Category Archives: Neutrality and Complicity

The Fog of War

Posted on by under Neutrality and Complicity, Notes on the Anti-War Movement, War with Iran

An Israeli security analyst on the supposed virtues of Israeli military strategy:

When you are the one initiating–not the one caught off guard–you can fight a war on two fronts more effectively,” said Sarit Zehavi, an Israeli analyst who studied Hezbollah for over 20 years, first as an Israeli intelligence officer, then as the head of Alma, an Israeli defense think tank focusing on Syria and Lebanon (“Israel’s plans in Lebanon, prepared well in advance, include the option of a deeper incursion, officials say,” The New York Times, March 3, 2026).

Something equally obvious: when “you are the one initiating,” you’re the one engaged in aggression, and you’re the one who forfeits any right of self-defense. So the advantage you gain in strategy is one you lose in morality, which translates to a loss of sympathy in a lot of people, including the ones you call “allies.” Continue reading →

This Be the Hearse

Posted on by under activism, Neutrality and Complicity, Notes on the Anti-War Movement, War with Iran

David French on the “legal and moral justifications for war” against Iran:

There is little question that we have many legal and moral justifications for war. When Trump spoke about Americans killed by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, that struck home for me. We lost men in my own unit to Iranian-backed militias using Iranian-supplied munitions. I knew those men, and I will never forget the terrible days when they fell.

In other words, twenty years ago, the United States initiated a war of aggression against Iraq premised on florid, systematic lies. The victims fought back, killing some of the aggressors. In answer to those acts of self-defense, we’re now obliged to initiate yet another war of aggression, this time against Iran, eliciting yet another round of defensive attacks by the successors of yesteryear’s victims. Continue reading →

Institutional Neutrality and the Problem of the Faculty Administrator

Posted on by under activism, Neutrality and Complicity, Notes on the Anti-War Movement

When I taught philosophy at Felician University (2008-2020), I was first Assistant and then Associate Professor of Philosophy, but I was also Chair of the Department of Philosophy, Coordinator of the Pre-Law Program, and Director of the Felician Institute for Ethics and Public Affairs. The first two were specifically academic titles, the last three administrative or quasi-administrative ones.

When George Abaunza, a professor of philosophy, became the Dean of Arts and Sciences, he insisted on retaining a 1:0 teaching load in philosophy, “just to keep his hand in the teaching game.” That request was granted, so he was, during his tenure as Dean, both an administrator and a member of the faculty. He also led the University’s General Education overhaul, which led to the complete overhaul of the Gen Ed curriculum as well as the University’s curriculum as such–just one of several quasi-administrative positions he held.   Continue reading →

Iran as a “War of Choice”

Posted on by under Neutrality and Complicity, Notes on the Anti-War Movement, War with Iran

Wherever you go, you’ll find imperialist wars described, particularly by their self-styled liberal opponents, as “wars of choice.” Having described a given war as a “war of choice,” the critic will then go on to criticize it as ill-conceived and ill-executed while conceding the underlying reason for going to war. The unspoken implication is that the same war, conceived and executed more competently, would have been perfectly justified. It’s just that this particular iteration is not. Continue reading →

Iran and the Perpetuity of Empire

Posted on by under Neutrality and Complicity, Notes on the Anti-War Movement, War with Iran

The Intercept reports that Trump is menacing Iran with a massive armada capable of prolonged war. The Times of Israel is talking about a “countdown” to war. The Washington Post reports that satellite imagery shows a rapid increase of US military planes near Iran. Responsible Statecraft’s lead story concerns the inadequacy of airpower to achieve Trump’s stated goals in Iran: ground troops would be required. The Guardian’s top five stories concern the imminence of a US attack on Iran, same with Reuters. The Financial Times has a top story on the imminent Iran war as a crisis of Trump’s own making. Continue reading →

When Self-Defense Is “Terror”

Posted on by under Neutrality and Complicity, Notes on the Anti-War Movement, War with Iran

A recent article in The New York Times by its so-called “national security correspondent” is an indication of how incompetent mainstream journalists are, and how unreflectively eager they are to do the bidding of the national security establishment they supposedly cover. The article is “Iran Could Direct Proxies to Attack U.S. Targets Abroad, Officials Warn,” by Eric Schmitt. Nothing in it is newsworthy or news. All of the work in it is done by its brainless and tendentious reliance on the term “terrorism.” Continue reading →

War Is Peace

Posted on by under Neutrality and Complicity, Notes on the Anti-War Movement, War with Iran

We’re reportedly about to go to war with Iran. I just checked a minute ago: The lead story at The New York Times is the Supreme Court’s tariff decision; likewise The Washington Post and MS NOW. At CNN, the lead story is Trump’s trade war. At Fox, it’s a toss up between the trade war and a debit card scandal in California. And so on. Literally business as usual. The pattern is clear enough: as we prepare for war, the thing to do is to turn inward and turn away from it in a spirit of make-believe. Tariffs matter more than war. Trump matters more than war. Debit cards matter more than war. At this point, anything matters more than war. War is imminent, hence unreal. 

War, in short, has become normalized in the familiar imperial way, by equating peace with perpetual warfare confined to the periphery of empire, and to the peripheries of consciousness. It’s out there, hence not here, hence nowhere.  Continue reading →

From Diversity to Neutrality: Rebutting the “Key Move”

Posted on by under activism, Neutrality and Complicity, Notes on the Anti-War Movement, Palestine

This is the précis of a paper I’ll be giving at the virtual/online component of the 2026 conference of the Association of Practical and Professional Ethics. The conference takes place April 10; the paper is called, “From Diversity to Neutrality: Rebutting the ‘Key Move’ of the Kalven Committee Report.” Last year I gave a different paper at the on-ground version of the conference, discussing institutional neutrality’s failure to deal with complicity in injustice. 

Institutional neutrality is the doctrine that institutions like universities should refrain from taking public positions on matters of public controversy. The locus classicus of the doctrine is the so-called Kalven Committee Report (KCR) issued at the University of Chicago in 1967. According to the KCR, the core mission of the ideal university is the “discovery, improvement, and dissemination of knowledge” in the service of teaching and research. This mission, we’re told, requires the maximization of intellectual diversity, which in turn requires or entails institutional neutrality. I call this “the key move” of the KCR’s argument. Continue reading →

The West Orange Anti-Semitism Task Force (2)

Posted on by under activism, Neutrality and Complicity, Palestine

Second Statement to West Orange Town Council on its Proposed Anti-Semitism Task Force
66 Main St
West Orange, New Jersey
February 10, 2026

Last time I was here, I criticized a proposal for an anti-Semitism task force. In response, some speakers suggested that I was being insensitive to the dangers faced by Jews in West Orange. I don’t agree, so I’m going to respond. Continue reading →

You Say You Want a Revolution

Posted on by under activism, Neutrality and Complicity, Notes on the Anti-War Movement, Palestine

The local papers around Princeton are gushing over an event that took place in town this morning:

In 1776, the New Jersey Legislature convened for the first time in Nassau Hall, the ivy-covered building that is now the centerpiece of Princeton University’s campus.

It was wartime, but the new legislators kept busy: within months, they had adopted the state’s first constitution, elected the state’s first governor, and kick-started preparations to help the Continental Army fight British redcoats. The British eventually seized the building, before being kicked out again by George Washington’s army in the Battle of Princeton, but by then the legislators had moved on.

Two-hundred-fifty years later, as the United States prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of its independence, the New Jersey Assembly returned to Nassau Hall to celebrate its role in New Jersey’s revolutionary history.

“Today isn’t simply a change in venue for us,” Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin said. “It’s a return home, a return to our beginnings, to the place where our Legislature first met in 1776 at the dawn of a new and uncertain democracy.”

The Assembly approved a series of ceremonial resolutions honoring New Jersey’s role in the American Revolution, Princeton University’s 280th anniversary, the New Jersey National Guard, and battleships named for New Jersey, among others.

The celebrants included Lt. Gov. Dale Caldwell, Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber, and British Consul General to New York Oliver Christian.

Continue reading →