Kevin Jon Heller blogs at Opinio Juris.
At a post discussing the "Apartheid" Report of Falk & Khalaf, he wrote:
As critical as I am of Israel’s unconscionable oppression of and violence toward Palestinians, I have never accused Israel of practicing apartheid. But there is absolutely no justification for the UN suppressing an official report issued by one of the regional offices of the Economic and Social Council — particularly in response to pressure from the object of that report (and its chief enabler). Nor is this the first time the UN has bowed to Israeli pressure...
Comments were commented and I caught something he wrote:
Amazingly, I have spent far more than 10 minutes in Ramallah — days, actually — with Palestinians who knew full well that I’m Jewish, and yet I somehow lived to tell the tale…
and published this, third paragraph:
Heller came back and we have this there now:
He's replied and there is an exchange, notably this:
Kevin Jon Heller
Yes, nothing demonstrates prejudice quite like quoting high-ranking Israel officials’ own words…
...Your response to Yisreal is weird. Drawing a line from “expressing less than favorable views” to ” referring to their children as “little snakes” is bizarre. You are also being quite dishonest when you say you quoted Shaked in her “own words”. Those were not her “own words” and you ignore the context. It is also irrelevant to the discussion here, but I can see why you want to change the subject.
Kevin Jon Heller
I get it. It’s tired and pathetic, but I get it — everyone who criticises Israel is, by dint of their criticism, biased. Only those who defend Israel are objective. The myopia is staggering, but it’s entirely predictable.
The really weird matter is that in writing “Yes, nothing demonstrates prejudice quite like quoting high-ranking Israel officials’ own words…”, KJH was either misconstruing what I had referred to or didn’t quite grasp it.
I had written “Can a Jew or even a Christian expressing less than favorable views about Palestinians be as free in Ramallah or try Hebron or, better, Shchem/Nablus?” and he refers to the most extremist instance of Ayelet Shaked’s remarks (and I won’t get into whether they were her words, quoted or whether she apologized or not for that is not the point). From my “less than favorable” to her “snakes” is a trick that a law professor should not be engaged in.
Unlike Kumar, I do think he has control of brain and limbs. Or, to be a university professor, he should. His frothing and ranting on political and ideological issues are unseemly.