Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Martin Kramer has been inspired to write a piece following a remarkable radio interview given by Jane Kramer following the publication of her New Yorker piece (now available in PDF here) on the Nadia Abu El-Haj controversy (see previous: The New Yorker Dances to Nadia's Tune): Are Columbia's Palestinians... Palestinian?
...Kramer (no relation to me) also has given the back story to her piece in a radio interview (from minute 21:00), where she makes a telltale confession: "I felt a deep commitment to write this piece, part of it having to do with being Jewish myself, and I thought to myself, Jewish people also have to stand up for her integrity." Ah, another Jew working through an identity complex on a Palestinian canvas. "Guilt-saddled New Yorker, Jewish, seeks stylish, well-bred Palestinian-American academic to love, admire, share Darwish and opera. Make me feel chosen again."
The odd thing is that Kramer goes to great lengths to deny that Nadia Abu El-Haj is a Palestinian at all. "Is Nadia Abu El-Haj a Palestinian?" asks the interviewer. Answer: "No, she's actually an Episcopalian from the United States, born in Long Island. Her father was Palestinian." Kramer again: "She [Abu El-Haj] came to this project [of Israeli archaeology] as an American with no particular axe to grind." (Amazing quote, that.) Kramer even scolds Paula Stern, Barnard alumna and author of the petition against tenure for Abu El-Haj, because Stern "didn't know Abu El-Haj wasn't Palestinian."
Well, by these criteria, (New York-born) Rashid Khalidi and (Champaign, Illinois-born) Lila Abu-Lughod and (Washington-born) Ali Abunimah aren't Palestinians either. They were born here, not there, and they're U.S. citizens. (As for being an Episcopalian, so was Edward Said.) Jane Kramer is so clueless that she seems not to have figured out that "Palestinian" can be an identity. To judge from Nadia Abu El-Haj's choices--from keeping her father's Arabic name to working exclusively on undermining Israel's claims--it's obvious that her Palestinian identity is profoundly meaningful (and useful) to her...
Check out the rest. Tigerhawk hits it on the head, here:
...When it suits a narrative, Abu El-Haj is an "American." When it suits her career, she is a "Palestinian-American." Among many interesting points in the post, it is obvious that there are certain contexts in which being of Palestinian Arab descent benefits an academic career in the United States (presumably because of its built-in victim status), and is therefore useful to advertise. Unless, of course, that self-identification tends to impeach the scholar's professional objectivity, in which case Nadia Abu El-Haj becomes, simply, an American.
Nadia certainly knows what her nationalist politics are, and is now free to ride them whole hog:
Filasteen and the Arab Student Association at Columbia are pleased to announce:
The 60th Anniversary of Al-Nakba Week at Columbia University
And would like to invite you to:
*60 Years of Nakba: The Catastrophe of Palestine 1948-2008*
Monday, April 28th 7 pm 501 Schermerhorn, Columbia University (116th st. and Broadway)
*A Faculty Panel Discussion with *
*Prof. Nadia Abu El-Haj
Prof. Lila Abu Lughod
Prof. Gil Anidjar
Prof. Joseph Massad
Prof. Noha Radwan*
Update 4/23: The Greycat Blog comments (worth reading in full, but here's a snip): The New Yorker hearts Nadia:
...It's hard to see what good [Jane] Kramer's article, with its patent biases, will do: it doesn't inform, it doesn't analyze, it doesn't investigate, it doesn't question. Written as it is in the dead-in-the-water prose that characterizes so much American big-title journalism, it doesn't even entertain. It fails to engage with any of the serious criticisms of Nadia Abu El Haj's work, and barely acknowledges their existence. It seeks to relate the Facts on the Ground controversy to the wider issue of the politicization of Middle East Studies, but does so in a way so skewed and blinkered that what it tries to say is rendered worthless; how seriously can you take someone who quotes Rashid Khalidi as an authority on academic ethics, and does so apparently with a straight face?
On the plus side, this being The New Yorker, there are some good cartoons in there.
Abu El-Haj to Jane Kramer: "I'm not a public intellectual. I'm drawn to archives, to disciplines where the evidence sits for a while. I don't court controversy." I guess there is nothing public or controversial about appearing in a public campus rally to commemorate the 'Nakba'. Nothing that would put your students off, either. But I supposed it's our fault. Yes, we radicalized her! She would have kept her nose in the archives, sitting with her evidence, tenure and all, if it hadn't been for those right-wing Zionist militants who wrongly persecuted her! Why? Because it's always our fault: failure of the peace process, rise of Hamas, etc. etc. So if Abu El-Haj has been turned from a mild-mannered, American-as-apple-pie scholar into another Palestinian militant, another Joseph Massad, we have only ourselves to blame. It couldn't have anything to do with tenure, right?
I've really never come across anyone as sick, demented, racist, disgusting, and downright repulsive as you Zionists when unleashing your racism towards Palestinians.
You make me as an American be really disgusted about living with you in the same country.
Talk about racist - "you Zionists"?
Zionists hardly march in lockstep. In fact I don't think you know the meaning of the word, what lies behind the philosophy that helped rebuild a shattered, decimated people.
In fact the misuse and demonization of the term "Zionist" is a form of racism in itself.
Secondly: I am positive that a majority of us want nothing more than to live in peace with the Palestinians. We share cultural and historical roots with the Arab people. Most Israeli Jews have Middle Eastern heritage, and Arabic is an official language in Israel. People here as well as in Israel are trying to build bridges - all too often we're rebuffed.
I saw a program on TV featuring an Israeli woman whose daughter had been killed in a suicide attack. She tried to contact the mother of the suicide bomber, to speak to her, as two mothers. The hatred emanating from the Palestinian woman was palpable and disturbing. Still - it was a start. We've got to start somewhere.
I wish there would be more study of the links between us. There is profound beauty in the music, poetry and culture we share.
Decades of war and terrorism have scarred Israelis, Diaspora Jews, and the Palestinians alike. What we don't need are attacks like this. And what we CERTAINLY don't need are the ugly games being played in academia.
That's the real focus of Kramer's piece. I've seen some of this myself. It's doing anything but working for reconciliation between Arabs and Israelis, or between Muslims, Christians and Jews, and this strikes rational people as disturbing.
I beg you, sir, to reconsider your comment.
Let's try to realign ourselves in a more productive, compassionate direction, ok? We can go forward together or we can keep hurling blind accusations and demonizing each other.