I just made an hour-long video on how frustrating it's been to see academics excluded from Israel-Palestine discourse and here we are, a few days later, with ALL my academic mutuals saying this letter on recognition and Montevideo is an embarrasing joke and no media asking them🧵
Marco Milanovic, University of Reading
Vidya Kumar, SOAS University of London
Juliette McIntyre, University of South Australia
Gerhard Kemp, UWE Bristol
Nimer Sultany, SOAS University of London
Adil Haque, Rutgers University
Victor Kattan, University of Nottingham
Mark Kersten, University of Fraser Valley
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Genes determine skin colour”
Yes they also determine height, moles, and hair colour. But we dont build social hierarchies around that. That doesn’t mean races are genetic. It means you ring fenced some genes and attributed moral/social value to them. We call this “racism”
Like imagine saying stuff like “height is determined by genes, this is why tall people face a higher risk of thyroid problems! [apparently true] You can’t deny there is a physical difference between Danny Devito and Arnold Schwarzenneger!!”
Or like “there are studies that have found that short people tend to commit more crimes than tall people! [apparently this is true too!] Obviously this is a result of the different genes in tall and short people!”
The nominal debate about sexual organs is a rather dumb one. You either think gender is assigned or innate and frankly that is of little consequence. The consequential discussion is why you think that: it’s either fragile masculinity or concern over safety in private spaces /1
IMO the latter is the only valid reason. I don’t care if a dude is scared that he will “accidentally” be attracted to a trans woman and hit on her. Deal with your own insecurities without trampling on other people’s rights. But safety in private spaces or fairness in sports? Sure
Here’s the thing though: safety and fairness are not “trans issues”. A fully cis male bathroom can be unsafe for a little boy (hi Catholic Church). Privacy concerns can be addressed with lockable personal booths. Transness is not the reason why private spaces can be unsafe
Piers Morgan approaches taxonomy as an ontological phenomenon. Categories are objective, universal and true. He never worries whether a tomato is a vegetable or a fruit, humans have perfectly taxonomized nature and categories never overlap. Hence he thinks this is a clever gotcha
The problem is @EdwardJDavey apparently agrees with him, but has to assume a pro trans position for political reasons. So he is confronted with an impossible problem: his categories are ontological, but his position is not. He cannot resolve the conflict and this is the result
Gender theory and feminism are not about ontological categories. Women are *not* ontologically (by the very fact of being women) the "weaker sex"; they don't "belong in the kitchen"; or "born to be mothers". This is why de Beauvoir said one is not “born a woman, but becomes one”
Unsurprisingly, Elliot’s conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the applicable law. The statement “inference to genocide requires that no other reasonable explanation exist” is… let’s say inexact.
The applicable test is not “can you *explain* what Israel is doing *as a whole* through any reasonable explanation other than genocide”, but rather whether intent to destroy can be reasonably inferred from a specific pattern of conduct
So saying “it is more reasonable to explain Israel’s actions as trying to destroy Hamas and save hostages, than commiting genocide” is not really what the test requires. What is the specific pattern of conduct that Elliot is examining here? None. He is making an abstract argument
This is what I call “legal vulturing”. Salo loiters above the text looking for anything he can slap a red underline and claim “he is the only one who noticed”. It’s bad faith work that deserves no serious engagement. So let me treat this like the piece of disinformation it is 🧵
Salo claims there is a secret paragraph 141 that scholars ignore on purpose to deny Israel a right to self defence. But article 141 is part of a subsection of the Opinion dealing specifically with self-defence. It goes from §138 to §142.
As Salo shows, in §139, the ICJ concludes that art. 51 of the UN Charter, which sets out the right of self defence, is not applicable to Israel’s actions in Palestine because
1) the threat it claims is not imputable to a state and article 51 only applies between states