History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
I am presenting at this June’s SHAFR (Society of Historians of American Foreign Relations) Conference, and so wanted to check the day and time. I went to SHAFR’s reorganized website, which contains membership information and a useful international relations newsfeed. The site’s right column consists of SHAFR member op-eds, which touched on an array of international issues but were generally thoughtful in tone.
The site, however, is dominated by a SHAFR blog, which fills up around 60 percent of the homepage. The lead post when I visited was penned by University of Houston professor Bob Buzzanco. With the provocative title of “Dedicated Follower of Fascism . . . er, Fashion,” the post concluded with this jarring sentence: “The T-Shirt makers of Israel should see their business continue briskly, and could make even more money by selling rags to wipe off the blood-stained hands of the Israelis and their American patrons who are engaging in simply inhuman and brutal slaughter against the people of Gaza and Palestine.” Tags for the post included “war crimes.”
I don’t claim an intimate familiarity with Buzzanco’s scholarship (he received his Ph.D. in 1993 and has published one scholarly monograph)—although the listing of op-eds on his website suggests a figure on the far-left fringe of the ideological spectrum.
Buzzanco’s post is problematic for a number of reasons. First: the description of Israelis having “blood-stained hands” and engaging in “simply inhuman and brutal slaughter” against the people of “Palestine” (by which Buzzanco presumably means the West Bank or perhaps Israel itself, since he distinguishes the entity from Gaza) would require redefining these highly charged terms beyond meaning. Buzzanco, in any case, cites no evidence for the “Palestine” claim in his post.
Second: under international law, the allegation of war crimes is surpassed in severity only by genocide. Yet in the Gaza conflict, charges of war crimes against the Israelis were almost casually leveled, as if all civilian casualties in any war automatically constitute a war crime. In an ideal world, a blog of scholars trained in foreign relations would feature a discussion defining war crimes more precisely, noting what type of evidence would be necessary to sustain such a charge, and providing some historical context on other recent wars in which no claims of war crimes were seriously considered.
Buzzanco’s post, obviously, doesn’t come close to that level of sophistication. The Houston professor tosses in a tag of “war crimes” to his post. Yet his reference comes not to, say, the regime of Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who has been indicted for war crimes, or even the overwhelming support the Sudanese regime has received from Arab governments. Instead, offensive T-shirts of Israeli soldiers constitute the only specific piece of evidence Buzzanco cites in the post.
Third, and most importantly: while the SHAFR site features a disclaimer (“the blogs and opinion editorials are property of the respective authors and may not reflect the opinion of the Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations”), it’s hard to imagine that most casual readers, at the least, would not associate Buzzanco’s incendiary language with SHAFR as a whole. Contrast the SHAFR homepage to those of the American Historical Association and the Organization of American Historians. Both sites are professional and (especially the AHA’s) informative; both are also content-neutral.
No comparison, of course, exists between the records of the organizations and the study of foreign relations: SHAFR has consistently (if sometimes too timidly) stood up for the field in an extremely hostile academic climate, while the OAH and (especially) the AHA have gone out of their way to marginalize the study of U.S. diplomatic history. And I can see how SHAFR came up with the idea of adding a blog: for a low-traffic site, having some commentary on contemporary issues offers a way to increase volume.
Yet SHAFR—as a professional organization of scholars—is badly served by hosting posts such as Buzzanco’s on its official website. If the organization elects to continue to its blog, it should set guidelines about appropriate language and tone, and minimal expectations for evidence, in postings.
My point was not whether "such language belongs in a blog." I suspect there are hundreds of blogs--on both the far-right and far-left of the ideological spectrum--that would offer similar perspectives (in both tone and content) on Israel to that of Prof. Buzzanco.
My point was whether such language belongs on the blog on the homepage of professional organization of historians--and, more broadly, whether the homepage of a professional organization of historians should have any guidelines as to the types of topics that it features on its blog.
The suggestion that Israel employed "disproportionate levels of violence in Gaza" suggests that some sort of action would have been acceptable? That position, of course, differs from Richard Falk, whom Prof. Buzzanco cited, and who charged that Israel committed a "crime against peace"--suggesting, apparently, that international law can be so construed as to prevent a sovereign nation from responding militarily against an entity that had, over a period of years, launched weapons that deliberately targeted the sovereign nation's civilians.
Robert KC Johnson -
4/3/2009
I don't support "restricting content because some people disagree with it strongly." I do believe that a professional organization, if it chooses to make a blog 60 percent of its homepage, can (and should!) set guidelines as to the types of topics that are appropriate for the blog and the types of topics that are not.
I should say, by the way, I'd be considerably less concerned about this issue if there were, say, a link on the SHAFR homepage to the blog. The fact that the blog is the homepage makes the matter different.
Ralph E. Luker -
4/2/2009
This is the first time I've ever been called an apologist for Israel. I hope Professor Buzzanco pays closer attention to evidence at hand than he has here.
Bob Buzzanco -
4/2/2009
Did you read his original post? And much of what he, and you, have said is drivel, though I don't think I used that word. Have you actually read any of my blogs or are you just parroting the drivel of KC Johnson? All of them have citations from media outlets withe evidence of the claims I make. Haaretz had a recent powerful article with the testimonies of IDF soldiers about the war crimes they committed.
The UN, Amnesty International, heads of foreign governments--basically the entire world except the U.S.--hold Israel accountable for war crimes. I'm a historian and it would be derelict for me to ignore that or cover it up. The real point here is that you and KCJ are upset that I've exposed the Zionist thugs in Israel and their atrocities, which have been well-documented, as you'd know if you'd actually read the essays I wrote.
You obviously know about MLK's 4 April 1967 speech, and you know the response it elicited. You're doing the same thing that the White House, liberal politicians and media did--attack him because they found his message distasteful.
I'm not going to participate in this anymore. You guys want a hallelujah chorus, not a debate, especially one that you can never win. I hope you realize you're in a tiny global minority with your apologetics for Israel. That's the real point and you know it.
I'm outta here. I've wasted far too much time on this gibberish.
Viva Palestine.
Mitch Lerner -
4/1/2009
I guess we will just have to disagree on this one, KC. I think I have a different conception of a blog than you do. But leaving that aside, let me ask you this: even if we were to agree that Ralph or Rick has the right to ask you to stop posting if you were to become exceedingly inappropriate, who is it in SHAFR who you think should be empowered to decide what fits that criteria? HNN is a private web page in the sense that it has an owner in Rick, and is not funded nor organized by a specific society. The SHAFR web page is different in that it exists to serve a specific constituency of dues-paying members who interact as equals within that organization. Are you comfortable with someone else deciding what is and is not appropriate content in such a forum? I am not. Of course I recognize the need to not have egregious personal attacks or inappropriate language, so in those cases action by the webmaster might be necessary. But what we are talking about here is restricting content because some people disagree with it strongly. That strikes me as the exact opposite of what should happen in any academic setting, let alone one that is by its very nature designed to offer a forum for the expression of personal opinions.
Ralph E. Luker -
4/1/2009
Leadership doesn't demean the speech of people with whom you disagree. You have done that to both KC and me. I wouldn't tell either my students or my colleagues that what they said was "drivel". You need to set an example of thoughtful speech -- not engage in name-calling.
Do you hold the United States responsible for every idiotic thing that gets printed on a T shirt here? Cite the evidence of Israeli soldiers statements about war crimes -- that is evidence. Smearing attacks on "Zionists" is nothing more than a McCarthy-like smear.
Bob Buzzanco -
4/1/2009
Leadership? What's the point? I wrote a blog about Israel's atrocities. What does that have to do with leadership? Leaders shouldn't expose things that make people uncomfortable? That's what you're saying. In my mind, leadership means you stand up for the oppressed and give a voice to the voiceless. What's happening in Palestine isn't some game of patty-cake; it's state-sanctioned atrocity.
As for the t-shirts, of what relevance is there that the "state of Israel" created them? What's the point of that? They're being openly worn with the approval of IDF officers. As my students might say, "Duh."
Ralph E. Luker -
4/1/2009
About language: you are a department chairman. Show some leadership.
On substance: how about showing, for example, some evidence that the state of Israel is responsible for creating the T shirts to which you refer?
Bob Buzzanco -
4/1/2009
SHAFR sponsors the blog, but all the words in it are mine. It's silly to quibble over calling it "my blog."
In fact, the bigger question is why there's even a discussion of what is "appropriate" to publish? When did academic discourse have to pass a litmus test? Aren't intellectuals supposed to disagree vigorously?
I have not called anyone a pederast or accused them of bestiality or other such personal perversions.
I'm making a point, one well-established [if you haven't noticed, my blog--ooops, I did it again, calling it mine--is full of citations to the articles I use to provide evidence for my point.
Using white phosphorous isn't a war crime? Making t-shirts that advocate killing pregnant women isn't wholly repulsive and inhuman?
Really, this is all sideshow. The real point is that I've called out the Zionist thugs who are killing people randomly in Palestine. Let's have a debate on that, not on this b.s. about "appropriate" language.
Telling people whether they can say something, or how to say it, is censorship. It's not hard to figure that out and censorship is repulsive.
I'm not asking Rick Schenckman to take down KC Johnson's nonsense about me and SHAFR and I never would. KC Johnson has every right to scribble down his inanities and share them with the world. Just don't accuse me of pedophilia or bestiality or other such things and I'm fine with whatever he writes.
Let's all grow up.
William Walker -
4/1/2009
Given the disproportionate levels of violence employed in Gaza, it is hard to reject the charges of "blood-stained hands" that Professor Buzzanco and international human rights groups (and some Israeli soldiers) have made. The question here is whether such language belongs in a blog. That is, is such language professional and of proper demeanor for a blog? There are no profanities in the Buzzanco blog. What demeanor is called for given the horriffic imbalance of force that was there for the world to see? Perhaps, rather like Warren Christopher, Buzzanco should have used the more polite, artful formulation "akin to blood-stained hands." Then maybe, just maybe, we could all get to the real point which Buzzanco called for in an earlier comment.
Ralph E. Luker -
4/1/2009
Professor Buzzanco, I am probably closer to you than to KC on whether Israel committed war crimes in Gaza, but KC's point remains. When you refer to "my blog", that's just incorrect. It is, first of all, SHAFR's blog and, secondly, as a group blog, your colleagues' blog. Only tertially is it "my blog". And the point would be that you have obligations of professional language and demeanor that you are ignoring. Try to be worthy of SHAFR's tolerance of you.
Bob Buzzanco -
4/1/2009
If that's your real point, then it's nonsensical. HNN gives you space to offer up the gibberish that qualifies as your thoughts. That's what blogs do. My father used to say, "don't piss on me and tell me it's raining" and that's what you're doing. I am certain that if my blog had praised the thugs in Tel Aviv you would have had no problem with it.
Aren't there some affluent white drunk white boys buying hookers you need to save somewhere?
Robert KC Johnson -
4/1/2009
I'm assuming that Prof. Buzzanco isn't terribly familiar with me, but if I have a reputation for nothing else, it is saying what I think.
If my issue were "not with SHAFR hosting a blog," I would not have written about "SHAFR hosting a blog."
Robert KC Johnson -
4/1/2009
As I said above, it's my sense that homepages of professional organizations are different than, say, HNN, or a blog like Volokh or Daily Kos. (Given the design of their webpages, the AHA and OAH seem to agree.) I concede, however, I had never really thought about this issue before looking at the SHAFR page, and it might be that this is the direction that we'll see more organizations heading, if only to increase traffic.
On the question of whether I would be comfortable on HNN placing restrictions on what I submit--the answer is yes, absolutely. Obviously if I regularly posted on wildly off topic matters, HNN could and should ask me to post elsewhere. But if either Ralph or Rick Shenkman had an objection to the tone of my posts--or if I regularly made very strong claims without providing any evidence to corroborate--it certainly would be within their rights to approach me. I think that comes with the territory in a blog posted on a general site.
Bob Buzzanco -
3/31/2009
KC doth protest too much. His issue is not with SHAFR hosting a blog, but with the opinions expressed, in this case that Israel has committed war crimes. The UN, Amnesty International and scores of international jurists have offered this opinion.
If I have to choose between Richard Falk's opinion and KC Johnson's, it's not a tough call.
He's using the red herring of SHAFR sponsoring a blog to avoid defending the criminal Zionist actions taking place in Palestine.
Let's call things as they are.
Mitch Lerner -
3/31/2009
KC, I think you are way off-base here. If SHAFR decides to host a group of bloggers, much in the manner that HNN does with Cliopatria, the only responsibility the organization has is to ensure that its contributors have legitimate qualifications in the field of diplomatic history, and then to provide them with a forum to express their ideas freely. If people disagree with these views, they are free to respond in the comments section, write an op-ed, request the opportunity to respond on the blog itself, etc. Now I don't agree with Bob on this post, but he is a legitimate scholar and an active member of SHAFR, and hence has the right to post his thoughts to the organization webpage.
The whole point of a blog is that it is a way for people to present their unvarnished thoughts to those who might be interested, unfiltered by any mediating forces. A blog is not, to use your words "a place for discussion," but a place for someone or a group of someones to express their opinions. Would you be comfortable with an organization, say HNN, inviting you to blog but then placing restrictions on the content that you submit?
Robert KC Johnson -
3/31/2009
The presence of the Buzzanco post suggests that there are no guidelines in either tone or relationship between the content of a post and the mission of SHAFR.
A post by another SHAFR blogger, for instance, leads off with the following material: "The pimps have left the building. Yeah, I said it. The Bush administration acted like a gang of pimps at a Player’s Ball that lasted eight years." That, too, doesn't strike me as the appropriate tone for a professional organization's homepage.
As I noted in my response to Ralph (which accidentally got posted below Jeff's comment), I can see the potential value of a professional organization's blog (as in the post you linked to, although the op-eds strike me as better).
I don't think, by the way, that there needs (or even should) be ideological balance on such a blog, that the presence of someone like Prof. Buzzanco requires the presence of someone from the far-right fringe of the ideological spectrum. My objection revolves around the question of whether a blog on a professional organization's homepage needs to have minimum standards of tone & substance.
Robert KC Johnson -
3/31/2009
The difference is that HNN isn't the homepage for a professional organization of historians.
It seems to me that the homepage of a professional organization should have some relationship to its mission. I could see the value in a SHAFR blog (though, frankly, not one that takes up 60% of the organization's homepage), but presumably the blog would need to have minimum standards (especially in tone) and have some relationship to the organization's purpose. The op-eds on the SHAFR page strike me as an intriguing model. Another might be--as I suggested in the post--posts that place contemporary events in informed historical context. I don't see how Prof. Buzzanco's insights fulfill either goal.
Jeff Vanke -
3/31/2009
But it's SHAFR's blog, not his own. A challenge for history blogs is to stay focused on history as such, even if it's the most recent history with strong opinions.
One feature of HNN that I find unappealing are the reams of historian commentary on current developments, where being a historian does not really add to the qualifications to discuss those developments (and where journalists or social scientists may be more qualified to do so). Cliopatria and Breaking News are usually the only parts I read.
Ralph E. Luker -
3/31/2009
I'm not sure what the objection can be. It's a signed, personal statement -- just as KC's post here is a signed personal statement. The author nowhere claims to be speaking for SHAFR, any more than I anywhere claim to speak for HNN.
Jonathan Dresner -
3/31/2009
Did you look at other postings there, or is the presence of Buzzanco sufficient to condemn the entire exercise to perdition?
I couldn't tell from a quick perusal: is it a volunteer-anyone-can-post community-style thing which conservatives are avoiding, or is there a list of approved contributors somewhere which is reasonably balanced but the conservatives aren't posting?
