Tuesday Apr 22, 2008

Inside the Middle East: Are Columbia's Palestinians...Palestinian?

Posted by Martin Kramer
Comments: 9
Decrease text sizeDecrease text size
Increase text sizeIncrease text size

You will remember the case of Nadia Abu El-Haj, the anthropologist who last year received tenure at Barnard after a furious controversy over her book, Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. Jane Kramer has written a panegyric to her for The New Yorker, simply brushing off serious-minded criticisms of Abu El-Haj's book.

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 US 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.

And in fact, Abu El-Haj doesn't have to chose between being American and Palestinian, any more than Jane Kramer has to choose between being American and Jewish. Kramer's insistence that Abu El-Haj can't be Palestinian because she's American or Episcopalian or from Long Island distorts the context of the controversy. That context was identity politics - not just of Jewish-Americans, but of Palestinian-Americans. Abu El-Haj is deep into her own identity politics, pursued tirelessly through her academic work. She's engaged full-time in the intellectual fortification of the Palestinian nationalist narrative. If you conceal that, you've botched the whole thing.

There's also a telling contradiction here. In her article, Jane Kramer calls Columbia's Rashid Khalidi a "Palestinian-American." It would be interesting to know what, in her mind, makes Khalidi a Palestinian-American, while Abu El-Haj is an American, period. Khalidi, like Abu El-Haj, was born in New York; like her, he had a Palestinian Muslim father and a mother who was neither. As a child, Khalidi sometimes attended Sunday school at the First Unitarian Church in Brooklyn, where his parents had been married. Khalidi also grew up in the United States, whereas Abu El-Haj spent much of her childhood abroad. So why does Jane Kramer make Khalidi into a hyphenated American, and not Abu El-Haj?

After all, Jewish people have to stand up for Khalidi's integrity, too.

Appendix: Here are a few sources, some of them supportive of Abu El-Haj, that identify her as a "Palestinian-American":
  • Chronicle of Higher Education: "Ms. Abu El-Haj is a Palestinian-American assistant professor of anthropology at Barnard College..."
  • Columbia Spectator: "Abu El-Haj, a Fulbright Scholar and Palestinian-American..."
  • Ahram Weekly: "...another hate campaign is being waged to deny tenure to Palestinian-American anthropologist Nadia Abu El-Haj."
  • International Socialist Review: "...the Palestinian-American anthropologist Nadia Abu El-Haj is fighting a well-orchestrated campaign by Zionist groups..."

BOOKMARK or SHARE: digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print
Comments: Post your own comment
1  |  Joseph, NYC, USA, Wednesday Apr 23, 2008
Ethnic identities and hyphenations are a matter of personal choice. If you review articles on race over the past 150 years, you will see that the lines between ethnicities keep changing. Ethnicity is more a social category than a biological reality. It is ludicrous that so many academics put stock in Ms. Abu El-Haj's ethnicity. What happened to judging academic theories by how well they fit the data and the rationality of their arguements? Why are Chronicle of Higher Education, et al. looking at ethnicity rather than facts?
2  |  Gabor Fränkl, Budapest, Hungary, Wednesday Apr 23, 2008
What does it mean: Darwish? I'd like to know. Please someone light me up on this! Respond here or write a letter to me, even you Mr. Kramer. Thank you very much in advance: A revealing and great blog in my view! Gabor Fränkl, gabor_frankl@yahoo.com
3  |  McQueen, NY, Wednesday Apr 23, 2008
If Abu El-Haj is not a Palestinian, this is great news. It means there are no Palestinian "refugees." They are all just residents of whatever country they find themselves in.
4  |  Dovid Oyving, London, Thursday Apr 24, 2008
What I want to know is how I can get a Fulbright Scholar? After all, I have written more books than El Haj and have more of a reputation. Even a London court called me an anti-Semite-what more glowing recommendations could one have. I want a Fulbright Waaaaaaaaaaaa!
5  |  Israel, USA, Thursday Apr 24, 2008
To #2 - Gabor. Darwish is a "Palestinian" poet, or, a Palestinian who wrote poems. To share "Darwish" means to spend time together reading the "poems" of Darwish. I found this information by typing "Darwish" in google.com. You can do the same. Good luck.
6  |  Grushovski, Thursday Apr 24, 2008
Scholars and those who are motivated by hateful ideas, come up with sqewed conclusions. The hyphenated-Americans use the hyphen when it is convenient and beneficial. Other ethnic groups who came to these shores for similar reasons, lost the hyphen without regret. Typically, one has to apply for a Fulbright scholarship. Then the candidate has to return to the country he or she came from. Has she done it.
7  |  Avi, LA, Thursday Apr 24, 2008
I read the NY'er piece which should have been titled: ' Nadia the Saint ', the way it tainted everyone who opposed her but shed no light on the contentious issues her work raised. The article gave no reasons at all for why her work raised strong objections all it did was portray those who objected as hysterical. The most significant weakness of the peice was that it did not discuss, nor mention in detail, her actual work at all...only the reactions to her work which leads me to wonder why, if the work is so defensible, the artcile didn't lay out a few of the basic facts about it...
8  |  Jack B., Thursday Apr 24, 2008
Sirhan Sirhan has always been called a Jordanian. He was born in Jerusalem. By today's nomenclature that would make him a Palestinian. But when he single- handedly kept the US in Vietnam for an additional five years, by shooting the Presidential front-runner, the concept of a 'Palestinian" was barely out of the closet. That he acted alone and was not a terrorist was never questioned by the left-wing conspiracy theorists.
9  |  Adina Kutnicki, Friday Apr 25, 2008
One can always count on the so called intellectual, guilt ridden, Jewish progressives to take up every other cause, but that of their own people. It is as if they cannot contort themselves into enough knots in order to lend their full weight behind what the 'other' is claiming. To call them useful idiots is underestimating the depth of the damage they have created. And that is precisely their intentions to harm their own people. Idiots they are not, selfhaters they are.
Add your comment remaining characters
Name and Location *

NOTE: Comments are moderated and will not appear on this blog, until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.

For more information, please see our
Readers' Submission Policy.

E-mail * (will NOT be published)
--------------------------------
* All fields are required

About this blog

Inside the Middle East Shalem Center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies' scholar of Islam and the Arab world Martin Kramer on this turbulent region.

Search this blog

Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs

Most Popular Posts

  1. Rewriting history for the "nakba"
    Posted in The Warped Mirror by Petra Marquardt-Bigman
    Sunday May 18, 2008

Recent Comments

Donulvi Dolam - Australia: South America was once full of so called Freedom Fighters (called terrorists by some and comunists by others) This went on until a smart guy somewhere realised that it was the USA who was behind everything they did, planned or thought of, so they changed tactics and went legal. Today the Tupamaros are a political party in Uruguay (in power) also in Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela etc. Quite frankly sir Terrorism doesn't work exept for those who keep promoting it or otherwise keep it alive by talking about it constantly. A terrorist is neither a moderate nor a radical, he is a fool
S McCosker Australia: See Quran Surah 9. See Robert Spencer, 'Onward Muslim Soldiers', 'The Truth About Muhammad' & 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam & the Crusades'; Bat Yeor, 'The Dhimmi'; & Bostom 'Legacy of Jihad'. Muslim texts + history show awful truth: Mohammed is a 'prophet' of war, Quran a book of war, Islam a religion of war.
Adina Kutnicki: One can always count on the so called intellectual, guilt ridden, Jewish progressives to take up every other cause, but that of their own people. It is as if they cannot contort themselves into enough knots in order to lend their full weight behind what the 'other' is claiming. To call them useful idiots is underestimating the depth of the damage they have created. And that is precisely their intentions to harm their own people. Idiots they are not, selfhaters they are.