Jasbir Puar Obsessive Demonology as a Research Agenda

Key Findings:

The author offers an in-depth critique of Jasbir Puar, a Rutgers University professor known for her anti-Zionist positions, particularly those expressed in her book The Right to Maim and her 2016 lecture at Vassar College. Puar’s academic work is driven by an explicit ideological commitment to anti-Zionism, which she openly acknowledges as her hermeneutic framework. Rather than adhering to conventional scholarly methods that prioritize evidence, methodological rigor, and engagement with counterarguments, Puar embraces speculative, politically charged narratives, presenting them as academic inquiry. Her work exemplifies how political activism—especially anti-Israel sentiment—can distort academic standards, compromise peer review, and undermine the credibility of entire disciplines within the humanities.

Nelson focuses on three of Puar’s most inflammatory claims: that Israel harvests organs from dead Palestinians, deliberately stunts the growth of Palestinian children by manipulating food access, and engages in a calculated policy of maiming rather than killing Palestinians in order to maintain their control over a visibly damaged population. All three claims are unfounded, poorly sourced, and deeply irresponsible. Nelson addresses the organ harvesting accusation first, noting its resemblance to the medieval “blood libel” myth and highlighting its basis in a misrepresentation of a limited and illegal practice by Israeli pathologist Dr. Yehuda Hiss in the 1990s. Hiss and a few colleagues had unlawfully removed small tissue samples—not organs—for research from cadavers without consent. These actions were condemned by Israeli authorities and had no connection to state policy. Puar grossly inflates this isolated misconduct into an accusation that implicates the entire Israeli state, ignoring medical facts about transplantation and the logistics that make her claim implausible.

Puar’s second major accusation, that Israel intentionally stunts Palestinian children by restricting their nutrition, is similarly dismantled. Nelson reviews a wide range of empirical data from Palestinian health authorities, the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, and other credible sources, showing that stunting among Palestinian children is relatively low and consistent with or even better than rates in neighboring Arab countries. He emphasizes that food insecurity in the West Bank and Gaza is driven largely by poverty, poor dietary habits, and intra-Palestinian political conflict—particularly between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas—not by any Israeli-imposed policy of deprivation. Israel, in fact, facilitates significant amounts of food and medical aid, trains Palestinian health professionals, and provides advanced medical treatment to thousands of Palestinians each year. Puar provides no medical or nutritional data to support her claim, and he suggests that her allegation is less about real concern for child health and more about constructing a demonizing narrative.

The third accusation—that Israel has adopted a policy of deliberately maiming Palestinians—is perhaps the most grotesque and conspiratorial. Puar argues that Israel intentionally disables rather than kills Palestinians as part of a strategic and economic biopolitical policy, which she conceptualizes through Foucauldian and postmodern frameworks like “assemblage.” This claim has no empirical foundation and reverses the truth: Israel, like many liberal democracies, has rules of engagement intended to minimize fatalities. While injuries are inevitable in conflict, Puar reinterprets restraint as sadism, implying that Israel gains political and economic advantage from producing a population of the wounded and disabled. Nelson criticizes her conflation of military tactics, economic theories, and speculative theory, noting that such an approach allows her to make sweeping claims without evidence, immune to falsification. Her reasoning is circular and conspiratorial, devoid of the burden of proof expected in scholarly discourse.

Beyond these specific accusations, Nelson critiques the broader theoretical and rhetorical structure of Puar’s work. He takes aim at her reliance on dense, jargon-heavy critical theory, particularly her use of “assemblage” and “biopolitics,” which he sees as tools used to mask weak arguments and avoid empirical accountability. He also criticizes the academic and institutional environment that has enabled Puar’s rise, particularly the failure of peer review at presses like Duke University Press and the celebration of her work by organizations such as the National Women’s Studies Association. He sees these trends as indicative of a deeper rot within parts of academia, where ideological allegiance has overtaken scholarly integrity, and political activism is rewarded as if it were research.

Nelson also contrasts Puar’s hostile portrayal of Israel with the extensive and well-documented contributions Israel has made to Palestinian healthcare infrastructure. He discusses programs like Project Rozana, Save a Child’s Heart, and partnerships between Israeli hospitals and Palestinian health ministries, emphasizing that Israel’s involvement has been crucial in building Palestinian medical capacity. He underscores the absurdity of Puar’s narrative by juxtaposing her claims with statistical evidence of improved healthcare access, disease prevention programs, and cross-border treatment initiatives. This, he argues, is the true picture of Israel’s medical engagement with the Palestinians—not a dystopian fantasy of calculated maiming and nutritional sabotage.

Puar’s work represents a dangerous precedent: the normalization of ideological propaganda in academic clothing. While she is protected by academic freedom, that protection does not exempt her from criticism or shield institutions from reputational damage when they endorse falsehoods. A return to scholarly standards rooted in evidence, methodological discipline, and ethical responsibility is necessary. Puar’s work is not just flawed, but emblematic of a disturbing intellectual culture where political bias is passed off as scholarship and embraced uncritically by ideologically sympathetic academics.