Uh no, it’s about bogus academics being refused tenure.
Bye Bye.

That’s OK, there’s enough cross-referenced material to more than show that

El-Haj produced a racist ideological polemic rather than a serious archeological study.

..and yes this issue parallels the Finkelstein matter. Same doo-doo different day. If these are ” intellectuals ” that you admire, then
GOOD LUCK!

It is frightening to see how people can try to steal any form of critical thinking or research investigation unless it is for their own personal benefit or organizations! We wonder where hate and wars start!

Customer reviews of El-Haj’s book:

Unimpressive and unconvincing, February 7, 2006

By Jill Malter (jillmalter@aol.com) –
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)
Oh yes, this book asks some interesting questions. But one has to be a little suspicious of its point of view.

Many of us know that Ed Said attacked the entire field of Oriental Studies as merely a political device to support colonialism. That certainly appeared dubious to those of us who saw scholars as people who were genuinely interested in learning about the subject. Now we see a similar set of questions about archaeology. And now it is Nadia Abu El-Haj who is wondering about the extent to which people use archaeology as a political device.

I suspect that almost all archaeologists are genuinely interested in their subject. I can’t believe that many of them want to be archaeologists merely for political reasons. But that does leave unanswered the question of whether some archaeological research has become rather political in nature. And I can see why folks might want to ask such a question, given the way that some scholars have turned much of the work in Middle East Studies into rather useless political propaganda.

Some of the other reviewers of this book have dismissed this work as pure anti-Zionist political propaganda, not just because it attacks Israel but due to a paucity of scholarly material. They point out the author’s lack of detailed discussions of what archaeology is and how it works. And while there is some material here about what Israeli archaeologists have been looking for, there isn’t a detailed appraisal of what these archaeologists have indeed discovered. If there were, it would give us a better chance to determine if there has been something systematically wrong with what most of these archaeologists have been doing.

Plenty of people are interested in the past. That includes Israelis. After all, some Israelis can trace their ancestry back for many generations. They are aware that Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital for quite a while, including the past three millennia. It is not surprising that many are interested in discovering what archaeology can tell them about that time period and that some are enthusiastic about participating. And it is not surprising that archaeologists have indeed discovered quite a bit.

It is a good idea to ask if archaeologists could do better work. But I don’t think the author does a very convincing job here. Are Arab artifacts being overlooked? Are bulldozers being used that destroy the small and recent Arab artifacts but not the larger and older Hebrew ones? Those could be good questions, but I don’t see much scholarly investigation into this.

El-Haj spends plenty of time discussing politics, but I don’t see much scholarship in this. She complains about the use of Hebrew names, but I don’t understand such a criticism. If there were a study of Germanic culture in Vienna, I’d hardly expect it to use the word “Becs” rather than “Wien” as the name of that city.

There are some interesting claims in this book. Obviously, I could not overlook the author’s quote of Clermont-Ganneau, who said that the peasants in the Levant were “resigned Mussulmans” when the Muslims ruled, “bad Christians” when the Christians ruled, “mediocre Jews,” and “fervent Pagans.” That’s music to my ears, but is it even true? Matter of fact, just how much continuity was there from one group to the next? And if it is true, why doesn’t the author advocate a return to the Paganism that obviously is best suited to that area, rather than the monotheistic religions that appear to have developed in that region?

El-Haj says that “the struggle to realize a Jewish presence upon the land is perhaps best understood, quite literally, as having been a conflict over the problem of presence. Archaeology, for its part, developed into yet one more dimension and ongoing practice of kibbush (of conquest).” Goodness Gracious! She even sounds, quite literally, like Said!

The author explains early in the book that some folks see archaeology as a science while others see it as a social product. Well, I see it as a scholarly field, and I think that any other approach is unworthy of the name. If El-Haj wants to some up with some constructive criticism about what Israeli archaeologists are doing, it ought to be on that basis. And she hasn’t done that.

Instead, she’s written a political manifesto in which scholarship is something of a side issue.

Just another pathetic attempt attacking Israel, October 11, 2005

By joseph (United States) -

The woman that wrote this work of fiction is not even an archeologist. In fact she has never even visited the nation of Israel during an archaelogical dig. It is not surprising that she is part of the Colombia University gang of Arab Muslims that attacks and attempts to delegitimize Israel.

When will they learn they must overcome their own fallacies instead of blaming Israel and scapegoating Jewish people for their troubles.

Propaganda, not Archeology – anti-Israel , October 10, 2005

By B. Nitzberg “tired of racism” (united states) –

I have a backround in archeology and have dig experience. i am interested in the archeology of the Holy Land (Israel/Palestine/Levant).

I found this book worthless. It is just one , big, hot-air- filled polemic denouncing Israel and Judaism. This is bereft of all insight and discussion of actual archeology and its practices.

It could be argued that this is a study not of archeology, but of a history of archeology. But using that pious fraud Said as a model makes this without value as well.

I was shocked and distraught over the action of the Muslim Waqf in its destructive “remodeling” lf the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa Mosque from 1996-2000. It seems archeology has no value to the PLO and, as noted by this book, by El-Haf. Well, it has value to me.

This is nothing but a crude political attack on the legitimacy of Israel. More ‘pseudo-history from the PLO.

By Ben Harris Published: 08/14/2007

NEW YORK (JTA) — A brewing battle over tenure for a polarizing Barnard College professor is threatening to thrust Columbia University back into the center of a controversy over its academic treatment of the Middle East.

Nadia Abu El-Haj, an assistant professor of anthropology at Barnard, is the author of “Facts on the Ground,” a 2001 book that questions archaeological claims regarding the ancient Jewish presence in Israel and argues that Israeli archaeologists legitimize the Jewish state’s “origin myth.”

An online petition against Abu El-Haj had garnered nearly 1,000 signatures as of Tuesday, the bulk of them from students and graduates of Barnard or Columbia University, its institutional parent.

“This woman has written and made statements that are not based in fact and refused to recognize fact,” said Elaine Bloom, a Barnard graduate and former Democratic member of the Florida House of Representatives who said she would reconsider her support for the college if the tenure decision goes forward. “And I think it’s a very harmful direction from somebody who is in a professorial position.”

Neither Barnard nor Columbia would reveal any details about the status of Abu El-Haj’s tenure application, though Barnard has confirmed that the tenure process is under way. Abu El-Haj and Barnard President Judith Shapiro denied requests for comment.

The wall of silence has fueled speculation that Shapiro, herself a professor of anthropology, has secretly endorsed the tenure application. If correct, final approval would rest with a committee appointed by Columbia Provost Alan Brinkley, sources familiar with the university said. Brinkley’s office also declined requests for comment.

The controversy over El-Haj threatens to raise questions anew about the integrity of Columbia’s scholarship on the Middle East, which first came under fire in 2004 with the release of a documentary film alleging university professors intimidated and embarrassed pro-Israel students who challenged them in class. A committee of inquiry subsequently found only one example of improper behavior, leading critics to call the report a whitewash.

Since then, pro-Israel groups have become ever more vigilant in monitoring university campuses. Meanwhile, Columbia’s president, Lee Bollinger, has labored to improve the school’s tarnished image, most recently by becoming the lead signatory to a statement published in the New York Times opposing an academic boycott of Israel.

If El-Haj’s tenure is approved, much of that progress could be undone. It could also hurt the university financially.

Bloom, Maxine Schwartz and Helene Berger — all Florida-based Barnard alums — met with Shapiro in March in Miami to communicate their concerns about Abu El-Haj. Schwartz and Berger both told JTA they would cease support for Barnard if the professor is granted tenure.

“The credibility of Barnard is on the line,” said Berger, who has contributed to Barnard for each of the 52 years since she graduated.

“It’s one thing to have different points of view, but to have someone with this perspective — I think as a Barnard graduate, the damage that so-called scholars can inflict on a university that I care about is very strong,” she said. “There’s no pursuit of truth here. It’s just merely a book to support her own political objectives.”

Professors bristle at the notion that tenure decisions may be subject to outside pressure, a concern most recently manifested in Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz’s very public campaign against tenure for Norman Finkelstein at Depaul University. In a message posted on the Barnard Alumnae Affairs Web site, Shapiro echoed that concern.

“Please understand that I greatly appreciate your feedback,” Shapiro said. “I always want to respond to any concerns our alumnae may have. At the same time, I will share with you my concern about communications and letter-writing campaigns orchestrated by people who are not as familiar with Barnard as you are, and who may not be in the best position to judge the matter at hand.”

At issue is Abu El-Haj’s only book, which argues that archaeology in Israel was used to legitimize the “colonial” enterprise that was the founding and territorial expansion of Israel. Among her accusations is that Israeli archaeologists bulldozed Palestinian artifacts to more quickly access Jewish ones.

Scholars are divided on the book’s merits. David Ussishkin, a Tel Aviv professor and one of Israel’s most celebrated archaeologists, has defended the excavation methods Abu El-Haj criticized. William Dever, an emeritus professor of archaeology at the University of Arizona and the author of many books on the ancient Near East, told the New York Sun late last year that Abu El-Haj should be denied tenure, calling her work “faulty, misleading and dangerous.”

On the other side, Michael Herzfeld, an anthropology professor at Harvard, characterized Abu El-Haj’s work as “meticulous scholarship and even-handedness” in a blurb published on the book’s back cover. Others have lauded Abu El-Haj’s contribution to understanding how national priorities shape academic work on history and archaeology.

“At the heart of her critique is an undisguised political agenda that regards modern and ancient Israel, and perhaps Jews as a whole, as fictions.

“Abu El Haj’s anthropology is undone by her… ill-informed narrative, intrusive counter-politics, and by her unwillingness to either enter or observe Israeli society…

“The effect is a representation of Israeli archaeology that is simply bizarre… Filling in what is missing from her text becomes fatiguing. In the end there is no reason to take her picture of Israeli archaeology seriously, since her selection bias is so glaring.

“What then are the real goals the book? It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the effort is designed to contribute to the deconstruction of the legitimacy of Israel as a modern, and ancient, entity. Her current research on the “use of genetic evidence in historical inquiry, specifically attempts to isolate distinctive genetic markers of Jewishness through which ancient histories of migration are being traced and claims to Jewish descent evaluated. This project will examine the implications of genomics for questions of history and identity, race and territory at the turn of the new millennium”

“Abu El Haj concludes on a truly shocking note, suggesting that with the destruction of the archaeological site called ‘Joseph’s Tomb,’ an attack during which a real person, a no doubt hybridized Israeli Druze named Yusuf Mahdat, was killed, “Palestinian demonstrators eradicated one of Israel’s ‘facts on the ground’” (p. 281). Are scholars now in the business of advocating the eradication of ‘facts’ rather than their explanation?

“Abu El Haj has written a flimsy and supercilious book, which does no justice to either her putative subject or the political agenda she wishes to advance. It should be avoided.”

Alexander H. Joffe has dug for several seasons at Meggido.
Lecturer in Archaeology
Purchase College, SUNY

The answer is yes. Universities and other facilities of higher learning in democratic countries are going to continue to hire people for their efforts, accomplishments and qualifications and will fire or deny tenure to those who are found out to be frauds and/or plagiarists.

Nadia Abu El-Haj?

Another brilliant academic! Hahahahah! Looks like she’s cut from the same cloth as Finkelstein.

She wrote an archeological study to the effect that Jews have no historical connection to the Land of Israel. And passed herself off as an archeologist without any bona fide qualifications.

Here’s what the Journal of Near Eastern Studies has to say about her:

“At the heart of her critique is an undisguised political agenda that regards modern and ancient Israel, and perhaps Jews as a whole, as fictions.

“Abu El Haj’s anthropology is undone by her… ill-informed narrative, intrusive counter-politics, and by her unwillingness to either enter or observe Israeli society…

“The effect is a representation of Israeli archaeology that is simply bizarre… Filling in what is missing from her text becomes fatiguing. In the end there is no reason to take her picture of Israeli archaeology seriously, since her selection bias is so glaring.

Go to Finkelstein’s web site and see the student’s letter of support and see all of his classes are filled up for September!!! This letter was sent to DePaul as well.

Women In Black, is still alive and well. As you know, WIB works to protest wars, rape as a tool of war, ethnic cleansing, and support human rights.
They are in many cities in the USA, England, Israel, Canada, and many more countries (check out their web sites). International Conference is 16-20 Aug 2007 in Spain.
They have had silent vigils calling for an end to the Israel occupation of
Palestine and blood for oil for years!
They were nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize in the past. Every year they have their conference in majoy cities around the world!
The group meets in NYC on Wednesdays to hold silent vigils for peace.
http://www.womeninblack.org.uk and many many more sites on the web!

However, this is getting off topic, (or is it?) of Professor Larudee, Professor Finkerstein, and now a new member of this group…Professor Nadia Abu El-Hag.
It appears, according to Aug 15, 2007 issue of Chronicle of Higher Education “Alumni group seeks to deny tenure to Middle Eastern scholar at Barnard College”. She is an anthropologist. The reason: “she if flawed and skewed against Israel”. Big surprise
Sounds like I have heard this song before…but are we going to keep allowing this to be played again and again on campuses across the USA?

Israel has no right to exist and has no right to defend its civilian population from daily terror attack.

By no means the first or the last passive aggressive pro-terror far-left hate Jews and Israel causes. That there were Jews among them was a curiosity and confused some outsiders for a time.

And current events have far out-paced their reason for being. Israel and the Abbas Regime are working together towards a viable 2 state solution in the middle of a very complex political situation.

Limiting education? Where did you dream that up from? Certainly not from anything I posted.

So Finkelstein’s been outed as a phony again and sent down the road holding his ass. So what? It’s the university’s prerogative.

And thank you for comparing Israel with Nazi Germany (yawn). That’s original too. Not.

Yes I’m being sarcastic. There’s no comparing the 2 situations. Unless you’re maybe mentally ill.

Dershowitz’s personal advocacy of Israel’s murderous genocide shows his distorting and lawyerly cowardice. His documented double dealing fabrications and outright lying do a masterful job of shaming the very best of his Abrahamic heritage.

All the cyber typists on the Lobby’s payroll, as well as all the billions for peeyar can’t stop the world from observing the Zionist hatred in action.