Board & Mission Statement
Why IAM?
About Us
Articles by IAM Associates
Ben-Gurion University
Hebrew University
University of Haifa
Tel Aviv University
Other Institutions
Boycott Calls Against Israel
Israelis in Non-Israeli Universities
Anti-Israel Petitions Supported by Israeli Academics
General Articles
Anti-Israel Conferences
Anti-Israel Academic Resolutions
Lectures Interrupted
Activists Profiles
Readers Forum
On the Brighter Side
How can I complain?
Contact Us / Subscribe
General Articles
Legal Eagle - The Case of Professor Steven Salaita and Israel: The Debate about Academic Freedom in the US

Editorial Note


Steven Salaita, an associate professor of English at Virginia Tech was apparently on the verge of being hired by the department of American Indian Studies of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

However, following Salaita harsh anti-Israeli comments on social media, the Department rescinded its offer. 


Cary Nelson, a former president of the Association of American University Professors (AAUP)  and a faculty member of the University wrote that, given Salaita’s deeply biased view, the decision was justified.   But the president, Rudy Fichtenbaum, stated that Salaita’s expressions are strictly extra-curricular and that his academic freedom, along with that of the faculty who picked him, were violated.    The Native Americans and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA) followed up with its own condemnation of the University for withdrawing its offer.


While it is generally understood that extra-curricular expressions of faculty are part of academic freedom, the Salaita case exposed a close connection between his activism and scholarship.  Ostensibly, an expert on American Indian Studies, most of his publishing are on Arabs in America and, even more puzzling, on the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  His latest book, Israel’s Dead Soul is telling in this context.   According to one reader, Salatia’s scholarship is “shoddy;” replete with slogans and generalities rather than empirical research. 


At the moment, the legal ramification of the case are not clear. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has reportedly offered him a settlement to help compensate the wage loss for rescinding his job offer but some critics are saying it's not enough. According to other observers, Salaita received a written offer from the University thus opening an avenue for legal redress. 


IAM will provide updates on the case.  


NAISA Council protests the decision of Chancellor Phyllis Wise of the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign to rescind the offer of a tenured faculty position in American Indian Studies to NAISA member Dr. Steven Salaita. 

Dr. Salaita was offered the position in October 2013 following a national search and evaluation of his scholarship based on its merit and his contributions to comparative Indigenous studies. Chancellor Wise’s actions in rescinding the offer in August 2014, after Dr. Salaita had resigned his tenured position at Virginia Tech and just days before his classes were set to begin at UIUC, set a dangerous precedent. This last minute, top down decision with no faculty consultation violates the tenets of faculty governance and is a clear, profound, and deeply alarming breach of professional ethics. These actions constitute, as well, a de facto attack against American Indian Studies at UIUC, despite its carefully earned status as one of the leading programs nationally in our field. This decision, if not overturned, is sure to erode the confidence of scholars and students of American Indian and Indigenous Studies that UIUC is an open and welcoming institution that values their social, cultural, and intellectual contributions. Additionally, recent statements by both Chancellor Wise and the UIUC Board of Trustees allude to the character of Dr. Salaita’s comments on twitter about the recent Israeli invasion of Gaza as the basis for rescinding his offer, citing his supposed lack of “civility.” This action constitutes an assault on the rights of faculty members to express controversial political sentiments in the public sphere and/or to do so in unpopular ways. 

We call upon the chancellor and the university to respect faculty governance, the Program in American Indian Studies, and the faculty peer review process that evaluates candidates for tenured positions. We call on the UIUC administration to fulfill the contractual obligation to hire Dr. Steven Salaita as a tenured associate professor of American Indian Studies at UIUC.



Statement on Case of Steven Salaita

August 7, 2014
For more information, please contact Rudy Fichtenbaum
or Hank Reichman

Washington, DC–Today, Rudy Fichtenbaum, AAUP president, and Hank Reichman, first vice-president and chair of the AAUP's Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure issued the statement below.

Statement on the Case of Professor Steven G. Salaita

We have read with concern yesterday's report on insidehighered.com that the University of Illinois has apparently withdrawn a job offer to Professor Steven G. Salaita. It appears that this decision came in response to the tone of his controversial comments on Twitter about the Israeli military action in Gaza. Because both Professor Salaita and the university administration have so far declined public comment, a number of facts concerning this case remain unclear. In particular, it is not certain whether the job offer had already been made in writing when Professor Salaita was informed that he would not be hired and hence whether or not Salaita could be considered to have already acquired the rights accruing to a faculty member at Illinois.

However, if the information communicated in yesterday's report is accurate, there is good reason to fear that Professor Salaita's academic freedom and possibly that of the Illinois faculty members who recommended hiring him have been violated.

We feel it necessary to comment on this case not only because it involves principles that AAUP has long defended, but also because Cary Nelson, a former president of the Association and a current member of our Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, is quoted as approving the Illinois Chancellor's action. Professor Nelson is entitled to his opinions. Indeed, one of AAUP's great strengths is our ability to bring together many differing viewpoints and ideas, including about the meaning of academic freedom. However, we wish to make clear that Professor Nelson's comments do not reflect an official position of AAUP or of its Committee A.

While opinions differ among AAUP members on a wide range of issues, the AAUP is united in its commitment to defend academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas more broadly. On the basis of this commitment we have opposed efforts by some pro-Palestinian groups to endorse an "academic boycott" of Israel. This commitment has also led us to defend the rights of critics of Israel, including the right of faculty members such as Professor Salaita, to express their views without fear of retaliation, even where such views are expressed in a manner that others might find offensive or repugnant.

Recently we argued in a policy statement on "Academic Freedom and Electronic Communications," that faculty comments made on social media, including Twitter, are largely extramural statements of personal views that should be protected by academic freedom. While Professor Salaita's scholarship does appear to deal with the topic of Palestine, his posts were arguably not intended as scholarly statements but as expressions of personal viewpoint. Whether one finds these views attractive or repulsive is irrelevant to the right of a faculty member to express them. Moreover, the AAUP has long objected to using criteria of civility and collegiality in faculty evaluation because we view this as a threat to academic freedom. It stands to reason that this objection should extend as well to decisions about hiring, especially about hiring to a tenured position.

Rudy Fichtenbaum, President, AAUP
Henry Reichman, First Vice-President and Chair, Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, AAUP

Media Contact: 
Rudy Fichtenbaum and Hank Reichman
Publication Date: 
Thursday, August 7, 2014


Steven Salaita’s Academic Work Is Just as Hateful as His Tweets

Reading the controversial scholar’s academic publications reveals carelessness, ignorance, and a very strong bias

Like all great summer blockbusters, the Salaita affair—which, in case you missed it, involves a professor whose job offer was rescinded, presumably because of a string of strongly worded anti-Israeli tweets—is spawning a scrum of sequels pitting the same characters fighting the same battles in more or less the same formation. The rules of sequels call for more action and less sense, and the exchanges over Salaita’s curtailed career move obey, growing more comical by the moment.

One noted scholar, for example, argued that even though Salaita celebrated the kidnapping of three young Israelis by wishing all of their kin similarly disappeared, it was the university chancellor’s letter that was the real offender, “all the more violent because of its calm, rational, removed tone. This is the kind of bureaucratic language that has the power to do much more harm than an angry expletive posted about a war.”

It’s hard to think of more stark examples of Orwellian Newspeak—rational and calm speech is violent, violent speech is calm and rational. And, for the most part, Salaita’s defenders have spent the past week engaging in linguistic acrobatics that may be the stuff of legend in undergraduate semiotics classes but that are intellectually and morally worthless once they engage with the world at large, where words still sometimes have meanings and are treated as more than playthings to be molded and reshaped according to the most au courant theory. (For a particularly fine example of tongue twisting and tortured logic, see the unimprovably named essay “Clownish conflation of ascription and achievement constitutes calumny,” a missive whose very title says a thing or two about the clarity of its author’s vision).

One line of defense, however, rose above the rest. “It is just plain lazy,” wrote Feisal Mohamed, a professor of English at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the same institution that had wisely rejected Salaita, “to confine your evaluation of a scholar’s record to media allowing 140 or fewer characters.” Moved by Mohamed’s convincing argument, I set out to make the acquaintance not of Steven Salaita, composer of vile and violent tweets, but of Steven Salaita the scholar.

The first thing one learns about Salaita is that very little of what he has written seems to have anything to do with the field of study in which he claims expertise and in which he was offered a job, American Indian Studies. Look at the shelf of works authored by Salaita and you’ll see Arab American Literary Fictions, Cultures and PoliticsAnti-Arab Racism in the USA: Where it Comes from and What it Means for Politics TodayModern Arab American Fiction: A Reader’s Guide; a review of a book about Hamas, in which Salaita refers to the terrorist group as “an often contradictory and always compelling social movement”; and other titles that have absolutely nothing to do with the Sioux or the Seminoles. Salaita’s most notable work about Native Americans, The Holy Land in Transit, compares them to the Palestinians. One could argue that such a dearth of publications in a scholar’s stated area of scholarship is telling; but for the sake of grace, let us ignore Salaita’s singular dedication to Palestinian and Arab political causes—an approach more befitting of an activist’s dogmatic and narrow focus than of a scholar’s commitment to curiosity and open-mindedness—and assume that his work transcends the boundaries of discipline and is somehow instructive even if not on topic.

Sadly, reading Salaita’s work does not reward such generosity of spirit. Take, for example, the title of his latest book: Israel’s Dead Soul. Given that the book was published by a serious university press and is therefore bound by more stringent expectations than the ones that govern Twitter, why the inflammatory title?

Salaita’s attempts at an explanation are telling. He begins the book by citing a slew of articles concerned, however tangentially, with Israel’s soul, whatever that might be, everything from Daniel Gordis extolling the Jewish state’s decision to trade Palestinian prisoners for the bodies of two abducted Israelis to a harangue by Richard Silverstein about the violence the IDF commits against animals (in a display of dispassionate adherence to the facts, Salaita refers to the Israeli army not by its proper name but as the IOF, or the Israeli Occupation Forces). Such diversity of opinion would suggest that Israel’s soul is subject of a lively and robust discussion; Salaita, however, has other conclusions in mind.

First of all, he informs his readers that an obsession with a national soul is a quality unique to Israel. A brief Google search would have informed Salaita that Americans seem just as concerned with the national soul as their Israeli counterparts: The History Channel, for example, posted an online curriculum concerning the Scopes Trial titled “The Battle Over America’s Soul,” and the formulation made its way into the subtitle of a 2008 book about the battle between evolution and intelligent design. Reclaiming America’s soul was the subject of a widely circulated column by Paul Krugman, and no less Olympian a chronicler of America than Ken Burns declared that  “our national parks feed America’s soul.” This, naturally, is a careless selection of random examples that tells us nothing about America or its soul. Salaita, sadly, never offers anything more profound to support his substantial claims about Israel.

What he does offer are more wild generalities. “Those who chatter about Israel’s declining soul long ago killed it by agonizing it to death,” he writes. The notion that soul-searching leads to soullessness is preposterous, of course—a soul, like good soil, is more fertile the more it is tilled—so Salaita proceeds immediately into a strange disclaimer, arguing that he does not even believe states have souls, “metaphysically or metaphorically.” Again, it’s a statement that raises more questions than it answers—if states haven’t souls, how might Israel’s be dead? And again, Salaita is quick with another rhetorical and baseless escalation: “Israel,” he writes directly after having rejected the possibility of the concept of a national soul, “is the least likely of nations to have a soul, given its creation through ethnic cleansing.” It doesn’t take a scholar of Native American studies to think of another nation that rose into being by means of a bloody conflict with an indigenous population; Salaita mentions none of it. To him, Israel stands alone, an unparalleled and monstrous offender like no other, logical and historical demands be damned.

Such monomaniacal focus is hard to explain away, and Salaita, to his credit, knows that he ought to at least try. “I am not singling out Israel in this book,” he writes, “I am focusing on it with ardent determination and have no interest in absolving Israel or any other state either voluntarily or involuntarily. My analysis arises from a careful exploration of multitudinous sources.” This defense is laughable. First, Salaita never explains why, if he is not singling out Israel, did he choose not only to devote an entire book to its failings, some real and most imagined, but also to forgo any attempt at placing its struggles in context. If you believe, as Salaita does, that Israel is an ethnonationalist monolith engaged in systemic oppression of its neighbors in order to sustain its mythological view of itself and feed its territorial hunger, you might be interested in Russia, say, which is doing precisely the same thing in its corner of the world, with far more devastating results than anything even Israel’s harshest critics could reasonably claim. Salaita’s “careful exploration of multitudinous sources” is just as bogus: Israel, he tells us in one representative paragraph, can accurately be described an apartheid state responsible for ethnic cleansing because Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter have so decreed.

Salaita’s use of sources grows more irresponsible as the book unfurls. In a chapter dedicated to profiling the ADL as a hate group—a premise too silly to waste any time debunking—Salaita writes that “it is worth noting that numerous cases of anti-Semitic vandalism in 2007 and 2008 were found to actually have been committed by Jews.” As any serious academic would agree, something is worth noting if it represents a statistically significant occurrence; in the footnote purporting to support his claim Salaita provides no concrete numbers for how many cases of anti-Semitic vandalism were actually the handiwork of nefarious Jews, and instead offers four examples. Considering the fact that, according to Tel Aviv University’sStephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism, there have been 632 cases of violent anti-Semitic attacks during the time period Salaita examines, the examples he provides make for 0.6 percent of all total cases, hardly an exception worth noting. But read the examples carefully, and two egregious errors pop up that shed more light on Salaita’s state of mind: First, one of Salaita’s four examples is the case of a young woman who had carved a swastika on her own thigh; Salaita’s source for the story, a BBC article, makes no mention of the young woman’s ethnicity or religion, and it is unclear why he decided to present her as Jewish. More troubling is the case of Ivan Ivanov. Here is how Salaita describes the case: Ivanov, he writes, “a Bulgarian Jew in Brooklyn was arrested in January 2008, for numerous instances of spray painting anti-Semitic graffiti on houses, vehicles, and synagogues. The New York Times reported that Ivanov was trained by the Mossad.” A search of the Times’ website reveals no mention of the case, but a JTA story from the period contains a much more sober account: “The New York Times reported that Ivanov told police that he was Italian by birth, raised in Bulgaria and trained by the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.” The difference between a definitive claim sourced to a major newspaper—Ivanov was trained by the Mossad, says the New York Times—and the likely delusional account of a troubled man—Ivanov tells the Times he was trained by Mossad—is significant. A failure to distinguish between the two, even in a footnote, suggests that Salaita is either remarkably careless with the facts or happy to thwart them to support his narrative. Neither is the mark of a scholar worthy of a position in a fine American university.

It is possible to continue and pull apart Salaita’s shoddy scholarship page by page. One can find heaps of examples in which the scholar makes grand and unsubstantiated claims, such as stating confidently that “in campus promotions, Israel is usually described” as “the exclusive territory of Jews from around the world,” a claim for which he offers no serious evidence. Just as plentiful are the gross historical inaccuracies, such as the statement—as always, uncorroborated and unexplained—that Zionism, a movement with strong socialist roots and a history of affiliation with the Soviet Union, was a champion of capitalism. But these are primarily examples of neglect and of ignorance; Salaita goes much further.

“It is not Israel’s enemies but its advocates who juxtapose Israeli citizenship and Jewish identity,” he writes. “In other words, if it is true that Israel evokes anti-Semitism, then according to their own logic it is primarily the fault of Israel’s most passionate supporters.” The convoluted language—“if it is true,” “according to their own logic”—hardly helps him here, especially not in a book so heavily and patently biased. While Israel does grant citizenship to Jews wishing to settle there, it does not officially conflate Israeli citizenship and Jewish identity, a fact made obvious by the sizable non-Jewish communities that make up a full quarter of its population and by the fact that, like most other democracies, it allows applicants of all backgrounds to apply for citizenship by naturalization. The juxtaposition, then, is all Salaita’s, and it continues throughout the book. In one particularly entertaining chapter, Salaita addresses this complex issue not by analyzing the extensive body of literature already in existence but by reflecting how strange it is that some events sponsored by Hillel are focused on Israel, which to him is proof that those darn Zionists are craftily conflating Judaism and Israel and are therefore to blame, somehow, for the surge of anti-Semitism.

Because words are at the heart of this case, it’s worthwhile to read a few more of Salaita’s tortured formulations. “Hillel and other Jewish civic organizations render themselves distinctly responsible for Israel’s violence by proclaiming themselves guardians of the state’s consciousness,” he writes. “Moreover, they perform a nonconsensual appropriation of all Jewish people into the service of state policies that render the culture indefensible along with the state policies that are said to arise from the culture. It is never a good idea, even through the trope of strategic essentialism, to link an ethnic group to a military apparatus. Such a move automatically justifies discourses—in this case anti-Semitic ones—that should never be justifiable.”

How and when did a Jewish student organization render itself a guardian of Israel’s consciousness? How precisely does it perform an appropriation, nonconsensual or otherwise, of all Jewish people into Israel’s political and military apparatus, especially given the fact that there are scores of other Jewish civic organizations dedicated solely to opposing the very same Israeli policies Salaita decries? Without concrete, well-reasoned answers to these questions—answers that go beyond the observation that a Jewish student organization offers falafel at its events and encourages its members to spend a summer or a semester in Israel, a nation that all but the most rabid of haters would agree is, at the very least, of tremendous religious and historical significance to Jews—the declaration that such behaviors somehow justify anti-Semitism is abhorrent.

Anyone who still has doubts about whether or not Steven Salaita deserves an academic job should ignore his tweets and read his work. Devoid of any real understanding, context, or nuance, stupidly dogmatic, and frequently given to hyperbolic fits of hatred, it should not qualify as scholarship. Criticism of Israel, like criticism of any other nation, ideology, or organization, should be encouraged in the name of the unfettered quest for knowledge that is the ideal of the academic pursuit. But criticism of any sort can never be allowed to metastasize into sheer invective or, worse, into hate speech. By rejecting Salaita’s bid, the University of Illinois made the right decision.



 ציוץ נעוץ

I try my best to remember that we don't just stumble into political consciousness; it's better to teach than to berate or shame.

Thank you, everybody, for your support. I have received your many messages and am deeply grateful.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita Psychological rallying point for Americans. Terrorism=9/11=public unity. They aren't referred to as "terror tunels" by mistake

"Hamas" is the biggest red herring in American political discourse since Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction." #Gaza #GazaUnderAttack

When will the attack on #Gaza end? What is left for #Israel to prove? Who is left for Israel to kill? This is the logic of genocide.

Members of the Knesset routinely call for the elimination of Palestinians, so #Israel can spare us the bullshit about restraint in #Gaza.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita Lol, c'mon man.. Disaster is a little high brow of a word for them, no?

#Israel gets billions in aid, arms, and financial subsidies from the US, yet most Americans condemn imaginary Black women for welfare.

Rednecks need a new slogan. Instead of "kick their ass and take their gas," how about "#Gaza is a disaster, but Netanyahu is my master"?

Republicans are such tough guys, eager to kill 4 God and country. #Israel slaps around the US of A, though, and all they do is ask for more.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

Are you kidding? CNN: "is anybody attending the Islamic University now?" #stupid @donlemon

The dude who wrote the genocide is permissible article has an egg avatar. Total hasbara troll.

I just got an email condemning my "slander of holy Israel." I reckon I can accept "slander," but "holy" seems a bit out of place.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita @katalin_pota Israel is in a war hysteria now after Bibi kept playing on the dead teens.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

Or you could say there's a twisted logic in those more interested in their careers than stopping child killers. @stevesalaita

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita I vote for taking the annual 3 billion we give to Israel and give it to the Palestinians to rebuild Gaza.

It's a senseless world: a colonial power bombs people in hospitals and shelters and somehow the dead are called "terrorists." #Gaza

Perhaps #Obama can melt down his Nobel Prize and recast it as body armor for the children of #Gaza.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

Very disturbing. #Israel's Govt. has a high support & the complicity of its ppl in the Genocide of #Gaza @stevesalaita @elizabethmurra

Note how the Israeli soul was pure and uncorrupted until it encountered Palestinians. Same old colonial discourse, different geography.

Too much of Israeli society is cheering the bloodletting in #Gaza for me to make a firm distinction between the government and the people.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

US Senate approves $225 million for Israeli 'Iron Dome' system [didnt last long] http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4553452,00.html 

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita And when they couldn't kill us all, they tried other equally insidious ways to eradicate our culture and identity.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita Abusive spouses, too.

"#Hamas makes us do it!" This logic isn't new. American settlers used it frequently in slaughtering and displacing Natives. #Gaza

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

95 killed in Rafah alone since this bogus ceasefire. God knows how many Gazans will be crippled permananently after Israel's rampage of hate

Israeli justice: Kill Palestinians, become a hero. Investigate war crimes, get arrested. #Gaza #GazaUnderAttack pic.twitter.com/WvQD8QyGi1

#Israel reportedly bombs the Islamic University in #Gaza. This is intolerable. American professors have no excuse to remain silent.

#Israel is rounding up people and murdering them at point-blank range. The word "genocide" is more germane the more news we hear. #Gaza

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

As the phrase goes, תדע כל אם עברייה... May every Hebrew mother know what its military does to her sons. A culture of death. @AliAbunimah

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita @Adamizer1 The United States failed Philippine Colonial experiment is another example, though all but forgotten.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita Wow...that sounds so much like my own country.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

Letter from Albert Einstein & other Jewish personalities to the New York Times on Dec 2, 1948 https://archive.org/stream/AlbertEinsteinLetterToTheNewYorkTimes.December41948/Einstein_Letter_NYT_4_Dec_1948#page/n0/mode/2up  @stevesalaita @4noura

#Israel is a great example of how colonization impairs ethics and compels people to support shameful deeds in the name of atavistic ideals.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita @DiplomatEsq except this: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE95J0FR20130620?irpc=932 

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita I think torturing is not as bad in Obama's head.. considering he has been skipping that part and murdering "folks" for years.

@stevesalaita And who in the hell is "we"? I don't remember waterboarding anyone. Unless it was after that wild night in Atlantic City...

The wording of "We tortured some folks" is insidious. #Obama pretends that massive amounts of dehumanization don't accompany such actions.

Not a single reputable source has validated #Israel's claims about #Hamas using civilians, children particularly, as human shields in #Gaza.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita But why would any sane human want anything to do with #Israel?

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

.@stevesalaita What are they dreaming of? Tell me they won't feel anything if... Tell me they will continue to dream. pic.twitter.com/0bVlIbMtDN

A random person anywhere in the world can convert to Judaism and immediately have more rights in #Israel than the Indigenous Palestinians.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita @myshanona "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people” -Zinn pic.twitter.com/2AZajHWa3J

Genocide is never morally permissible. But when one group decides to forcibly settle the land of another, it is inevitable. #Gaza #Israel

The first thing anyone sees in #Gaza are children: bounteous, beautiful, boisterous, all eyes and curly hair. To harm them is unforgivable.

After the horrible winter we just had, it would be awfully nice to now have summer.

 צויץ מחדש על?ידי Steven Salaita

@stevesalaita Exactly, don't waste time arguing with baby killers. Be productive,keep tweeting, email world leaders as much as u can!#Israel

Re the article justifying genocide: at least the writer is honest enough to say aloud what other Zionists support but will not admit. #Gaza

Forget biting the hand. #Israel just devoured #Obama's arm to the shoulder blade. #Gaza #GazaUnderAttack

#Israel's message to #Obama and #Kerry: we'll kill as many Palestinians as we want, when we want. p.s.: fuck you, pay me. #Gaza

Back to "General Articles"Send Response
Top Page
    Developed by Sitebank & Powered by Blueweb Internet Services
    Visitors: 257148118Send to FriendAdd To FavoritesMake It HomepagePrint version