that such statements fail to convince people, and instead have the effect of lowering trust in scholarly institutions.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Nature endorsed Joe Biden over Donald Trump. In 2023, Nature Human Behavior published a study that found “mostly statistically insignificant” evidence of a small boost for Biden among his supporters, and powerful evidence that of a loss of trust and interest in Nature among Trump’s supporters. Worse, the endorsement “also reduced Trump supporters’ trust in scientists in general.”
I fear that APA statements would have a similar effect. Those who already agree won’t notice, and those who disagree will just become harder to reach.
(Note that this argument is not specific to Israel/Palestine.)
The “backfiring” consideration would be decisive if the only relevant consideration were the likelihood of convincing people. But I don’t think, and I don’t think the authors think, that this is the only relevant consideration.
Another consideration is assurance: specifically, assuring members of vulnerable groups that their interests will be accorded equal weight in the context of the philosophy profession. Issuing a statement about Ukraine but failing to issue a statement about Gaza would undermine that assurance, insofar as it would reasonably be interpreted as sending the message that violating the human rights and fundamental interests of one group of people is more important, morally speaking, than violating the human rights and fundamental interests of another group of people to which one belongs. The qualitative disparity in harms to Ukrainian versus Gazan educational institutions would only amplify that message.
In addition, there may be relevant expressive considerations over and above considerations of assurance. In 10 years, do we really want to look back and say that the APA was one of the institutions that was *silent* while this was happening? If you take seriously the emerging consensus that this is a genocide – that is, a moral emergency of the highest order – then you’re not going to view this as just another “political issue,” and you’re certainly not going to think that having been silent will age well.
Finally, there’s the fellowship program, which is hardly “just words.”
It’s obviously a further question how these assurance/expressive considerations stack up against relevant countervailing reasons (including “backfiring”). But any serious evaluation of this proposal has to start by taking seriously the reasons put forth in the letter.
You argue:
But:
All I said was that we should think twice before releasing statements that convince no one and turn off those we need to convince.
As for your point about “aging well,” it is precisely because genocide is so important that we should be thinking seriously about the right means towards stopping it. Do you want to look back in 10 years and say, “I expressed my values,” or “I did my best to make a difference”?
> Another consideration is assurance: specifically, assuring members of vulnerable groups that their interests will be accorded equal weight in
the context of the philosophy profession.
What could that possibly mean, in practice?
“Another consideration is assurance: specifically, assuring members of vulnerable groups that their interests will be accorded equal weight in the context of the philosophy profession.”
Seems like your argument here would demand that the Sudanese Civil War be condemned too, given that the brunt of the violence is against Black people (not unironically, at the hands of Brown people). And given that the brutality of this war (by any standard) far outpaces that of the Gaza War.
Your next argument would apply as well: in 10 years, do we want to look back and see that the APA didn’t condemn the arguably most brutal war of the beginning of the 21st century?
But that “loss of trust” could also occur from other actions that aren’t amenable to the politics of “Trump supporters.” It’s not as though the endorsement is the only issue that Trump supporters are likely to have with Nature and with scientific institutions more broadly.
For this reason, I’m not sure that the strategy of striving to be inoffensive is likely to be effective either. Similarly, the strategy that some are taking of, beyond taking care to be inoffensive, actively kowtowing to the administration, doesn’t seem likely to work. But even if it did (that is, it increased trust among those with such politics), it would have to come at the price of degrading the value of those institutions. Because not only are the politics of the people they’re trying to placate bad, they are bad in a way that, where they hold power over such institutions, they make them less effective in their mission (e.g., see RFK Jr.). And making them less effective in their mission is itself going to have consequences for public trust.
I think the question we should be asking then is why that possibility (i.e., the possibility of losing the trust of Trump supporters) should prevent us from taking a stand anyway, knowing that we likely already didn’t have their trust to begin with (in virtue of their politics cultivating mistrust) and that actively seeking out their trust is likely to require unacceptable compromises in our institutions. The alternative would be to demand compromises in their politics, but for some reason this isn’t considered; we’ve accepted a reality where we must bend our institutions around their political will rather than having a will of our own, one attendant to the purported mission of the institutions we serve.
The loss of trust in the Nature case was not limited to Republicans.
The study found a drop in support.
This was a randomized controlled trial. The author randomly assigned some people to read the endorsement, and those people ended up with lower trust in Nature and science than did the control group.
I’m not disputing that. For my point, it’s worth noting that they also found that baseline support already differed. The further finding is that “treatment” (i.e., the endorsement) exacerbated that (i.e., it led to a further drop, as you point out).
From memory, the authors also note that it’s unclear whether explicit endorsement is the cause or whether more general criticism (without endorsing an explicit alternative) would have the same effect? If it does have the same effect, what then? Institutions should withhold criticism, even where warranted, for fear that, among those who already have lower baseline levels of trust, the mere presence of criticism will lead to a further lowering of trust?
To be clear, I’m not suggesting I know what institutions should do in such a situation, where the desire to maintain public trust, to be seen as credible, and to provide warranted criticism where necessary all come into play quite strongly. My only comment here is that, in balancing these demands, we shouldn’t hold that institutions aim principally at being inoffensive; that they try to please everyone. That sort of approach may well have consequences for public trust on its own.
Not disputing any of this—for my own edification what do you mean the baseline support differed?
APA mission statement says “The American Philosophical Association promotes the discipline and profession of philosophy.” The requested statement has nothing to do with that mission, so none should be issued. That was true also of a statement about the war in Ukraine; but the second-best time to start adhering to your principles is now.
While that’s ultimately okay by me, I’d want to see it actually articulated (perhaps with an expression of regret for previous failures to do so) rather than simply passed over in silence. Otherwise the double standard stands, and invites future trespass.
Following the APA-Link one reads: “APA board endorses SAR statement in solidarity with the people of Ukraine”, “[a]s a member organization of Scholars at Risk (SAR)”. This makes sense, in my view, supposing SAR is a trustworthy organisation. If it is not, than it makes no sense, of course. But if there is no SAR statement in solidarity with the people of Gaza or Israel, then there is no double standard too. But the Apa will certainly decide to the best of its knowledge and belief.
fyi there is actually a SAR statement, all the way from December 2023: https://newuniversityinexileconsortium.org/news/scholars-at-risk-call-to-action-the-crisis-in-israel-gaza-and-the-west-bank-and-its-impact-on-academia/
(and many further details from them about specific cases: https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/regions/western-asia/palestine-opt/)
It strikes me, instead, that the petition aligns pretty well with the APA’s stated mission. It explicitly asks the APA to honor its commitment to the Scholars at Risk (SAR) network. Supporting displaced scholars and students from Palestine through an SAR fellowship program falls squarely within the APA’s larger commitment to promoting philosophical scholarship and scholars. So the ask is not only relevant to the APA’s mission but represents continuity with the principles already affirmed by the association. See also here for the full statement of the APA’s mission, which includes the following under its principal activities: “The APA works to ensure that those from historically underrepresented and marginalized groups have access to the support and resources necessary to flourish as philosophers, and that historically marginalized areas and traditions within philosophy are valued and respected.”
But Brad Skow’s point applies to the APA’s support for SAR, too.
If SAR aids scholars who are at risk *because of their scholarship*—e.g., publishing controversial ideas—SAR might merit the APA’s explicit support. (Even then, I’d argue against formal endorsement, since SAR isn’t focused on philosophy per se.)
But if SAR backs scholars *regardless* of whether their scholarship explains their being at risk, then SAR will likely fall into the same trap Skow (and I) think the APA has fallen into: selectively backing causes based on what’s fashionable.
As far as I can tell, SAR backs scholars *regardless* of whether their scholarship explains their being at risk. So while SAR may be a fine organization, the APA shouldn’t formally support (or denounce) it. It should stay silent and do its job: promoting philosophy.
This is compatible with the APA and its members caring about the plight of people suffering everywhere (including suffering scholars).
A bit difficult to do scholarship in a war zone, I would think. So wouldn’t that give SAR a broad remit? Otherwise, if you narrow its mission to merely aiding scholars “publishing controversial ideas,” you inevitably restrict its work to those in a position to publish, which covers mostly those already working in scholarly institutions and, perversely, implies that mere controversy entails them being “at risk,” even if they can leverage that controversy into lucrative media gigs. It seems that’d be contrary to the purpose of supporting scholars at risk.
@Felix: The suggestion was that the APA shouldn’t be involved with SAR at all since the APA’s core mission is to promote philosophy, and SAR (while perhaps a wonderful organization) doesn’t do that.
You responded by misunderstanding my use “e.g.” (as if I were offering criteria for when SAR aid is appropriate rather than an example of when it is), interpreting my use of “controversial” in an obtuse way (as if I was saying a scholar’s work merely being the subject of some disagreement qualifies them as “at risk”), and misdescribing SAR’s criteria for helping scholars. SAR does, in fact, restrict its aid to scholars in a position to publish. From their eligibility criteria: “We can assist those with current or recent (within 1 year) full-time academic employment at an accredited higher education institution.” “We are best able to assist applicants with recent academic publications in reputable journals that demonstrate the ability to conduct research on a host campus.”
Are you currently a member of the APA? I searched the member directory and you didn’t turn up as a member.
I suppose that doesn’t mean your opinion on whether the APA should make a statement is irrelevant, but I will say that over the years I’ve been surprised by how many people who criticize the operations of the organization turn out to not to be members (and so, unable to exert influence on the business it conducts).
I stopped renewing my membership years ago for various reasons, including the APA’s irrelevance to the job market and its increasing concern about appearing to be politically engaged. Many non-members are such precisely because they object to the APA’s current policies or actions and, as such, these non-members are in a perfectly good place to criticize the APA.
The petition starts with: “We, the undersigned members of the APA and the wider philosophical community”. Clearly the authors and signatories believe it’s appropriate for non-members to opine on the operations of the organization.
Had I said that it was inappropriate for non-members to opine, that would put me at odds with them, I suppose!
I said that non-membership (if it is the case) doesn’t mean that Skow’s opinion is irrelevant, but expressed surprise by how many people with strong views have ceded a major option for effecting changes they apparently feel strongly about.
Maybe you should also run the names of signatories to determine which ones are members and invite those who are not to join so they can effect change.
You made it sound like you believed Brad hadn’t tried to effect change from within, but we don’t know. It seems presumptuous. If someone thought the organization had been captured (not my view, and I don’t know about Brad’s, but just suppose), I wouldn’t expect them to waste their efforts effecting change from within.
Anyway, it seems like we all agree that we can debate the merits of such a petition independently of membership so all is well.
“I suppose that doesn’t mean your opinion on whether the APA should make a statement is irrelevant, but”
also didn’t exactly sound like a full-throated endorsement of non-members’ right to opine, but I maybe I read you wrong, if so I apologize.
I can’t have been presumptuous because the thing you are suggesting I presumed (that Brad is not a member) is the thing I literally asked explicitly, not something I presumed. If it is automatically presumptuous no matter how the topic is raised, I’d be curious to know why (but then it seems like you’d need to back off the claim that I am making assumptions about what Brad has or hasn’t done).
I never described myself as a full throated or enthusiastic advocate of non-members’ “right to opine”; I didn’t take any stance on their right to opine at all, unless you count conditionally supposing a denial of the irrelevance an opinion as “taking a stance” on that.
It seems obvious the organization has some responsibility towards its members that it does not have towards non-members, but it also has responsibilities towards the profession and members of the profession as a whole, and there are likely considerations lying outside of those that might situationally override those specific responsibilities. So, I didn’t state any strong general principles about who had a right to weigh in.
Re presumptuous: not about Brad not being a member but about what he may or may not have done from within, at any point, to effect change if he wanted to. I’d wager, even if Brad is not a member now, he probably has been a member at some point in time.
Re the right to opine: I’m sorry but this is getting hard to follow. You corrected me, confirming that Brad’s opinion was not irrelevant. Now you seem to be confirming my first impression: that you were implying that non-members should not opine, or maybe they could, you’re not sure. Which one is it? Can Brad opine or not? Either way you have to be consistent and I don’t see a way for you to cast shade on his claims that you shouldn’t also cast on any non-member signatories. I’m worried that any asymmetry you could build would be suspiciously ad hoc. If you don’t have a view on this then I guess I just don’t see the relevance of his membership, not knowing, again, what actions he may have taken in the past.
If ultimately you were merely suggesting that Brad should (re?)join the APA to try to influence the organization to better align with what he understands its mission to be, then maybe I perceived you as more confrontational than you meant to be. If so, I apologize again. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you because I’m thick—absolutely possible. Or maybe because you’re not clear.
For the record I’m a member so no need to look me up.
I am not addressing the signatories because they didn’t comment on this blog post. I was trying to clarify for you that at no point did I say anyone didn’t have permission to share their view.
I do think the society has some special responsibilities to care about the views of its members more than other people, but it also has a responsibility to represent the profession in general, so it would be odd for me to take the position that anyone’s view is automatically irrevelant.
I don’t have a general balancing principle because lots of situational details matter and I wasn’t addressing how much the APA should care what people say in the comments here, I was addressing how effectively people can influence what the APA does. The letter writers have gotten the exec board to consider their petition so they don’t need advice. People who are unhappy with how things are going seem to misunderstand how they could impact the decision making (posting comments here is not a main way to do so).
> People who are unhappy with how things are going seem to misunderstand how they could impact the decision making (posting comments here is not a main way to do so).
Posting comments here is not a way to do so at all. But I doubt that people misunderstand that.
This strikes me as correct. But it might be worth adding, as a reminder, that one can consistently accept this point while still supporting a “philosopher’s brief,” independent of what should be an apolitical professional organization, that condemns the genocide Israel is perpetrating.
“the answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind”
The APA dug themselves into a hole when they released a statement on the war in Ukraine. They should have instead retained institutional neutrality and stayed within their professional remit. Given this, which of these two options should they take to dig themselves out?
Release a statement clarifying their institutional neutrality and admitting their mistake in releasing the Ukraine statement. Release a statement condemning Israeli war crimes in Gaza, followed by statements condemning several other clearcut ongoing atrocities (the ethic cleansing of black Sudanese ethnic groups by Arab militias, the repressive military regime in Myanmar that has suspended democracy and crushes all dissent, the Iranian regime’s brutal suppression women’s rights activism, China’s genocide of the Uyghurs, China’s continued occupation of Tibet, suppression of the Venezuelan people by the Maduro regime, etc.), and statements clarifying their position on more controversial cases that some will claim involve atrocities (The Turkish government’s conflict with Kurdish separatists in Turkey and Syria, the Cuban government’s brutal crackdown on dissent, the actions of the Bukele government in El Salvador, the Israeli and US bombing campaign in Iran, etc.)
Now, does anyone looking at this in a fair-minded way (and not merely looking at it from the narrow emotional lens of whatever conflict they are currently most outraged by) really think that (2) is a better way than (1) for the APA to resolve this issue?
The formatting got messed up, so I’ll try again:
The APA dug themselves into a hole when they released a statement on the war in Ukraine. They should have instead retained institutional neutrality and stayed within their professional remit. Given this, which of these two options should they take to dig themselves out?
(1) Release a statement clarifying their institutional neutrality and admitting their mistake in releasing the Ukraine statement.
(2) Release a statement condemning Israeli war crimes in Gaza, followed by statements condemning several other clearcut ongoing atrocities (the ethic cleansing of black Sudanese ethnic groups by Arab militias, the repressive military regime in Myanmar that has suspended democracy and crushes all dissent, the Iranian regime’s brutal suppression women’s rights activism, China’s genocide of the Uyghurs, China’s continued occupation of Tibet, suppression of the Venezuelan people by the Maduro regime, etc.), and statements clarifying their position on more controversial cases that some will claim involve atrocities (The Turkish government’s conflict with Kurdish separatists in Turkey and Syria, the Cuban government’s brutal crackdown on dissent, the actions of the Bukele government in El Salvador, the Israeli and US bombing campaign in Iran, etc.)
Now, does anyone looking at this in a fair-minded way (and not merely looking at it from the narrow emotional lens of whatever conflict they are currently most outraged by) really think that (2) is a better way than (1) for the APA to resolve this issue?
I do think it’s tendentious to suggest that the heightened focus on Gaza is “merely looking at it from the narrow emotional lens of whatever conflict they are currently most outraged by.”
As terrible as the other phenomena are that you cite – and they are indeed terrible – there are also qualitative differences that set the Gaza genocide apart.
Many of these differences concern the kind and degree of harms involved. But perhaps the most relevant in this context is the role of the U.S. Only the Gaza genocide is actively sustained, militarily, economically, and diplomatically, by the U.S. And only the Gaza genocide has provoked an extraordinary domestic campaign of repression in the U.S. against its opponents, a campaign which has focused – primarily – on universities.
There are many reasons you might think these differences relevant to the question of issuing a statement about Gaza. One reason is that they make the assurance rationale for issuing a statement – i.e., the consideration that doing so is necessary to assure all members of the profession, including those who identify or are identified with the victims of the Gaza genocide, that they will be treated as equals within the profession – much stronger than the assurance rationale for issuing a statement about these other crimes. Put differently, the costs to assurance of *not* issuing a statement about Gaza are much higher than whatever costs to assurance would result from not issuing a statement about these other crimes. Perhaps this isn’t a decisive reason to issue a statement (there are other considerations to take into account – obviously). But it strikes me as a pretty weighty one, that shouldn’t be glossed over.
I share your wariness about turning the APA into a factory for meaningless, performative statements about the atrocity du jour. But I also think we have to take seriously the distinguishing features of this particular crime, this particular genocide, in which American institutions are so deeply implicated.
Some of the ways you suggest Gaza is different to all the other conflicts are not so clear cut. For example, the US was directly involved in bombing Iran and has a very cozy relationship with Bukele. Furthermore, the US counts the UAE as one of its key Middle Eastern allies and supplies it with military hardware. And the UAE is backing and arming the Arab militias in Sudan that are ethnically cleansing black Sudanese. Because of this there have been calls for at least a year for the US to demand that the UAE stop supporting these militias, and withhold military supplies from it until it agrees. However, the US has so far ignored those calls.
However, my deeper concern is that what you have come up with is very ad hoc and couldn’t be independently motivated. The test for this is to formulate the general principle that supports your claim about which conflicts the APA comments on and which it passes on. However, you formulate this principle, its going to look pretty arbitrary and lead to some awkward conversations with people from the groups whose suffering doesn’t count by the principle you formulate. For example, the APA will have to say to members of the Masalit community “sorry but we have nothing to say about the atrocities carried out against you because the US providing weapons to its ally, which then transfers weapons to your oppressors, is not enough US involvement for our organization to deem your suffering worthy of our comment”. Adding to this “you see, the US involvement in your conflict is not enough for people from your community who might engage with US philosophers to need assurance that you will be treated as equals within the profession” does not look much better.
By the way, the assurance point seem very odd to me. The APA should obviously demand that all people are treated as equals in the US philosophy community regardless of their ethnicity, nationality, etc. It should also take a strong stand against any instances of bigotry within the profession. If it does that properly, that is all the assurance that people need. Its very odd to think that, in addition to doing that, the APA would need to make fine-grained assessments of the circumstances in which various groups worldwide have become victims of atrocities and then release statements condemning some of those atrocities, while remaining silent on others, in order to adequately provide assurance of equal treatment.
I think the general principle might be formulated along the lines Daniel already suggests: the deep involvement of institutions in the state in which a professional association is embedded. It would not be entirely unexpected for an association to make comment with a view to influencing how those institutions operate, on the assumption that doing so may place pressure on them and hopefully prompt institutional change that, however small, may scale up. Although the general principle appears clear cut, I take your point to then be about the difficulty of its application, insofar as applying it requires evaluating just how deeply involved US institutions actually are and determining whether the professional body even has the sway it would need over those institutions for it making a statement to be worth it. That, I consider to be the real difficulty here.
Whatever one’s views on the (de)merits of open letters, and the specific remit of the APA, there’s surely a reasonable case to be made that the APA can take a position on the destruction of universities and the displacement of scholars and students.
The APA can, of course, express solidarity with scholars working in conflict zones. However, the primary concern regarding Israel’s war in Gaza is that the entire population is starving—including children who bear no responsibility for Hamas’s attack. Issuing a statement that focuses primarily on the situation of scholars in Gaza seems misdirected. In my view, there are two options: either express solidarity with all victims of the war (not just the small number who happen to be professional philosophers), or acknowledge that this issue falls outside the mission of the APA.
No, I don’t think a reasonable case can be made for this. The APA should restrict itself to issues that directly concern the practice of academic philosophy in the US, which would include the destruction of universities in the US and the displacement of scholars and students in the US, but not in other places.
If you disagree then you need to own up to the troubling consequences of an alternative policy. There are many controversial and highly political conflicts around the world in which universities are destroyed and scholars and students are displaced. Would you have the APA release statements on all of these. Should they be releasing a statement about the Iranian regime’s displacement of scholars and students who support women’s rights from universities in Iran? What about the displacement of Uyghur scholars and students in Xinjiang? Should the APA have issued statements about the destruction of universities in Mosul during its initial occupation and later recapture in the battle of Mosul? Furthermore, should these statements be written in meaningless, anodyne diplomatic speak–“We regret the destruction of universities in this region and urge all parties involved to promptly find a peaceful resolution”–or would you have them take a controversial stand on who should be blamed, and to what degree? For example, should an APA statement about the destruction of universities during the Battle of Mosul adjudicate on how much to blame Islamic State versus the Iraqi coalition given that the former started the conflict, but it was the latter firing the shells that actually destroyed university buildings? Likewise, should an APA statement on the destruction of universities in Gaza take a stand on the extent to which Hamas should be blamed for carrying out military activities within Gazan universities and the extent to which Israel should be blamed for firing the bombs that did the damage?
It seems like there is a bad dilemma here. Either release an endless stream of meaningless anodyne statements each year that make the APA look weak and performative, or release many highly political statements each year making controversial arguments about who is to blame in each conflict–making the APA look less like a professional association and more like an ideologically aligned newspaper editorial board.
Yes.
But them releasing these purportedly “meaningless anodyne statements” is already taken to be political. They don’t even need to go beyond that to be accused of making “highly political statements.” Their accusers will do that work for them. Which, well, good—that helps to make the statement significant, not meaningless or anodyne.
That said, if one does it see as merely a performative gesture, I think there are two responses: (1) Fine, then why not do it? (2) Would you suggest further, more radical action, then? Something that isn’t “merely performative”? Given how some have responded to what is supposedly “just” a performative gesture, I doubt they’d want these associations, groups, etc. doing something that isn’t “just” performative; the supposedly performative action was enough to rile them up.
While I agree in principle with the letter, I believe this effort is misdirected. An APA statement on Gaza is meaningless–and there are many different outlets for organizing around this issue. I get the potentially expressive significance of a statement, but another way to express support for our Palestinian colleagues (or colleagues with personal ties to Gaza) is to get involved in the struggle. Not as philosophers, but as citizens.
Philosophers should spend time getting involved in those organizations to help agitate for meaningful political action. Work with a local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, who continue to do good work at the local level on maintaining awareness on this and mobilizing efforts to hold politicians accountable when they fail to take meaningful steps to end the genocide. Gaza is a political issue–our efforts should be directed at manipulating levers of political power rather than issuing statements through a relatively small and obscure professional academic society.
No, philosophers should spend time doing philosophy. That is what their employers pay them for, with their students’ tuition money.
8 hours of work, 8 hours of rest, 8 hours for what you will
If that’s what you want to do, then fine. But staying profesional seems exactly to be the fundamental issue here.
God damn the careerist social climbers that have perverted the academy. Damn every one of them. We’ve gone from accusations of impiety and corrupting the youth to demands—coming from within—to be “professional” and, most importantly, silent.
Old chap, I am an AP in a small private university in Latin America you have never heard of. I am the opposite of a social climber. Chill.
Also, let us be honest here, if I were a social climber, I would have /signed/ that petition, I would not be criticising it.
You think those who have endured crackdowns for their protest from university administrations and/or the state (in the case of students, some risking their degrees for doing so) are social climbers, but that you, standing there from a comfortable distance, telling them they should be “professional” and just focus on their careers, you’re “doing philosophy”?
You realize people have been fired because of their vocal support for Gaza? I can’t tell if you’re just running your mouth in bad faith or if you’re genuinely confused about how American universities work right now.
Genuine question. Who has relevantly been fired for this? Thank you.
Like any decent person, I sympathize with the plight of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. It is awful. I hope the war ends as soon as possible. But the APA should reject this distorted, one-sided petition. To wit…
Why does the petition not express solidarity with the Israeli hostages alongside Gaza’s civilians?
Why does the petition not demand that Hamas end the war by surrendering and releasing the hostages – which it could do today?
Why does the petition not condemn Hamas for war crimes – not only for October 7th, but for using civilians as shields (i.e. tunneling under and fighting from the densest parts of Gaza, rather than its open areas – which is the real reason for so many civilian casualties) and for stealing much of the humanitarian aid?
Let me respond to two specific points that are in the petition.
First, the petition asks why the APA spoke out against Russia’s war in Ukraine, but not Israel’s war in Gaza. It then suggests that the reason is that “Brown, Arab, or Muslim people and scholars are of less concern” to it.
Really? Is that the reason? Or is it because the Gaza war began not with an Israeli attack (a la Russia in Ukraine), but with the opposite – the massacre, by the Hamas regime in Gaza, of over 1200 innocent Israelis? Notably, the APA did not release a statement against Hamas after October 7th. Do the petition’s authors believe that that silence had a racist motive? Did it “send a chilling message that war crimes perpetrated against [Israelis] are of less concern” to it?
Second, the petition condemns Israel’s “longer history of attempts to deny statehood, autonomy, and the basics of human life to Palestinians.” Again, really?
Does that “longer history” include the Palestinian rejection of the first two-state solution, when the UN partitioned Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state? Does the “longer history” include the fact that, rather than accept that two-state solution, the Palestinians, along with the neighboring Arab states, launched a war to destroy the nascent Israel, not five years after the Holocaust?
Does the “longer history” include the reason why the 1967 war, which first gave Israel control of Gaza and the West Bank, began? Namely, in response to the immediate threat by the surrounding Arab states – armed to the teeth by the Soviet Union and with enthusiastic support of the Palestinians – to annihilate Israel in one fell swoop?
Does the “longer history” include the unceasing terrorism that Palestinians have waged against Israelis – terrorism that began long before Israel governed Gaza and the West Bank; indeed, that began as attacks on the Jewish community in Palestine before the State of Israel even existed?
Does the “longer history” include the fact that Israel withdrew from Gaza twenty years ago, only for the rocket fire on Israel to become much, much worse (forcing Israel, in turn, to clamp down on Gaza’s borders)?
I know that the Israel-Palestine conflict is complex, and this thread is (obviously) not the place for its full accounting. But nor should we accept the petition’s one-sided account of the conflict’s “longer history,” which it describes simply as Israeli “attempts to deny statehood, autonomy, and the basics of human life to Palestinians.”
The APA should reject this distorted, one-sided petition.
On the one hand, your comment recognizes that there’s a “longer history” here and that’s it’s more “complex” than what you’ve outlined. On the other, you hand-wave away that longer history to claim that it “began not with an Israeli attack (a la Russia in Ukraine), but with the opposite.” Decades of oppression by the State—materially supported by the US and others—are written out of your account, which strives to present its actions as merely “forced” by circumstance rather than shaped by many decades of ultranationalist ideology seeping deeply into and throughout the State’s institutions.
There’s too much to comment on here–your understanding is pretty deficient. I’ll only comment on the point about Hamas releasing the hostages (which of course they should).
This was as of early April. Israel didn’t agree to it: https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-ready-to-free-all-hostages-at-once-for-end-to-war-palestinian-official/
Hello prof Sheptow.
You are accusing the petition for not condemning Hamas “for stealing much of the humanitarian aid” and you link to the Washington Post. I saw a retweet at Nathan Thrall’s twitter account (Pulitzer winner Nathan Thrall is the world’s best analyst of the Israel/Palestine conflict) which links to a New York Times article https://x.com/nytimes/status/1949093305507045449 where we learn that even some IDF officials are not certain that Hamas is systematically stealing much of the aid, i quote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/world/middleeast/hamas-un-aid-theft.html
“For nearly two years, Israel has accused Hamas of stealing aid provided by the United Nations and other international organizations. The government has used that claim as its main rationale for restricting food from entering Gaza.
But the Israeli military never found proof that the Palestinian militant group had systematically stolen aid from the United Nations, the biggest supplier of emergency assistance to Gaza for most of the war, according to two senior Israeli military officials and two other Israelis involved in the matter.”
So the petition could not possibly take a stance on an empirical matter that is still disputed at the time we are speaking. Even if Hamas is indeed stealing much of the aid systematically, it is still a disputed state of affairs.
Thanks for the reply. The Gazans on the ground quoted in the Washington Post (as well as Egyptian and Israeli officials) all said that Hamas steals humanitarian aid. The Israeli officials quoted in the New York Times do not dispute this. They just claim that most of the aid is stolen from non-UN agencies.
There are thousands more Gazans on the ground who do not blame Hamas for the starvation and say Israel is deliberately shooting civilians seeking aid. We also have videos and testimony of those at the GHF aid distribution sites. They just don’t make it to these articles as much!
There are also thousands protesting against HAMAS and their general leadership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Gaza_Strip_anti-Hamas_protests.
One young man was killed for criticizing HAMAS and apparently his dead body was left on his parents’ doorstep: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/02/world/video/uday-rabie-killed-hamas-diamond-digvid
Hello prof Sheptow and thank you for your response. (I delayed responding because I hadn’t checked the thread because I I thought the discussion had fizzled out, so I only now saw that you responded, and then I had to write a response that turned out to be big).
Prof Sheptow I thought that part of the point of your speech act of protesting against the authors of this petition on account of the content of the petition on this specific topic (starvation in Gaza) was to express, by implicature, the thought that it was Hamas that was wholly responsible for whatever level of starvation is experienced currently, due to its stealing humanitarian aid (a point that has been made by Netanyahu and independently repeated by a government spokesman, both quoted in the NYT article that I linked to.)
https://archive.ph/TkU4X
Now, the NYT article does indeed say what you pointed out in your reply to me, namely that Hamas steals humanitarian aid , here is the operative quote
“The military officials who spoke to The New York Times said that the original U.N. aid operation was relatively reliable and less vulnerable to Hamas interference than the operations of many of the other groups bringing aid into Gaza. That’s largely because the United Nations managed its own supply chain and handled distribution directly inside Gaza.Hamas did steal from some of the smaller organizations that donated aid, as those groups were not always on the ground to oversee distribution, according to the senior Israeli officials and others involved in the matter. But, they say, there was no evidence that Hamas regularly stole from the United Nations, which provided the largest chunk of the aid.”
We are not being told what proportion of the total aid that is provided by the non-UN orgs is stolen, or even if it is systematically stolen, and, more importantly, we are not told what the maximum proportion of the total aid provided by both the UN and non-UN orgs that is estimated to be stolen is (this is important because if Hamas steals systematically a quantity that does not represent more than, say, 1% of the total aid available at that time, then there is no point in talking about it, such scale cannot cause starvation. But note that the IDF military officials are also saying that the largest chunk of the aid delivered to Gaza comes from the UN, and that this part of the aid is off limits for Hamas. This fact, together with the lack of any mention by the two officials that Hamas is causing some starvation, would give us good reason to believe that Hamas, no matter the exact amount of non-UN aid it manages to steal, is not a causal factor in starvation worth-mentioning, and that this is so because of Hamas’s small impact in the reduction of the total aid available (it would be strange if the military officials reckoned that Hamas is indeed causing some non-negligible amount of people to starve and yet would be trying to exculpate it from the allegation of theft from UN without mentioning even in passing the ex hypothesi-consequential amount of theft from non-UN orgs). And, indeed, the NYT article supports what I just claimed because a little later it makes clear that it is Israel that is the difference-maker in the causation of the recent starvation:
That blockade[implemented by Israel in March], and problems with a new aid system that launched in May, brought hunger and starvation in Gaza to the current crisis levels.
The UN also casts Israel as the causal factor of starvation (same NYT article):
Mr. Petropoulos, the former U.N. official in Gaza, welcomed the notion that some Israeli officials had recognized the U.N.-led aid system as effective during the war. But he said he wished that endorsement had come much sooner.
“If the U.N. had been taken at face value months ago, we wouldn’t have wasted all this time and Gazans wouldn’t be starving and being shot at trying to feed their families,” he said.
Prof Sheptow, as I said above, I thought that part of the point of your speech act of protesting against the authors of this petition on account of the content of the petition on this specific topic (starvation in Gaza) was to express, by implicature, the thought that it was Hamas that was wholly responsible for the starvation because that was a point that has been made by Netanyahu and repeated by the government spokesman in the NYT article: “David Mencer, a government spokesman, said this week that there was “no famine caused by Israel.” Instead, he blamed Hamas and poor coordination by the United Nations for any food shortages”.); but, judging from your reply to me, I now think that you probably were making a less strong claim (and please correct me if I am misinterpreting you, I am trying to be fully charitable): “Hamas is stealing a part of the non-UN aid, and this may or may not be causing some starvation along the starvation that is caused by Israel. I do not claim that Hamas is wholly or even partially responsible for starvation for sure, but I wonder why the authors of the petition are not including the fact of the corroborated Hamas theft in their one-sided petition”, is this what you more or less have in mind in objecting to the starvation aspect of the petition? But if your point is merely this, and not that Hamas is wholly responsible for the current starvation, as Netanyuahu claimed, then the authors of the petition could respond that if hamas is not causing starvation there is no point in mentioning the theft, and if it is causing starvation but at a degree smaller than the starvation caused by Israel (which is the least strong takeaway of the NYT article) then they (the petitioners) prefer ( for reasons of not diluting the emotive thrust of their petition, given their attempt to prevent starvation) to concentrate on the major source of starvation (Israel) which (Israel) also happens to be the ultimate difference-maker in the sense that even if Hamas were stealing so much and so systematically that it caused starvation at levels similar to the ones caused by Israel, Israel could still allow even more aid in to make up for the hypothesized Hamas theft (are we entering here the philosophical territory of moral permissibility in the context of so-called “intervening agency”? https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/papa.12074 (the philosophical article is by prof Victor Tadros who is a stellar philosopher and a voice that heartily supported Gazans here at Daily Nous when the war erupted); my question about intervening agency is genuine, not rhetorical, I am not a philosopher, just a fan of analytic philosophy). Prof Sheptow, if such a hypothetical response by the authors of the petition would still leave you unsatisfied then I reckon (and please correct me if I am wrong in my speculations about your hypothetical premises in such a scenario) that you have a much deeper disagreement with the authors of the petition, namely one about the moral permissibility of causing starvation of innocents as an unintended side effect of causing the defeat of an enemy, that is, unintentionally causing some Gazans to die of starvation as a lesser evil in order to starve Hamas too and in this way “defeat” it, whatever that could mean – this is the most charitable version of the thought I would attribute to you as an explanatory factor of your hypothetical opposition to the petitioners’ response about the culpability for starvation of Israel and Hamas, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/ ; the more uncharitable thought (which dominated the Israeli and Western thinking for the last 20 years, since the blockade of 2006, please see here https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/14/tony-blair-hamas-gaza-boycott-wrong
and here
https://archive.ph/4jEV3 Shlomi Eldar is one of the most respected journalists in Israel ) would be that that one should support the moral permissibility of defeating Hamas via using the Gaza population as a means to defeating Hamas by collectively punishing them (the population) via the blockade, and right now starving them and hoping that they would rise against Hamas in order to end their hardships imposed on them for as long as they accept Hamas’s leadership. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/persons-means/ I consider this latter stance glaringly impermissible but I also think that the milder one (about accepting starvation as an unintentional side-effect) is impermissible too, if anything because Hamas is not, and never was, a serious threat for Israel, and would have never been capable to pull off something like October 7 (let alone repeat it in the future) unless Israel, due to criminal negligence, accidentally left the doors open for Hamas. My claim is that there is no serious number of Israeli lives threatened in the future by the continuing existence of even a militarized Hamas, and, given that proportionality is forward-looking, Israel is not allowed to cause so much pain of innocents, even as a side effect, through starvation in order to defeat Hamas. If anyone wants to take that position they will need to start citing benefits for current Palestinians and future Palestinians, but the current Palestinians are not consenting to starvation of themselves or of their compatriots (though there is an argument by philosopher David Clark that could give arguments to the pro-Israel side, here https://peasoupblog.com/2023/03/david-clark-refusing-protection-precis-by-kim-ferzan/#comment-28167 . I should stress that the philosopher was NOT writing about israel/palestine at the time, he was making far more theoretical claims). My own intuitions re his Grenade thought experiment with the pacifists (repeated in the above PEA SOUP discussion here, which is the comment to which prof Clark responds in the immediately above link https://peasoupblog.com/2023/03/david-clark-refusing-protection-precis-by-kim-ferzan/#comment-28156 , are strongly recalcitrant to his; I find it psychologically impossible to factor in my utility calculations for determining proportionality (a determination aiming at lesser evil adjudication) the value of saving the lives of competent pacifist adults who are strongly refusing to be saved via violence (i see the saving of these lives as reducing value)), and partly accounting with the putative benefit of those saved lives for the putative permissibility of killing as an unintended side effect an innocent (in order to save another innocent) that wouldn’t have died if we had not intervened; (this discussion at PEA SOUP had the air of a new-ground-breaking one, but as I said I am not a philosopher and cannot judge whether it is or not; but I found this discussion extremely useful for my own personal interests and practical needs, and prof Clark sounds like a terrific philosopher, and I have no clue about his stance on israel/palestine, but his intuitions re the pacifists ring to me as reductio ad absurdum of his thesis, not to mention that they could be used to justify, say, colonialism, or imperialism).
Continuing in Part 2
Not a just war theory boss so feel free to correct me, but does not it say that countries should only wage wars they have reasonable chances to win?
Here is an analogy: about a million German civilians died of starvation during the last years of the First World War because of the Entente’s naval blockade. Similar figures come up for Japanese civilian casualties due to allied air raids during the Second World War.
Were these acts of genocide too? Or were they the predictable consequences of governments fighting wars well passed the point they had already lost them?
First, as far as I’m aware (and I stand open to correction), the standard versions of just-war theory do not say that “countries should only wage wars they have reasonable chances to win.”
Second, w/r/t the Second World War: if one looks at it under the traditional headings of just cause (jus ad bellum) and just means (jus in bello), the Allied war effort was a just cause but it was not consistently fought by just means. For example, the fire-bombing of Japanese cities (before one even gets to the atomic bombs) was a war crime, as some of those involved in it later acknowledged. It probably does not fit the definition of genocide (which in any case was formulated after the war), but it was clearly a violation of the law of armed conflict in that its intent — or if not, then its obviously anticipatable effect — was plainly to kill large numbers of civilians in a context where the strictly military gains from leveling Japanese cities were negligible. (Something similar applies to the bombing of Dresden and Hamburg, e.g.)
Thanks for the correction.
But I think there is reasonnable disagreement regarding the facts you mentionned. Strategic bombing may have been a key to the victory.
See the book ‘How the war was won’ by O’Brien:
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-book-review-how-the-war-was
The review you link actually tends to support my position.
An excerpt:
“Usually, air power enthusiasts are apologists for the indifferent (or even intentional) bombing of Axis civilians. They portray the fire/atomic bombings as difficult, but necessary and effective. O’Brien calls that logic into question.
As we’ve seen, strategic bombings that targeted specific factories or mined harbors were extremely useful. O’Brien writes, however, that civilian-centric bombing had ambiguous effects. Obviously, killing workers hurts productivity. But killing their spouses or children or destroying their houses does not immediately lead to unsolvable resource dilemmas.
It is perhaps too obvious to bear mentioning, but to the extent the civilian-centric bombings were not as effective as the rest of the strategic bombing campaign, they were immoral. O’Brien does not shy away from this conclusion…”
This is somewhat complicated b/c precision guided bombs were mostly unavailable at the time, and bombing was therefore necessarily imprecise. But the fire-bombing of cities in cases where factories etc. weren’t even being aimed at, was a war crime. I don’t agree w everything Walzer wrote in Just and Unjust Wars, but his discussion of this particular topic is, iirc, pretty good.
Right!
“countries should only wage wars they have reasonable chances to win” isn’t how I would say it, but it’s not too far off from the principle of necessity.
War should only be a last resort when there are no other means available to achieve just ends. If war isn’t a means at all of achieving said ends (because doomed to failure), then it doesn’t satisfy the principle of necessity.
Ok, but it’s very often hard to tell in advance what is “doomed to failure.” However I take the point.
I am pretty sure that the Hamas leadership had all the evidence they could ask for on the 6th of October 2023 that whatever they were up to the next day was doomed to failure, would you not say?
Same for the German Imperial government passed 1916, and same with Japan, well, before they even got started really.
(Regardless of whether each respective war goal would count as ‘just cause’ of course).
We’re getting close to mixing up some different issues here. W.r.t. the Japanese government/regime in WW2, it did not have just ends/aims, but given the aims it did have, it faced a serious dilemma. The U.S. oil embargo, as Mearsheimer notes, left Japan w/ two bad choices: bow to U.S. pressure and accept a significant decrease in its power, or go to war vs. the U.S.
“Japan opted to attack the U.S., knowing full well that it would probably lose, but believing that it might be able to hold the U.S. at bay in a long war and eventually force it to quit the conflict.” (Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, p. 223, emphasis added)
Assuming this is right, the Japanese govt didn’t know for sure that the option they chose was doomed to failure; they took a long-shot or long-odds gamble that might possibly have worked out for them, but didn’t.
One problem here is that SAR’s statement about Russia/Ukraine went beyond the stated scope of SAR’s mission.
https://www.scholarsatrisk.org/about/
Rather than remaining focused on threats to scholars and academic freedom, SAR expressed “solidarity with the people of Ukraine and with people around the world, including in Russia, in condemning the ongoing acts of aggression against the Ukrainian people.” The risk to Ukrainian scholars would have been no less severe had Russia’s response been completely justified, assuming the same level of violence on Russia’s part.
Now, since the APA hitched its wagon to SAR, not only via its membership in SAR but also via its endorsement of the Ukraine statement, it finds itself appearing (accurately) inconsistent or hypocritical if it remains silent about the ongoing crimes against Palestinians. And the authors of the petition may be right about the reasons for this. Palestinian blood is extremely cheap in the West, probably cheaper than a bag of flour in Gaza today.
The APA could (and in my view should) issue a statement consistent with the mission of SAR, as that mission is described by SAR on their website, ie a statement in support of students, scholars, institutions of higher learning, etc., who are facing unimaginably dire conditions. That statement would avoid many of the disagreements we see emerging in the comments here (quite predictably) and would, I imagine, garner broader support from APA member qua APA members than the current petition, which will be actively opposed by APA members who (egregiously, in my view) seek to justify Israel’s actions.
The petition concedes that it will be “insignificant for global events.” So, what is its purpose?
The petition claims that not having a statement:
Given the climate created at Columbia, UCLA, etc., this consideration strongly favors NOT making a statement (or making a very different sort of statement about not targeting peers).
Nevertheless, the consideration is highly questionable anyway. It’s even a step beyond the claims that became familiar over the last decade that allowing a speaker at a conference made anyone “unsafe” and justified “de-platforming,” as the claim here is over the *absence* of a statement. If such absences are a problem, what about the absence of any mention of October 7th, Hamas, or the hostages from the petition?
No, Russia/Ukraine is not analogous to Israel/Gaza. Whatever selectivity that might be alleged pales in comparison to the selectivity of not mentioning October 7th, Hamas, or the hostages, and limiting history to “[Israeli] attempts to deny statehood, autonomy, and the basics of human life to Palestinians.”
This movement, since October 8th, has forfeited any benefit of the doubt about their stewardship of peace and humanitarian concerns by their chants of “globalize the intifada” and “from the river to the sea.” The “woke” crowd that strongly overlaps with the signatories of this petition has forfeited any benefit of the doubt that they won’t exploit their influence in illiberal ways. Bottom line: You guys can’t be trusted.
All of this could have been outweighed by the horrors in Gaza, but as the petition concedes, it will be “insignificant for global events”; the petition’s effects will be limited to aiding attempts to cement and enforce an orthodoxy. If you want to stop suffering, focus on Sudan, and you may even build up some credibility.
You have plenty of real-life examples of university administrations and governments acting “in illiberal ways” against anti-war protesters, but you think it’s the protesters who “can’t be trusted” to not act “in illiberal ways”? You’re worried that they might “exploit their influence” and make an attempt “to cement and enforce an orthodoxy,” but are willing to overlook actual ongoing efforts by the state and other institutions that do just that? I think you might not be in a position to be dispensing advice on how to build up credibility.
Governments: Strongly Agree, especially regarding the Ozturk and Khalil cases.
Administrators: If you’re talking about enforcing the rules that meant taking down encampments, I think those actions were fine. If you’re talking about the recent suspensions, expulsions, etc., I think there is something problematic about going from an established precedent of no punishment to abruptly being so harsh. I think the demand for apologies in exchange for “sentence” reductions is wrong.
I do. Despite the “but…” in your comment, the claims before and after are consistent. A choice between the protestors and Trump (or Netanyahu) is a false dichotomy.
Yes. Do we really have to go back through everything since the Tuvel case?
Opposing this petition does not entail “overlooking actual ongoing efforts by the state and other institutions that do just that.” Nonetheless, if you want me on the record, the Trump administration has done awful things, the Netanyahu government has done horrific things, and they are both generally terrible. The anti-protest movement has also done illiberal things, like trying to keep protestors from getting hired at law firms. Nonetheless, these things aren’t strong reasons to support the petition.
I’m less concerned about college students hypothetically “exploiting their influence” (how much influence do you think they have?) to act “in illiberal ways” than I am about the very real, ongoing illiberalism demonstrated by those who hold actual power and influence and who exercise it to further unjust systems, domestically and abroad. Your gripe here doesn’t seem to be a disagreement on the substantive issues about which they are protesting, but with the fact that you’re forced to concede that people you may find a bit annoying are in fact right.
You have, on the one hand, some rhetoric you don’t like, which you have to twist in order to feign indignation over it, and on the other an actual political orthodoxy with real exercises of it being enforced in ways that are inarguably illiberal. Your larger whataboutism notwithstanding, it’s unclear why you’re more concerned about the potential exploitation of influence that those relying on such rhetoric might be tempted to engage in, as compared to the actual present exploitation of influence that is happening right now, and with the intended effect of cementing an orthodoxy that either downplays or even justifies atrocities in Gaza and the occupied territories. This asymmetry is notable in so much coverage and commentary; those with little power or influence to meaningfully use (or exploit, in your words) to effect change (or to “cement” anything) are characterised as large ever-present threats to the body politic, while those with actual power are left free to do as they will, continuing to provide material support to a regime they know to be committing acts that “illiberal” does not even begin to adequately describe.
The reply to Felix above is applicable.
My “whataboutism”?
If there’s “whataboutism” here, it’s in (3).
The larger whataboutism I was referring to starts in the paragraph beginning with “Nevertheless, the consideration is highly questionable anyway” and continues into the following paragraph. Regarding your other comment, which you say is applicable in reply here as well, I disagree: We need not “go back” over matters for which you appear to carry a chip on your shoulder, and where the supposed illiberalism at issue is often propounded by the alleged targets of it from within gracious newspaper columns, on ample news panels, and in an endless series of sympathetic podcasts.
David L. Hull (2002): “But could not we philosophers as philosophers play a more direct role in society? … The main obstacle that stands in the way … is the very reason that Nussbaum gives for our special abilities in areas of ethics, morals, and sociopolitical philosophy – we are sophisticated. We seem to find every issue to be so complicated that we cannot possibly do anything but debate some more.” (“The Social Responsibility of Professional Societies,” Metaphilosophy 33[5], at p. 555)
I think that we have no authority to provide answers to moral questions to society. On the other hand, I think that we produce arguments on moral questions that could be, and should be, useful to society as individuals make up their own minds on these questions. I would like to see the APA do more to facilitate this.
That’s a really interesting position. Could you say more about why you don’t think philosophers have the authority to give moral guidance to society (and perhaps what you mean by that)?
(Hate that I feel I have to say this but: this is l earnest curiosity not a rhetorical one reflecting disagreement!)
There’s a large literature on moral testimony, and one of the largest views on this subject is that moral testimony cannot provide knowledge (or in some cases, even justified belief).
https://philpapers.org/s/moral%20testimony
I don’t think it follows, from the fact that philosophers can’t transmit their justified beliefs, that philosophers shouldn’t provide moral guidance. Perhaps the public would be mistaken to rely on their testimony but if the beliefs under consideration are true, then the meaningful alternative is to let people believe falsehoods…
People have no good reason to accept our authority to settle moral questions for them.
Does this have to do with their being contested, or with something about the methodology of philosophical ethics that you think doesn’t apply to other domains?
A minor note: while that was historically one of the first positions, the view that testimony cannot transmit knowledge or justification has largely fallen out of favor. Though moral testimony (or perhaps more accurately, deference to moral testimony) is suspect in some way, since Jones’ 1999 piece, pessimists typically admit that moral testimony can pass on knowledge and instead find another problem with it, like that it can’t pass on understanding (e.g., Nickel 2001, Hills 2009) or that identifying relative experts is epistemically difficult (e.g., Cholbi 2007, McGrath 2011).
We can’t demonstrate that our moral opinions are true. In my opinion, utilitarianism is correct, but I can’t prove that, and society has no good reason to just trust my authority and accept my conclusion that utilitarianism is correct.
Having said that, I might be useful to society by laying out the case for and against utilitarianism to help them think the issue through for themselves.
Sorry I’m lost….Why do you have the opinion that utilitarianism is correct if you are unable to argue for it?
I can argue for it up to a point by trying to engage other people’s moral intuitions. I believe that it is correct because my moral intuitions prevent me from doing otherwise.
You could say the just same thing about science and your physical senses
I think this letter is a good idea. Speaking as someone who felt distressed in the first few months of the wanton destruction of Gaza, in part due to the silence of professional philosophers. Sure, it may just be signalling and as some of the critics of the letter point out below, it doesn’t do anything. I question if that is much different from philosophers who write op-eds in support/against things like abortion, LGBT rights, war, refugees, etc. In fact, a lot of what we do does not do anything, until it does. Whether that is writing papers in support of positions only 10 other philosophers in our field read, or an op-ed, the point, I take it, is that philosophers think they are converging on the truth and that these things make a difference in the long run. Similarly, this open letter seems apt insofar as there are still people who think this is a blurry moral issue when it really is not.
Anticipating some objections about why don’t philosophers who feel this way do this independently instead of asking the APA to put out a statement, I think it goes to my earlier point about this not being a complex issue at all. Calling for the end to the murder of children by bombs and starvation is not a hard call to make, no matter how much some continue to spread lies about Hamas allegedly stealing aid or human shields or jihadism or whatever. The APA should release a collective statement because there is no meaningful dissent on this issue.
I think op-eds do serve a different role. An op-ed, in an appropriate venue, can give people good reasons to change their minds. This is not intended to be an argument against the APA also taking a position.
But what do the strong players think?
Of course the APA should stay out of the business of making any political statements. Should not have happened re Ukraine, and all the more so re Gaza — not least because of Gaza’s own responsibility in bringing about this dreadful state of affairs by launching the war, by invading its neighbor, massacring its civilians, kidnapping 250 people including many children, torturing its hostages, releasing videos of starved hostages forced to dig their own graves, etc. The whole thing need never have happened and would not have had they not, with full moral agency, chosen to launch and continue to fight this war, and the whole thing ends the minute Gaza returns the hostages and surrenders. The APA should not issue statements on either side, but certainly should not adopt entirely one-sided statements that entirely overlook the agency of one of the parties and in fact entirely inverts the aggressor-victim.
Assumption: Palestinians “started” the war. False. The “Israelis” (read: non-native people to the land, Europeans) started the war, not least with the Nakba, but with their gang raids going as far back as the 1890’s. People under brutal occupation have the legal right to self-defense, by any means necessary. Of course you wouldn’t understand that, though. (Watch this comment get shadow banned.)
“Watch this comment get shadow banned” is such a curious speech act.
First, I’m not sure what shadow banning is for a comment. I generally understand “shadow banning” as a feature of algorithmic news-feed type sites (facebook, twitter), where to be “shadow-banned” is for your posts to be demoted in other people’s feeds, so that they’re unlikely to see them, even though you’re not officially banned.
On a message board like this, where everybody can see all comments/replies, what would shadow banning even be?
Maybe the idea was just that the comment wouldn’t be approved by the moderator. More like regular banning than the more newfangled “shadow” variety of banning.
But in that case, who’s the audience for the comment? Who’s supposed to watch the comment get shadow banned if the comment doesn’t even show up? Just the moderator, I guess? (Hi Justin!)
shadow banning is when a person’s comments are hidden to other people, but they still show up to that person as though they weren’t hidden
It’s always the same pattern with apologists for the State of Israel’s violence. Whenever the State commits atrocities or overlooks them, whenever it sets up systems that knowingly lead to suffering and death, they present its actions as merely forced by circumstance, and immediately turn to shifting the blame on to its targets and victims, who alone have agency and who thereby become capable of blameworthiness, even for things done to them. It’s a pitiful, self-exonerating narrative (made on behalf of a state or regime) that has played out time and time again in various parts of the world and at various times.
It’s always the same pattern with apologists for Palestinian violence. Whenever Hamas, or any other Palestinian group, commits atrocities or overlooks them, whenever it sets up systems that knowingly lead to suffering and death, they present its actions as merely forced by circumstance, and immediately turn to shifting the blame on to its targets and victims, who alone have agency and who thereby become capable of blameworthiness, even for things done to them. It’s a pitiful, self-exonerating narrative (made on behalf of a state or regime) that has played out time and time again in various parts of the world and at various times.
So much hate in one short comment. Can’t even mention Israel without scare quotes, and justifying October 7th… By the way, less than 50% of Israelis are of European origin. And Gaza wasn’t under occupation on October 6th.
I think having your air and water and land borders all by controlled by a government that repeatedly bombs you (or, “mows the lawn” as the Israeli politicians say) counts as occupation. BTW, international organizations disagree with you.
No one believes this. This is, to put it mildly, simply a lie. For one, settler violence continues elsewhere in the occupied territories. There is no indication that, if this action were taken, that violence would stop. For another, the State has kidnapped many people—you could say it’s made them hostages. It won’t stop doing that, nor end its occupation, nor dismantle the systems of oppression it has established throughout the occupation. Those are also acts undertaken “with full moral agency” that amount to oppression and violence. And your attempt at exonerating a State that is materially supported to carry out that violence by the US and others by being selective in your outrage and wilfully amnestic about even recent history is rather see-through.
“…and the whole thing ends the minute Gaza returns the hostages and surrenders.”
I think you mean Hamas…Many of the people being killed or starved in Gaza are not members of Hamas nor do they have any capacity to release the hostages nor any responsibility for it.
The APA really messed up by releasing a statement on Ukraine.
I wish activists could point me in the direction of tangibly helpful ways to affect conditions for Palestinians. It seems that one of the best ways to leverage articles and forums like this would be to take advantage of the attention that these essentially ineffectual discussions have and utilize the attention toward more fruitful ends.
I will confess to finding this comment a little bit odd. But blogs are informal environments, so perhaps I just don’t understand what you mean. In any case, the request for guidance on about tangible help seems easily met. Two places I have seen activists mention consistently are PCRF and WCK. Jose Andres recently wrote an opinion piece in the NYT about the work WCK has done and should be able to do. WCK does work outside Palestine, but I think they might have directed funds.
Neither of these organizations in obscure and both have spoken in recent weeks about how they are still getting aid through.
There are also UN funds to which one can contribute. Of slightly more dubious value, one can also contribute to Kiva fundraisers for specific Palestinians’ projects and to GoFundMes for, usually, family groups.
Might it not help those in the United States who are under threat by the government and their own universities for their lawful speech?
If you ask me, the APA is less able to protect the lawful speech of its members if it’s seen as having a political bias.
Part of why it’s nice to save up credibility through institutional restraint is so that you can spend it later when you need it. And we are going to need it. The present administration has made it clear that they’re willing to go all out arresting, detaining, punishing, and deporting international students and scholars whose speech they disagree with. It’s important to have some institutional body who can speak out in support of these people qua students and qua scholars, not just qua supporters of a shared cause.
It’s also the case that things are probably going to get much worse, and there will be challenges to the civil liberties of all scholars and all people who speak out, beyond international students and scholars. But that doesn’t mean the APA should wait to say something till things get worse.
A number of things are assumed here on matters that are far from settled. I found this to be helpful: rather than trust one side’s narrative, it shows why we know so much less than we tend to think.
https://www.thefp.com/p/matti-friedman-is-gaza-starving-searching-for-truth-in-information-war
That outlet is “one side’s narrative.” You definitely know so much less imbibing it.
There are of course countless people who offhandedly and smugly dismiss the sources you trust with just the same words. Depressing, but least they have the excuse of never having taken an introductory course in philosophy.
There are countless people who exercise judgment on matters while pretending to not be doing that. Some have even taken an introductory course in philosophy; some may even be faculty.
Oh, I do exercise judgment sometimes, Felix. It’s just that i don’t make judgments on a case before I have listened sympathetically to the best case I can find on both sides of the issue, and after doing that, I consider how strong a basis for judgment I really have one way or the other, if at all. Less emotionally satisfying, and rather time-intensive, but there it is.
When I encounter someone who has not only failed to consider both sides of an issue charitably before reaching a confident judgment, but proudly and smugly dismissing any opposing evidence or testimony by writing off its source, I know I’m dealing with a lightweight. Any serious and sincere thinker would do the opposite and seek out sources of evidence and reasoning that raise doubts about hiw confident beliefs.
Don’t be greedy there; leave some epistemic humility for the rest of us!
Don’t worry: if you ever decide to exercise any, there’s plenty to be had.
I suppose posturing is a kind of exercise?
Justin, the Free Press which is run by Bari Weiss and has spent two years dehumanizing Palestinians and denying Israeli crimes is not a great source. If you knew any better (I am assuming you were unaware of their track record), I would say it is dishonest.
This is a wonderful example of the tactics used to reinforce echo chambers and make knowledge systematically impossible in an epistemic community that has lost its way.
You help police this space by jumping on anything that differs from the one-sided narrative you have been fed, and that more or less everyone else here has been fed, exclusively. But you say nothing to address anything in the article I linked to, and give no evidence of even having read it. Instead, you dismiss it and anything else that has appeared, or ever might appear, in the same source, on the strength of your claim that the Free Press has “spent two years dehumanizing Palestinians,” etc.
You seem to have given no thought to the possibility that that claim is false, or that the people you’ve trusted on that claim might have ample partisan reason for dismissing The Free Press even if they turn out to be the unreliable ones. If you know that The Free Press really had “spent two years dehumanizing Palestinians,” then you should be able to provide quite a number of quotes from their articles over those two years in which Weiss and other writers there clearly present the Palestinians as less than human: I mean. real cases of doing exactly that, which you feel you can guarantee from your careful reading of the full articles are not taken out of context, and not things that would only be seen as ‘dehumanizing’ if one adopts some partisan theoretical assumptions.
For that matter, why not present a quote from the very article I cited, showing that it clearly treats Palestinians as inhuman, or less than human?
I’ll tell you why not: it’s because absolutely nothing in the article says that. And you presumably don’t know that because you haven’t read it. You are not only enforcing an echo chamber for others, but for yourself.
And yet, even though your claim is not only dubious but actually false, you treat it as so indisputably correct that you only allow for two options: either I’m “unaware of their track record,” or I’m dishonest. I have to choose which of these charges is the lesser one or face more public shaming.
Tricks like that don’t work on me directly, and I no longer care about the opinions of people who fall for them. But this does nicely suggest, to those with epistemic integrity, a reason not to trust the prevalent opinions on these matters here. Those prevalent opinions have not been fairly established, and people are pressured to avoid considering any alternative perspectives, facts, arguments, or considerations.
I will not engage with you or this garbage further, but I will note that the whole article is denying the reality of a famine. I’d say that counts as treating them as less than human, as does denying the hardship and famine experienced there in the before time.
And here’s a snippet that does that, but dresses it up nicely. In particular, that last sentence:
“Reports of impending hunger engineered by Israel in Gaza have been commonplace not just since the beginning of this war but for at least a decade and a half, since Hamas seized the territory and Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade that supposedly turned Gaza into an “open-air prison.” The famine never materialized. Now we hear claims that this same period of supposedly extreme deprivation was actually a Gazan idyll that Israel has cruelly destroyed in this war.”
You say, “I will not engage with you or this garbage further, but I will note that the whole article is denying the reality of a famine.”
But if you had actually read the article instead of racing to smugly extract something from it that you could parade around as “garbage”, you would have read these paragraphs:
“The same reality was described by sources with whom I spoke late last week. One told me that hospitals had cut meals from three a day to one. Even a senior figure in the Israeli military told one of my colleagues at the end of last week that while there isn’t mass starvation as claimed by pro-Hamas propaganda, Gaza really is on the brink this time.
“This explains why Israel, in panic mode, began air-dropping aid this weekend, along with Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, and has declared “humanitarian pauses” to let food reach civilians—essentially unilateral ceasefires without any reciprocation from Hamas. There are now indications that food prices are dropping and that some of the scarcity is being addressed, but the situation for many civilians remains dire.”
So the writer of the article in fact says that the situation is dire for the Palestinians, and that even senior Israeli military figures are saying that Gaza really is on the brink. But here you come riding in on your high horse, assuring others that the article is ‘garbage’ and beneath the level of people like you to even discuss, because it ‘dehumanizes’ Palestinians.
That really is a stretch, ‘dehumanizing’ civilians by telling your readers that they are in a dire situation due to food shortages.
But even if some article had denied that there is a famine — which, again, this one does not — can you really not see that it would be blatantly question-begging to attack it for ‘dehumanizing’ people for denying that they are suffering from one, before you have taken the time to investigate whether or not what the article says is correct? If you hear reports that Jack’s house burned down and that he is in the hospital, and then someone reports that Jack’s house in fact never burned down, wouldn’t you realize how silly it was to become angry at the person who said that and call him ‘garbage’, until you have determined whether he was right to call the original reports into question? Or do you just believe in maintaining your original beliefs in the face of any reports that they might have been mistaken or incomplete?
I am absolutely astonished that the author of the article you’re citing here doesn’t even mention that the reason there are no trustworthy sources in Gaza is that Israel has barred international journalists from entering the warzone.
Anyone who writes an article on the supposed “fog of war” here without even mentioning this is completely untrustworthy. The author has to resort, comically, to sources like “friends of mine serving with reserve army units close to GHF operations” because his country won’t let international observers in.
I was thinking the same thing. Independent foreign journalists have been banned by Israel since the war started. Let’s suspend judgment we just don’t know what’s going on!
Do they still teach the importance of appraising the credibility of sources in introductory courses or is that no longer a thing?
Michel says they’re not interested in engaging on it further, presumably having appraised the source on the basis of its track record, as Mourinho suggests we should do. Indeed, this is an entirely normal thing to do. And it’s bizarre to see someone trained in philosophy clutch pearls at the suggestion that maybe they should be looking to better sources than the one they’ve here presented as above being “one side’s narrative.”
I’ll go through your comment line by line.
Are you suggesting that the Palestinian narrative has been featured more prominently in the media and in the sources we see here in North America? This is flat out wrong – the narrative that everyone is being fed and which is biased is the pro-Israeli one.
I really think you’re capable of reading through the FP’s coverage of Israel and deciding if they’re biased or not. But here are some examples. Michael Ames published an article in May, during a 3 month blockade of all aid into the Gaza Strip, and said there is no famine but “food shortages.” Downplaying a real crisis which even many liberal zionists are now acknowledging is real and a danger to Israel’s moral claim in the war is certainly a choice – never mind the fact that squabbling over famine or food shortages as 60000 people (and many under the rubble) lay dead. Or consider their recent coverage of the famine by suggesting that doctors in Gaza are deliberately withholding information like the underlying conditions some of the children have. After 2 years of war and malnutrition, one wonders if perhaps hunger and malnutrition had a role in exacerbating those conditions and if hinting at even the doctors of Gaza being Hamas apologists is not dehumanizing and legitimizing a war against Hamas.
https://www.thefp.com/p/the-gaza-famine-myth
I don’t know why you rail against “those like me” when on this issue, if this blog and prominent departments in the Anglo-Sphere are any indication, the profession leans your way. Just take a look at the likes some of the comments here receive now or during the Gaza series back in 2023/2024. The prominent narrative and side is the pro-Israeli one, which I think is mistaken, so railing against some mysterious mafia enforcing group think and lacking epistemic integrity is an odd way of framing it. Your “side” on this issue is not the victim of a conspiracy in the profession.
1. “Are you suggesting that the Palestinian narrative has been featured more prominently in the media and in the sources we see here in North America? This is flat out wrong – the narrative that everyone is being fed and which is biased is the pro-Israeli one.”
Here we go again: you are presenting a certain position as though it were the undisputed truth of the matter. Anyone who has followed the Israel/Palestine conflict knows that there is no shortage of pieces on both sides that provide seemingly indisputable evidence (especially to those who haven’t paid attention to the other side), showing how biased the media is this way or that.
You are aware of the article you send from the Intercept. But if you like, I could flood this space with links to studies pointing to the exact opposite bias. I’ll link to just one here, since I think this is unlikely to resolve the issue at hand. But at least it helps show why it would be unwise to grab one such article and present it as settling the matter. It does not.
The point I’m trying to make here is not that readers of Daily Nous, and signatories of the petition, have had their opinions skewed somewhat by hearing more about fatalities on one side or the other, or by hearing of events described in more or less inflammatory language. Instead, what I’m saying is that the entire conversation is impoverished by the fact that the main arguments and lines of evidence on one side of the issue seem to be utterly unknown to most people engaging in this conversation in academic and other elite circles today. That leaves people incapable of even beginning to discuss the matter fairly or coming to understand it: it’s not just that they don’t know certain things, but also that they are given the impression that they and the people they trust on the matter have considered all the relevant facts and issues, when they are entirely ignorant of a great deal.
For example: even if one didn’t care one iota about any Israelis, or even about whether Israel will continue to exist, but just cared about the plight of the Palestinian civilians, there are all sorts of factors one should consider here that appear nowhere in the APA petition. For instance: the war is in response to a widespread massacre perpetrated on civilians by Hamas, and since carrying out that brutal massacre, Hamas not only swore to keep repeating massacres along the same lines until Israel is destroyed, but continues to engage in war crimes by using Palestinian civilians as human shields, disguising its terrorists as aid-seeking civilians, and so on. All of this guarantees high levels of Palestinian civilian casualties, which Hamas is glad to ‘sacrifice’ in order to provoke hatred of Israel worldwide.
If the goal of the petition is to protect Palestinian civilian casualties, why doesn’t it also demand that Hamas immediately move all military operations away from civilian areas, cease its illegal practices of using fighters in civilian clothing, etc.?
One way of keeping the Palestinian civilian casualties high — which is a tactical gain for Hamas — is its practice of reserving its extensive tunnel network (which provide shelter from bombardments) to active Hamas terrorists, leaving civilians in unsafe areas. Also, food sent in to relieve civilian hunger is stolen away by Hamas for its fighters. Again: if the aim of the petition is to prevent the deaths, injuries, and hunger of the Palestinian civilians, why does the petition make no criticism of Hamas for engaging in these highly unethical practices?
There are all sorts of important ethical questions here, which it would be great to see philosophers discuss. For instance, if an enemy who has just demonstrated its willingness to brutalize, rape, main, and slaughter innocent civilians (people at a music festival, unarmed families living in peace, etc.), and vows to do the same to the rest of the citizens of your country, also hides its fighters among its own civilians strategically so that you cannot fight back against them without killing those civilians, then does morality require that one lay down one’s arms and accept one’s own destruction at their hands? I’m sure that some radical deontologists might say yes, while I think most philosophers would say no. But rather than seeing that discussion here and elsewhere, we get discussions that show very limited familiarity with the relevant facts and issues, or interest in exploring them.
2. “Or consider their recent coverage of the famine by suggesting that doctors in Gaza are deliberately withholding information like the underlying conditions some of the children have. After 2 years of war and malnutrition, one wonders if perhaps hunger and malnutrition had a role in exacerbating those conditions.”
Ah, right, — the recent case of a child with cerebral palsy whose photograph was featured on the front page of the New York Times in a way that (very misleadingly) suggested that his condition was due entirely to starvation. The New York Times itself was forced to retract that story — of course, the retraction was not featured on the front page, unlike the original picture, which sparked outrage and rioting around the world.
The original photographs, some of which you can see here, also include many of the emaciated child beside his brother, who does not seem at all malnourished. So why did only the highly misleading one, which features the child without his brother make it onto the front page of the New York Times, with no note of his underlying medical condition?
The fact that many doctors in Gaza are withholding information is not too surprising, especially given what Hamas is apt to do to them if they speak openly to journalists and contradict the Hamas narrative (even if the doctors do not accept or support that narrative, which some doctors there presumably do). Western journalists who cover these stories in Gaza are also under threat by Hamas. I don’t want to blame those journalists for what they do to stay alive in Gaza — that’s hardly an enviable assignment — but somehow or other, any epistemically responsible person needs to deal with the fact that a picture whose implied story was clearly contradicted by other pictures taken on that same assignment was featured on the front page, with incendiary results. And this is far from the first time this sort of thing has happened: remember that supposed bombing of the Gaza hospital by Israel, reported around the world and still believed in by many, only for it to be revealed later on (much more quietly) that the bomb was a stray one fired by Palestinian fighters, and moreover that it blew up in the parking lot of the hospital, not the hospital itself, and that the whole ‘death toll’ reported was phony as well? And so on.
That’s not to say that terrible things haven’t happened to the Palestinians in this war, often (but certainly not always) at the hands of Israeli fighters. But wise people apportion their beliefs to the evidence; and those who fail to reduce their credence in sources that repeatedly screw things up like this have little credibility themselves as a result. One would expect serious philosophers who care about this matter to be asking why these major failures in reporting were allowed to happen and what reason we have to think that they will not keep happening. But where is that discussion? Instead, we continue to see people naively relying on that reporting as though it represents the simple facts of the matter.
And yes, of course, Palestinian civilians with underlying medical conditions will be made much worse off by interruptions in the food and medicine supply that come in wartime. That is a deeply lamentable thing, and gives us a strong moral reason for wanting the war to end. But that says nothing about who is most responsible for the war, or whether it is all-things-considered best for the war to end right now (if Hamas carries out its vow to create more October 7th-style attacks in perpetuity if the war ends now, it’s hard for me to see why ending it would be all-things-considered right), or, if the war must continue, what course of action is best for getting food and medical aid to those people, and who must do what in order for that to happen.
3. “…railing against some mysterious mafia enforcing group think and lacking epistemic integrity is an odd way of framing it. Your “side” on this issue is not the victim of a conspiracy in the profession.”
I don’t think that there’s any ‘mysterious mafia’ or ‘conspiracy’ behind this particular echo chamber. Echo chambers seldom require such things: they function perfectly well, organically. All it takes is for a community to be to disproportionately involve people of one view, and for some people who hold the dominant view to feel morally superior about it and to express repugnance toward those who disagree. That’s generally sufficient to make most of the dissenters either censor themselves or else leave the group entirely. Those who remain in the echo chamber are left with the mistaken impression that only their own view has anything good to be said about it, and that anyone who disagrees or even raises doubts is a moral monster who does not deserve to be listened to: in fact, those who listen to such people or their sources are at risk of being attacked in turn.
The ‘conspiracy’ or ‘mysterious mafia’ pictures suggest that there are people who know full well that the dominant and carefully enforced beliefs are false or dubious. But I don’t have any reason to think that there are any such people here. Those who are most effective at policing dissent from an ideology are those who truly believe that ideology and who lack the capacity to entertain any doubts about it.
It really is extraordinary, isn’t it, how a nuclear-armed state with the unconditional financial and military backing of the most powerful nation on earth, with a massively politically and financially well-connected network to disseminate its government’s point of view in the US and elsewhere, can be portrayed, with an apparently straight face, as the voice that isn’t heard…
For the people who are suggesting this is some sort of recent trend of politicization of the APA that began with the Ukraine war, I recommend seeing whether that is true before making such pronouncements:
1985:
(second related resolution — and the resolution was from 1984, not 1985, apologies)