Recently, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism has dealt a blow to the BDS movement. While not enough institutions have adopted it yet, the definition has gained international prominence, indicating that some BDS arguments are anti-Semitic.
In England, Gavin Williamson, the education minister, has warned universities that they could have their funding cut if they refuse to adopt the IHRA definition. He noted that “too many disturbing incidents of anti-Semitism on campus and a lack of willingness by too many universities to confront this.” He added that “While many universities have rightly been quick over the summer to demonstrate their readiness to take action against other forms of racism, it is frankly disturbing that so many are dragging their feet on the matter of anti-Semitism.” Williamson has asked university officials to consider directing their Office for Students (OfS) to impose a new regulatory condition of registration or suspend funding streams for universities if anti-Semitic incidents occur and have not followed the definition. A spokesman for the OfS said that “The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is an important guide to interpreting anti-Semitism and a useful tool for understanding how anti-Semitism manifests itself in the 21st century. We will explore with the Department for Education what practical steps should be taken to ensure its wider adoption, and how to make sure that anti-Semitism has no place on campuses in England.”
The international acceptance of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism prompted the Palestinian-led BDS movement to look for alternative ways to promote BDS. It has relied recently on Israeli Jews to push the BDS call forward. Several instances of mobilizing Israel academics have recently surfaced.
In Germany, on September 25, 2020, a group of Jewish radical activists and academics founded a new teaching program titled the “School for Unlearning Zionism.” It is described as a “space in which knowledge that does not belong to a hegemonic discourse is shared… originated in Berlin (as a place between Tel Aviv and Ramallah), by a group of Jewish Israelis seeking to be part of a movement for equality in Palestine/Israel and of deconstruction of systems built on inequality, oppression, and exploitation.” The School’s October Program is “dedicated to (re)negotiation work in the face of the Zionist narrative.” The October program includes Prof. Ilan Pappe, Dr. Revital Madar, Prof. Raef Zreik, among others. The program is also published in Arabic, translated as “Zionist renunciation school.” Worth noting that denying the right of Jews for self-determination is anti-Semitic according to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
Academia for Equality (A4E), a radical political-academic group on which IAM reported before, embraced the School of Unlearning Zionism on their Facebook page and admitted to being part of it. A4E complained that “the Israeli regime and its dubious friends only love disciplined and obedient Jews, who do not ask, who do not criticize, who do not think. Certainly not together with Palestinians. And what does the regime do when it is criticized? It accuses critics of anti-Semitism. The Israeli Embassy, instead of taking action against real anti-Semitism, which comes mostly from the white right-wing in Europe, is mobilizing this important struggle for narrow political gains and the continued silencing of Palestinian voices. As a consequence of this pressure, the school of Art Weißensee Kunsthochschule Berlin has withdrawn the program’s funding and website, but the events are still taking place.”
The next incident occurred in the U.S, courtesy of BDS activist Prof. Ariella Azoulay of Brown University. Azulay has been accused of depicting Israeli Jews as apes in her “artwork.” In her other images, Israeli-Jews are dehumanized, darkened, and erased. These anti-Semitic visuals have prompted a group “Stop Antisemitism Now” to urge readers to file a Discrimination and Harassment Complaint to Brown University in order to insist they discipline or dismiss Azoulay. Azoulay is notorious for anti-Israel activism. Prof. Beshara Doumani, the former chair of Palestine Studies at Brown, a radically anti-Israel Palestinian, recruited Azoulay for this purpose. Apparently, Azoulay was so eager to show Palestinian bona-fide that she added Aisha as her second name. In 2013, IAM reported that Azoulay depicted Israel as a Nazi-like state when she presented in an exhibition an image of a group of Palestinians wearing prisoners’ uniforms, chased by Israeli soldiers and pictured behind a metal fence. The caption stated, “Palestinians are the ones who will be arrested… they force the Israeli soldiers to chase them as if they were chasing (Jewish) prisoners under the Nazi regime.”
The Palestinian-led BDS movement recruits Israeli Jewish academics because it assumes that Jews cannot be accused of anti-Semitism. However, this is a futile effort because the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism does not absolve Jews and Israelis of perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes. By offering anti-Semitic tropes, Israeli activist-academics are mobilized to defend BDS.
Rt Hon Gavin Williamson CBE MP Secretary of State Sanctuary Buildings Great Smith Street Westminster London SW1P 3BT tel: 0370 000 2288 www.education.gov.uk/help/contactus Sent by Email 9 October 2020 Dear Vice Chancellor, Adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism I am writing to ask your institution to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The number of universities which have adopted the IHRA definition remains shamefully low, and I have asked my officials to look at developing options to address this. The government adopted the IHRA definition in 2016. We were the first government to do so, but many other countries, institutions and organisations have followed suit. The IHRA definition helps clarify how antisemitism can manifest itself in the 21st century, as follows (alongside examples): “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” 1 Since 2016, two Universities Ministers have written to you concerning antisemitism in higher education, setting out government’s support for the IHRA definition. In October last year, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP, also wrote to you, strongly urging you to formally adopt the IHRA definition and use it on all appropriate occasions. The question has been raised many times in both Houses of Parliament, demonstrating the strength of feeling and support for the IHRA definition. 1 The full text of the definition can be found at: https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_release_document_antisemitism.pdf In recent years, I know that some universities have made real progress in tackling the scourge of antisemitism. I also welcome the work that Universities UK (UUK) is doing to address this issue, and look forward to seeing the upcoming guidance that UUK is publishing on ‘Tackling Racial Harassment in Higher Education’ on our campuses. However, there remain too many disturbing incidents of antisemitism on campus, from both students and staff, and a lack of willingness by too many universities to confront this. The definition helps us better understand and recognise instances of antisemitism, and gives examples of the kind of behaviours, which, depending on the circumstances, could constitute antisemitism. However, I am frankly disappointed that the majority of higher education providers have not yet adopted the IHRA definition. I am surprised that some universities have actively chosen not to use this straightforward way to demonstrate clearly that they do not tolerate antisemitism. These providers are letting down all their staff and students, and, shamefully, their Jewish students in particular. While many universities have rightly been quick over the summer to demonstrate their readiness to take action against other forms of racism, it is frankly disturbing that so many are dragging their feet on the matter of antisemitism. The repugnant belief that antisemitism is somehow a less serious, or more acceptable, form of racism has taken insidious hold in some parts of British society, and I am quite clear that universities must play their part in rooting out this attitude and demonstrating that antisemitism is abhorrent. I believe sincerely that adopting the IHRA definition is morally the right thing to do. Without it, Jewish students say they simply do not feel protected, should they be subject to an antisemitic attack, whether physically, verbally or online and, sadly, we are hearing of an upturn in online incidents since the start of the pandemic. I do not want to see higher education providers continuing to ignore the issue of antisemitism. Adoption of the IHRA definition shows that providers are taking this matter seriously. If they do not demonstrate that they are taking their responsibilities in this regard seriously, I will consider going further to ensure that all providers are tackling antisemitism, with robust measures in place to address issues when they arise. I have asked my officials to explore how best to achieve this. I have asked my officials to consider options that include directing the OfS to impose a new regulatory condition of registration and suspending funding streams for universities at which antisemitic incidents occur and which have not signed up to the definition. And so I urge you now to do the right thing, and adopt the IHRA definition if your institution has not already done so. If you have reservations, the Universities Minister or I would be happy to meet you to discuss them. You should have no doubt: this government has zero tolerance towards antisemitism. If I have not seen the overwhelming majority of institutions adopting the definition by Christmas then I will act. The government and universities must work together to eradicate antisemitism from our world leading higher education sector. Adopting the IHRA definition is an excellent and essential step towards that goal. Rt Hon Gavin Williamson CBE MP Secretary of State for Education
Gavin Williamson says there’s ‘too many disturbing incidents of antisemitism on campus’ in the UK
Eleanor Busby@Eleanor_Busby 1 day ago
Gavin Williamson said a number of universities are ‘letting down all their staff and students'(PA)
Universities could have their funding cut if they refuse to adopt an internationally recognised definition of antisemitism, the education secretary has warned.
Gavin Williamson has said he will take action against higher education institutions if they do not adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism before Christmas.
In a letter to vice-chancellors on Friday, the minister said there were still “too many disturbing incidents of antisemitism on campus and a lack of willingness by too many universities to confront this”.
He said the number of universities which have adopted the definition “remains shamefully low”, adding he was surprised that institutions have chosen not to demonstrate that they “do not tolerate antisemitism”.
“These providers are letting down all their staff and students, and, shamefully, their Jewish students in particular,” Mr Williamson said.
The education secretary is asking officials to consider directing the Office for Students (OfS) to impose a new regulatory condition of registration or suspend funding streams for universities at which antisemitic incidents occur and which have not signed up to the definition.
He added: “While many universities have rightly been quick over the summer to demonstrate their readiness to take action against other forms of racism, it is frankly disturbing that so many are dragging their feet on the matter of antisemitism.
“The repugnant belief that antisemitism is somehow a less serious, or more acceptable, form of racism has taken insidious hold in some parts of British society, and I am quite clear that universities must play their part in rooting out this attitude and demonstrating that antisemitism is abhorrent.”
A spokesman for the OfS said: “The IHRA definition of antisemitism is an important guide to interpreting antisemitism and a useful tool for understanding how antisemitism manifests itself in the 21st century.
“We will explore with the Department for Education what practical steps should be taken to ensure its wider adoption, and how to make sure that antisemitism has no place on campuses in England.”
A Universities UK (UUK) spokeswoman said: “We recommend universities do all they can to tackle antisemitism, including considering the IHRA definition, whilst also recognising their duty to promote freedom of speech within the law.
“UUK has set up a taskforce to consider what can be done to address all forms of harassment, violence and hate crime on campus, including on the basis of religion.”
She added: “We are in regular contact with Jewish community leaders and student groups to ensure that universities are supported to do all they can to tackle antisemitism.”
Williamson accuses English universities of ignoring antisemitism
Education secretary presses institutions to adopt IHRA definition by Christmas
Richard Adams Education editor
Fri 9 Oct 2020 18.21 BST
Gavin Williamson said there remained ‘too many disturbing incidents of antisemitism on campus’.
The government has accused universities in England of ignoring antisemitism and ordered them to adopt an international definition before the end of the year or risk having funding cut off.
Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, said in a letter to vice-chancellors that it was “frankly disturbing” that so many universities had failed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism.
“The repugnant belief that antisemitism is somehow a less serious or more acceptable form of racism has taken insidious hold in some parts of British society, and I am quite clear that universities must play their part in rooting out this attitude and demonstrating that antisemitism is abhorrent,” Williamson said.
He noted that some universities had made progress. “However, there remain too many disturbing incidents of antisemitism on campus, from both students and staff, and a lack of willingness by too many universities to confront this.”
UK universities urged to adopt IHRA wording on antisemitism
A freedom of information request by the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) found that only 29 out of 133 universities had adopted the IHRA definition, and 80 said they had no current plans to do so.
Universities have objected to adopting the definition on the principle of academic autonomy, and in other cases because of conflicts with freedom of speech requirements, which are also strongly backed by Williamson’s government.
A spokesperson for the UJS said Williamson’s letter was “a strong stand by the UK government against antisemitism and discrimination faced by Jewish students”.
Williamson said the Office for Students, the higher education regulator for England, could be asked to take regulatory action including suspending “funding streams” if universities failed to adopt the IHRA definition by the end of December.
“If I have not seen the overwhelming majority of institutions adopting the definition by Christmas then I will act,” Williamson wrote.
A spokesperson for Universities UK, which represents the sector, said: “We recommend universities do all they can to tackle antisemitism, including considering the IHRA definition, whilst also recognising their duty to promote freedom of speech within the law.
“UUK has set up a taskforce to consider what can be done to address all forms of harassment, violence and hate crime on campus, including on the basis of religion. We are in regular contact with Jewish community leaders and student groups to ensure that universities are supported to do all they can to tackle antisemitism.”
Williamson’s intervention comes at a difficult time for many universities struggling to cope with hundreds of students and staff infected with Covid-19, as well as preparing for the UK’s exit from the EU and its impact on recruitment and funding.
“When future historians look at the Covid-19 period, there will be complete mystification at what the Department for Education took to be a priority in the middle of the crisis,” said one university official.
The School for Unlearning Zionism is a space in which knowledge, that does not belong to a hegemonic discourse, is shared. We hereby invite you to participate in our October program.
The School for Unlearning Zionism originated in Berlin (as a place between Tel Aviv and Ramallah), by a group of Jewish Israelis seeking to be part of a movement for equality in Palestine/Israel and of deconstruction of systems built on inequality, oppression, and exploitation.
In our desire to be partners in struggles within unequal power relations, we recognize the importance of having these discussions amongst ourselves as well as the importance of creating learning spaces in which non hegemonic knowledge can be shared and heard in broader contexts.
The October Program is dedicated to (re)negotiation work in the face of the Zionist narrative (with its many meanings and political consequences). Unlearning Zionism begins, for us, with the recognition that knowledge is created within systems of power and continues with working towards forming spaces based on visions of equality – between the river and the sea – and beyond. Throughout October our school doors will be open and we invite you to join in the practice of unlearning Zionism. Together we will listen to lectures, reflect and exchange thoughts, watch movies, and participate in various workshops in Hebrew and in English.
The study sessions will take place online, in addition to an exhibition in the ‘Kunsthalle am Hamburger Platz’.
בית הספר לאַנְלֶרְנִינג-ציונות “School for Unlearning Zionism” הוא מרחב אמנותי שנולד בברלין, מרחב של לימוד משותף וניהול משא ומתן עצמי, פנים ישראלי-יהודי מול הסיפור הציוני (ומשמעותו והשלכותיו הפוליטיות) שחונכנו לתוכו. את הידע שאותו אנחנו רוכשות ״בחוץ״ (ברלין כמקום בין תל אביב לרמאללה) אנחנו בוחנות מול מערכות הידע שגדלנו בתוכן.
בית הספר לאַנְלֶרְנִינג-ציונות נולד מתוך הרצון שלנו להיות שותפות במאבקים למען שוויון, ופירוק מבנים שנוסדו מתוך חוסר שוויון, דיכוי וניצול מאז שפלסטין(ה) הפכה לישראל. על מנת לפרק את ההגמוניה ולהיות שותפות במאבק בתוך מרחבים שבהם יחסי הכוח אינם שווים, עלינו לנהל שיחה זו גם בינינו לבין עצמנו.
בלמידה המשותפת שלנו מתרחש תהליך פרידה מהקולקטיב שלומדנו להיות חלק ממנו, ובו-בזמן נוצר מרחב המאפשר הצטרפות לקבוצות שיוך חדשות. הצעד הראשון הוא צעד של זיהוי העליונות של הזהות היהודית ישראלית שלנו בין הנהר לים; עבודת פירוק ידע (unlearning) מתחילה בהכרה בכך שידע נולד בתוך מערכות של כוח (שהן לרוב שקופות למי שחלק מהן ונהנה מזכויותיו וחובותיו האזרחיות) וממשיכה ביצירת מרחב חדש המתבסס על החזון לשוויון – בין הנהר לים – ומעבר לו.
בחודש אוקטובר נפתח את דלתות בית הספר שלנו לחודש לימוד-אַנְלֶרְנִינג משותף. אנחנו מזמינות אתכן.ם לחשוב איתנו, לשמוע הרצאות, לצפות בסרטים ולהשתתף בדיונים וסדנאות בעברית ואנגלית.
הלימוד יתקיים באופן וירטואלי במקביל לתערוכה שתוצג ב Kunsthalle am Hamburger Platz בברלין.
12 October at 09:05אמ;לק: שגרירות ישראל חוברת לכוחות ימין בגרמניה במאמץ להשתיק קולות יהודיים ביקורתיים לפני מספר שבועות יזמה קבוצת אמניות ואקטיביסטיות יהודיות בברלין את תוכנית הלימודים “בית הספר לאַנְלֶרְנִינג-ציונות”, אותה הן הגדירו כ: “מרחב של לימוד משותף וניהול משא ומתן עצמי, פנים ישראלי-יהודי מול הסיפור הציוני (ומשמעותיו והשלכותיו הפוליטיות) שחונכנו לתוכו. את הידע שאותו אנחנו רוכשות ‘בחוץ’ (ברלין כמקום בין תל אביב לרמאללה) אנחנו בוחנות מול מערכות הידע שגדלנו בתוכן. בית הספר לאַנְלֶרְנִינג-ציונות נולד מתוך הרצון שלנו להיות שותפות במאבקים למען שוויון ופירוק מבנים שנוסדו מתוך חוסר שוויון, דיכוי וניצול מאז שפלסטין(ה) הפכה לישראל. על מנת לפרק את ההגמוניה ולהיות שותפות במאבק בתוך מרחבים שבהם יחסי הכוח אינם שווים, עלינו לנהל שיחה זו גם בינינו לבין עצמנו.”לאורך חודש אוקטובר מציעה התכנית עשרות דיונים והרצאות מפי חוקרות.ים ואקטיביסטים.ות יהודים, פלסטינים ואחרים (בהן חברות אקדמיה לשוויון) על נושאים כגון: ציונות וקולוניאליזם התיישבותי, המאבק המזרחי, הסכמי אוסלו, הארכיון הפלסטיני, כלכלת הכיבוש ועוד.אבל השלטון הישראלי וידידיו המפוקפקים אוהבים רק יהודים ממושמעים וצייתנים, שלא שואלים, שלא מבקרים, שלא חושבים. בטח ובטח לא יחד עם פלסטינים.ומה השלטון עושה כשמופנית כלפיו ביקורת? מאשים את המבקרות.ים באנטישמיות. שגרירות ישראל, במקום לפעול נגד האנטישמיות הממשית, שבאה רובה ככולה מצד הימין הלבן באירופה, מגייסת את המאבק החשוב הזה לצרכים פוליטיים צרים ולהמשך ההשתקה של קולות פלסטיניים.בעקבות הלחץ משך בית הספר לאמנות בוייסנזה את כספי התוכנית והסיר את האתר שלה, אבל האירועים ממשיכים להתקיים וניתן למצוא אותם בעמוד הפייסבוק של היוזמה.- די לרדיפה הפוליטית ולהשתקה – די לניצול הציני של האנטישמיות ושל השואה – די למשטרת המחשבות בתגובות: הצהרת “בית הספר לאַנְלֶרְנִינג-ציונות” כפי שפורסמה אמש
How does Germany like its Jews? Last Thursday the Weissensee Kunsthochschule Berlin retracted funding from our October Program and has shut down the “Kunsthalle am Hamburger Platz” website which hosted our project and where we plan an exhibition that should open next weekend. Speakers already signed contracts and some already gave lectures, which the university now refuses to pay for. The Weissensee Kunsthochschule Berlin’s decision to defund our program and shut down the website was taken after it had received a letter from a German journalist who accused some of the speakers we invited to participate in our October Program, all Jewish Israelis, of supporting the BDS movement. Accusing the project of antisemitism for inviting these speakers, he demanded that the university distance itself from the project. We see this attack as a direct continuation of recent developments in Germany: In May 2019, the Bundestag passed a resolution that defines the BDS movement as antisemitic and anyone doubting Israel’s right to be a Jewish-majority state, as anti-Semitic. Although this resolution is not a binding law it defines the parameters in which the conversation is being held, or cannot be held. At this point whoever is suspected of supporting BDS, becomes outcast and defamed as anti-Semitic, even if they themselves are Jewish. It is a resolution which harms both Jews and Palestinians, but benefits the reputation of Nazis, because the Bundestag equated the murderous National-Socialist Party with it’s slogan “don’t buy from Jews” with a human rights movement demanding equality in Israel/Palestine. So how does Germany like its Jews? Disciplined and obedient. “Good Jews” who participate in Germany’s self-indulgent guilt trip, and supporting Zionism – encouraging Jews to leave Europe and move to Israel. Our project “School for Unlearning Zionism” threatens the desire of far-right Germans to create a Germany clean of Jews. Today, German society has shown itself once again as racist, antisemitic and discriminatory. Please show your support by sharing this post!
10 October at 12:00مدرسة نبذ الصهيونيةمدرسة نبذ الصهيونية هي مساحة نتشارك بها معرفة لا تنتمي الى نمط الحوار المسيطر. ندعوكم للمشاركة ببرنامجنا لشهر أكتوبر.تم إنشاء مدرسة نبذ الصهيونية في برلين (كمكان بين تل أبيب ورام الله) على يد مجموعة من اليهود الإسرائيليين الذي يسعون الى أن يكونوا جزء من حركة من أجل المساواة الكاملة في فلسطين/أسرائيل وفي سبيل تفكيك ومقاومة النظام الصهيوني المبني على عدم المساواة، القهر والظلم والإستغلال.من خلال رغبتنا لأن نكون شركاء لصراعات بين علاقات قوى غير متساوية، نحن ندرك أهمية إجراء هذه النقاشات فيما بيننا كما وأهمية خلق مساحات تعليمية تمكنا من نشر وسماع معرفة غير مهيمنة من خلال سياقات واسعة.برنامج شهر أكتوبربرنامج شهر أكتوبر مكرس لأعمال (إعادة-) المفاوضة بوجه السرد الصهيوني (على معانيه المتعددة وعواقبه السياسية). نبذ الصهيونية يبدأ بالنسبة لنا بالإدراك أن المعرفة تخلق من خلال أنظمة من القوى وتستمر بالعمل من أجل خلق مساحات متأسسة على المساواة – بين النهر والبحر – وما بعدهما. خلال شهر أكتوبر سوف تفتح أبواب مدرستنا ونحن ندعوكم لينضموا الى ممارسة نبذ الصهيونية. سوف نستمع سويا لمحاضرات، نفكر ونتبادل أفكار، نشاهد أفلام ونشارك بورشات عمل مختلفة باللغة الإنجليزية والعبرية.الجلسات التعليمية سوف تتم عبر الأنترنت، بالإضافة الى معرض سوف يعرض في برلين.Zionist renunciation schoolZionist renunciation school is a space where we share knowledge that does not belong to the dominant dialogue pattern. We invite you to participate in our October program.A school of renunciation of Zionism in Berlin (as a place between Tel Aviv and Ramallah) was created by a group of Israeli Jews seeking to be part of a movement for full equality in Palestine / Israel and to dismantle and resist the Zionist regime Huni based on inequality, oppression, injustice and exploitation.Through our desire to be partners in conflicts between unequal power relationships, we recognize the importance of having these discussions among ourselves and the importance of creating educational spaces that enable us to spread and hear non-dominant knowledge through broad contexts.October programOctober program dedicated to the actions of (re-) negotiating against the Zionist narrative (on its multiple meanings and political consequences). The renunciation of Zionism begins for us with the realization that knowledge is created through systems of power and continues to work towards creating spaces based on equality – between river and sea – and beyond. During October our school will open doors and we invite you to join the practice of renouncing Zionism. Together we will listen to lectures, think and exchange ideas, watch movies and share different workshops in English and Hebrew.Educational sessions will take place online, plus a gallery that will be on display in Berlin. · See original · Rate this translation
25 September at 15:20The School for Unlearning Zionism is a space in which knowledge that does not belong to a hegemonic discourse is shared. We hereby invite you to participate in our October program.The School for Unlearning Zionism originated in Berlin (as a place between Tel Aviv and Ramallah), by a group of Jewish Israelis seeking to be part of a movement for equality in Palestine/Israel and of deconstruction of systems built on inequality, oppression, and exploitation.In our desire to be partners in struggles within unequal power relations, we recognize the importance of having these discussions amongst ourselves as well as the importance of creating learning spaces in which non hegemonic knowledge can be shared and heard in broader contexts. The October Program is dedicated to (re)negotiation work in the face of the Zionist narrative (with its many meanings and political consequences). Unlearning Zionism begins, for us, with the recognition that knowledge is created within systems of power and continues with working towards forming spaces based on visions of equality – between the river and the sea – and beyond.Throughout October our school doors will be open and we invite you to join in the practice of unlearning Zionism. Together we will listen to lectures, reflect and exchange thoughts, watch movies, and participate in various workshops in Hebrew and in English.The study sessions will take place online, in addition to an exhibition which will be presented in the ‘Kunsthalle am Hamburger Platz’, Berlin.The full program will be published in the following days.
Preparing myself to my lecture on the ´The Desert Effect – Palestine exists where it had always been’ in the series of lectures organized by @samiahenni #unlearningimperialism #potentialhistory 3:15 PM · Oct 3, 2020
URGENT ACTION ALERT: Brown U. professor portrays JEWS as APES on twitter and in lecture. Email the BIAS COMPLAINT (below) to Brown to insist they discipline or dismiss her. Note: You will have to fill in some of your details. Email: [OIEDemail@example.com](mailto:OIEDfirstname.lastname@example.org) Subject: BIAS COMPLAINT against Ariella Azoulay Email Contents: Dear Brown OIED-intake, Below is a Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Form against Professor Ariella Azoulay. Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Form TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Discrimination I. Name of Complainant (person filing the complaint) Name: Address: Telephone (cell): Campus Telephone: N/A Email Address: II. Name and status of Respondent (person complaint is against) Student Faculty X Staff III. Summary of allegations (attach additional sheets as necessary): On October 3, 2020, Professor Azoulay tweeted photos of Israel Jews with their images cut out, dehumanizing them and making the look in some images like apes. She did this in preparation for an October 5 lecture she gave at Cornell University in which she shared these images with students.. She dehumanizes Jews in the same way that the Nazis did. IV. What action, if any, does the reporting person request? 1. Discipline and if possible dismiss Professor Azoulay from her position. 2) Adopt and make use of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. 3) Create programs for faculty and students making them aware of and giving them the ability to identify anti-Israel anti-Semitism. V. Does the reporting person request confidentiality? (please read acknowledgement statement below) Yes X No VI. Acknowledgement of Person Filing Report I understand that if I have requested confidentiality, Brown’s ability to thoroughly address my complaint of alleged discrimination or harassment may be limited. I understand that even though I may have requested confidentiality, my request may not be honored if my safety or the safety of others may be compromised. I understand that if I have any questions regarding any of this information, including the filing of this form and confidentiality, it is my responsibility to meet and discuss those questions with the appropriate staff member in Human Resources or in the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity. Signature of person filing report Date filed Name of person receiving this report: Name Title
Homi K Bhabha is a renowned scholar of Humanities at Harvard University who explores colonial and postcolonial theory, cultural change and power, and cosmopolitanism, among other topics. Bhabha was invited by the Israeli Sociological Society (ISS) to give a keynote speech at the upcoming annual conference in February 2021. Bhabha, a friend of Prof. Lev Grinberg, the ISS president, initially agreed to participate, but recently changed his mind after pressure coming from BDS advocates.
He explained his decision by noting his “respect for scholars who fight for what is right and just, and who invited me in a spirit of good faith and collegiality.” He added that Grinberg is one of them since during Grinberg’s tenure as the president, ISS published in June 2020, a declaration committing itself “to reflect, expose and criticize the violence of security forces and the police against individuals and disadvantaged groups, due to their skin color or precarious civil status as often happens in the case of Palestinians, Ethiopian Jews, foreign workers and asylum seekers.” Also, in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, ISS explicitly argued for “Palestinian lives matter.” Grinberg specifically, according to Bhabha, “has a steadfast record of opposition to the Israeli State’s discrimination against Palestinians and Arab Israelis, amongst other minorities.”
In other words, even though the ISS passed all the purity tests as the self-appointed guardians of the Palestinians, Bhabha declined to attend the conference because of a decision made by the Israeli government over which Grinberg and the ISS had no say whatsoever.
Bhabha has withdrawn because “Diplomatic maneuvers between Israel, the US and the UAE, in the past weeks, are amongst several cynical arrangements being put in place to silence and subvert the Palestinian cause, and more significantly, to expunge the Palestinian people from a radical reconfiguration of the balance of power and profit in the region. Dealt out of the process from the very start, the Palestinian people are pawns in the post-pandemic politics of three ethno-nationalist authoritarians. In these circumstances, I made my decision.”
It should come as no surprise that Bhabha is a veteran activist who uses his academic perch to pontificate on political matters. Most telling was his response to the 9/11 attacks, where he essentially blamed the “aggressive discourse” of the “conflict of civilizations” for the catastrophe. As well known, the “conflict of civilizations” populated that the democratic West is engaged in a conflict with radical Islamists like Osama bin Laden who wanted to re-establish the Islamic Caliphate. Conveniently, Bhabha did not mention Osama bin Laden’s eschatological plans.
Covid-19 gave Bhabha another platform for his politically correct postulates. On July 9, 2020, during an event at Tel Aviv University, titled “Culture and Society in the (post)-Coronavirus Age – The International Dean’s Series Lectures at the Faculty of the Arts Tel Aviv University.” The Harvard professor talked about his most recent work, the “Governance of the Unprepared.” In essence, his new theme, which he also intended to present at the ISS annual conference, argues that “ethno-nationalist populist leaders like Trump, Netanyahu, Erdogan, Modi, Bolsonaro, and Orban, amongst others, employ an affectively charged political discourse of degradation to polarize populations and racialize social relations. They keep their citizens and residents in states of anxious ‘unpreparedness’ and fearful indeterminacy to restrict their political agency, while expediently executing policies of oppression, inequity, indignity and the quelling of dissent. The pandemic, which has been woefully, and at times intentionally, mismanaged by these very leaders has been deployed to further majoritarian agendas to the detriment of migrants, minorities and political dissidents.”
Needless to say, Bhabha did not mention Iran, the Palestinian PA, and Hamas, or other autocratic regimes that left their populations unprepared. Iran has one of the highest infection rates and mortality while brutally killing protestors and dissidents. Such cherry-picking is widespread among the “politically correct” elites, who would not let facts stand in the way of their theories. By creating such massive double standards, Bhabha and his cohorts undermine the legitimacy and morality of their arguments.
In another double standard case, Bhabha participated at a Tel Aviv University conference but refused to participate in a conference by the ISS, a non-governmental organization. It indicates that Bhabha and his BDS cohorts cannot stick to their own rule, to target only Israeli governmentally supported institutions.
As for Lev Grinberg and his peers, the withdrawal of Bhabha should serve as a moment of clarity. No matter how much they beat their breasts and grovel before the masters of “political correctness,” they would be judged as Jews and Israelis who are held responsible for their government’s policies. Nothing has changed in the anti-Semitism discourse.
האגודה הסוציולוגית הישראלית (עמותה רשומה 580016954) האגודה הסוציולוגית הישראלית, המחלקה לסוציולוגיה ואנתרופולוגיה, הר הצופים, האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים, ירושלים 91905 Secretary@israel-sociology.com מזכירת האגודה: אליזה פרנקל
2020 15 ספטמבר
2020הודעה – ביטול השתתפותו של פרופ׳ הומי באבא בכנס הסוציולוגי השנתי לצערנו פרופ׳ הומי באבא הודיע על ביטול השתתפותו בכנס הסוציולוגי הקרוב. מלכתחילה הוא קיבל את ההזמנה מתוך הוקרה באגודה שלנו ופעולתה העקבית בעד שוויון ונגד גזענות. אבל הוא הגיע למסקנה שלא רק תוכן דבריו, אלא העיתוי והמקום חשובים. על כן הוא מבטל כעת, בעקבות היוזמה של טראמפ ונתניהו לדחוק את התביעות של העם הפלסטיני על ידי ההסכם שצפוי להיחתם היום עם האמירויות. הנה לשון הודעתו של פרופסור הומי באבא:
I received an invitation several months ago, from my colleague and friend Lev Grinberg, to speak byZoom at the Israeli Sociological Society Conference. Lev, the President of the ISS, has a steadfast recordof opposition to the Israeli State’s discrimination against Palestinians and Arab Israelis, amongst otherminorities. During Lev’s tenure, the ISS published a declaration in June 2020 committing itself “toreflect, expose and criticize the violence of security forces and the police against individuals anddisadvantaged groups, due to their skin color or precarious civil status as often happens in the case ofPalestinians, Ethiopian Jews, foreign workers and asylum seekers.” The ISS has also explicitly arguedfor “Palestinian lives matter” in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.To further this discussion Lev and his colleagues invited me to talk about my recent work on the“Governance of the Unprepared” where I argue that ethno-nationalist populist leaders like Trump,Netanyahu, Erdogan, Modi, Bolsonaro, and Orban, amongst others, employ an affectively chargedpolitical discourse of degradation to polarize populations and racialize social relations. They keep theircitizens and residents in states of anxious “unpreparedness” and fearful indeterminacy to restrict theirpolitical agency, while expediently executing policies of oppression, inequity, indignity and the quellingof dissent. The pandemic, which has been woefully, and at times intentionally, mismanaged by thesevery leaders has been deployed to further majoritarian agendas to the detriment of migrants,minorities and political dissidents.I have withdrawn from the ISS conference because I have decided that it is not only what you say that matters, but also when and where you say it. Diplomatic maneuvers between Israel, the US and the UAE,in the past weeks, are amongst several cynical arrangements being put in place to silence and subvertthe Palestinian cause, and more significantly, to expunge the Palestinian people from a radicalreconfiguration of the balance of power and profit in the region. Dealt out of the process from the verystart, the Palestinian people are pawns in the post-pandemic politics of three ethno-nationalistauthoritarians. In these circumstances, I made my decision. None of this diminishes my respect forscholars who fight for what is right and just, and who invited me in a spirit of good faith and collegiality.
האגודה הסוציולוגית הישראלית (אס”י) הינה עמותה ללא מטרות רווח, אשר נוסדה לפני ארבעים שנה (1967). למעלה מ-1000 איש רשומים בה, מתוכם כ- 300 חברים עם זכויות מלאות. מטרות האגודה הן: לקדם את הסוציולוגיה כדיסציפלינה מדעית וכפרופסיה; לקדם את הוראת הסוציולוגיה ומדעי ההתנהגות בישראל; לשרת את הסוציולוגים הישראלים; לעודד מחקר ודיון בסוציולוגיה של ישראל; לקדם את תרומותיה של הסוציולוגיה לחברה הישראלית; וגם: למצב את הסוציולוגיה כדיסציפלינת-אם ולקדם את השימוש בסוציולוגיה בתחומים הפרופסיונאליים המגוונים הניזונים ממנה, ביניהם: ניהול, יחסי עבודה, תכנון עירוני ואזורי, חינוך, בריאות בקהילה, עבודה סוציאלית וקהילתית, קרימינולוגיה ועוד. האגודה מנוהלת ע”י נשיא/ה והנהלה, הנבחרים ע”י חברי האגודה, ומזכיר/ת האגודה. הנשיא הנוכחי הוא פרופ’ אורי רם, פרופסור לסוציולוגיה באוניברסיטת בן גוריון. מזכירת האגודה היא גב’ ליאור סבח, מאסטרנטית במחלקה לסוציולוגיה ואנתרופולוגיה באוניברסיטת בן גוריון.
Prof. Homi Bhabha withdraws from Israel Sociological Society conference
The US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel thanks Prof. Homi Bhabha for his principled decision to withdraw from participation in the Israel Sociological Society (ISS) conference, where he had been invited to deliver the keynote address. As he noted in his withdrawal statement, “I have decided that it is not only what you say that matters, but also when and where you say it.”
Regardless of the positions they take on Israeli policy, Israel’s academic associations are structurally complicit in the ongoing occupation and colonization of Palestine and its apartheid regime and are therefore subject to the Palestinian and global call for academic boycott, a critical part of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign. By withdrawing from participation at the ISS conference, Prof. Bhabha is taking an important stand and refusing to allow his name to be used to promote and normalize Israeli academia.
Click here to endorse the academic and cultural boycott of Israel.
Prof. Bhabha’s statement:
I received an invitation several months ago, from my colleague and friend Lev Grinberg, to speak by Zoom at the Israeli Sociological Society Conference . Lev, the President of the ISS, has a steadfast record of opposition to the Israeli State’s discrimination against Palestinians and Arab Israelis, amongst other minorities. During Lev’s tenure, the ISS published a declaration in June 2020 committing itself “to reflect, expose and criticize the violence of security forces and the police against individuals and disadvantaged groups, due to their skin color or precarious civil status as often happens in the case of Palestinians, Ethiopian Jews, foreign workers and asylum seekers.” The ISS has also explicitly argued for “Palestinian lives matter” in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement.
To further this discussion Lev and his colleagues invited me to talk about my recent work on the “Governance of the Unprepared” where I argue that ethno-nationalist populist leaders like Trump, Netanyahu, Erdogan, Modi, Bolsonaro, and Orban, amongst others, employ an affectively charged political discourse of degradation to polarize populations and racialize social relations. They keep their citizens and residents in states of anxious “unpreparedness” and fearful indeterminacy to restrict their political agency, while expediently executing policies of oppression, inequity, indignity and the quelling of dissent. The pandemic, which has been woefully, and at times intentionally, mismanaged by these very leaders has been deployed to further majoritarian agendas to the detriment of migrants, minorities and political dissidents.
I have withdrawn from the ISS conference because I have decided that it is not only what you say that matters, but also when and where you say it. Diplomatic maneuvers between Israel, the US and the UAE, in the past weeks, are amongst several cynical arrangements being put in place to silence and subvert the Palestinian cause, and more significantly, to expunge the Palestinian people from a radical reconfiguration of the balance of power and profit in the region. Dealt out of the process from the very start, the Palestinian people are pawns in the post-pandemic politics of three ethno-nationalist authoritarians. In these circumstances I made my decision. None of this diminishes my respect for scholars who fight for what is right and just, and who invited me in a spirit of good faith and collegiality.
“I have withdrawn from the ISS conference because I have decided that it is not only what you say that matters, but also when and where you say it,” Bhabha stated in an email to The Electronic Intifada.
He cited as context for his decision the recent US-brokered normalization of ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
Bhabha said these moves were “amongst several cynical arrangements being put in place to silence and subvert the Palestinian cause” and “to expunge the Palestinian people from a radical reconfiguration of the balance of power and profit in the region.”
“In these circumstances I made my decision,” Bhabha said.
He also expressed warmth towards his Israeli hosts, emphasizing that “None of this diminishes my respect for scholars who fight for what is right and just, and who invited me in a spirit of good faith and collegiality.”
Don’t cross picket line
The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) told The Electronic Intifada that it “welcomes the withdrawal of Professor Homi Bhabha as keynote speaker in the Israeli Sociological Society Annual Conference.”
“PACBI has consistently called on international academics to do no harm and to respect our BDS – boycott, divestment and sanctions – picket line.”
Bhabha justified his initial decision to accept the invitation because the ISS published a statement in June committing itself to “reflect, expose and criticize the violence of security forces and the police against individuals and disadvantaged groups, due to their skin color or precarious civil status as often happens in the case of Palestinians, Ethiopian Jews, foreign workers and asylum seekers.”
He said he had intended to speak about how “ethnonationalist populist leaders” like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, India’s Narendra Modi, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, and Hungary’s Viktor Orban employ political discourses that “polarize populations and racialize social relations.”
Bhabha added that these leaders have exploited the pandemic to “further majoritarian agendas to the detriment of migrants, minorities and political dissidents.”
However Bhabha’s implication that he would have proceeded with the keynote but for the particular political moment drew a rebuke from PACBI: Not crossing the Palestinian BDS picket line is “a basic moral obligation that extends beyond the present moment of rule by ethnonationalist leaders,” the group said.
PACBI also rejected the notion that the Israeli Sociological Society has shown an adequate and genuine commitment to Palestinian rights.
“Aside from its sanitizing rhetoric about ‘police violence’ and its reduction of the Indigenous Palestinians into yet another ‘disadvantaged group,’ the ISS has failed to recognize, let alone work against, Israel’s decades-old regime of military occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid,” PACBI said.
“This makes the ISS complicit in whitewashing, justifying and perpetuating this system of oppression.”
According to PACBI, the Israeli Sociological Society “also fails to publicly recognize the comprehensive rights of the Palestinian people as stipulated in international law,” including the right of Palestinians ethnically cleansed by Zionists during the Nakba to return home.
Bhabha is best known for his explorations of the concept of hybridity – a way of talking about the cultural outcomes arising from the encounters between colonizers and those they colonized.
He has received the Padma Bhushan Award, one of India’s highest civilian honors.
Bhabha has however come in for strong criticism over his treatment of the question of Palestine.
In a tribute to the late Edward Said, Bhabha represents the “conflict” in Palestine as being “between competing nationalisms, not between colonialism and national liberation,” according to Columbia University professor Joseph Massad, writing in the 2010 anthology Edward Said: A Legacy of Emancipation and Representation.
“Bhabha, who as a ‘postcolonial’ critic is presumably also anticolonial, never relates the Zionist enterprise or Israeli occupation to colonialism, which leads him not to call for an end to Israel’s colonization and occupation but for a negotiated ‘just and lasting peace,’” Massad writes.
This language, Massad charges, is “borrowed from US State Department pronouncements that also never mention colonialism or occupation.”
That tendency is apparent in Bhabha’s statement regarding the ISS conference – where he lumps Israel together with various nation-states and makes no mention of the settler-colonial nature of the Zionist regime that controls Palestinian lives.
While Bhabha’s withdrawal is indeed welcome, he might have avoided this predicament had he been more attentive to Palestinians in the first place. (Though he did reveal he consulted with Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi prior to issuing his statement to The Electronic Intifada).
If the message was not clear earlier, PACBI certainly hopes it is now.
“We call on all international scholars to boycott complicit Israeli academic institutions and associations, like the ISS, in solidarity with the Palestinian nonviolent struggle for freedom, justice and equality,” the group said.
Update: 16 September
Following publication of this article, it emerged that in July, Bhahba participated in an online seminar organized as part of the “International Dean’s Series Lectures at the Faculty of the Arts, Tel Aviv University.”
PACBI has stated that Tel Aviv University is “deeply complicit in maintaining Israel’s regime of occupation, colonialism and apartheid,” including by hosting the Institute for National Security Studies “which boasts of having developed the so-called Dahiya Doctrine, or doctrine of disproportionate force.”
Padma Bhushan Awardee Prof Homi K Bhabha Withdraws From Israel Conference After CriticismSeptember 16, 2020
He said he had intended to speak about how “ethnonationalist populist leaders” like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, India’s Narendra Modi, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, and Hungary’s Viktor Orban employ political discourses that “polarise populations and racialise social relations”
RENOWNED Indian British scholar Homi K. Bhabha withdrew from a conference in Israel after facing criticism of his acceptance of the invitation, The electronic intifada reported.
“He cited as context for his decision the recent US-brokered normalisation of ties between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE),” the report said.
Bhabha, a Harvard University professor and one of the foremost experts on post-colonial studies, was scheduled to give the keynote address via Zoom at the annual conference of the Israeli Sociological Society (ISS) in February.
“I have withdrawn from the ISS conference because I have decided that it is not only what you say that matters, but also when and where you say it,” the 70-year-old Harvard scholar stated in an email to The Electronic Intifada.
Bhabha was honoured with Padma Bhushan in 2012 by the Indian government for his services in literature and education.
For Bhabha, the UAE-Israel deal was “amongst several cynical arrangements being put in place to silence and subvert the Palestinian cause” and “to expunge the Palestinian people from a radical reconfiguration of the balance of power and profit in the region.”
“In these circumstances, I made my decision,” Bhabha said.
He, however, expressed gratification towards the hosts of the conference. “None of this diminishes my respect for scholars who fight for what is right and just, and who invited me in a spirit of good faith and collegiality.”
The report said Bhabha justified his initial decision to accept the invitation because the ISS published a statement in June committing itself to “reflect, expose and criticise the violence of security forces and the police against individuals and disadvantaged groups, due to their skin colour or precarious civil status as often happens in the case of Palestinians, Ethiopian Jews, foreign workers and asylum seekers.”
He said he had intended to speak about how “ethnonationalist populist leaders” like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, India’s Narendra Modi, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro, and Hungary’s Viktor Orban employ political discourses that “polarise populations and racialise social relations.”
Bhabha added that these leaders have exploited the pandemic to “further majoritarian agendas to the detriment of migrants, minorities and political dissidents.”
His acceptance of the invitation drew criticism from Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), a pro-Palestine group that seeks academic and cultural boycott of Israel.
Bhabha’s praise of hosts and argument for withdrawal has also come under criticism. “Aside from its sanitising rhetoric about ‘police violence’ and its reduction of the Indigenous Palestinians into yet another ‘disadvantaged group,’ the ISS has failed to recognise, let alone work against, Israel’s decades-old regime of military occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid,” PACBI said.
Bhabha has been criticised in the past for his views on the Palestinian conflict. According to him, it’s a case of competing nationalism. However critics say that the conflict is about “colonialism and national liberation”.==========================================================
As the coronavirus pandemic grinds on, the role of the arts and culture as social instigators, sites of debates and modes of reflection is once again at stake. How should the arts relate to current conditions, and what role should they play in the global and local arenas? While uncertainty abounds, it looks like the virus will be with us for the foreseeable future, transforming society and culture in ways we cannot predict. How, then, should art and culture prepare for the post-pandemic era? Art, Culture and Society in the (post)-Coronavirus age presents a series of themed conversations between leading international scholars and staff members from the Yolanda and David Katz Faculty of the Arts. ART AND SOCIETY Dr. Vered Maimon , Department of Art History, in conversation withProf. Homi Bhabha , Harvard University Please Register here > A Zoom invitation and password will be distributed via email and social media before each conversation.
In these past, dark days, it has been difficult to draw a line between the outrage and anxiety provoked by terrorist attacks, and the urgent need for some more-humane and historical reflection on the tragedy itself.
After such knowledge, what forgiveness? The appalling images of death, destruction, and daring that invaded our homes on September 11 left us with no doubt that these unimaginable scenes belonged to a moral universe alien to ours, acts perpetrated by people foreign to the very fiber of our being.
But CNN had a sobering tale to tell. While the headline news staggered from one towering inferno to another, the ticker tape at the bottom of the screen interspersed its roll call of the brave and the dead with lists of Hollywood movies–films that had told a similar story many times before, and new, unreleased movies that were about to tell it again. What was only an action movie last month turned, this month, into acts of war. Same mise-en-scene, different movie.
I have chosen to start with the global genre of the terrorist action film in order to question the widely canvassed cultural assumptions that have come to frame the deadly events. This terrorism was a manifestation of a much deeper “clash of civilizations,” we were frequently told. One night during the week of the attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu developed this thesis and ended up, in effect, by placing Israel just off the East Coast of the United States. The next morning, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz affirmed wide international support for the United States from nations that he described as belonging to the “civilized world” and the “uncivilized world.” By returning to CNN’s ticker tape of terrorist movies and special effects, we see the futility of framing the event in such a divided and polarized civilizational narrative.
Each of the unimaginable actions we were subjected to on our television screens have been repeatedly imagined and applauded as plot devices in movie houses across the country by law-abiding Americans, and successfully exported to other ordinary film-loving folks across the world. The decision to carry out terror, whether it is done in the name of God or the state, is a political decision, not a civilizational or cultural practice.
Ironically, the “clash of civilizations” is an aggressive discourse often used by totalitarians and terrorists to justify their worst deeds, to induce holy terror and create a debilitating psychosis of persecution among oppressed, powerless peoples.
When we use the civilizational argument against them, we are, unwittingly perhaps, speaking in the divisive tongue of tyrants.
When American foreign and economic policy is conducted in terms of the civilizational divisions of “them and us,” the nation assumes that hawkish, imperialist aspect that provokes a widespread sense of injustice, indignation, and fear.
Once we see terrorism as an organized political action, rather than the expression of cultural or civilizational “difference,” we can both fight it and look toward the future — a future that makes common cause between the victims of terror, and those peoples around the world who are fated to live in countries governed by regimes or organizations that impose such unlawful and inhuman policies. Only those societies — whether they are in the north or the south, the east or the west — that insure the widest democratic participation and protection for their citizens are in a position to make the deadly, difficult decisions that “just” wars demand. To confront the politics of terror, out of a sense of democratic solidarity rather than retaliation, gives us some faint hope for the future: hope that we might be able to establish a vision of a global society, informed by civil liberties and human rights, that carries with it the shared obligations and responsibilities of common, collaborative citizenship.
Homi Bhabha is a professor of English and African-American studies at Harvard University.
In the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, The Chronicle asked scholars in a variety of disciplines to reflect on those events. Their comments were submitted in writing or transcribed from interviews.
A special journal giving an overview of recent advances in organic fluorophores was intended to be published by Molecules. The journal provides an advanced forum for the science of chemistry, and is published by Molecular Diversity Preservation International (MDPI). But, the Special Issue was canceled.
The special issue was titled, “Advances in Organic Fluorophores: Design, Synthesis, and Applications,” part of Organic Chemistry. The deadline for submissions was 15 January 2021. The guest editor was meant to be Prof. Mindy Levine from the Department of Chemical Sciences at Ariel University.
The webpage of the Department of Chemical Sciences at Ariel University introduces Levine as a brand new immigrant to Israel from the US and a chemistry enthusiast, who says, “I want to create chemical sensors that make environmental sense.” Levine came to Ariel University from the University of Rhode Island, Columbia, and MIT, where her first exposure to chemistry was at Columbia University. She decided she wanted to devote her life to scientific research and teaching. “It makes me sad to meet so many people who studied chemistry but remained uninspired. I love it!” She said. Levine, 36, focuses on fields such as supramolecular organic chemistry and chemical education and outreach. She has published more than fifty articles, given hundreds of research presentations, and received numerous prestigious research grants and awards.
Instead, the scientific journal succumbed to pressure by the group Academics for Palestine, which opened an Ariel University Non-Recognition Campaign, published on the website noarielties.org. The campaign includes 2018 Nobel Chemistry Laureate George P. Smith and Royal Society Fellow Malcolm H. Levitt. The group wrote the Molecules editors and urged the journal to change Prof. Levine’s affiliation to “Ariel University, illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel, Occupied Palestinian Territory.” Molecules urged the guest editor to change her affiliation, but she refused and as a result, Molecules withdrew the special issue and removed it from its website.
Prof. George P. Smith, the group advisory board member, welcomed the news: “All we asked in the original petition was for Professor Levine to correct the address of her university to comply with international law: Ariel is an Israeli Jewish settlement in Occupied Palestinian Territory, not a town in Israel. Sadly, she has refused, effectively choosing pro-occupation propaganda over her own academic freedom and the larger interest of the global science community in unfettered publication of scientific ideas and results. The editors of Molecules are to be commended for taking the only responsible course of action in the circumstances.” Prof. Malcolm H. Levitt, said: “It is a wise and excellent move by Molecules to request that the guest editor from Ariel University correct her affiliation to one recognized under international law, and to discontinue the Special Issue when she refused to do so. Hopefully many other academic journals will follow suit.”
The affair touches on a broader aspect of the Palestinian modus operandi and its supporters. Since 1948, the Palestinians and their allies have concentrated all their efforts on hurting Israel and degrading its standing in the international community. But the Jewish state has overcome wars, economic boycotts, and other hardships to become one of the most technologically advanced countries, the so-called “Silicon Valley of the Mediterranean.” It has some of the finest universities in the West and boasts of 12 Nobel Prizes, an amazing achievement for a relatively young and small country. Bowing to this reality, the UAE and Bahrain normalized their relations with Israel, with other Arab countries expected to follow soon.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, have been brutalized by the authoritarian rule of the Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank and kept as virtual hostages of the terrorist Hamas group whose deluded dream of wiping Israel from the map of the world has not changed since its genocidal Charter promulgated in 1988. Needless to say, Hamas does not broker any opposition to its rule, and critics are dealt with harshly.
Professors Smith and Levitt, and the academics who support BDS are not helping the Palestinians. They could be more productive if they spoke out against the brutal treatment the Palestinians receive from their own authorities.
The BDS campaign made significant inroads in the social sciences, but it is a relatively rare occurrence in the natural science journals which try to stay away from politics. This is a regrettable incident, and the editors of Molecules should reinstate the special issue of the journal. By succumbing to the BDS crowd, the journal has deprived its readers of knowledge that could benefit the field.
Deadline for manuscript submissions: 15 January 2021.
Special Issue Editor
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mindy LevineWebsite Guest Editor Department of Chemical Sciences, Ariel University, 65 Ramat HaGolan Street, Ariel, Israel
Interests: supramolecular chemistry; chemical sensors; catalysis; organic methodology; fluorescence spectroscopy Special Issue Information Dear Colleagues,Fluorescence provides a mechanism for achieving contrast in biological imaging that enables investigations of molecular structure, dynamics, and function at high spatial and temporal resolution. Organic fluorophores have proven essential for such efforts and are widely used in advanced applications such as single-molecule and super-resolution microscopy. This Special Issue intends to give an overview on recent advances in the design, synthesis, and applications of organic fluorophores. Both review and research articles in this area are welcome.
Assoc. Prof. Mindy Levine Guest Editor
Manuscript Submission Information
Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Molecules is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2000 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI’s English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.
Scientific Journal Refuses Normalization of Illegal Israeli Settlement-Based Ariel University Date: September 28, 2020
Chemistry journal Molecules decides against false geographic labellingNobel Chemistry Laureate George P Smith and Royal Society Fellow Malcolm H Levitt congratulate journal on principled decisionThe scientific journal Molecules has taken steps to avoid normalization of Ariel University, an Israeli academic institution located in an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied Palestinian territory in violation of international law.Molecules recently announced a special issue with a guest editor from Ariel University, whose affiliation was falsely listed as “Ariel University, 65 Ramat HaGolan Street, Ariel, Israel.”Academics supporting the call from authoritative Palestinian higher education bodies for non-recognition of Ariel University raised concerns with Molecules over this misleading information. In a letter to the editors, they urged the journal to “correctly and factually” indicate the professor’s affiliation as “Ariel University, illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel, Occupied Palestinian Territory.”Molecules invited the guest editor to correct her affiliation, which she refused to do. As a result, Molecules was forced to withdraw the special issue, which has now been removed from its website.George P. Smith, 2018 Nobel Chemistry Laureate and Ariel University Non-Recognition Campaign Advisory Board member, welcomed the news:“All we asked in the original petition was for Professor Levine to correct the address of her university to comply with international law: Ariel is an Israeli Jewish settlement in Occupied Palestinian Territory, not a town in Israel. Sadly, she has refused, effectively choosing pro-occupation propaganda over her own academic freedom and the larger interest of the global science community in unfettered publication of scientific ideas and results. The editors of Molecules are to be commended for taking the only responsible course of action in the circumstances.”Malcolm H Levitt, Fellow of the Royal Society, and Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, said:“It is a wise and excellent move by Molecules to request that the guest editor from Ariel University correct her affiliation to one recognised under international law, and to discontinue the Special Issue when she refused to do so. Hopefully many other academic journals will follow suit.” The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court considers settlement of occupied territory a war crime. In 2016, the United Nations Security Council reconfirmed the illegality of Israel’s settlement enterprise, stating it “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” In a legal opinion, esteemed South African international law scholar John Dugard noted that Ariel University “is part of an illegal and criminal enterprise under international law” and the Rome Statute holds that those aiding, abetting or otherwise assisting in the commission of crimes provided for in the Statute “shall be criminally liable”.MDPI, the publisher of Molecules, includes more than 260 scholarly journals in its portfolio. Molecules was MDPI’s first journal.In 2018, more than half of the invited speakers withdrew from a scientific workshop at Ariel University following appeals from Palestinian and international scholars. Prominent scientists published a letter in the Guardian stating that science should not be used “to normalise [Israel’s] occupation of the Palestinian territories.” The Israeli Sociological Society, the Israeli Anthropological Association, the European Association of Social Anthropology and the Exeter, Leeds, Open, Aberdeen, Brunel and Brighton University and College Union branches have all pledged not to collaborate with Ariel University.A number of media outlets have corrected reporting on Ariel University that falsely indicated it as located within Israel.
Authoritative Palestinian academic bodies are calling on states, academic institutions, multilateral research bodies and international academics not to recognize Ariel University and to refrain from any institutional relations with it.Ariel University is an illegal institution, and is deeply and directly complicit in Israel’s system of oppression that has denied Palestinians their basic rights guaranteed by international law, including the right to education and academic freedom.Complicity in international law violationsAriel University is the most prominent of several Israeli institutions of higher education built in illegal Israeli colony-settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank.The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip were occupied by Israel in 1967 and are internationally considered as Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court considers such settlement of occupied territory a war crime.United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 reconfirmed in 2016 that Israel’s settlement activity “has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.”Moreover, Ariel University is deeply and directly complicit in Israel’s system of oppression that denies Palestinians their basic rights guaranteed by international law.Obligations for institutionsRespecting international law, as a peaceful and universal means of conflict resolution, requires denying recognition to, and severing institutional relations with Ariel University as an illegal settlement institution.Support for non-recognition of Ariel UniversityThe original decision to upgrade Ariel college to a university was opposed by the Council of Presidents of Israeli Universities and by over 1,000 Israeli academics on the grounds that “involving Israeli academia in the ideology of conquest … threatens the ability of the Israeli academia to function.”In August 2018, the European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA) voted overwhelmingly (164-0, with 17 abstentions) to support the Israeli Anthropological Association in its refusal to cooperate with the illegal institutions of higher education (located in Israel’s illegal settlements in the OPT) and to “pledge its own non-cooperation with these institutions.”Who launched the call?Palestinian Ministry of Education Council of Palestinian Universities’ Presidents Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE) Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC)What you can do:Urge international institutions and governments to avoid being complicit in illegality, by:(1) Refraining from accrediting or recognising any diplomas or qualifications conferred by Ariel University;(2) Conditioning agreements with the Israeli Council for Higher Education on non-recognition and non-accreditation of Ariel University.International academics are called upon to:(3) Decline to write or referee for journals published by Ariel or based in it;(4) Refuse to participate in projects or attend conferences fully or partially sponsored by Ariel University or which include its representatives (dean, head of department or spokesperson) as participants;(5) Urge universities, conferences and workshops not to host individual academics from Ariel University unless their affiliation is properly indicated as “Ariel University, illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel, Occupied Palestinian Territory” in conference material;(6) Urge academic journals not to publish material identified with Ariel University unless it is properly indicated as “Ariel University, illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel, Occupied Palestinian Territory;”(7) Advocate for academic societies to approve motions supporting the call from Palestinian academic bodies not to recognise/sever existing links with Ariel University;(8) Reject any collaboration with Ariel University as an institution or with any of its bodies.
Canada is home to a number of anti-Israel groups, such as United Network for Justice & Peace in Palestine & Israel (UNJPPI) and Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME). Such groups claim they “enable Canadians of all backgrounds to promote justice, development and peace in the Middle East, and here at home in Canada.” Interestingly, a group that calls for peace in the Middle East opposes the new peace agreement between Israel and the Emirates. Recently the two groups sponsored a survey which “shows that an overwhelming majority of Canadians would support International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation of Israel.” In contrast, there isn’t and never was, any Israeli group that focuses on distributing hatred against Palestinians or Arabs.
At the same time, on the academic front, a battle over the directorship of the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) of the University of Toronto is currently taking place. Pro-Palestinian activists support the nomination of Dr. Valentina Azarova, known for her anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian views. Interestingly, Azarova had previously taught at Birzeit University, Palestine. According to reports, Azarova’s nomination has been rescinded. Al-Jazeera called revoking Azarova’s candidacy an “Anti-Palestinian racism.”
However, the administration of the University of Toronto announced that Azarova was not officially a candidate and sent out a statement announcing that “The hiring process for the IHRP director, which is a managerial staff position — not a faculty one — was confidential, and the university is continuing to do its best to maintain confidentiality, notwithstanding insinuations and the selective disclosure of information, including emails, that have been published out of context.”
A group of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian activists, among them Israeli professors and academics, such as Adi Ophir, Ariella Aisha Azoulay, Neve Gordon, Anat Matar, Uri Horesh, Hilla Dayan, Shoshana Madmoony-Gerber, Noa Shaindlinger, and Dorit Naaman, among others, voiced their concern in a petition about “Palestine Speech Suppression.” These academics were said to be “deeply troubled and exasperated by the pervasive repression of speech and scholarship on Palestine.” They claim there is “a broader and intensifying climate of suppression” in Canada, where pro-Palestinian activists are “subjected to smear campaigns, event cancellations, physical violence, professional disciplinary measures, and condemnation by the Prime Minister and other political leaders, for opposing Israel’s gross violations of international law and expressing solidarity with Palestinians.” They also used their petition to accuse the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism as conflating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism by equating legitimate criticism of Israel and the advocacy for Palestinian rights with anti-Semitism.
Not surprisingly, Israeli academic from the University of Haifa, Dr. Itamar Mann, who has been promoting an anti-Israel agenda, as IAM discussed last week, is a colleague of Azarova and supports her work. He said: “She’s a human rights practitioner in a wide variety of areas.” Mann has “worked closely with Azarova at the non-profit Global Legal Action Network [GLAN] on migration and refugee issues in Europe.” Worth noting that GLAN, since 2018, has been working to advance the Occupied Territories Bill in Ireland.
In April 2020, Azarova, representing GLAN, has been cooperating with the Palestinian civil rights group Al-Haq. They produced a report together which they then offered to the Working Group on Business and Human Rights of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland. Their report discusses situations of “prolonged occupation” where companies operate economic dealings in occupied territory. For them, these are “unlawful situations” and “attempts by occupying States to acquire (parts of) occupied territory, or otherwise alter the status of the territory by force, and the flagrant denial of the right of peoples to self-determination they entail.”
The battle over the nomination of Azarova prompted members of the election committee to resign in protest, including the chair of the committee, Prof. Audrey Macklin, who is a long-time political activist. For example, in 2002, she was among a group of nine Canadian women who traveled to Israel and Palestine to seek women co-existence projects, producing a report for Miftah, a Palestinian NGO, aimed at influencing the Canadian public at home. Also, she was a signatory of an “Open Letter from 400+ Canadian Academics Opposing the IHRA Definition of anti-Semitism,” published in February 2020 by Independent Jewish Voices Canada (IJV).
Azarova’s work includes the 2017 article “Israel’s Unlawfully Prolonged Occupation: Consequences under an Integrated Legal Framework”, arguing that ” June 2017 marks 50 years of Israel’s belligerent occupation of Palestinian territory.” Azarova ignores that the Palestinians and their allies, the Arab states, were the belligerents who started several wars against Israel since its founding in 1948. Azarova often relies on reports by NGOs with anti-Israel agenda such as Human Rights Watch, B’Tselem, Amnesty International and others.
The pro-Palestinian activists accuse a sitting judge, a donor to the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, in intervening with Azarova appointment, something the University has denied.
Clearly, had Azarova been appointed to head IHRP at the University of Toronto, the program would have become an epicenter of anti-Israel legal scholarship.
Canadians should note that Palestinian and pro-Palestinian groups are obsessed with attacking Israel. In some cases, it is outright anti-Semitism. Working for democracy and human rights in the Palestinian Territories – a much needed work – is not on their agenda.
‘Anti-Palestinian racism’: Appointment row at Toronto universityUniversity of Toronto’s law school allegedly blocks hiring of scholar due to her work on Israel’s human rights abuses.by Mersiha Gadzo20 Sept 2020
Toronto, Canada – Students and teachers at the University of Toronto have called for the reinstatement of an international scholar’s job offer after it was allegedly rescinded by management over her work on Israel’s human rights abuses in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The university’s law school has been accused of blocking the hiring of Valentina Azarova as director of the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) following pressure by a sitting federal judge, who is also a major donor to the faculty, according to emails seen by the Toronto Star newspaper.
In an email sent to law school Dean Edward Iacobucci on September 12, also seen by Canadian daily The Globe and Mail, two former directors of the IHRP programme said the school made an offer to Azarova that she accepted in August.
However, when a judge in the Tax Court of Canada, whose name has not been disclosed, expressed concerns about Azarova, Iacobucci rescinded the offer, media reports said on Thursday.
The decision led to a series of resignations at the university, including law professor Audrey Macklin, who chaired the hiring committee that unanimously found Azarova to be the best candidate for the position. On Thursday, a second member of the committee, Vincent Wong, resigned.
The IHRP programme’s three-member advisory board – Vincent Chiao, Trudo Lemmens and Anna Su – have also resigned.
‘Apologise for improper interference’
More than 100 IHRP students and alumni have also sent a letter to Iacobucci, calling for a “thorough and public review of donor practices at the law school, as well as of the alleged improper external influence and pressure by, in this case, a member of the judiciary”.
“As a public institution, the Faculty should not be swayed by wealth and influence at the expense of academic freedom and fair and accountable hiring practices,” said the letter, calling on the “Faculty to reinstate Dr Azarova’s offer” and “to apologise for this improper interference in the hiring process”.
“As students, we look to the IHRP to engage with pressing international legal issues, including Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories,” the letter read.
“Dr Valentina Azarova’s scholarship on this topic is principled and reputable. She was unanimously selected by the hiring committee after months of consideration.”
Azarova, an international legal practitioner and researcher, told The Globe and Mail she was offered the IHRP director’s position and accepted it in August through a Zoom call.
She has held positions at several universities, including in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, with immigration detention, arms trade, occupation and annexation being her areas of research.
However, in a letter sent to the Faculty of Law on Thursday and shared with Al Jazeera, Iacobucci denied any offer was made for Azarova.
“Even the most basic of the conjectures that are circulating in public, that an offer was made and rescinded, is false,” he wrote, adding that he “would never allow outside pressure to be a factor in a hiring decision”.
Iacobucci said conversations with a candidate were ongoing, but no offer of employment was made due to “legal constraints on cross-border hiring” within the timeframe required.
“Other considerations, including political views for and against any candidate, or their scholarship, were and are irrelevant,” he wrote.
Kelly Hannah-Moffat, vice president of human resources and equity at the university, told Al Jazeera the “hiring process for IHRP director, which is a managerial staff position, not a faculty one, was confidential”.
“[And] the university is continuing to do its best to maintain confidentiality, notwithstanding insinuations and the selective discourse of information,” she said.
Leslie Green, a law professor at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario wrote a letter of complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council on Thursday, noting that neither the University of Toronto nor Dean Iacobucci has clearly denied that a judge on the Tax Court attempted to influence (or did influence) the outcome of the appointment.
“We don’t have a response. Dean Iacobucci is one person who can probably tell the public whether any judge intervened or not and, if so, why,” Green told Al Jazeera.
“To leave a cloud hanging over the whole Court, and over a judge whose name circulates in social media, is very damaging.
“Complaints have been made to the Canadian Judicial Council. They have a legal duty to investigate cases like this. If the reports of judicial interference are correct, any Palestinian Canadian – perhaps any Muslim – with a matter before the Tax Court would have reasonable grounds to fear bias. This is not some legal technicality. It is about basic justice,” Green said.
Dania Majid, president of the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association (ACLA), said Iacobucci’s denial that an offer was made to Azarova was “appalling” considering that members of the hiring committee had resigned in protest.
“He is throwing his faculty under the bus for an error he has made. It’s unacceptable,” Majid told Al Jazeera.
“It has sent a terrible message to the students at the law school, faculty members, to all prospective Palestinian students, that their voices, their opinions are not welcome on campus and he will not be there to defend their rights to express those opinions if they were to come under attack.”
Majid said the controversy came as no surprise since “anti-Palestinian racism is alive and well in legal institutions as it is in other institutions”.
“This is a story of how Palestinian voices, Palestinian academics or those who work on Palestine are specifically targeted in order to delegitimise the Palestinian voice,” Majid said.
The ACLA has demanded that the law school report “this matter of interference” to the Canadian Judicial Council and an investigation should be conducted.
Corey Balsam, national coordinator for Independent Jewish Voices Canada, said the incident is indicative of “a broader chill being felt throughout the North American academia”.
“Those who openly criticise Israel and support justice for Palestinians are finding themselves under attack left, right and centre,” he told Al Jazeera.
Balsam said pro-Israel groups have intensified their attacks to force universities to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) controversial redefinition of anti-Semitism that includes certain forms of criticism of the Israeli state.
“It’s likely no coincidence that the incident with Azarova occurred at University of Toronto, which has been one of the main targets of this campaign in Canada,” Balsam said.
A bill to adopt the redefinition is currently before the Ontario provincial government, with Majid being “very concerned” about it.
“What does that mean for those who are doing work on Palestine? They are going to come under attack [if they] speak up for Palestinian rights.”
The Canadian Judicial Council is being urged to investigate a judge on the Tax Court of Canada who allegedly intervened to block an international scholar from a senior job at the University of Toronto, over concerns about the scholar’s work on Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.
The university’s law dean, Edward Iacobucci, has not denied allegations that a Tax Court judge attempted to interfere in the appointment of Valentina Azarova as director of the law school’s International Human Rights Program. Two former directors of the program made the allegations in writing to him. He has said, however, that assertions that outside influence affected the outcome are “untrue and objectionable.”
The Tax Court itself, in an e-mail to The Globe on Thursday from Sophie Matte, executive legal counsel to Chief Justice Eugene Rossiter, declined to comment on the allegations involving one of its judges.
The judicial council is a disciplinary body for judges. It can act on a complaint from the public, or its executive director can launch a complaint himself. Its potential sanctions range from a reprimand to a recommendation to Parliament that a judge be removed from the bench.
Leslie Green, a law professor at Queen’s University, wrote a letter of complaint to the judicial council on Thursday. He said it is irrelevant whether external influence caused the school to change course. What matters, he said in his letter to the council, is whether a judge attempted to influence a university appointment. It would be “very troubling,” he said, if the attempted influence were related to Dr. Azarova’s research on Israeli occupation.
“It would put the integrity and impartiality of the Court in jeopardy,” he wrote. “Any party or lawyer before it who is Palestinian, Arab, or Muslim could reasonably fear bias.”
The judicial council told The Globe it cannot undertake an investigation into a complaint unless it has the name of the judge in question. Prof. Green did not name the Tax Court judge, but said in an e-mail to The Globe and Mail that it would astonish him if the CJC felt it had no obligation to investigate allegations that impugn the integrity of a judge, when the court has been named.
The Arab Canadian Lawyers Association has called on the law school itself to file a complaint with the judicial council, since the school would have first-hand knowledge of the judge’s identity, in its view.
Dania Majid calls the judge’s alleged intervention a discriminatory act against Palestinians, raising questions about his impartiality.
“What if an issue comes before him related to a Palestinian charity? I would question his ability to rule on that in an unbiased way,” she said in an interview. She called the events a “stark, open and transparent example of the type of anti-Palestinian racism that is out there in the legal sector,” adding: “It’s causing a great chilling effect in our community. It just rocks you to the core.”
Peter Russell, a political science professor emeritus at the U of T, told The Globe that, if the allegations are true, the judge in question appears to have committed “a very serious misdemeanour.”
“It’s the kind of situation that really requires investigation by the Canadian Judicial Council – there’s quite a bit at stake here for the public interest.”
One leading authority on legal ethics said that the judge appears to have done nothing wrong.
“I don’t see how the judge’s privately expressing to the university an objection to the appointment could be seen as compromising his independence or impartiality in any matter he is called upon to decide,” Gavin MacKenzie, a former treasurer of the Law Society of Ontario, and a published author of works on legal ethics, said in an e-mail.
Carmen Cheung and Samer Muscati, former directors of the human rights program, alleged in a letter to Mr. Iacobucci last weekend that a Tax Court judge had expressed concern to the administration about Dr. Azarova, the hiring committee’s unanimous choice for the job, after which, they said, an offer to her was rescinded. They did not name the judge.
Eugene Meehan, a former executive legal officer at the Supreme Court of Canada, said the Tax Court had acted appropriately in remaining silent on the allegations while events take their course.
“No point in throwing someone in front of an oncoming bus when there may ultimately be no bus,” he said. ==================================================
Search for new director of U of T law faculty’s International Human Rights Program leads to resignations, allegations of interference
By Shree ParadkarRace & Gender ColumnistThu., Sept. 17, 2020The faculty advisory board of the International Human Rights Program (IHRP) at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law has resigned following a controversy over the hiring of a new director for the program.
Edward Iacobucci, dean of the prestigious law school, has come under fire, accused of rescinding an offer of directorship to prominent international academic Valentina Azarova.
Several national and international scholars wrote to the university to express their consternation that the reversal came after reports of pressure from a sitting judge — a major donor to the faculty. He reportedly expressed concerns in private over Azarova’s past work on the issue of Israel’s human rights abuses in Palestine. All the letters mentioned here have been seen by the Star.
“The recent search for an executive director has generated substantial controversy, including allegations of outside interference in the hiring process,” Vincent Chiao, Trudo Lemmens and Anna Su, three members of the faculty advisory committee, wrote to Iacobucci on Wednesday. “We are disappointed by this outcome, the lack of fair process, including the failure to provide reasons for the decision taken.”
Audrey Macklin, who chaired that committee, and was part of the selection panel that unanimously found Azarova the best candidate for the job, resigned from the board last week.
In a statement to the Star, the university cited confidentiality in personnel matters, but said, “We can confirm that no offer of employment was made to any candidate, and therefore, no offer was revoked. The Faculty of Law has cancelled the search. No offers were made because of technical and legal constraints pertaining to cross-border hiring at this time,” said Kelly Hannah-Moffat, vice-president of human resources and equity. Azarova, who is based in Germany, declined to speak to the Star.
But a letter to Iacobucci from two past directors of the IHRP on Sept. 12 contradicts the university’s assertion that no offer of employment was made.
“Azarova — the hiring committee’s top candidate — accepted the faculty’s offer in mid-August,” wrote Carmen Cheung and the most recent director, Samer Muscati. “The Faculty of Law put Dr. Azarova in touch with immigration counsel to advise her on her options for securing a permit to work in Canada, and Dr. Azarova began planning to move with her partner from Germany to Toronto, where her stepchildren reside.”
Azarova has taught law and international law and has worked to establish human rights enforcement mechanisms in Europe and beyond and has consulted for United Nations fact-finding missions, among other accomplishments.
The dean cited confidentiality, and offered one statement to faculty at a meeting on Monday and to individual letter writers. “The uninformed and speculative rumours have reached such a level that, no offer of employment having been made, the University has decided to cancel the search for a candidate at this time.”
Letters to the university from international scholars, members of an alumni steering committee and other faculty strongly condemned what they saw as “improper external pressure” and “impropriety of such interference by alumni.”
“The mere perception of interference has the potential to undermine the integrity of the Faculty of Law’s hiring process and the reputation and future work of the IHRP,” says a letter from two co-chairs of the IHRP Alumni Steering Committee.
Cancelling the search effectively maintains the status quo that the IHRP remains without a permanent director.
The fallout of bombshell accusations that University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law gave in to external pressure on a key hiring continues to grow after a new email from the dean raises fresh contradictions and questions.
On Thursday the Star reported on allegations that the law school rescinded a job offer to respected scholar Valentina Azarova after a sitting judge — and major donor to the faculty —expressed concerns over her academic work on Israeli settlements on Palestinian territories.
The job was for the position of director of the law faculty’s prestigious International Human Rights Program (IHRP). Azarova, who is based in Germany, declined to speak to the Star. The Star attempted to contact the judge’s court Friday but did not get a response.
The university told the Star Friday it was standing by the Dean’s email to staff. “The hiring process for the IHRP director, which is a managerial staff position — not a faculty one — was confidential, and the university is continuing to do its best to maintain confidentiality, notwithstanding insinuations and the selective disclosure of information, including emails, that have been published out of context,” said Kelly Hannah-Moffat, vice-resident of human resources and equity.
The entire faculty advisory board has resigned over the hiring decision and on Thursday, a member of the hiring committee quit his job at U of T. Official complaints have been filed with the Canadian Judicial Council, which has the authority to investigate and discipline judicial misconduct if necessary.
After the story broke Thursday, Dean Edward Iacobucci sent an email, obtained by the Star, to all the law professors at 6:34 p.m: “Let me say at the outset that assertions that outside influence affected the outcome of that search are untrue and objectionable,” he wrote. “University leadership and I would never allow outside pressure to be a factor in a hiring decision.”
But he did not mention if an outside judge attempted to influence the decision. Nor did the university in its response to the Star’s specific questions on this.Queen’s University law professor Leslie Green sought precise clarification in his complaint to the judicial council: Did a judge know who were the shortlisted candidates? And if so, how? Did a judge speak with the dean or others in the faculty about the merits of any candidate? Did a judge attempt to influence the outcome?
Canada University Rescinds Job Offer Due to Pressure from Pro-Israel Donor
September 18, 2020 Blog, News
The University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law has become embroiled in controversy following a decision by the dean of the prestigious law school to rescind an offer of directorship to prominent international academic Valentina Azarova because of her past work exposing Israel’s human rights abuses in Palestine.
Several national and international scholars wrote to the university to express their objection to its decision, according to the Star, a local paper. Azarova was expected to take up the prestigious position of director at the International Human Rights Program (IHRP). The Star, which has seen the correspondence between the university and faculty staff, said that pressure from a sitting judge, presumed to be pro-Israeli, who is also a major donor to the faculty, led to the offer being rescinded.
Several staff members at the university have resigned in protest. Audrey Macklin, who chaired the faculty advisory committee, and was part of the selection panel that unanimously found Azarova the best candidate for the job, quit from the board last week.
In a letter to the Star, the university denied Azarova was offered the position saying that “no offer of employment was made to any candidate, and therefore, no offer was revoked.” But a letter to Edward Iacobucci, dean of the law school from two previous directors of IHRP, contradicts the university’s assertion that no offer of employment was made.
“Azarova — the hiring committee’s top candidate — accepted the faculty’s offer in mid-August,” wrote Carmen Cheung and the most recent director, Samer Muscati. “The Faculty of Law put Dr. Azarova in touch with immigration counsel to advise her on her options for securing a permit to work in Canada, and Dr. Azarova began planning to move with her partner from Germany to Toronto, where her stepchildren reside.”
A second faculty member, Trudo Lemmens, also resigned in protest. “As a faculty member of an academic institution which values academic freedom and human rights issues, I have no clear understanding of why the appointment didn’t take place” Lemmens is reported saying in the Star before announcing his decision to quit. “That’s why I joined colleagues in resigning because I’m not in a position to firmly defend the process and the decision. This is particularly important because I so strongly believe in the value of the program and the integrity of the program.”
Academics who had worked with Azarova’s defended her stance regarding Israel, while expressing concerns over the efforts to silence critics of the occupying state.
“Her criticism of Israel is extremely legitimate within Israel,” Itamar Mann, associate professor, the University of Haifa Faculty of Law, who worked closely with Azarova said. “It’s a criticism that I share. It’s a criticism of long-standing human rights violations of international law, primarily through the project of settlements which is unquestionably illegal and that’s the kind of majority position around the world. It’s not an exotic position to take at all.”
“Even from the perspective of people who imagine themselves as helping defend or support Israel, I think this would be a grave mistake. Being able to debate is an essential part of democracy.”
Azarova has taught law and international law and has worked to establish human rights enforcement mechanisms in Europe and beyond and has consulted for United Nations fact-finding missions, among other accomplishments.
(MEMO, PC, Social Media)===========================================================
As lawyers and academics, we are deeply troubled and exasperated by the pervasive repression of speech and scholarship on Palestine. This includes recent reports that University of Toronto’s Faculty of law rescinded an employment offer to noted international human rights scholar Dr Valentina Azarova, following a complaint by a sitting judge regarding her research on Israel’s occupation policies .
The reported treatment of Dr Azarova is consistent with a broader and intensifying climate of suppression. Lawyers, academics, journalists, teachers, artists, students, activists, and trade unions in Canada have been subjected to smear campaigns, event cancellations, physical violence, professional disciplinary measures, and condemnation by the Prime Minister and other political leaders, for opposing Israel’s gross violations of international law and expressing solidarity with Palestinians. (for examples see ) In August, Indigenous CBC journalist Duncan McCue was required to apologize simply for using the word “Palestine” on-air.
The situation in Canada mirrors that in other countries. In the United States, for example, 1,494 incidents targeting free speech were reported to NGO Palestine Legal from 2014 to 2019; 74% were directed at students and academics at universities. In France, rights activists have been criminally convicted for their support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign pressuring Israel to comply with international law. This criminalization was recently condemned by the European Court of Human Rights as a violation of freedom of expression.
The clamp-down threatens to be further exacerbated by the institutionalization of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
As a 2018 letter from more than 40 Jewish organizations around the world warns: “The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is increasingly being adopted or considered by western governments, is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former.” A statement signed by more than 400 academics opposes the implementation of this definition in Canada for this reason.
Even the original drafter of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, has cautioned against “enshrin[ing] this definition into law” due to the danger of legally conflating anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Yet Ontario’s Bill 168 proposes to do precisely that, by mandating use of the IHRA definition to interpret anti-discrimination and anti-hate laws. Motions to adopt this problematic definition have also been tabled in municipal councils across the country.
The intensification of speech repression coincides with the intensification of Palestinian oppression and dispossession, with Israel’s planned formal annexation of Palestinian territory – denounced by 48 UN human rights experts as the “crystallisation of an already unjust reality.”
In the face of these gross and flagrant transgressions, it is vital that the space for scholarship, speech, and activism in defence of the most basic rights of Palestinians be preserved. This includes the work of scholars like Dr Azarova. It is highly perturbing when academic institutions and law faculties – instead of protecting free speech and fundamental rights – are participants in the suppression.
We call on the University of Toronto Faculty of Law to restore Dr Azarova’s employment offer and issue an apology. We also call on the Canadian Judicial Council to investigate the conduct of the judge who complained about Dr Azarova’s appointment. And we call on all academic and government institutions to cease subjecting those defending justice for Palestinians to censorship and penalization.
Drafted by: Dania Majid, Arab Canadian Lawyers Association Azeezah Kanji, legal academic and journalist
1. Diana Buttu U of T Law Alum 2. Noura Erakat Assistant Professor, Rutgers University- New Brunswick 3. Judith Butler UC Berkeley 4. Richard Falk, Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law, Princeton University 5. John Dugard SC, Emeritus professor of law, Leiden and Witwatersrand; Former Judge ad hoc International Court of Justice 6. Avi Shlaim Emeritus Professor of International Relations, University of Oxford 7. Sherene Razack Distinguished Professor, UCLA 8. Neve Gordon Professor of International Law, Queen Mary University of London 9. David Palumbo-Liu Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor, Stanford University 10. Joel Beinin Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History, Emeritus, Stanford University 11. Noam Chomsky Laureate Professor, U of Arizona; Institute Professor (emeritus), MIT 12. Katherine Franke James L. Dohr Professor of Law, Columbia University 13. Iain Scobbie Professor of Public International Law, Director of the Manchester International Law Centre, University of Manchester, UK 14. Vijay Prashad Director, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research 15. Nick Estes Assistant Professor, American Studies 16. Eve Tuck Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair, University of Toronto 17. Snehal Shingavi associate professor, English, UT Austin 18. Andrew Ross Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis, New York University 19. Malini Guha Associate Professor, Carleton University 20. Kikélola Roach Unifor Chair in Social Justice & Democracy at Ryerson University 21. Ruhan Nagra University Network for Human Rights 22. Nicola Perugini Senior Lecturer, University of Edinburgh 23. Johnny E. Williams Professor of Sociology, Trinity College 24. Min Sook Lee Associate Professor, OCAD University 25. rosalind hampton Assistant Professor, University of Toronto 26. Aziz Choudry Associate Professor/Canada Research Chair, Integrated Studies of Education, McGill University 27. Diana Allan Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology and the Institute for the Study of International Development, McGill University 28. Bill Mullen Retired Professor Purdue University 29. Beverly Bain Women and Gender Studies/ Department of Historical Studies University of Toronto 30. Sanober Umar Assistant Professor, York University 31. Nadia, Abu-Zahra Associate Professor and Joint Chair in Women’s Studies, University of Ottawa and Carleton University 32. Yavar Hameed Human Rights Lawyer, Hameed Law 33. Deborah Cowen Professor, University of Toronto 34. Eric Shragge Associate Professor (retired) School of Community and Public Affairs, Concordia University 35. Michelle Hartman Professor, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University 36. John Greyson Associate Professor, Film, York University 37. Diane Lamoureux Professeure émérite, science politique, Université Laval 38. Cheryl Gaster, LL.B., C. Med 39. Nader Hashemi Director of the Center for Middle East Studies, University of Denver 40. Charlotte Kates Coordinator, International Committee, National Lawyers Guild (U.S.); International Coordinator, Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network 41. Professor Rabab Abdulhadi Director and Senior Scholar, Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies, San Francisco State University 42. Professor Rabab Abdulhadi Director and Senior Scholar, Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies, San Francisco State University 43. Kevin A. Gould Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada 44. Mary Ellen Davis Part-time Faculty, School of Cinema, Concordia University 45. Dror WARSCHAWSKI Sorbonne Université, Paris, France 46. Dyala Hamzah Associate professor (History), Université de Montréal 47. Natasha Bakht Full Professor, Shirley Greenberg Chair for Women and the Legal Profession, University of Ottawa 48. Bill Bowring Professor of Law, Birkbeck College, University of London 49. Dr Saqib Qureshi Fellow at the LSE 50. Stefan Kipfer Associate Professor, York University 51. Suzanne Adely National Lawyers Guild, USA 52. Sherene Seikaly Associate Professor of History, UCSB 53. Amith Gupta NYU Law ’17 54. Adnan A. Husain Director, School of Religion, Queen’s University 55. Hatem Bazian Professor, Zaytuna College; Lecturer, UC Berkeley and Director, Islamophobia Studies Center 56. Devra Weber Emérita Professor, University of California Riverside 57. Nicholas Pope Lawyer, Hameed Law 58. Kanishka Goonewardena Associate Professor, Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto 59. Janan Arafa Lawyer 60. Ivan Huber Prof. Emeritus, Biology, Fairleigh Dickinson Univ., Madison, NJ 61. John M. Willis Associate Professor of History, University of Colorado, Boulder 62. sang kil associate professor, san jose state university 63. Martha L. Schmidt, LL.M., J.D. National Lawyers Guild International Committee 64. William Clare Roberts Associate Professor of political Science, McGill University 65. Darryl Li Assistant Professor, Anthropology, University of Chicago 66. Ariel Salzmann Assistant Professor, Islamic and World History 67. Heike Schotten Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Boston 68. Malek Abisaab Associate Professor of History and Islamic Studies. McGill University 69. Sarah Leah Whitson DAWN, Executive Director 70. Rinaldo Walcott Professor, University of Toronto 71. Karen Dubinsky Professor, Queen’s University 72. Yves Winter Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, McGill University 73. Zulma Oliveras -Boricua Queer Activist 74. Mahmood Ibrahim Professor, Cal Poly Pomona 75. Dana Sajdi Professor, Boston College 76. Yolanda Arroyo – Cátedra de Mujeres Negras Ancestrales de Puerto Rico 77. Dorit Naaman Professor, Film and Media, Queen’s University 78. Vida Samiian Visiting Researcher, Linguistics, UCLA 79. Rasigan Maharajh Chief Director, Institute for Economic Research on Innovation 80. Sam Tecle Assistant Professor, University of Toronto 81. steve núñez PhD Student, Philosophy – UConn; Adjunct Faculty, Philosophy & Religion – UNC-Wilmington 82. Dr. Tarek Khalefih Consultant Pediatricians, assistant professor McMaster university 83. Lara Braitstein Associate Professor, School or Religious Studies, McGill University 84. Edward Hon-Sing Wong Doctoral Candidate, York University Social Work 85. Natalie Rothman Associate Professor of History, University of Toronto 86. Alejandro I. Paz Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Toronto 87. Bengi Akbulut Assistant Professor, Concordia University 88. Judy Rebick Lecturer, Ryerson University 89. Dr. Atif Kubursi Emeritus Professor of Economics McMaster University 90. Dr. Ardi Imseis Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University 91. Paul Hamel Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto 92. Karina Vernon Associate Professor, University of Toronto Scarborough 93. Huwaida Arraf Civil Rights Attorney, National Lawyers Guild Palestine Subcommittee Co-chair 94. Jehan Helou IBBY Palestine 95. Jonathan, Alschech Assistant Professor UNBC 96. Aneil Rallin Associate Professor, Rhetoric, Soka University of America 97. Omer Aijazi Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Toronto 98. Elizabeth Bishop Associate Professor, History, Texas State 99. Shahla Razavi Retired Associate Professor, Mt. San Jacinto Community College 100. Suvir Kaul A M Rosenthal Professor, University of Pennsylvania 101. Gavin Smith Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto 102. Sondra Hale Research Professor, university of California (UCLA) 103. Nejwa Ali Syracuse University, MA 104. William Clare Roberts Associate Professor of Political Science, McGill University 105. Sarah Shamash Sessional Faculty, Emily Carr University of Art + Design 106. Chris Chapman Associate Professor, York University 107. Robert Kirchner University of Alberta, Linguistics (retired) 108. Sophie Bourret-Klein MA Student, University of Toronto 109. Bruce Lofquist Human Rights Advocate 110. Sareer Fazil, Esq. Attorney At Law 111. Dr. Ernie Epp Professor Emeritus, Lakehead University 112. Anne-Emanuelle Birn University of Toronto 113. Ajay Rao Associate Professor, University of Toronto 114. Maureen Korp, PhD Independent scholar, researcher and writer, Ottawa 115. Murray Smith Professor of Sociology, Brock University 116. Michael Bueckert Recent PhD Graduate, Carleton University 117. Herbert Gamberg Professor of Sociology (retired) Dalhousie University 118. Michael D. Kirkpatrick Assistant Professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland 119. sylvat aziz associate professor, queen’s university, kingston ontario 120. Vincent Mosco Professor Emeritus, Queen’s Univeristy 121. Jasbir Puar Professor, Rutgers University 122. Michael A Lebowitz Professor Emeritus of Economics, Simon Fraser University 123. Naomi Binder Wall PhD Candidate, OISE, University of Toronto 124. Stephen Marmura Associate Professor, St. Francis Xavier University 125. Matthew Rowlinson Professor of English, Western University 126. Paola Rivetti Associate Prof, Dublin City University, Ireland 127. Girish Daswani Associate Professor, University of Toronto Scarborough 128. Samir Gandesha Associate Professor, Director of the Institute for the Humanities 129. Anna Badillo M.Phil International Peace Studies Trinity College, Dublin 130. Julie Guard Professor, University of Manitoba 131. Ian Barnard Professor of Rhetoric and Composition, Chapman University 132. Atiqa Hachimi Associate Professor, Department of Historical and Cultural Studies, University of Toronto Scarborough 133. Rebecca Anweiler Assistant Professor, Queen’s University 134. Malavika Kasturi Associate Professor, History, University of Toronto 135. Itay, Epshtain Senior Humanitarian Law and Policy Consultant, Humanitarian Policy 136. Marjorie Griffin Cohen Emeritus Professor, Simon Fraser University 137. Omar Ramahi Professor, University of Waterloo 138. Elaine Coburn Associate Professor, York University 139. Jamie Hilder Assistant Professor, Critical and Cultural Studies, Emily Carr University of Art and Design 140. Wendy Strachan Sr. Lecturer Simon Fraser University rtd 141. Linda Freeman Emeritus Professor Carleton University 142. Pierre, Jemima UCLA 143. Althea Thauberger Assistant Professor, Department of Art History, Visual Art & Theory, The University of British Columbia 144. Mark Thomas Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, York University 145. Egla Martinez Associate Professor, Human Rights and Social Justice, Carleton University 146. Natasha Lycia Ora Bannan Past President, National Lawyers Guild and Adjunct Professor, John Jay College 147. Lara Sheehi Clinical Psychology Faculty, The George Washington University 148. Jill Glessing Professor, Ryerson University 149. Bikrum Gill Assistant Professor, Political Science, Virginia Tech 150. Enda Brophy Associate Professor, Simon Fraser University 151. Kristin Smith Associate Professor, Ryerson University 152. Sarah Schulman Distinguished Professor, City University of New York 153. Nathan Kalman-Lamb Lecturing Fellow, Duke University 154. Reg Whitaker Distinguished research Professor Emeritus, York University 155. Bassam Khawaja NYU School of Law 156. Aejaz Dar Attorney in Private Practice 157. James Cavallaro ED, University Network for Human Rights, Visiting Professor, Wesleyan University 158. Samir Gandesha Associate Professor, Director of the Institute for the Humanities 159. Neha Moharir MPhil student, University of Cambridge 160. Clint Burnham Professor, Simon Fraser University 161. Larry Haiven Professor Emeritus, Saint Mary’s University 162. Nicholas Sammond Professor, University of Toronto 163. Mireille Fanon Mendes France Ex UN Expert 164. Irina Ceric Lawyer and Kwantlen Polytechnic University faculty member 165. Richard Marcuse Instructor, Anthropology, University of Victoria, retired 166. Eve Spangler Associate Professor, Sociology, Boston College 167. Duane Fontaine PhD (cand.), Simon Fraser University 168. Reuben Roth Associate Professor, Workplace & Labour Studies, Laurentian University 169. Jayeeta Sharma Associate Professor, University of Toronto 170. Kevin Moloneu Dept of Languages, York University 171. Jesook Song Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto 172. Margaret Ferguson Distinguished Professor of English Emerita 173. Alessandro Delfanti Associate professor, University of Toronto 174. Fathia Shawish Palestinian 175. Michael Zeitlin Associate Professor, English Language and Literatures, University of British Columbia 176. Emily Gilbert Professor, University of Toronto 177. Jesse Greener Professor of Chemistry, Universtié Laval 178. Natalie Oswin Associate Professor, Geography, University of Toronto 179. Andreas Motsch Associate Professor, French, University of Toronto 180. Ain ul Khair Ph.D. Candidate, Central European University 181. Kamel Hawwash Professor, University if Birmingham, UK 182. James Penney Professor, Trent University 183. Sanda Munjic Associate Prof., University of Toronto 184. Kristen Bos Assistant Professor, Historical Studies/WGSI, University of Toronto 185. Alejandra Sanchez Alvarez ecce Instructor and ECPN PSI Pedagogist at Capilano university, BC 186. Martin Klein Professor Emeritus, History, University of Toronto 187. Robert Beshara Critical Praxis Cooperative 188. Sara Matthews Associate Professor, Global Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University 189. Whitney Kemble Librarian, University of Toronto Scarborough 190. Kass Banning Associate Professor, TS, University of Toronto 191. Steven Gelb Professor (retired) University of San Diego 192. Marty Roth Emeritus professor English, University of Minnesota 193. Bernd Baldus Professor emeritus, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto 194. Judith Taylor Associate Professor, University of Toronto 195. Luca Somigli Professor, Italian Studies, University of Toronto 196. Rania Salem Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto 197. Jeremy Wildeman Research Fellow, Universit of Ottawa 198. John Noyes Professor, University of Toronto 199. Yildiz Atasoy Professor and Director of Centre for Sustainable Development, Simon Fraser University 200. Ross Frank Associate Professor, Department of Ethnic Studies, U.C. San Diego 201. J. David Hulchanski Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto 202. Soleman Abu-Bader Professor, Howard University 203. Seth Wigderson Professor of History, University of Maine at Augusta, Ret. Emeritus 204. Nigel Haggan Independent scholar (PhD UBC) 205. Denise Nadeau Affiliate Assitant Professor, Concordia 206. Peter Fitting professor emeritus U of Toronto 207. David Galbraith Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto 208. Katherine Bullock Lecturer, University of Toronto 209. Greg Bird Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University 210. Daniel White Professor, University of Toronto 211. Victor Li Associate Professor (Emeritus), English, University of Toronto 212. Noa Shaindlinger College of the Holy Cross 213. Jamila Ghaddar Doctoral Candidate, Faculty of Information, University of Toronto 214. Conrad Alexandrowicz Associate Professor, University of Victoria 215. Valentina Capurri Sessional, Ryerson University 216. Itrath Syed PhD Candidate, School of Communication, Simon Fraser University 217. Elia Zureik Professor Emeritus, Queen’s University, Ontario Canada 218. Harjeet Singh Grewal Instructor Department of Classics and Religion, University of Calgary 219. Karim Agha 220. Donald Fisher Past Principal, Emeritus College, University of British Columbia 221. Val Marie Johnson Associate Professor, Social Justice & Community Studies, Saint Mary’s University 222. Rupaleem Bhuyan Associate Professor, Social Work, University of Toronto 223. Laura U. Marks Professor, Simon Fraser University 224. Dia Da Costa, Professor, University of Alberta 225. Laleh Khalili Professor of International Politics, Queen Mary University of London 226. John Abromeit Professor of History, SUNY, Buffalo State 227. Jody Berland Professor, York University 228. Madina Siddiqui MDes Candidate – Strategic Foresight and Innovation at OCAD University 229. Charles Reeve Chair, Arts & Sciences, OCAD University 230. Mary Louise Adams Professor, Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen’s University 231. StephenLaudig Attorney 232. Wael Hallaq Columbia University 233. Alexander Vesuna, History & Equity Studies Undergrad 234. Nahla Abdo Professor, Carleton University 235. Cynthia Levine-Rasky Associate Professor, Sociology, Queen’s University 236. Ron Bourgeault Emeritus Instructor, Sociology, University of Regina 237. Stephen D’Arcy Associate Professor, Huron at Western 238. Sirma Bilge Professor, Sociology, Université de Montréal 239. Sylvie Paquerot Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa 240. Peter Eglin Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University 241. Leo Panitch Emeritus Professor of Politics York University 242. Stéphanie Wahab Professor, Portland State University 243. Michael Bradfield |Professor, Economics, Dalhousie |University, (Retired) 244. Peter Gose Professor Emeritus, Anthrpology, Carleton University 245. Ted Rutland Associate Professor, Concordia University 246. Abigail Bakan Professor, OISE, University of Toronto 247. Sujith Xavier Associate Professor, Faculty of Law University of Windsor 248. Mark Ayyash Associate Professor, Sociology, Mount Royal University 249. Stan Persky Professor (retired), Capilano University 250. Steve Heeren Retired Prof., University of Regina 251. Howell Morgan Psychoanalyst 252. James Cairns Associate Professor, Social and Environmental Justice, Wilfrid Laurier University 253. Pierre Beaudet Université du Québec en Outaouais 254. Harriet Friedmann Professor Emerita, University of Toronto 255. Rachad ANTONIUS Full Professor, Sociology, Université du Québec à Montréal 256. Matthew Webster Lecturer, University of British Columbia, rtd 257. Cornelia Baines Professor Emerita, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto 258. Jason Hannan Associate Professor, University of Winnipeg 259. Jeremy Tai Assistant Professor, McGill University 260. Muhammad Ali, Khalidi Presidential Professor of Philosophy, CUNY Graduate Center 261. andré carrington Associate Professor of English, University of California Riverside 262. Anat Matar Senior lecturer, Tel Aviv University 263. James Eastwood Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, Queen Mary University of London 264. Prabha Khosla Gender Justice Specialist, ReFocus Consulting 265. Joanne Naiman Professor Emerita, Sociology, Ryerson University,Toronto 266. Marwan Ali Un 267. Courtney R. Baker Associate Professor, UC Riverside 268. Rosa Sarabia Professor Department of Spanish & Portuguese, Univ.of Toronto 269. Mike Palamarek Sessional Assistant Professor, Glendon College, York University 270. Roger Beck Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto 271. Andrea Meeson Former Graduate Studies Administrator, University of Toronto 272. Matthew Flisfeder Associate Professor, The University of Winnipeg 273. Promise Li Ph.D student, Department of English, Princeton University 274. Mary Jo Iozzio Professor of Moral Theology, Boston College 275. Norman Epstein Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia 276. Wafaa Hasan Lecturer, McMaster University 277. Sunera Thobani Professor, The University of British Columbia 278. Smaro Kamboureli Avis Bennett Chair in Canadian Literature, University of Toronto 279. Neil Naiman Senior Scholar, York University 280. Shaheen Shariff Professor, McGill University 281. Bianca Dahl Assistant Professor, University of Toronto Scarborough a. Laura Westra University of Windsor 282. Asha Varadharajan Associate Professor, Queen’s University 283. Arman Chak Barrister & Solicitor, ForensicLaw 284. Randa Farah Associate Professor, UWO 285. Gökbörü Sarp Tanyildiz Lecturer, Brock University 286. Vladimir Safatle Professor, Universidade de São Paulo 287. Rakhshan Rizwan Researcher, Comparative Literature, Utrecht University 288. Bhavani Raman Associate Professor, Univ. of Toronto, Associate Professor, Department of History 289. Andrew Baines Professor Emeritus University of Toronto 290. Jeffrey Monaghan Associate Professor, Carleton University, Institute of Criminology 291. R. Magaly San Martin, PhD Professor, Sheridan College 292. Dr. Farhan Mujahid Chak QATAR UNIVERSITY 293. Sailaja Krishnamurti Associate Professor, Saint Mary’s University 294. Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández Professor, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education 295. Francis Cody Associate Professor, Anthropology and Asian Institute, University of Toronto 296. Cynthia Franklin Professor of English, University of Hawai’i 297. Omri Tayyara PhD Candidate, University of Toronto 298. Faisal Bhabha Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University 299. Dr. Jeff Noonan Professor of Philosophy, President, Windsor University Faculty Association, University of Windsor 300. Shanon Fitzpatrick Asst. Professor of History, McGill University 301. David McNally Distinguished Professor, University of Houston 302. Aby Diagne lawyer 303. Bill Skidmore Instructor (Retired) Carleton University 304. Jorge Filmus Professor, Univ. of Toronto 305. Eleanor MacDonald Associate Professor, Political Studies, Queen’s University 306. Trevor Purvis Assistant Professor, Carleton University 307. Hussein Hamdani Partner, Simpson Wigle 308. ismail Poonawala Prof. Emeritus of Arabic & Islamic Studies, UCLA 309. Denise Margaret Matias Associate, Center for Development Research (ZEF) Bonn, Germany 310. Harry Shannon Professor Emeritus, McMaster University 311. Dr. Edwin Daniel, FRSC Professor Emeritus, University of lberta, and McMaster University 312. Carol Gigliotti Professor Emerita, Emily Carr University of Art and Design 313. Denis Kosseim Professor, Philosophy Departement, André-Laurendeau College 314. Destiny Mae, Ramos-Alleyne Undergraduate Student, University of Toronto 315. Rebecca Comay Professor, Dept of Philosophy, University of Toronto 316. Alberto Toscano Reader in Critical Theory, Goldsmiths, University of London 317. Melanie Newton Associate Professor, University of Toronto 318. Larry Hannant Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Victoria 319. Ilan Kapoor Professor, York University 320. Brenna Bhandar SOAS, School of Law 321. Jennifer Nelson Former Assistant Professor, Alumnus, University of Toronto 322. Stephen Rockel Associate Prof, University of Toronto Scarborough 323. Ahlam Tarayra Executive Director, MUSAWA-the Palestinian center for the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession 324. Adrian Ivakhiv Professor, University of Vermont 325. Eric Tucker Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University 326. Kari Dehli Professor Emerita, University of Toronto 327. sanders, carol retired attorney; member Jewish Voice for Peace 328. Robert Sweeny Emeritus, Memorial University of Newfoundland 329. Fizza Mir PhD student, York University 330. Harry Smaller Associate Professor Emeritus, York University 331. Clint Burnham Professor, Simon Fraser University 332. Mario Prost Senior Lecturer, Keele University 333. Lara Khattab Instructor, Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies, Human Rights and Social Justice, Carleton University 334. Christopher A. Shaw Professor, University of British Columbia 335. Sharry Aiken Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Queen’s University 336. Dana Seitler Professor of English, Director Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies 337. Adrian Smith Associate Professor, York University 338. Gary Kinsman Professor Emeritus, Sociology, Laurentian University 339. Loubna, Qutami Assistant Professor, Department of Asian American Studies, UCLA 340. jorji temple Simon Fraser University, PhD Candidate 341. Denis Rancourt Researcher, Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca) 342. Anne Meneley Professor, Dept of Anthropology, Trent University 343. Vinh Nguyen Associate Professor, University of Waterloo 344. Mary Boyd Director, MacKillop Centre for Social Justice 345. Daniel Tysdal Associate Professor, Teaching Stream, Department of English, University of Toronto Scarborough 346. Scott Richmond Associate Professor, Cinema Studies Institute, University of Toronto 347. Craig Reinarman Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies Emeritus, University of California, Santa Cruz 348. Arman Chak Barrister & Solicitor, ForensicLaw 349. Elizabeth Whitmore Professor Emerita, Carleton University 350. Ronnie Joy Leah, Ph.D. Instructor, Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, Athabasca University 351. Kristin Plys Assistant Professor, Sociology, University of Toronto 352. Tanzil Chowdhury Assistant Professor, Queen Mary Univesity of London 353. Danny Heap Associate Professor, Teaching Stream, University of Toronto 354. Viviane Saglier Postdoctoral fellow, McGill University 355. Laurie Adkin Professor, Political Science, University of Alberta 356. Dr. Mary-Jo Nadeau Retired faculty, PhD York University, Sociology, Toronto, Canada 357. Dr. Edwin Daniel Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta and McMaster University 358. DONNA YOUNG Assistant Professor University of Toronto 359. Yasmin Jiwani Professor, Concordia University 360. Madalena Santos Instructor, Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Carleton University 361. dr george pollard Associate Professor, Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University, OTTAWA 362. Pearce Clancy PhD Researcher, Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland, Galway 363. Judith E. Tucker Professor, Georgetown University 364. Tatiana Young University of Hawai’i 365. Haideh Moghissi Emerita Professor, York University, Toronto 366. Geoffrey Reaume Associate Professor, York University 367. Jennifer Nedelsky Osgoode Hall Law School, York University 368. Baha Abu-Laban Professor Emeritus of Sociology, University of Alberta 369. Rashmi Luther Lecturer (Retired), School of Social Work, Carleton University 370. Aarif Pathan assistant clinical professor University of Alberta 371. Jenna, Kelsall Nursing Student, Nipissing University 372. Craig, Cowan Associate Professor, University of Manitoba 373. Hicham Safieddine Assistant Professor, King’s College London 374. Deborah Gordon Associate Professor Women’s Studies Wichita State University 375. Anne Murphy Associate Professor, University of British Columbia 376. Lara Karaian Associate Professor, Criminology, Carleton University 377. Yvonne Haddad Emerita Professor, Georgetown University 378. Jacqueline Ismael Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary 379. Greg Albo Professor, Politics, York University 380. Byron Miller Professor, University of Calgary 381. François Tanguay-Renaud Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, and Co-Director of the Jack & Mae Nathanson Centre on Transntional Human Rights, Crime and Security 382. Joan Russow Co-Coordinator Global Compliance Research Project 383. John L. Esposito University Professor, Georgetown University 384. Dina Georgis Associate Professor, University of Toronto 385. Alaeddine Mokri Graduate Student, The George Washington University 386. Eamonn Meehan LLM. 387. Merih Danali Princeton/Wake Forest University 388. Joyce Green Professor (on leave) University of Regina 389. Ayman Agamy Computer Science Student, University of Manitoba 390. Sadique Pathan Mental Health Therapist 391. Nicholas, Doerger MSEE, Cleveland State University 392. Maureen FitzGerald Retired, Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies, University of Toronto 393. Shoshana Madmooni-Gerber Associate Professor, Communication and Journalism Suffolk University 394. Dr. Jody Baker Lecturer, Simon Fraser University 395. Davina Bhandar Faculty, centre for social Sciences, Athabasca University 396. Rosa Pires Part-time teacher, Concordia University 397. Matthias Mushinski PhD student, Concordia University 398. Imraan Mir Kashmir Law and Justice Project 399. Robert Latham Professor, York University 400. Baljit Nagra Assistant professor. University of Ottawa 401. Samer Abdelnour Lecturer, University College London 402. Patricia Harms Associate Professor, Brandon University 403. Shahrzad Mojab University of Toronto 404. Paul Kellogg Professor, Athabasca University 405. Patrick Keilty Associate Professor, Faculty of Information, University of Toronto 406. Paul Leduc Browne Professeur honoraire, Université du Québec en Outaouais 407. John P. Portelli, Professor, University of Toronto 408. Sedef Arat-Koc Associate Professor, Ryerson University 409. Ata Hindi Research Fellow, International Law, Birzeit University 410. Lorraine Weir Professor, University of British Columbia 411. Sara Carpenter Associate Professor, University of Alberta 412. Andrew Brook Prof of Philosophy and Cognitive Science Emeritus, Carleton University, Ottawa 413. Paul Cohen Associate Professor, History, University of Toronto 414. M Cristina Cuervo Associate Professor, University of Toronto 415. Saptarishi Bandopadhyay Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University 416. Sabrien Amrov PhD candidate , university of Toronto 417. Mustafa Koc Professor, Ryerson University 418. Jeff Shantz Faculty, Department of Criminology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University 419. Rasha Salti Commissioning Editor, Arte 420. Yahya El-Lahib Associate Professor, University of Calgary 421. Sherena Razek PhD student, Brown University 422. Swathi Sekhar Immigration and Refugee Lawyer, Toronto 423. Dr. Hilla Dayan Amsterdam University College 424. Takashi Fujitani Professor, University of Toronto 425. Joseph Carens Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Toronto 426. Amahl Bishara Assoc. Prof. U Chair of Anthropology, Tufts University 427. Blair Kuntz Middle East Studies Librarian, University of Toronto 428. Roderick Hill Professor of Economics, University of New Brunswick 429. Clelia O. Rodriguez Lecturer, Dept. of Curriculum, Teaching & Learning, OISE 430. Nasrin Rahimieh University of California, Irvine 431. Khaled Elgindy Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University 432. John Philpot Attorney, Barreau du Québec, Just Peace Advocates 433. Jennifer Kelly Assistant Professor, University of California Santa Cruz 434. Michael McIntyre Assoc Prof, DePaul University 435. Dr. Gerald Rowe Adjunct Professor, Institut Armand Frappier – INRS 436. Michael Z. Letwin Former President, Association of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW 2325; Labor for Palestine 437. Charlotte-Anne Malischewski Lawyer, Toronto 438. Larry B Harder Associate Professor, Landscape Architecture (Retired), University of Guelph 439. Jessie Stein Phd Researcher, CUNY Graduate Center 440. Anna Zalik Associate Professor, York University 441. David Alamouti Senior Lecturer, Film Production, Solent 442. Susan Russell Retired/Lecturer/Adjunct Professor, SFU Linguistics 443. Beshara Doumani Professor, Brown University 444. Stephen Sheehi Sultan Qaboos Eminent Professor of Middle East Studies, William & Mary 445. Amna Shakil Lawyer, City of Toronto 446. Françoise Vergès Professor, France 447. Thomas Kemple Professor, University of British Columbia 448. Khaled A. Beydoun Professor of Law 449. Natalie Kouri-Towe Assistant Professor, Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University 450. Cynthia Levine-Rasky Associate Professor, Sociology, Queen’s University 451. David Simpson Distinguished Professor, Emeritus. U of California-Davis 452. May El-Abdallah Arab Canadian Lawyers Association 453. Zakaria Odeh Executive Director of the Civic Coalition for Palestinian Rights in Jerusalem 454. Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb Professor of Media Studies, California State University, San Bernardino 455. Sabrien Amrov PhD candidate , university of Toronto 456. Sarah Gwyneth Ross Professor of History, Boston College 457. Justin Barski PhD Candidate, University of Rochester 458. Carole H Browner Professor UCLA 459. Sharri Plonski Lecturer in International Politics, Queen Mary University of London 460. Linda Mokdad Associate Professor, St. Olaf College 461. Jonathan Kuttab lawyer, founder of Al-Haq 462. Tasha Manoranjan Executive Director, People for Equality and Relief in Lanka (PEARL) 463. Elana Baurer General Counsel, Jewish Voice for Peace 464. Sojourner King Lawyer, Principal, Sojourner King Law 465. Sabrien Amrov PhD candidate , university of Toronto 466. Susan Ferguson Associate Professor Emerita, Wilfrid Laurier University 467. Brian Iler Partner, Iler Campbell, Barristers & Solicitors, Toronto 468. Martha Rosler Professor II Emerita, Rutgers University, New BrunswicK, NJ 469. Astrid Mrkich Mrkich Law, Barrister & Solicitor 470. Marilynn Johnson Professor, Boston College 471. Fathima Cader Cader Law 472. Mohamad Sawwaf CEO & Doctoral Candidate, Manzil Islamic Bank & Henley Business School, UK 473. Bruce Stanley Adjunct Professor of International Relations, Richmond, the American International University in London 474. Jens Hanssen University of Toronto 475. Natasha Hay PhD Candidate, Centre for Comparative Literature, University of Toronto 476. Yakov Rabkin Professor Emeritus, University of Montreal 477. Molly Joeck PhD candidate, University of British Columbia 478. Heather Sykes Professor, OISE, University of Toronto 479. Catherine Leclerc Associate Professor, Littératures de langue française, traduction et création, McGill University 480. Amina Mire Associate Pressor, Carleton University 481. Alan Sears Professor, Sociology, Ryerson University 482. Andrew P. Lyons Professor Emeritus, Anthropology, Wilfrid Laurier University and Research Associate, Anthropology, University of Waterloo. 483. Chandni Desai Assistant Professor, University of Toronto 484. Nestor E. Rodriguez Associate Professor, University of Toronto 485. Andrew P. Lyons Professor Emeritus, Anthropology, Wilfrid Laurier University and Research Associate, Anthropology, University of Waterloo. 486. Danielle Seid Assistant Professor, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa 487. Razan AlSalah Assistant Professor, Communication Studies Department, Concordia University 488. Bernie Koenig retired, professor of Philosophy, Fanshawe College, London Ontario 489. Malcolm Blincow Associate Professor Emeritus, Anthropology, York University 490. Sumi, Hasegawa Retired Faculty Lecturer, McGill University 491. Kayume Baksh LL.B, M.D. 492. Genevieve DUMAS Emerita Professor, Queen’s University 493. Janice Williamson Professor Emeritus, English & Film Studies, University of Alberta 494. Manal Hamzeh Professor, Gender & Sexuality, New Mexico State University 495. Yani Kong Doctoral Candidate, The School for the Contemporary Arts, Simon Fraser University 496. Heidi Matthews Assistant Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School; Co-Director, Nathanson Centre on Transnational Human Rights, Crime and Security, York University 497. Erin, Steuter Professor, Mount Allison University 498. Ellen Dichner Distinguished Lecturer, School of Labor & Urban Studies, City University of NY 499. Mitchell Goldberg Refugee and immigration lawyer 500. Nancy Gallagher Professor Emerita, University of California, Santa Barbara 501. Uri Horesh Senior Lecturer, Achva Academic College. 502. Edward Andrew Political Science, U of Toronto 503. Jess Bier Assistant Professor, Erasmus University Rotterdam 504. Micheline Beaudry Professeure retraitée de nutrition publique, Université Laval 505. Dana Amr Masters in International studies, wollongong University 506. Michael Gervers Professor, University of Toronto 507. Rosemary MacKenzie Retired Librarian, Dalhousie University 508. Alistair Welchman Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at San Antonio 509. Zahi Zalloua Professor, Whitman College 510. Charles Wilkins Associate Professor, Wake Forest University 511. Thea Lim Professor, Sheridan College 512. Andrea Sobko Lawyer, Toronto, Canada 513. Chandler Davis Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto 514. Stephen Roddy Professor, University of San Francisco 515. Barbara Jackman Lawyer, Jackman & Associates 516. Peige Desjarlais PhD Candidate, York University 517. John Zilcosky Professor, University of Toronto 518. Amar Bhatia Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University 519. Harriet Lyons Professor Emerita, University of Waterloo 520. Jonathan Rosenhead Emeritus Professor, London School of Economics 521. John Clarke Packer Visitor in Social Justice York University 522. Richard Fung Professor Emeritus, OCAD University 523. Alissa Trotz University of Toronto 524. Adriana Premat University of Western Ontario 525. Tong Lam Associate Professor, University of Toronto 526. Hannah Boast Assistant Professor, University College Dublin 527. Maurice Dufour Lecturer, Marianopolis College 528. Dr Bruce Spencer Professor Emeritus, Athabasca University 529. Sondra Hale Professor Emerita, U. of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) 530. David Warren Postdoctoral Fellow, Washington University in St. Louis 531. Diana Ralph Associate Professor, retired, Carleton University 532. Vannina Sztainbok Lecturer, University of Toronto 533. Rebecca Johnson PhD candidate, McGill University 534. Sabine Bitter Professor, School for the Contemporary Arts, Simon Fraser University 535. Dorota Lech Toronto International Film Festival 536. Nalini Mohabir Assistant Professor, Concordia University 537. Thomas Brown Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University 538. Ivy Sichel Associate Professor University of California Santa Cruz 539. Peter Chidiac Professor, Dept. of Physiology and Pharmacology, University of Western Ontario 540. Jeffrey Skoller Associate Professor, UC Berkeley 541. Shariff Dessouki Doctor, McMaster University 542. b.h. Yael Professor, Faculty of Art, OCAD University 543. Henry Hakamaki Graduate researcher, Bernhard-Nocht Institute of Tropical Medicine 544. Omar Mohammad Clinical instructor University of Alberta 545. Jihan El Tahri General Director of DOX BOX 546. Christo, El Morr Associate Professor, York University 547. Adam Miyashiro Associate Professor, Stockton University 548. Les Levidow Senior Research Fellow, Open University, UK 549. Audra Ruple Graduate Student, University of Akron 550. Banerji, Anna Associate Professor, Pediatrics and Dalla Lana School of Public Health, U of T 551. Stephen Collis Professor, Simon Fraser University 552. Daniel Segal Jean M. Pitzer Professor, PITZER COLLEGE 553. Gary Fields Professor, University of California, San Diego 554. Mark Hunter Professor, University of Toronto 555. Dr. Raed Hawa Professor, University of Toronto 556. David Hill Professor Emeritus, University of Calgary 557. Hana Masri Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Pennsylvania 558. Tess Sheldon Assistant Professor, Windsor Law 559. Dolores Chew Faculty, Marianopolis College 560. Riaz Sayani Criminal defence lawyer, Toronto, Canada 561. Garry Potter Professor, Wilfrid Laurier University 562. Jillian Rogin Assistant Professor, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law 563. Ariella Aïsha Azoulay Professor of Comparative Literature and Modern, Culture & Media, Brown University 564. Uri Strauss Attorney 565. Alex Latta Associate Professor, Wilfrid Laurier University 566. Adi Ophir Professor Emeritus, Tel Aviv University, Visiting Professor, Brown University 567. Vincent Wong PhD Candidate, Osgoode Hall Law School 568. Rain Wright Lecturer, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa 569. Carol Liao Associate Professor, University of British Columbia 570. Anita Tijerina Revilla Professor, Cal State LA 571. Paul Copeland C M Life Bencher Law Society of Ontario 572. Steven Maynard Associate Professor, Queen’s U, Kingston, Canada 573. Doug Rigby Canadians, Arabs and Jews for a Just Peace in Israel and Palestine 574. Colleen O’Manique Professor, Trent University 575. Joy Moore Professor Dawson College Montreal retired 576. Katherine Blouin Associate Professor, University of Toronto 577. Jordan Strom PhD student, Simon Fraser University 578. Sara Ghebremusse Assistant Professor, Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia 579. Thomas Lamarre Professor Emeritus, McGill University 580. James Rowe Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, University of Victoria 581. Jalal Kawash Teaching Professor, University of Calgary 582. Dolores Delgado Bernal Professor, California State University, Los Angles 583. Tanya Titchkosky Professor, University of Toronto 584. Alessandra Capperdoni Instructor, Simon Fraser University 585. Mohammed Nabulsi Alumni, University of Texas School of Law 586. Veldon Coburn Assistant Professor, University of Ottawa 587. Emilio Dabed Adjunct Professor of Law, York University, Toronto 588. David Barsamian, author 589. Jasminka Kalajdzic Associate Professor, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law 590. Himani, Bannerji Professor Emeritus, York University 591. Kevin Edmonds Associate Professor, Caribbean Studies, University of Toronto 592. Vanessa Ramos President, Asociación Americana de Juristas 593. Geoff Martin Part-time faculty, Mount Allison University, Sackville, NB, Canada 594. Livia Alexander Assistant Professor, Montclair State University 595. Josephine Savarese Associate Professor, St. Thomas University 596. Deborah Guterman Lawyer, Toronto, Ontario 597. Martha Roth Writer 598. Gettle, Julia PhD Candidate, Brown University 599. Jessica Hatrick Doctoral Student, University of Southern California 600. Nicholas Barone PhD student, Princeton University 601. Miriam Lowi Professor, The College of New Jersey 602. David Warren Lawyer, U of T graduate 603. Kevin Jon Heller Professor of International Law and Security, University of Copenhagen 604. Ben Burgis Lecturer (Philosophy), Georgia State University Perimeter College 605. Dennis Kortheuer California State University, Long Beach Emeritus 606. Louise Aucoin Law professor, retired, U de Moncton 607. Shiri Pasternak Assistant Professor, Criminology, Ryerson University 608. Hana Masri Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Pennsylvania 609. Najib Safieddine Assistant professor. University of Toronto. 610. Franck Magennis Barrister in England and Wales 611. Claire Mumme Associate Professor, University of Windsor 612. Anthony Tirado Chase Professor, Occidental College 613. Raphael, Vagliano Immigration and refugee lawyer at Jared Will & Associates, Toronto 614. Chris Chien PhD candidate, University of Southern California 615. Elene Lam PhD Candidate , McMaster University , School of Social Work 616. Jillian Rogin Assistant Professor, University of Windsor, Faculty of Law 617. Sara Dehm Lecturer, University of Technology Sydney, Australia 618. Sherif Foda Barrister and Solicitor 619. Arun Kundnani Writer 620. Anjum Faridi Assistant Professor, Dalhousie University 621. Kristen Thomasen Assistant professor, Windsor Law 622. Melissa Weiner Associate Professor, College of the Holy Cross 623. Rob Heynen Associate Professor, York University 624. Debarati Biswas Adjunct Lecturer, Hunter College, CUNY 625. Rania Tfaily Associate Professor, Carleton University 626. Vasuki Nesiah Professor of Practice, The Gallatin School, NYU 627. Uzoma Esonwanne Associate Professor, University of Toronto 628. Pamela Arancibia PhD Candidate, Italian Studies, University of Toronto 629. Sut Jhally Professor Emeritus, University of Massachusetts at Amherst 630. Benjamin Tinholt Lawyer 631. Sameh Al Natour Assistant Professor, Ryerson University 632. Donna Szoke Associate Professor, Brock University 633. Melissa Williams Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto 634. Stewart Istvanffy international human rights lawyer 635. Valarie Waboose Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor 636. Elena Basile Sessional Lecturer, University of Toronto 637. Cynthia Wright Associate Professor, York University 638. Vincent Romani Associate professor, political science, UQAM, Montreal 639. Reem Bahdi Associate Professor, Windsor Law (and U of T alum) 640. Shibil Siddiqi Barrister & Solicitor, Toronto 641. Rawan Arraf Principal Lawyer, Australian Centre for International Justice 642. Yasmeen Abu-Laban Professor, Political Science, University of Alberta 643. Jordan Morelli Professor, Queen’s University 644. Jim Lafferty Fellow, Institute for the Humanities, University of Southern California 645. Parmbir Gill Lawyer 646. Vasanthi Venkatesh Assistant Professor, University of Windsor Faculty of Law 647. Robert Ware Prof. Emeritus, Univ. of Calgary 648. James Bhandary-Alexander Clinical Lecturer in Law, Research Scholar , Yale Law School 649. Jody Berland Professor, York University 650. John T. Maher Attorney, New York, Former Adjunct Prof. of Law 651. DJAOUIDA SIACI International Lawyer, DS ATTORNEY AT LAW firm 652. Kajri Jain Associate Professor, University of Toronto 653. Majd Zakout Lawyer 654. Lila Sharif Assistant Professor, UIUC 655. Izzeldin Abuelaish Associate Professor. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto 656. Rashmi Kumar Criminal Defence Lawyer 657. Mervyn Nicholson Professor, Thompson Rivers University 658. Lisa Kelly Assistant Professor, Queen’s University, Faculty of Law 659. Mara Horowitz Adjunct Lecturer, SUNY Purchase 660. Hanadi Shatata Assistant Professor, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse 661. David Letwin Part-Time Lecturer, Rutgers University, PTLFC-AAUP-AFT Local 6324 662. Richard Moon Distinguished University Professor, University of Windsor 663. M. V. Ramana Professor, University of British Columbia 664. Saeed Rahnema Professor, rtd. York University 665. Ethan Ackelsberg PhD Candidate, Ohio State University 666. Eric Ball English instructor, Langara College (retired) 667. Zahra Binbrek Lawyer 668. Howard Winant Distinguished Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara 669. Omar Zahzah PhD, Independent Scholar 670. Pierre Cloutier de Repentigny University of Ottawa 671. Shivangi Misra Policy Manager, lawyer, Feminist Alliance for International Action, Ottawa 672. Dr. James Deutsch Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto 673. Guy S Goodwin-Gill Professor, University of New South Wales 674. Carol Liao Associate Professor, University of British Columbia 675. Victoria Wan Staff Lawyer, Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic 676. Philip Howard Assistant Professor, McGill University 677. Mary Ann Higgs Lawyer, Kingston, Ontario 678. Natasha Baker civil rights attorney 679. Jonathan AC Brown Professor, Georgetown University 680. Lobna Mahdi Graduate Student, University of Toronto 681. Sunaina Maira Professor, University of California-Davis 682. Michelle Stack Associate Professor, University of British Columbia 683. Katharine Fortin Assistant Prof, Utrecht University 684. Rush Rehm Professor, Classics and Theater, Stanford University 685. Imtenan Abd-El-Razik Staff Lawyer, Waterloo Region Community Legal Services; Lecturer – Ryerson University 686. Dr. Bryant William Sculos Visiting Assistant Professor, Worcester State University 687. Margaret Ferguson Distinguished Professor of English Emerita University of California Davis 688. Betty Ackah PhD Candidate, Simon Fraser University 689. Jennifer Tyburczy Associate Professor, University of Califorinia Santa Barbara 690. Tahsina Alam Lawyer, Law Society of Ontario 691. James, Godfrey PhD Researcher, Birkbeck, University of London 692. Neel Ahuja Associate Professor, University of California-Santa Cruz 693. Khaled Abou El Fadl Professor, UCLA School of Law ==========================================================
CJPME Factsheet No. 220, published September, 2020: This factsheet provides an overview of the UAE-Israel normalization agreement. Is this really a “peace deal,” and is Canada right to welcome it ?
THE UAE-ISRAEL NORMALIZATION AGREEMENT
Factsheet Series No. 220, created: September 2020, Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East
On August 13, 2020, the so-called “Abraham Agreement” was announced by United States President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and United Arab Emirates (UAE) President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan (known by the initials MBZ). Announced as an “historic peace deal,”[i] the three countries agreed to the full normalization of relations between the UAE and Israel.
WHAT EXACTLY DID UAE AND ISRAEL AGREE TO?
The final details are not yet confirmed, as several issues still have to be negotiated before the final agreement is signed. However, several key aspects were noted in the announcement:
The UAE and Israel agreed to establish full bilateral economic and diplomatic ties, known as “normalization.” It was announced that delegations from the two countries would meet over the coming weeks to sign bilateral agreements regarding “investment, tourism, direct flights, security,” embassies, and a myriad of other “areas of mutual benefit.” The US, Israel and UAE would launch a “Strategic Agenda for the Middle East to expand diplomatic, trade, and security cooperation.” Israel would “suspend” its plans to annex portions of the West Bank to focus on normalization. The announcement affirmed the right of “all Muslims who come in peace,” including UAE citizens, to visit and pray at the Al Aqsa Mosque in East Jerusalem.[ii]
IS THIS A PEACE DEAL?
No. Although the UAE-Israel agreement is often marketed as a “peace deal,” this is a misnomer. UAE will become only the third Arab country to recognize Israel, following Egypt which signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, and Jordan which signed a treaty in 1994. Unlike those countries, however, the UAE does not share a border with Israel, and the UAE and Israel have never been at war.
Importantly, Israel and the UAE have been quietly cultivating unofficial relations for years, including in defence cooperation, intelligence surveillance, and trade in weapons.[iii] The recent agreement formalizes and builds upon these existing, yet surreptitious, relationships.
WHY DIDN’T THE UAE AND ISRAEL ALREADY HAVE OFFICIAL RELATIONS?
The UAE, like most countries in the Arab world, has refused to enter into normalized relations with Israel since it was established in 1948, as a protest against the partition of Palestine. For decades, Arab states have insisted that normalization must be predicated upon a just resolution for the Palestinians. This was the case for the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, led by Saudi Arabia, which insisted that a Palestinian state must be created before normalization could take place.[iv]
The UAE-Israel deal contradicts this longstanding position, “decoupling” the Arab-Israel conflict from the Israel-Palestine conflict.[v] The deal is widely recognized by the Israeli leadership as confirmation that they do not need to give up occupied territory, but that they can circumvent the issue while establishing relationships with Arab states.[vi]
Following the announcement, the United States and Israel have hinted that other states may soon follow the UAE by entering into normalization agreements with Israel. US officials have been visiting countries including Bahrain, Oman, and Sudan, to try to generate support for future deals.[vii] As of September 1, 2020, there are 30 UN member states that do not recognize Israel.
DOES THE AGREEMENT PUT AN END TO ISRAEL’S ANNEXATION PLANS?
No. Although the UAE has boasted that its deal has stopped Israel’s annexation plans and saved the two-state solution,[viii] what Israel has actually agreed to is a temporary “suspension” or pause on any formal announcement on annexation.
In fact, Netanyahu has repeatedly said that annexation remains on the table,[ix] and this has been echoed by both Israeli and US officials.[x] At a fundamental level, Israel’s annexation plans remain consistent with Trump’s so-called “Deal of the Century,” which the US continues to promote as a resolution to the conflict.[xi] For this reason, the Israelis could revive their annexation plans at any time.
ARE THERE OTHER MOTIVES BEHIND THIS DEAL?
All three countries are interested in expanding military cooperation in the region, particularly to counterbalance the influence of Iran.[xii] For its part, the UAE aspires to become a regional power,[xiii] and in recent years has contributed to brutal military offensives in Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya, deploying air strikes and arming militias.[xiv]
Another major motivation for the deal is how it will boost arms sales. The UAE is a major purchaser of US weapons, on which it spends an estimated $20b out of its annual defence budget of $23b, and normalization is expected to provide Israel with greater access to the UAE market for arms.[xv] Importantly, the US has been wanting to sell F-35 fighter jets and armed drones to the UAE, but Israel has so far opposed any such deal on the grounds that it could erode its ‘qualitative military edge.’ The UAE has an understanding that the normalization deal will allow it to go ahead with its purchase of the F-35 jets, although Israel still opposes this.[xvi]
HOW HAS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY REACTED?
Many countries welcomed the UAE-Israel agreement (and the promised suspension of annexation), including Canada, the UK, Egypt, Bahrain, and Oman. Others, such as Iran, Turkey, and Qatar criticized it.
Civil society groups, activists, and academics have protested against the deal in the UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman.[xvii] State repression against those who criticize the deal has been reported in the UAE, Jordan, and Egypt.[xviii]
HOW HAVE THE PALESTINIANS REACTED?
Palestinians of all backgrounds expressed outrage over the UAE-Israel deal, as the UAE abandoned the longstanding principle that normalization can only occur if there is an end to Israel’s oppression of Palestine. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called the deal a “betrayal of Jerusalem, Al-Aqsa and the Palestinian cause,” and the Palestinian Authority recalled its ambassador to UAE.[xix] Hamas called the deal “a reward for the Israeli occupation’s crimes,” and a “stabbing in the back of our people.”[xx] Others have raised concerns that the deal could bring about changes to the status quo over access to the Temple Mount and Al-Aqsa Mosque, possibly triggering violence.[xxi]
IS CANADA RIGHT TO WELCOME THE DEAL?
Canada welcomed the agreement as a “positive step toward peace and security in the region,”[xxii] but this optimism is unfounded. The UAE-Israel agreement is a ”peace deal” between countries never at war, which accelerates military spending and militarism in the Middle East. Moreover, it avoids the core issue of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and lessens the incentive for Israel to respect Palestinian human rights. The UAE’s opportunistic path is not likely to end division and conflict in the region and may in fact intensify and prolong it.
[i] Lahav Harkov and Omri Nahmias, “Israel, UAE reach historic peace deal: ‘We can make a wonderful future’” Jerusalem Post, August 14, 2020.
[ii] Haaretz, “’Historic Diplomatic Breakthrough’: Read the Full Statement on Israel-UAE Agreement,” August 13, 2020.
[iii] Ian Black, “Just Below the Surface: Israel, the Arab Gulf States and the Limits of Cooperation,” LSE Middle East Centre Report, March 2019, pp. 12-16.
[iv] Dana El Kurd, “Palestinians are a side note in the UAE-Israel political charade,” +972 Magazine, August 27, 2020.
[v] Anshel Pfeffer, “Don’t Compare MBZ and Bibi to Sadat and Begin – the UAE-Israel Deal Is Much Bigger Than Peace,” Haaretz, August 17, 2020.
[vi] Times of Israel, “Full text. Netanyahu on why UAE deal is different: Palestinians lost their veto,” August 16, 2020.
[vii] Tovah Lazaroff, “Pompeo ends Middle East tour with no further peace declarations,” Jerusalem Post, August 27, 2020.
[viii] Reuters, “UAE says deal was done to manage threat annexation posed to two-state solution,” August 13, 2020.
[ix] Cnaan Liphshiz, “Netanyahu says West Bank annexation ‘remains on the table’ following Israel-UAE agreement,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, August 14, 2020; Tova Lazaroff, “Netanyahu pledges annexation, plans to open school year in a settlement,” Jerusalem Post, August 31, 2020.
[x] Noa Landau, “After Netanyahu Commits to Future Annexation, Trump Says It’s ‘Now Off the Table,’” Haaretz, August 13, 2020; Times of Israel, “Israel says annexation still going ahead, just suspended for a little while,” August 13, 2020.
[xi] For more information see CJPME Factsheet No. 218, The Trump Plan for the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, February 2020.
[xii] Israel Hayom, “UAE, Israeli defense ministers pledge cooperation,” August 26, 2020; Ian Black, “Just Below the Surface: Israel, the Arab Gulf States and the Limits of Cooperation,” LSE Middle East Centre Report, March 2019, pp. 12-16.
[xiii] Dana El Kurd, “Palestinians are a side note in the UAE-Israel political charade,” +972 Magazine, August 27, 2020.
[xiv] Jason Pack, “The Israel-UAE Deal Won’t Bring Peace, but It Will Prolong the War in Libya” Foreign Affairs, August 21, 2020; David Kirkpatrick, The Most Powerful Arab Ruler Isn’t M.B.S. It’s M.B.Z.” New York Times, June 2, 2019.
[xv] Hagai Amit, “The Real Deal for Israel and the UAE is Weapons,” Haaretz, August 17, 2020.
[xvi] Neri Zilber, “Peace for Warplanes?” Foreign Policy, August 31, 2020.
[xvii] Tamara Nassar, “‘Silent Majority’ rejects Gulf ties with Israel,” Electronic Intifada, August 19, 2020.
[xviii] Al Bawaba, “’Help Us Find Critics’: UAE Smart App Allows Reporting Residents Who Tweet Against Normalization With Israel,” August 17, 2020; Times of Israel, “Rights groups urge release of Jordanian jailed over cartoon on Israel-UAE deal,” August 28, 2020; Al-Monitor, “Egyptian news media warned not to criticize UAE-Israel deal,” August 27, 2020.
A new survey conducted by EKOS Research Associates shows that an overwhelming majority of Canadians would support International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation of Israel.
The poll, which was co-sponsored by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME), Independent Jewish Voices Canada (IJV), and the United Network for Justice and Peace in Palestine-Israel (UNJPPI), found that 84% of Canadians think the ICC should investigate alleged war crimes committed by Israeli officials. 86% of Canadians do not believe that the human rights record of Israel should be overlooked because the country is an ally of Canada. 82% want Canada’s current policy toward Jerusalem to be maintained, with the city being shared rather than it being recognized as Israel’s capital exclusively.
“This demonstrates that Canada’s tendency to apply double standards when it comes to Israel is very unpopular with Canadians,” said IJV’s National Coordinator Corey Balsam in a statement, “Although successive governments have tended to mute their criticism of Israel, Canadians believe that Israel’s violations should be treated as seriously as those of any other country.”
This poll comes just days after the Trump administration announced that it would sanction ICC officials over their investigation into alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. Earlier this year, members of congress sent (AIPAC-backed) letters to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, calling on the Trump administration to protect Israel from any ICC probes.
===========================================https://www.cjpme.org/understanding_bds Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East: UNDERSTANDING BDS There are several ways to help a regime comply with international standards of ethical and legal behaviour. Unfortunately, innumerable UN resolutions and even a ruling from the International Court of Justice have not moved Israel to respect the human and humanitarian rights of Palestinians. In 2005, over 170 organizations from Palestinian civil society appealed to the world to impose a strategy of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) on Israeli institutions in an attempt to move the Israeli government to respect Palestinian rights. CJPME has chosen to heed this call, and encourages its members and adherents to likewise take concrete steps to support this BDS campaign.
– Canadians’ position vis-à-vis an ICC investigation of Israel
– Canadians’ view on the status of Jerusalem
The survey was conducted by EKOS Research Associates between June 5-10, 2020, with a random sample of 1,000 Canadian adults aged 18 and over. The margin of error associated with the in-scope sample is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The raw data from the EKOS poll, including and excluding residuals, has been made available for download.
6/19/2020 In a new initiative for UNJPPI, we recently partnered with Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) and Independent Jewish Voices (IJV) on a national opinion survey of Canadian attitudes on issues related to Israel-Palestine. With UNJPPI’s emphasis on education and advocacy, the information such a survey could provide is considered of significant value to us.
The survey work was done in June 2020 by EKOS Research Associates, a well-known professional Canadian surveying organization.
The survey examines Canadian attitudes towards Canada’s bid for a seat on the UN Security Council and Israel’s announced plans to annex more Palestinian territory.
The results show that 74% of Canadians want the government to express opposition to Israeli annexation in some form, and the largest number of Canadians (42%) want to impose economic and/or diplomatic sanctions against Israel. Sanctions against Israel are popular among supporters of the NDP (68%), Green Party (59%), Bloc Quebecois (54%), and Liberal Party (42%).
A recent survey conducted by EKOS Research Associates confirms that Canadian foreign policy is out of touch with the preferences of Canadians. The survey sought to probe the opinions of Canadians on international issues of immediate public importance, including Canada’s response to Israel’s recently announced intent to annex additional Palestinian territory, and Canada’s bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. The survey demonstrates that a strong majority of Canadians want the government to express opposition to Israeli annexation, including through the imposition of sanctions. It further demonstrates that Canadians want Canada to increase its international engagement on a range of issues, including peacekeeping, combatting climate change, and support for Palestinian human rights.
EKOS Research Associates (https://www.ekos.com/) conducted a national online survey of 1,009 Canadians, between June 5-10, 2020, on behalf of Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (http://cjpme.org), Independent Jewish Voices Canada (http://www.ijvcanada.org/) and the United Network for Justice and Peace in Palestine-Israel (http://www.unjppi.org/). The margin of error associated with the sample is plus or minus 3.0 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The survey found that Canadians want their government to oppose Israel’s plans to annex parts of the West Bank. A significant majority (74%) of Canadians want the government to express opposition to Israeli annexation in some form. Moreover, 42% want Canada to impose economic and/or diplomatic sanctions against Israel. Sanctions against Israel are popular among supporters of the NDP (68%), Green Party (59%), Bloc Quebecois (54%), and Liberal Party (42%).
These results demonstrate that if the Trudeau government wanted to take concrete steps beyond simple statements of opposition to Israeli annexations, there would be considerable support for imposing sanctions from within the Liberal Party, across most of the opposition parties, and generally within the Canadian public. The survey also found that Canadians are generally supportive of increasing Canada’s contributions to the international community in several specific areas where Canada lags behind its competitors in its campaign for a seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC):
• A strong majority of Canadians felt the government should increase its commitment to combatting climate change. • A narrow majority of Canadians felt the government should increase its contribution to international peacekeeping. • A majority of Liberal, NDP and Green supporters think the government should increase support for Palestinian human rights. Conservative supporters less so.
These results confirm that, by taking further action to improve its international profile, the Canadian government could not only improve its candidacy for a seat on the UNSC, but also respond to the priorities of Canadians.
The results further reveal a notable polarization between supporters of the Conservative Party and everyone else on most issues. This suggests that Canada’s pro-Israel approach to foreign policy is out of touch with the perspective of most Canadians, and is catering to the views of particular political constituencies.
The forty-three Minerva Centers located in Israeli institutions of higher learning are said to help strengthen scientific cooperation between German and Israeli scientists. This idea is dated back to the early 1970s, envisioning the establishment of “noteworthy scientific research being carried out at centers of highest scientific standards.” An advisory council of Israeli and German members advises the center on its research program, approves the budget, and evaluates scientific performance. Minerva is supported by the Minerva Center Committee. Its members are internationally renowned scientists from different fields of research, responsible for the review and selection of applications, aiming to maintain a high level of scientific performance. Independent review committees evaluate the Minerva Centers at intervals of seven years. Minerva Stiftung supports the host institution with a capital endowment provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
However, two of their Centers promote political activism and do not focus on high scientific standards. One is the Minerva Center for Humanities at Tel Aviv University, which has been the center of numerous IAM posts before. Little known is the University of Haifa’s Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions (Minerva RLEC).
Two recent events by Minerva RLEC deserve attention. The first is an “International Webinar: Twenty Five Years since Oslo,” which took place in July, was a highly one-sided event with most participants having similar political views, such as Dr. Rami Nasrallah, Dr. Oren Shlomo, Prof. Alexandre (Sandy) Kedar, Dr. Yael Berda, Amal Zuabi, Adv. Sari Bashi, Samer Abdelrazzak Sinijlawi, Prof. As’ad Ghanem, Prof. Gad Barzilai, Prof. Rassem Khamaisi, Dr. Itamar Mann.
Another political event held by Minerva RLEC, hosted the journalist Peter Beinart in August. To recall, in July, Beinart has published in the New York Times, a controversial article titled “I No Longer Believe in a Jewish State.” He explained that for decades he argued for separation between Israelis and Palestinians, but now calls for a Jewish home in an equal state of Palestinians and Israelis. Underlying Beinart proposition is the assumption that the Israelis and Palestinians can live in harmony, a notion that is Pollyannaish in the extreme. For starters, the Palestinians have never shown any indications that they live in a democratic state. The Palestinian Authority after the Oslo Agreement is a case in point. It was a corrupt and violent entity presided by Arafat and his cronies. Things are even worse today. After Hamas forcibly ejected the PLO from Gaza in 2007, the Strip has been controlled by the iron-fisted Islamists. The West Bank under Mahmoud Abbas devolved into a slightly less brutal dictatorship where journalists and dissidents are routinely jailed. Of course, Beinart did not dwell on the apparent Palestinian lack of democratic qualifications when he gave his talk. As for the Minerva RLEC, it should have scheduled a talk about how the Palestinians fare in the lawlessness and the extreme conditions in their territory.
It is not surprising that Minerva RLEC recruits radical political activists. IAM reported in June 2019 that Dr. Ronnen Ben-Arie, a postdoctoral fellow at the Minerva RLEC, is a staunch supporter of BDS. Ben-Arie was among the signatories in a 2010 letter to the rock band Pixies urging them to “postpone your performance in Israel.” In January 2011, he was among the signatories of a letter “BDS is Working: A Letter from Israel” by Boycott from Within!, a group of Israeli citizens who support the BDS call. In another petition, Ben-Arie was a signatory to “Dissident Israelis support Marrickville BDS plan” that was published in April 2011. Ben-Arie also promoted divestment from Israel in a co-authored book, From Shared Life to Co-resistance in Historic Palestine, published in 2017. The book asks “In what ways can we divest from settler arrangements in the present-day?” The book charges Israel with an “attempt to eliminate native life involved the destruction of Arab society” and a “settlerist process of dispossession of the Arabs.” The book offers an “Arab-Jewish co-resistance as a way of defying Israel’s Zionist regime.”
Another political activist disguised as an academic is Dr. Itamar Mann, the principal investigator at the Minerva RLEC. Mann has published the article “Zionism and Human Rights,” where he discusses the “Jewish and democratic” nature of Israel. Mann argues that “Zionism is morally questionable,” and that “The most persistent critique of Zionism is not that it failed to protect the rights of Jews, individual or collective. It is rather, that Zionism has systematically prevented the collective self-determination of another group.” Mann ignores repeated Israeli offers to the Palestinians which they rejected, including the so-called Clinton Parameters which underlaid Ehud Barak’s plan to settle the conflict during the Camp David Summit in 2000. As well known, Barak offered to create a Palestinian state within the Green Line borders, a Palestinian capital in a neighborhood of Jerusalem and a condominium in the Holy Basin.
On second thought, no one should expect academic objectivity from Mann, a crafty political activist. His view on Zionism is telling: “Zionism is no longer a relevant political category. Insisting on reviving it now is like boarding a train that has already run over a great number of victims and continues to rush full speed in precisely the wrong direction. A more promising course would seek to bring together the particularity of the real-life experiences of the political community — those living in this area — with a certain universalism. In the 1990s, this position used to be called “post-Zionism,” a label that has by and large been discarded and that I dislike like because it suggests a merely negative agenda.” This convenient post-modern linguistics provides a negation of Zionism.
Arguably most intriguing is Mann discussing the bond between “Zionism and American global power” in Trump’s era. Having determined that the Israeli right-wingers forged relations with America, he notes that “a left-liberal, non-Zionist political camp” should also “try to forge relationships with global power.” Mann goes on to state that the “contemporary generation” of “lawyers, based in human rights organizations, has arguably done so, at least partially. The transnational coalition they have established takes the form of successful applications for public funding from European liberal democracies.” Mann’s words possibly mean that the funding from Germany for Minerva RLEC could be viewed as part of the “European coalition” efforts to undermine Israel’s ties with the United States and stir Israel into Beinart’s utopian land where the Jews and the Palestinians would coexist peacefully.
The Minerva RLEC academics should consider themselves lucky that they operate in Israel, which tolerates freedom of speech. The political activists masquerading as academics should view themselves even more blessed because Israel is the only Western country where public universities allow activist-scholars to receive a government salary for pushing their political agenda. The German donations are the icing on the cake of their charmed existence.
Twenty Five Years since Oslo: Contemporary Forms of Governance, Control and Resistance in Israel and Palestine
Twenty-five years after the collapse of the Oslo process, it seems that the trajectories of conflict and peace between Israel and Palestinians are entering a new phase. The Trump “Peace to Prosperity” plan and Israel’s intention to go forward with the annexation of parts of the occupied territories cast serious doubt on the possibility of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the bases of mutual agreement. However, the working hypothesis of this workshop is that the reality on the ground in the last two decades suggests that on the micro-level, state apparatuses, organizations and individuals have been adopting novel forms of governance, control and resistance in the occupied territories long before these current events. In this reality, the occupation is developing towards not only the stabilization and entrenchment of Israel’s forced control over the Palestinians, but also towards the normalization of such control as an acceptable reality that “works” on the ground. In this developing reality, novel practices, arrangements and forms of governance and control constantly emerge on different social and spatial scales, all of which merit attention as an actual and developing base-constellation for any future political prospects..
Chair: Prof. Eli Salzberger, Head of the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions, Faculty of Law, University of Haifa.
Dr. Rottem Rosenberg Rubins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions. From a state of exception to hyper-legality: Israeli counterterrorism law in the post-two-state era.
Dr. Rami Nasrallah, IPCC – International Peace and Cooperation Center, Jerusalem. East Jerusalem: Occupation, urban resilience and the illusion of sovereignty.
Dr. Oren Shlomo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions; The Open University of Israel. From Contested Sovereignty to urban politics? Palestinian protest and urban right claiming in post-Oslo East Jerusalem.
Chair: Prof. Nurit Kliot, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa.
Prof. Alexandre (Sandy) Kedar, Faculty of Law, University of Haifa. Non-Presenting Co-Author Quamar Mishirqi-Assad Rule and Resistance in the Occupied Palestinian Territories: A Legal Geographical Analysis of the Transformation of the Shafa-Yatta شفا يطّا Region Between 1967 and 2000 as a Test Case
Dr. Yael Berda, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Hebrew University. Citizenship as a mobility regime: a new paradigm for security – equal rights and freedom of movement
Amal Zuabi, coordinator, area C., Bimkom – planners for planning rights Techniques of preventing development: Eliminating the law and creating novel situations that aim at displacement
Chair: Dr. Itamar Mann, PI at the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions, Faculty of Law, University of Haifa.
Adv. Sari Bashi, Human rights lawyer, writer, analyst at independent consultant. Demanding accountability from the regime you wish to topple?
Samer Abdelrazzak Sinijlawi, Chairman, Jerusalem Development Fund. Is the one state solution emerging among Palestinians? Why, when and how will it be the dominant and majority choice?
Dr. Shaul Arieli, Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center and the Hebrew University Annexation and its impact on Israel
Prof. As’ad Ghanem, School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa. The Israeli third republic: The consolidation of the Israeli right dominant bloc system and the prospects for the future of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Wednesday, July 29,17:30-19:00: Future prospects and political horizons for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Chair: Prof. Deborah Shmueli, PI at the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions,Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa.
Prof. Gad Barzilai, PI at the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions,Faculty of Law, University of Haifa. The feasibility and construction of confederate and federal solutions.
Prof. Efraim Inbar, President, Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security. Conflict management in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Prof. Rassem Khamaisi, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa. From back-to-back to face-to-face: Spatial development of Israel/Palestine.
Dr. Itamar Mann, PI at the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions, Faculty of Law, University of Haifa. Concluding remarks.
Twenty Five Years since Oslo: Contemporary Forms of Governance, Control and Resistance in Israel and Palestine
University of Haifa
List of Participants (alphabetical order) Samer Abdelrazzak is the Chairman of the Jerusalem Development Fund. Head of the Diplomatic and International relations for the Fateh Shadow Leadership and Reform Stream. He was the President of the Palestinian Council of Young Political Leaders 2000-2006,and Head of Israeli and International File for Fateh Supreme committee 1994-2000. He was detained by the Israeli authorities at the age of 15 for 4 years Durring the first Intifada 1988-1992.
Colonel Res., Dr. Sharul Arieli is an expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previously, he served as a brigade commander in Gaza Strip and as the director of peace negotiations in the Prime Minister’s Office. Today, he is an outside lecturer at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center and the Hebrew University. Has published numerous articles, various studies and 6 books on the conflict, and this year two new books are about to be published.
Prof. Gad Barzilai is a Full Professor of law, political science and international studies, Professor Emeritus at University of Washington, Dean Emeritus of University of Haifa Law Faculty and Vice Provost and Head of the International School, University of Haifa. His academic degrees and training are from Tel Aviv University, Hebrew University Jerusalem, Yale, and University of Michigan Ann Harbor. He has published extensively 17 books and about 165 articles and essays in academic top journals and publishing houses on issues of law, society and politics. Several of his books are award winning books. Thus, for example, in his Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities [University of Michigan Press, 2003, 2005] he paved the way for a new understating of the role of communities in shaping practices in law and towards it. This book was awarded the Best Book Prize by the AIS and was selected to a special conference panel in the Law and Society conference in Chicago (2004). In his Law and Religion [Ashgate, International Series on Law and Society, 2007] he has edited some of the classics on law and religion and made a meaningful contribution to our understanding of this topic. In his Wars, Internal Conflicts and Political Order [SUNY 1996], he has suggested a new way for understanding the construction of political-legal order and disorder in times of national security emergencies. The Hebrew manuscript of this book was awarded the Best Book Award in National Security by the Ben Gurion Foundation. Among others he has published on politics of rights, comparative law, law and political power, law and violence, communities and law, group rights, liberal jurisprudence, national security, democracies and law, and issues concerning Middle East and Israeli politics and law. In his research he is often combining knowledge in law, the social sciences, mainly political science and political sociology, with political theory, theories of jurisprudence, comparative politics and comparative law. He has been trained to use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Barzilai was the President of the Association for Israel Studies (2011-2013) and the Founding First Director of the Dan David Prize (1999-2002). He is a Board member of editorial boards in several world leading professional journals. Adv. Sari Bashi is a human rights lawyer and expert in international humanitarian law. She writes and lectures on Israeli policy toward the occupied Palestinian territory and is currently working on a book about the occupation of Palestine. Sari co-founded Gisha, the leading Israeli human rights group promoting the right to freedom of movement for Palestinians in Gaza, and served as Gisha’s executive director for nine years. She also served as Israel/Palestine country director at Human Rights Watch. Sari has taught international humanitarian law at Tel Aviv University and at Yale Law School, where she also served as the Robina Foundation Visiting Human Rights Fellow.
Dr. Yael Berda is currently an Assistant Professor of Sociology & Anthropology, Hebrew University. She was an Academy Scholar, the Harvard Academy for International & Regional Studies, WCFIA from 2014-2017. Berda received her PhD from Princeton University; MA from Tel Aviv University and LLB from Hebrew University faculty of Law. Berda was a practicing Human Rights lawyer, representing in military, district and Supreme courts in Israel. Her most recent book is Living Emergency: Israel’s Permit Regime in the West Bank (Stanford University Press, 2017 ). Berda’s is currently working on a book manuscript entitled: “The File and the Checkpoint: the Administrative Memory of the British Empire”. Her other research projects are about the construction of loyalty of civil servants in Israel and India, the use of emergency laws to shape political economy of colonial states, and colonial legacies of law and administration that shape contemporary homeland security practices in postcolonial states. Berda publishes, teaches and speaks on the intersections of sociology of law, bureaucracy and the state, race and racism and sociology of empires. During the 2019-20 academic year Dr. Berda will teach an undergraduate lecture course on Law and Society; an undergraduate junior tutorial on Race and Bureaucracy; and a graduate seminar on Transnational Historical Sociology. Prof. As’ad Ghanem is a senior lecturer at the School of Political Sciences, University of Haifa. Ghanem’s theoretical work has explored the legal, institutional and political conditions in ethnic states. He has covered issues such as Palestinian political orientations, the establishment and political structure of the Palestinian Authority, and majority-minority politics in a comparative perspective. His books include Palestinian Politics after Arafat: A Failed National Movement (Indiana Series in Middle East Studies). Ghanem has initiated several empowerment programs for Palestinians in Israel.
Prof. Efraim Inbar is the President of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security. Educated at the Hebrew University (B.A. in Political Science and English Literature) and at the University of Chicago (M.A. and Ph.D. in Political Science), he served as the founding director of its Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. He was visiting professor at Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Boston universities, and visiting scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Boston University (2015). Prof. Inbar was a visiting Fellow at the (London) International Institute for Strategic Studies (2000). His area of specialization is Middle Eastern strategic issues. He has written over 80 articles in professional journals. He has authored five books and has edited twelve collections of articles. Prof. Inbar also served the President of the Israel Association for International Studies. Professor Alexandre (Sandy) Kedar teaches at the Law School at the University of Haifa. He holds a Doctorate in Law (S.J.D) from Harvard Law School. He was a visiting professor at the University of Michigan Law School as well as a Grotius International Law Visiting Scholar there and a visiting associate professor at the Frankel Institute for Judaic studies in the University of Michigan. His research focuses on legal geography, legal history, law and society and land regimes in settler societies and in Israel. He served as the President of the Israeli Law and Society Association, is the co-coordinator of the Legal Geography CRN of the Law and Society Association and a member of its international committee. He is the co-founder (in 2003) and director of the Association for Distributive Justice, an Israeli NGO addressing these issues. Prof. Rassem Khamaisi is a Professor in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of Haifa. He was elected at 2007 as President of the Israeli Geographical Association. Dr. Khamaisi received his PhD in Geography (1993) from the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, MSc (1985) from the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, and a BA in Geography from the Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva (1981). He is a member of various professional international and local associations and NGO’s involved in public and environmental policy issues, planning and development. He has recently managed a planning project funded by the Israeli Home Office, the Israeli Land Administration Office and the Prime-Minster Office. In addition, he is a senior researcher at Van Leer Institute, Jerusalem and at the International Peace and Cooperation Center, Jerusalem. He is the manager of a private company (Center for Planning and Studies), which engages in urban, and Strategy planning and Management. A strong focus of his efforts is aimed towards geography, urbanization and planning among the Arabs in Israel and the Palestinians in the Palestinians territory and Jerusalem, besides concentration on public administration, public participation and urban management. Prof. Nurit Kliot is Professor Emerita at the Dept. of Geography and Environment Studies university of Haifa. Her research areas are: Political Geography Water Resources Management Climate change and Social Geography. Nurit holds BA from the Hebrew university of Jerusalem and the University Of Haifa, MA in Geography from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and PH.D in Geography from Clark University Worcester Ma USA. So far, she authored five books, edited seven Books, and published four monographs and 76 articles and chapters in books.
Dr. Itamar Mann is a law professor at the University of Haifa Faculty of Law. His research is in international law and political theory. He teaches international law and a number of related courses, including an elective on law and terrorism, environmental law, and a clinical seminar on law and politics in the Mediterranean region. Before moving to Haifa, Itamar was the national security law fellow and an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law Center, Washington DC. He holds an LLB from Tel Aviv University, and LLM and JSD degrees from Yale Law School. Alongside teaching and research, Itamar provide pro-bono consultancy to several human rights organizations, and is a member of the legal action committee at GLAN (Global Legal Action Network). He has previously provided services to Human Rights Watch and the Open Society Justice Initiative on issues related to refugee and migration law in Europe.
Dr. Rottem Rosenberg Rubins is a postdoctoral fellow at the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions. She specializes in criminal law, particularly in crimmigration and the interrelations between criminal law and citizenship. Her research at the Minerva Center will focus on Israel’s new counterterrorism legislation and the manner in which it reflects the changing relationship between Israel and the occupied territories. The research will examine the new balance struck in the legislation between emergency powers and measures of conventional criminal law, and its effect on the civic status of the Palestinian residents of the occupied terrorists, as well as the Israeli citizenship regime in general. Rottem holds an LLB (magna cum laude), an LLM (summa cum laude) and a PhD from the Tel Aviv University faculty of law. During the previous academic year, she was a Cheshin Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Hebrew University faculty of law. She additionally serves as the coordinator of the public committee for preventing and amending wrongful conditions, headed by former Supreme Court Justice Prof. Yoram Danziger, and for the last three years has taught a course on the amendment of wrongful convictions at the Tel Aviv University faculty of law. Her articles on the subject of wrongful convictions in Israel have been quoted in verdicts of the Supreme Court, and an article based on her PhD has been recently published in the New Criminal Law Review.
Prof. Eli M. Salzberger was the Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Haifa and the President of the European Association for Law and Economics. He is a graduate of the Hebrew University Faculty of Law (1st in class). He clerked for Chief Justices Aharon Barak and Dorit Beinish. He wrote his doctorate at Oxford University on the economic analysis of the doctrine of separation of powers. His research and teaching areas are legal theory and philosophy, economic analysis of law, legal ethics, cyberspace and the Israeli Supreme Court. He has published more than 40 scientific articles. His latest book (co-authored with Niva Elkin-Koren) is The Law and Economics of Intellectual Property in the Digital Age: The Limits of Analysis (Routledge 2012), preceded by Law, Economic and Cyberspace (Edward Elgar 2004). He was a member of the board of directors of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, of the public council of the Israeli Democracy Institute and of a State commission for reform in performers’ rights in Israel. He was awarded various grants and fellowships, among them Rothschild, Minerva, GIF, ISF, Fulbright, ORS and British Council. Salzberger was a visiting professor at various universities including Princeton, University of Hamburg, Humboldt University, University of Torino, Miami Law School, University of St. Galen and UCLA. Currently he is the director of the Haifa Center for German and European Studies, the director of the Minerva Center for the Study of the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions and he is the co-director of the International Academy for Judges at the University of Haifa Faculty of Law.
Dr. Oren Shlomo is a postdoctoral fellow at the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions. His research focuses on the political geography and ecology of cities and metropolitan areas, particularly through the lens of the politics and governance of infrastructure and services and planning and development policy. His PhD research on the governmentalities of East Jerusalem’s infrastructure and services in the post-Oslo era (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2016) was awarded Best PhD Dissertation by the Israel Political Science Association. After completing his PhD research Oren was awarded a Fulbright postdoctoral fellowship to continue his research on Jerusalem at the Department of Urban Planning and Design at Harvard University. In the last two years he served as a postdoctoral fellow at the School of Sustainability at IDC Herzliya where he worked on the environmental policy and infrastructure governance in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. He is the coeditor of Cities of Tomorrow – Planning Justice and Sustainability Today (2014, Hebrew), and his work has been published in leading academic journals.
Prof. Deborah F. Shmueli is a faculty member in the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies at the University of Haifa, Head of the National Knowledge and Research Center for Emergency Readiness (awarded in 2018), and a co-Principal Investigator (PI) of the Minerva Center for Law and Extreme Conditions at the University of Haifa (awarded in 2013).
Amal Zuabi is an Architect & Urbanist. She holds B.Arch from Bezalel Academy for Art and Design, Jerusalem and Masters in Rehabilitation of Buildings with Historical Value, from Erasmus combined Spain and Italy. Amal worked previously in private offices, and since 2003 she is working at Bimkom, as a planner, directly with communities. Since 2 months she is the coordinator of the west bank department. Amal is a mother of 2 children, and lives in Jerusalem.
The idea of establishing Minerva Centers dates back to the early 1970’s as a measure to help strengthen scientific cooperation between German and Israeli scientists in very specific fields of research which are of equal interest to both sides by way of cooperative projects, seminars, lectures, workshops and short term visits to and from the center. The criteria for establishing these centers is scientific excellence and cooperation with Germany. This concept has resulted in noteworthy scientific research being carried out at centers of highest scientific standards, and we today count 43 active centers at Israeli universities and research institutions. One chair is presently being run under the name of Minerva. In order to establish a center, Minerva supports the host institution with a capital endowment provided by the BMBF to be invested at the highest possible interest rate. The interest proceeds are matched by the host institution and both add up to the annual budget of the center. Funds are disbursed towards the center’s research activities and are not – with the exception of travel allowances – available to the German partners. An advisory council with Israeli and German members advises the center on its research programme, approves the budget and follows up on scientific performance. It also helps to promote cooperation with partners in Germany. The council convenes at least once every two years and is chaired by one of its German members. Aiming at maintaining the high level of scientific performance in this programme, Minerva is supported by the Minerva Center Committee which is chaired by Professor Herbert Walther, Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics, Garching/Munich. Its members are internationally renowned scientists from different fields of research who are responsible for the review and selection of applications. The Center Committee also helps to select the members of independent review committees that are charged with the task of evaluating Minerva Centers at intervals of seven years. These reviews are crucial in measuring scientific output as well as the scope of cooperation and thus form the basis for the decision to extend (for another seven year period) or close a Center.
The total amount of funding provided by the BMBF for this programme to date amounts to approximately DM 136 mill. Applications are submitted by the partner organizations in Israel. In the future, the establishment of new Minerva Centers will – as a rule – only be possible when older centers are closed. This policy will lead to a concentration of resources and an optimization of research with regard to the scientifically most efficient centers. programme on a rotational basis. The Award amounts to DM 50.000 and may be used for all purposes in direct connection with the award winners’ research.
IAM reported in March how “Anti-Zionist Haim Bresheeth Admits Being anti-Semite.” As an Israeli BDS activist who teaches film at SOAS University of London, Prof. Bresheeth-Zabner admitted that “my background qualifies me as an antisemite according to the Labor coda,” because he is a “socialist, anti-Zionist and anti-racist activist.” Bresheeth-Zabner is a member of a group calling for “dismantlement of the Zionist structure of the state of Israel,” which is also anti-Semitic.
Bresheeth-Zabner, who is not a historian, regularly provides a distorted account of history. In his 2018 article, “The Israel Lobby, Islamophobia and Judeophobia in Contemporary Europe and Beyond: Myths and Realities,” he writes that for speakers and authors who discuss the concept of the New anti-Semitism, it “was a crucial invention – it enabled them to mark leftwing and Muslim critics of Israel as anti-Semites… but even more ridiculous accusations were to come. Much of these were levelled at a number of Hollywood films and Broadway musicals… From its inception, the ‘new anti-Semitism’ was intended as a political weapon… while the facts give cause for serious concern, the idea that they add up to a new kind of anti-Semitism is confused. Moreover, this confusion, combined with a McCarthyite tendency to see anti-Semites under every bed, arguably contributes to the climate of hostility toward Jews.”
In a recently recorded interview about the book, published by Verso Blog, Bresheeth-Zabner claimed that South Africa exterminated black people; Herzl requested the transfer of Arabs from Palestine; Benjamin Netanyahu perceives Israeli Arabs not as Israeli citizens; among other claims.
Not surprisingly, the book is full of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist tropes.
One of his chapters is, “Is Israel a Democracy?” To which he answers, “While Israel was not a democracy even before the Netanyahu government took over in 2009, it is clear that the few threads that still connected its social structure to that of normative democracies were removed in the last decade, making way for a proto-fascist apartheid state.”
Bresheeth-Zabner details how “In Israel, military service starts before birth.” He gives an example, “an advertisement in the rightwing newspaper Makor Rishon, depicting a mobilized Israeli fetus. The advertisement for Lis Maternity Hospital, part of Ichilov Hospital in Tel Aviv, shows a fetus wearing a military beret with a caption reading: ‘Recipient of the Presidential Award of Excellence 2038’. Portraying an unborn child as a soldier is disturbing in its own right, regardless of country. In Israel, an occupying power whose military has for over five decades been primarily concerned with maintaining control over a civilian population, this advertisement is even more charged.”
However, in an article by Merav Zonszein, a +972 Magazine journalist, she wrote this paragraph verbatim. Not only did Bresheeth-Zabner copy Zonszein, but also, in his twisted logic, an ad in a newspaper is proof that military service starts before birth in Israel.
In the book, Bresheeth-Zabner also tells the story of his arrival in the United Kingdom. He says, “On arrival in Britain I was ready for a change. I studied for a graduate degree at the Royal College of Art, a progressive institution in the early 1970s, and soon enough met members of Matzpen, the radical organization of Middle Eastern radical anti-Zionists, mainly Israelis but also some from Arab countries, led by Moshe Machover, who by then had left Israel for London… At last, I started to understand the nature of Zionism and Israel. It was a painful experience of inner transformation. It allowed me to resolve my identity and beliefs and freed me from the all-powerful, stifling collectivities of Zionism.”
Interestingly enough, in another book chapter about Professor of Media Studies, Stuart Hood, written by Bresheeth-Zabner, he reveals being accepted to an MA degree in films at the Royal College of Art Film School, for his political views. In an interview for a place in the MA program, Hood, the then head of the school, “asked me what I felt about the Israeli occupation of Palestine, Sinai and the Golan Heights. I was obviously against it, I said.”
Bresheeth-Zabner’s story is, unfortunately, typical. His lifelong academic career boils down to anti-Israel scholarship. Some Western universities recruit radical Israelis because of their anti-Israel stance. IAM often documented this phenomenon. These activist-scholars serve as the “useful idiots” of the massive anti-Israel academic movement by shielding its leaders from accusations of anti-Semitism.
Exploring the Gulf Between History and National Myth in Israel
Haim Bresheeth-Zabner on His Father’s Refusal to Serve in the Israel Defense Force
The projection of their own evil impulses into demons is only one portion of a system which constituted the Weltanschauung [World View] of primitive people, and which we shall come to know as “animism.”
–Sigmund Freud, “Taboo and Emotional Ambivalence,” Origins of Religion
I am the son of two Holocaust survivors from southern Poland who, like most Polish Jews before 1939, shunned the Zionist call, supporting instead the socialist Jewish Labour Bund; like most other Jews, both considered Polish and Yiddish their languages and cultures. Both my parents were forcibly taken from the Nazi-controlled ghetto in Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski to the nearby Auschwitz extermination camp in June 1944, after the rest of their families were destroyed in Treblinka during 1943. Reduced to horrifying skeletons, they were forcibly marched to other camps in January 1945, as the Red Army approached Auschwitz. My mother was liberated from Bergen-Belsen by the British in April 1945; her weight at the time was recorded as thirty-four kilograms and she suffered from advanced typhoid. My father was liberated by the US Army from Gusen II, a subcamp of Mauthausen, on May 8, 1945. His recorded weight was thirty-two kilograms. They were married in a Torino Displaced Persons camp in October 1945. I was born, stateless, a year later in Rome.
Having failed to secure passage elsewhere, my parents decided to emigrate to Israel in May 1948, not a choice they would have otherwise considered. On the boat my father refused to undertake weapons training. After what he had experienced, he was not prepared to shed blood, his own or anyone else’s. He was promptly arrested on arrival in Haifa as a draft resistor; he may have been the first, or one of the very first, conscientious objectors.
My mother and I were incarcerated in Athlit, a prison camp built by the Mandate authorities, then used to house immigrants. My father resisted for some weeks, but after realizing that he might spend years in prison, agreed to serve as an unarmed medic and was sent to one of the worst battles of 1948, in the Latrun area, at which almost 2,000 Israelis, mostly Holocaust survivors, perished; so too did a large number of Jordanian troops. Many were buried in mass graves; having just arrived, their identities were unknown.
How my father survived this hell I will never know. He never spoke to me about it or admitted that he had refused to serve in the army; later, when I became an officer in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), he was ashamed to tell me about it. I only know this part of his story because his communist brother, who admired him for his stand, told me about it; he wanted me to appreciate my father’s courage. This revelation affected me deeply.Jebaliya, and Jaffa itself, were hardly parts of Israel proper then—they existed in a twilight zone where Holocaust survivors were living cheek by jowl with Nakba survivors
I grew up in Jebaliya, a small modern town adjoining Jaffa, that was forcibly cleared of its Arab inhabitants by the Etzel (Irgun, the rightwing Zionist militia) even before the Mandate expired. Only a few Arabs managed to remain, becoming the unwilling and unequal captives of the Jewish State. The neighborhood was exclusively populated by Holocaust survivors in their twenties and thirties, and none of the many children had grandparents. We lived, like everyone else, in a flat that had been the home of a Palestinian family. Yosefa Loshitzky accurately describes this process:
Many Holocaust survivors were, as a matter of government policy, settled in evacuated Palestinian homes in Arab towns like Jaffa, Haifa, Lod and Ramla, thus forcibly grafting the memory of the Holocaust onto Palestinian national memory, and symbolically linking the Holocaust of the Jewish people (mostly Polish Jews) to the Palestinian Nakba.
This aptly describes our own situation. Jebaliya, and Jaffa itself, were hardly parts of Israel proper then—they existed in a twilight zone where Holocaust survivors were living cheek by jowl with Nakba survivors, their children studying in the same school, Al-Ahmadiyya, a green modern Bauhaus building within a copse of sycamore trees, renamed Dov Hoz after a Zionist apparatchik. We studied in Hebrew but also learned Arabic, and when later I was transferred to a religious school, I found that the Arab boys had to stay in for the Hebrew daily prayers—an odd punishment for the crime of being Other.
My parents, like so many other Holocaust survivors who came to Palestine/Israel after WWII, were hardly willing colonialists. But living as part of the colonial project, they were normalized into its ranks, and later also accepted its rationale and methods. When faced with such massive injustice, one either rises in opposition or, willingly or otherwise, joins in. By the time I was drafted at eighteen, in 1964, my parents had changed their relationship to military power; it had become the symbol of survival for them, as for most other survivors. I, on the other hand, was disinclined to join the IDF, having developed a naïve, instinctive gut pacifism but lacking the courage to follow in the footsteps of Giora Neuman, two years my senior, one of the famous draft resisters of Israel. He spent some years in prison for his principled stand, but I was not strong enough to emulate him or my own father (about whose courage I only learned later). I was selected for officer training, which I tried unsuccessfully to get out of or postpone.
I was placed in one of the few regular fighting units, the Golani infantry brigade, as a young second lieutenant, a role I held during the 1967 war. As part of the brigade command staff, I did not partake personally in the horrific battle in the Golan Heights, taking place a few hundred yards from us; I followed the battle through the communications system. When the battle was over, I heard the dazed voice of one of the battalion commanders asking the commanding officer standing next to me, a shaky voice emanating from the metal speakers: “I have 200 prisoners of war. What shall I do with them?”
He received no answer from the commanding officer, who snarled at us, “The idiot, doesn’t he know what to do with them? Do I have to tell him? No one answer this idiot, do you hear?!”
After some further requests, the transmissions stopped. The penny dropped.I was told that Golani had to earn its glory, like the paratroopers did in 1956, and that glory is only earned through battle and bloodshed.
I was deeply shocked; throughout the officer training program we were told that the IDF was the most moral army; that we never harm civilians; that we never shoot prisoners of war. So, what was this officer, one I intensely disliked, trying to tell us? Deep bitterness grew inside me.
In the debriefing session after the war, it became clear to me that the battle fought by Golani had no real military objective: The men who had died like rats in a barrel had not represented a threat: their positions were isolated, their retreat was blocked, and the main force was getting around through other routes. I asked the commanding officer about the purpose of the attack. I was told that Golani had to earn its glory, like the paratroopers did in 1956, and that glory is only earned through battle and bloodshed.
For the first time in my young life I started to comprehend the deep gulf between reality and propaganda. I also grasped that as a young, white male of European origin, there may be some duties I am morally bound by and need to be committed to, as a past refugee indebted to the refugees in whose home I grew up. What could I do for them? I needed to find out. I also needed to get out of the Jewish State.
On arrival in Britain I was ready for a change. I studied for a graduate degree at the Royal College of Art, a progressive institution in the early 1970s, and soon enough met members of Matzpen, the radical organization of Middle Eastern radical anti-Zionists, mainly Israelis but also some from Arab countries, led by Moshe Machover, who by then had left Israel for London. In Israel it was at its zenith, with almost 2,000 members, while in London there were only ten of us at the weekly meeting, sometimes less. What followed was an intensive, political group study lasting months if not years. We read and discussed Zionist history and radical literature. Ironically, then as now, the main readers of key Zionist texts are anti-Zionists. At last, I started to understand the nature of Zionism and Israel. It was a painful experience of inner transformation. It allowed me to resolve my identity and beliefs and freed me from the all-powerful, stifling collectivities of Zionism.
Professor Haim Bresheeth-Zabner is a Filmmaker, Photographer and a Film Studies Scholar, and Professorial Research Associate at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). He is the editor of The Gulf War and the New World Order, (with Nira Yuval-Davis), and the author of The Holocaust for Beginners (with Stuart Hood). His films include the widely shown State of Danger (1989, BBC2)—a documentary on the first Palestinian Intifada—and London is Burning, after the 2011 riots. He has also written in the Israeli Ha’aretz and the Cairo-based Al-Ahram Weekly. (edited)
Haim Bresheeth, research fellow at the School of Oriental and African Studies (Soas) in London (1).
What are the reasons you focused your work on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)?
Haim bresheeth The IDF has been the most crucial social institution in the Israeli state since 1948. It is the largest, best funded, and largest in number, comprising most of Israel’s men and a huge number of women. This has serious repercussions – the IDF is fully representative of the Jewish population in Israel. In this sense, the army is the most representative organ of Israeli society. Understanding this is starting to understand Israel, and the difficulty we face when it comes to resolving the conflict in Palestine, a colonial type conflict. Because the only solution the IDF will accept is one in which they hold all the cards.
You say the IDF made a nation. Why ?
Haim bresheeth In the book, I deal with the fact that what existed in 1948 was an army, and that army built a state, but there was no nation! This is not my point of view, but that of David Ben-Gurion, who understood that a collection of people from all parts of the world, without anything connecting them, is not a nation. The nation had to be formed by a broad social organization in order to create a national culture, a sense of belonging, the identity of a new Israeli-Jewish nation. The only body that was capable of this complex task, which takes hundreds of years in most cases, was the IDF, and Ben-Gurion chose it because in 1948 it included virtually all Jewish adults – all of them. men and most women. It was an army that fought the Palestinians and the Arab armies. But it also performs all the civic tasks normally performed by civil society. Most of them are still carried out by the IDF. In the latest coronavirus crisis, the IDF and the secret services (Shabak) thus took over from a large part of the country for the monitoring and tracing operation, for example. The flip side is that most Israelis see their identity only in terms of the military and only see the conflict through the filter of military force.
What is the role of the military in political and economic life?
Haim bresheeth The IDF and related companies form Israel’s largest sector and are responsible for the bulk of the income from exports, between $ 12 billion and $ 18 billion per year. Selling to more than 135 countries, Israel is one of the world’s leading arms dealers. Israel turned the conflict into a thriving business – it turned adversity into commercial success, under the slogan “tested in action”. The business model also includes thousands of high-tech companies started by retired officers, which, along with nationalized arms and security companies, are the country’s largest employer. All academic institutions benefit from substantial research funding from the IDF, the Ministry of Defense and various security organizations; some universities and colleges have also organized training programs for IDF and related organizations.
In the book, you wonder about “Israel is a democracy” and if “there could have been another Israel”. Can you give us some answers?
Haim bresheeth There has never been a colonizing society that was democratic or free. Israel is no exception. A settlement plan is all about control – over land, resources and labor. As such, it depends on anarchy and injustice, always defended by the violation of the legal system. It was true for Algeria, Australia, North and South America, South Africa, Congo, and it is true in Palestine. A military society in illegal occupation cannot be democratic, and, as Marx pointed out, cannot, per se, be free. Therefore, Zionist Israel can never be democratic. In the past, some leftist Zionists have argued that the Zionist idea is pure and fair, but somehow soiled by practice. There is nothing further from the truth. As I have pointed out, the ultimate goal of the Zionist project, from the time it appears in Herzl’s work until our time, was and remains the dispossession and expulsion of the Palestinians, and the establishment of an exclusive Jewish society on racist principles. This is the reason why, over time, Israel becomes more racist and more aggressive. The Zionist dream is essentially a colonial nightmare. Even if one is brutal enough to ignore Palestinian suffering, life for Jews in Israel cannot, by definition, be safe or normal. Israelis live a Spartan life of soldiers on vacation. Israel has had many chances to achieve peace and has always avoided it. It is a militarized state, preferring a state of war – with its empire illegally clinging to the territories of four Arab states – which imposes racist oppression on nearly five million Palestinians without any rights. Nearly two million of its own Palestinian citizens are now losing the few rights they once had. We can safely say that Israel is a militarized state by choice, due to its need to protect its empire with military booty and illegal occupation. No one imposed this occupation regime on the Israelis. It’s their decision. The rest of the world, however, is responsible for authorizing and funding it, especially the United States and the European Union.
As of July 1, Israel is supposed to annex 30% of the West Bank. How does the IDF behave in this context?
Haim bresheeth The move towards the illegal annexation of most of the West Bank is the ultimate example of US-backed lawlessness – unilateral, non-negotiable illegal action against Palestinian rights. The fact that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu missed his annexation deadline by July 1 is a clear sign that even the IDF is opposed to this measure. Prior to the 1990s, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) controlled the West Bank and had to invest enormous human and material resources in maintaining order throughout Palestine. This dire situation, which developed in the aftermath of the first Intifada, prompted Israel to organize the Oslo Accords, establishing a Palestinian National Authority (NPA). Since then, the AFN – formed and armed by Israel, and partially funded by the EU and the United States – has secured the occupied territories on Israel’s behalf, exonerating the IDF from their duties and from any financial cost.
But annexation can lead the ANP to collapse. Ultimately, it could lose control of the Palestinian security organizations, hated and despised by the Palestinian people. The IDF does not wish to lose this important relaxation of its functions and is greatly concerned about its ability to control the occupied territories if such a scenario occurs. The IDF has vetoed the annexation program as Netanyahu presented it, and so he seems to have had to quietly abandon it for now. In contrast, Israel has not abandoned its real program, which continues at a steady pace. The inability of the international community, as it stands, to oppose such atrocious illegality is a danger to the rule of law everywhere in the world, at a time of great international fragility. International law must be applied before further irreparable damage is done to the Palestinians, and a dangerous precedent is set.
All Western countries, but also the PLO, are still talking about the two-state solution. With the annexation, this idea died. But when the Zionist state refuses a Palestinian state, is it possible to establish a single state, even binational and with full rights for all citizens?
Haim bresheeth It should be clear to readers of Humanity that Israel never intended to end its military occupation, and has done everything humanly possible to block any form of Palestinian state since 1948, and especially since 1967. It could not do so. do it alone, of course. Without the strong and unwavering support of Western “democracies”, this would never have been possible. In this sense, Israel has always been against the so-called two-state solution. The debate at the UN actually included two options: that of partition, which was passed, led to the Nakba and the expulsion of two-thirds of Palestinians from their homes. But also, we less remember, the proposal for a single secular and democratic state over the whole of Palestine: a state of all its citizens, without special racist laws. Until 1988, this option, rejected by the UN in 1947, was the official position of the PLO. In arguing that such a democratic outcome cannot take place because of Israeli opposition, let us remember that this is also the reason why there can be no agreement on another solution. Israel has rejected any solution that would give the Palestinians some autonomy even over a tiny part of their land. So we, the rest of the world, must force Israel to accept it. The world had done it in the case of the other apartheid state – South Africa. Only a committed, internationally coordinated boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign can dislodge Israel from its colonial project. Such a campaign, in favor of equality, human rights, international law, United Nations resolutions, Geneva conventions, and the International Criminal Court, can bring hope to establish peace. just and lasting justice in the Middle East to all those residing in Palestine, as well as to Palestinian refugees.
The BDS campaign, which opposes Israel’s illegal and aggressive military actions, is a civilian campaign. Civic action carried out by all citizens of the world, avoiding violence and brutality, trying to change the situation by non-violent methods. I think the time has clearly come for such an approach, if we want to avoid more bloodshed and suffering.================================================ https://www.versobooks.com/books/3168-an-army-like-no-other
An Army Like No Other How the Israel Defense Force Made a Nation by Haim Bresheeth-Zabner
Hardback with free ebook £25.00£15.0040% off 448 pages / August 2020 / 9781788737845
A history of the IDF that argues that Israel is a nation formed by its army
The Israeli army, officially named the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), was established in 1948 by David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, who believed that “the whole nation is the army.” In his mind, the IDF was to be an army like no other. It was the instrument that might transform a diverse population into a new people. Since the foundation of Israel, therefore, the IDF has been the largest, richest and most influential institution in Israel’s Jewish society and is the nursery of its social, economic and political ruling class.
In this fascinating history, Bresheeth-Zabner charts the evolution of the IDF from the Nakba to wars in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq and the continued assaults upon Gaza, and shows that the state of Israel has been formed out of its wars. He also gives an account of his own experiences as a young conscript during the 1967 war. He argues that the army is embedded in all aspects of daily life and identity. And that we should not merely see it as a fighting force enjoying an international reputation, but as the central ideological, political and financial institution of Israeli society. As a consequence, we have to reconsider our assumptions on what any kind of peace might look like.
“It is said that Israel is an army with a state. This book validates fully this assumption. With a clear and accessible style and with illuminating of many hidden chapters in Israel’s history, Bresheeth exposes fully the militarizationof the Jewish State. The book unpacks successfully the military grip of the IDF on every aspect of life in Israel and Palestine, from crucial decisions of going to war to the formulation the policies towards the Palestinians. Even if you are a knowledgeable reader on the topic, this book will be an essential contribution to your library.”
– Ilan Pappe, author of 10 Myths About Israel
“Israel’s drive to become a modern-day nuclear Sparta could only be ensured by An Army Like No Other—an army at the centre of illegal occupation, the creation of settler-colonial facts on the ground and Israeli identity self-fashioning. Thoroughly researched and painstakingly documented, this book is a must for those seeking to understand the centrality of the most powerful institution of Israel and for those who wish to see a just and lasting solution in Palestine–Israel.”
– Nur Masahla, author of Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History
“An original and a remarkable interpretation of the wide-ranging impact of the military on Israeli society and one of the most insightful and challenging works on Israeli society from 1948 to our days. His book traces the ways in which military power acquired legitimacy in the civilian society and how the use of organized violence became an acceptable solution to all conflicts in the Arab-Israeli history. Anyone interested in understanding the Middle East should read this book.”
– Shlomo Sand, author of The Invention of the Jewish People
“Israeli left-wing critics of the Zionist state have long described it as ‘an army with a state, instead of a state with an army.’ And yet they have produced very few studies of the Israeli military-industrial complex over the years. In helping to fill this gap, Haim Bresheeth makes a crucial contribution to the critical study of the Zionist enterprise.”
– Gilbert Achcar, author of The Arabs and the Holocaust
“Bresheeth—one of the most important anti-colonial intellectuals of our era—takes the Israeli army as an entry point to undertake a deep analysis of Jewish-Israeli society. The original contribution of the book lies in its ambitions and scope: Bresheeth brilliantly describes the way an army whose ethos is rooted in Jewish historical trauma, has grown to become the occupation arm of zionism, the motor of its settler-colonial domination and the basis of its politics of separation.”
– Eyal Weizman, author of Hollow Land
“This book places the Israeli army under an uncompromising lens. It reveals a yawning gap between the propaganda about ‘the most moral army in the world’ and the dark reality. Through a wide-ranging historical survey, studded with little known facts, it exposes the army for what it really is: a brutal police force of a brutal settler-colonial state. Essential for understanding the political sociology of Israel today and the reasons for the impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian so-called ‘peace process.’”
– Avi Shlaim, author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World
“A hard-eyed look at the role of Israel’s army in the creation of the Jewish state.”
“This is a very important book, offering a highly timely and rigorously documented view of the military/nation-state nexus in Israel, its links and dynamics, and its global sources of power. In the process it unavoidably affords us a view of the workings of the contemporary global order, in which Israel’s role as policeman and instrument is becoming more critical to the repressive, discriminatory and surveillance operations that are being increasingly developed and deployed today.”
– Lena Jayyusi, Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies
“Bresheeth-Zabner has written a comprehensive and well-researched history of the Israeli military. In doing so, he has also issued an indictment of its brutal tactics, its political power and its destructive effects on the Israeli state.”
– Ron Jacobs, Counterpunch
“An Army Like No Other is a real page-turner, combining history and analysis with firsthand tidbits from within the belly of the beast … Bresheeth-Zabner deserves substantial praise for his pursuit of truth.”
– Belén Fernández, Jacobin
“An insightful look into the history of Israeli militarism and the military ethos that marks both state and society.”
Middle east. « Israel is a militarized State, preferring the state of war »
Lundi 17 Août 2020 Pierre Barbancey
The Israeli army, officially named the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), was established in 1948 by David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, who believed that “the whole nation is the army.” In this book (1) Bresheeth charts the evolution of the IDF from the Nakba to wars in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq and the continued assaults upon Gaza, and shows that the state of Israel has been formed out of its wars. (French version available here).
Haim Bresheeth, researcher at the London School of Oriental and African Studies (Soas).
What are the reasons you focused your work on the Israeli Defense Forces?
Haim Bresheeth The IDF is the most crucial social institution of the Israel State, ever since 1948. It is the largest, best financed, and with the widest ‘membership’ Most Israel males, and many females. In that sense, it is a pseudo-democratic institution, if one can say this about an instrument of violence and injustice of this kind. This has serious repercussions – the IDF is fully representative of the Jewish population in Israel, rather than being a small professional army. It means that large numbers of Israelis of all classes, ethnicities and backgrounds are involved in IDF war crimes, since 1948. The fact that the publisc support given to brutal actions like the attack on South Lebanon in 2006, and on Gaza in 2008/9, 2012, and 2014, ranged higher than 95% is evidence of such wide public consent for such illegal, not to mention immoral actions by the IDF. It is the only social institution in Israel with such wide, almost total support for its actions, most of which are against international law and UN resolutions and the Geneva Conventions. In that sense, the IDF is the most representative body in Israeli society, beyond the many tribal, political, gender, class and ethnic divisions. It is more important than the Israeli parliament, the intellectual elites, the financial cultural and political leadership. To understand this is to start understanding Israel, and the difficulty we face when wishing to resolve the conflict in Palestine – a settler-colonial conflict. Because the only solution that the IDF will accept is one in which it holds all the cards, it is clear that waiting for Israel to resolve the conflict is senseless and unwise position – Israel had always gone for military solutions for political problems, due to the special position afforded to the IDF.
You say that IDF made a Nation. Why?
Haim Bresheeth In the book, I deal with the fact that what existed in 1948 was an army, and this army built a state, but there was no nation! This is not my view, but that of David Ben-Gurion, who understood that the collection of people from all parts of the world, with nothing connecting them, is NOT a nation. The nation had to be formed by a large and wide-ranging social organisation – to form a national culture, a feeling of belonging, an identity of a new, Israeli-Jewish nation. The only body which was capable of this complex task, which takes hundreds of years in most cases, was the IDF, and Ben-Gurion chose it because in 1948, it included practically every single Jewish adult – all males and most females. This meant an army which was not only fighting the Palestinians and the Arab armies, responsible for expelling two third of the indigenous population of Palestine, but also for all civic tasks normally carried out by civil society. Thus the IDF dealt with education, language teaching, water projects, agricultural and urban settlement, industrial production, broadcasting, performance arts, communications, media and cultural production, publishing, research, building and commercial activities. Most of these are still performed by branches of the IDF. There is no other military force anywhere in the world which includes such a range of activities. In the latest Corona Virus crisis, the IDF and the Secret Service (Shabak) have taken over large part of the country, and the track and Trace operation, for example. Ben-Gurion was right – if one intends building a modern Sparta, it can only be done by the military authorities. The flip side is the most Israelis see their identity in terms of the IDF – and they see the conflict through the filters of the military force. This means that they look at the Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims through the virtual gunsight. This also makes a just and peaceful solution of the colonial conflict almost impossible, if Israel is allowed the whip hand. Since 1948, this has always been the case.
What is the role of the militaries in the political and economical life?
Haim Bresheeth The IDF and the companies connected with it, are forming the largest sector in Israel, and are responsible for the largest portion of income from exports, between 12 and 18 $ billions annually. These figures are indicative only, as much of the arms trade Israel is involved in is secret. Selling to more than 135 countries, Israel is one of the main arms dealers on the planet, and always amongst the top ten. Israel has turned the conflict into a thriving business – it made adversity into a commercial success, building on the strapline ‘tested in action’. What it really means is: tested on Arab and Moslem people, and especially, on Palestinian civilians. Israel has turned Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and some other countries into the largest testing grounds of modern arms. The business model also includes thousands of hi-tech companies set up by IDF retired officers, which together with the nationalized armament and security companies are the largest employer in Israel. All academic institutions enjoy substantial research funding disbursed by the IDF, the Defence Ministry, and the various security organisations; such universities and colleges also ran training programmes for the IDF and related bodies. For example, The Hebrew University in Jerusalem includes a large army camp inside its campus on Mount Scopus, with hundreds of soldiers studying and living there, behind barbed wire. It is difficult to find similar arrangements elsewhere in the world. The income from such activities ties the universities financially, politically and ideologically to the Security forces.
As currently set up, the Israeli economy, financial system and industry are all parts of a war economy. This was economy, destructive and violently-oriented as it is, is the mainstay of Israel’s prosperity. Israel received more foreign support than any other country since 1948. This financed its wars, occupations, destructions of countries in the region, and the lawlessness of continuous massacres of tens of thousands. This is good business for Israel, because the bills are paid by Washington and Brussels. Unless this changes, there is no reason for Israel to change its tactics and strategy.
You ask « Is Israel a democracy ? » and « Could there have been another Israel? » The best is to read your book but can you give us some elements of response?
Haim Bresheeth There never was a settler-colonial society which was either democratic or free, and Israel is no exception. A colonizing project is about control – of the land, resources and labour. As such, it depends on lawlessness and injustice, always defended through the violation of the legal system. This was true about Algeria, Australia, North and South America, South Africa, the Congo, and is true in Palestine. A military society in illegal occupation cannot be democratic, and as Marx pointed out, cannot, in itself, be free. Hence, Zionist Israel cannot ever be democratic.
In the past, some left-Zionist argued that the Zionist idea was a pure and just one, and it was somehow defiled by the practice; there is nothing further from the truth. As I pointed out, the ultimate goal of the Zionist project, from the moment it emerges in Herzl’s work to our own time, was and remains the dispossession and expulsion of the Palestinians, and the setting up of a Jewish-exclusive society on racist tenets. This is the reason that Israel is getting more racist and more aggressive as time passes – the Zionist ‘dream’ is in essence colonial nightmare. Even if one was brutal enough to disregard Palestinian suffering, the life of Jews in Israel cannot, by definition, be safe or normal. Israelis are living a spartan life of soldiers on vacation. In its more than seven decades of existence, Israel was involved in armed conflict in every single of these years, and in major armed wars, ‘operations’ and other military adventures more than any other state on this earth. This is not an accident, but the result of building a society based on the armed forces.
Israel had numerous chances to bring about peace, and always avoided it: in 2002, the Saudi initiative, for example, offered Israel enduring peace with the Arab world if it agreed to retreat to the international boundaries of 1967, and allow a Palestinian State to be set up in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. For decades Israel claimed that there is no one to make peace with, and if only the Arabs were agreed, peace will reign. Here was the whole Arab world, including Saddam Hussein and Muamer Ghadaffy, offering Israel stable and dependable peace, and it did not even agree to discuss this or negotiate on this basis. Israel never wanted peace, and now is even frightened of discussing it. It is a militarized State, preferring the state of war – with its empire which holds on illegally to territories of four Arab states, and enforces racist oppression on almost five million Palestinians with no rights whatsoever, and near two million of its Palestinian citizens are now losing the few rights they had.
We can safely say that Israel is a militarized state by choice, because of its need to protect its empire of military spoils and illegal occupation. This it does by its own choice and is handsomely rewarded by the western world. No one has imposed this occupation regime on the Israelis – it is their own free choice, and they are fully responsible for it. The rest of the world is, however, responsible for allowing and financing it – especially the US and EU.
Since July 1, Israel is supposed to annex 30% of the West Bank. How did the IDF behaves in that framework?
Haim Bresheeth The move towards the illegal annexation of most of the West Bank is the ultimate example of lawlessness supported by the US – an unnegotiated, unilateral illegal action against the rights of the Palestinians. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s failure to meet his deadline of annexing by 1 July is a clear sign that even Israel’s own military opposes the move.
Before the 1990s, the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) controlled the West Bank and had to invest enormous human and material resources in policing the whole of Palestine. This dire situation, which had developed in the wake of the first intifada, pushed Israel to arrange the Oslo accords, establishing a Palestinian National Authority (PNA). Since then, the PNA – trained and armed by Israel, and partially funded by the EU and the US – has securitized the occupied territories on behalf of Israel, removing both the duties and the cost from the IDF. But annexation may drive the PNA towards collapse; ultimately, it could lose control of the Palestinian security organisations, hated and despised by the Palestinian people. The IDF does not wish to lose this important easing of its duties and worries greatly about its ability to control the occupied territories if such a scenario takes place. It is right to be worried. The attacks on Lebanon in 2006, and on Gaza in 2008-2009, 2012 and 2014 have shown the IDF’s inability to act in a logical and efficient way against well-organised guerrilla units.
This is not merely a question of firepower – in 2006, Hezbollah had few thousand well-trained and motivated fighters, and the IDF threw more firepower at them than used by both sides in El Alamein during the second world war . It is impossible to defeat a guerrilla force by firepower alone, as the US army found out in Vietnam. The IDF has vetoed the annexation programme as Netanyahu presented it, and hence he appears to have had to quietly abandon it for the time being. But Israel has not abandoned its real agenda, which continues apace.The failure of the international community, such as it is, to move against such atrocious unlawfulness is a danger to the rule of law everywhere, at a time of great international fragility. International law must be enforced before further, irreparable damage is caused to the Palestinians, and a dangerous precedent is set.
All the Western countries, but also the PLO, still speak about the two States solution. With the annexion that idea is dead. But when the Zionist state refuse a Palestinian State, is it serious to think that it’s possible to establish only one state even binational and full right for all the citizens?
Haim Bresheeth I think that from all I said above it should be clear to your readers that Israel has never intended to retreat from its military occupation, and has done all that is humanly possible to block Palestinian State of any description, ever since 1948, and specifically, since 1967. It could not do this on its own, of course; without the strong, unwavering support of the western « democracies » this would never have been possible.
In that sense, Israel was always against the so-called two-states solution, which is the reason why it could not and did not happen. The debate at the UN included two options – the Partition option, which people remember and which was voted upon and led to the Nakba and the expulsion of two thirds of Palestinians from their homes, and the proposal for a secular, democratic single state in the whole of Palestine – a state of all its citizens, without special racist laws. Until 1988, this option which was rejected by the UN in 1947, was the official position of the PLO.
When arguing that such a democratic solution cannot take place because of Israeli opposition, let us remember that this is also why any other solution cannot be agreed upon – Israel has rejected any solution which will offer to Palestinians a measure of autonomy on an even tiny bit of their land. There can be NO solution – any solution – in Palestine because Israel will not allow it. That is the simple truth. So, for a just solution we, the rest of the world, must force Israel to accept such a solution. The world had done so in the case of the other Apartheid State – South Africa. Only a committed internationally-coordinated campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions can dislodge Israel from its colonial project. Such a campaign, in support of equality, human rights, international law, UN Resolutions and the Geneva Conventions, and the International Criminal Court holds the hope of bringing about just and durable peace to the Middle East, and to all people residing in Palestine, as well as to the Palestinian refugees.
The BDS campaign, as opposed to Israel illegal military and aggressive actions, is a civil campaign – civic action by the citizens of the world, avoiding violence and brutality, attempting to change the situation through non-violent methods. I think the time has clearly come for such an approach, if more bloodshed and suffering is to be avoided.
(1) « An Army Like No Other. How the Israel Defense Force Made a Nation ». By Haim Bresheeth-Zabner. Verso Books Edition
Please note that seats are limited, book in advance
Organised by London One State Group and SOAS Palestine Society
Saturday, 17th of November 2007
9:00-9:30 Registration SOAS Brunei Gallery, Lobby
9:30-9:45 Opening Statement Nur Masalha, Reader in Religion and Politics and Director of the Centre for Religion and History and of the Holy Land Research Project at Saint Mary’s College, University of Surrey (UK)
9:45-11:45 PANEL I: Why one state?
Chair: Ghada Karmi, University of Exeter, Author of In Search of Fatima: A Palestinian Story (2002) and Married to another Man: Israel’s Dilemma in Palestine (2007)
The historical roots of the One State idea Ilan Pappe, University of Exeter, Author of The Modern Middle East (2005) and The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine (2006)
A matter of immediate urgency, not a distant utopia Joseph Massad, Columbia University, Author of The Persistence of the Palestinian Question: Essays on Zionism an the Palestinians (2006) and Desiring Arabs (2007)
The state of the One-State Idea Ali Abunimah, Co-founder of Electronic Intifada, Author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse (2006)
11:45-12:00 Coffee Break
12:00-13:30 PANEL II: Mapping the geopolitical landscape: past, present and future
Chair: Haim Bresheeth, University of East London, Chair of Media and Cultural Studies
Leaving the Cake Whole Ghazi Falah, University of Akron, Ohio, Co-editor of Geographies of Muslim Women: Gender, Religion, and Space (2005) and Author of Galilee and the Judaization Plans (in Arabic, 1993)
Local politics: the one state and the Palestinians As’ad Ghanem, University of Haifa, Author of The Palestinian-Arab Minority in Israel, 1948-2000: A Political Study (2001) and The Palestinian Regime: A “Partial Democracy” (2002)
With an eye to the future Leila Farsakh, University of Massachusetts, Boston, Author of Palestinian Labor Migration to Israel: Labor, Land and Occupation (2005)
13:30-14:30 Lunch Break
14:30-16:00 PANEL III (Presentations): Land, Citizenship, and Identity: Rethinking the nation-state
Chair: Leila Farsakh
This panel provides a platform for the internal debate within the One State camp regarding the desired institutional and constitutional formation of the state which is commonly dichotomized into the bi-national model on one side and the multicultural democracy on the other.
Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Author of The Censor, the Editor, and the Text: The Catholic Church and the Shaping of the Jewish Canon in the Sixteenth Century (2007)
Nadim Rouhana, George Mason University, Author of Palestinian Citizens in an Ethnic Jewish State: Identities in Conflict (1997)
Omar Barghouti, Political Analysts, Co-founder of the Palestinian Campaign for Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI)
Tikva Honig-Parnass, Political Activist, Co-author of Between the Lines: Readings on Israel, the Palestinians, and the U.S. “War on Terror” (2007)
16:00-16:15 Coffee Break
16:15-18:00 PANEL III (Discussion): Land, Citizenship, and Identity: Rethinking the nation-state
Sunday, 17th of November 2007
10:30-12:30 PANEL IV: Looking at the past, rethinking the future Panel Chair: Ali Abunimah
Drawing lessons from the case of South Africa Louise Bethlehem, Hebrew University, Jerusalem Co-editor of South Africa in the Global Imaginary (2005) and Violence and Non-Violence in Africa (2007)
Northern Ireland: power sharing in a divided society Kathleen O’Connell, Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign
From Lebanon Gilbert Achcar, SOAS, Co-author of Perilous Power: The Middle East and U.S . Foreign Policy (2007) and The 33-Day War: Israel’s War on Hezbollah in Lebanon and its Consequences (2007), Author of The Clash of Barbarisms: The Making of the New World Disorder (2006)
India – Pakistan: the partition Sumantra Bose, London School of Economics, Author of Kashmir: The Roots of Conflict, Paths to Peace (2003) and Contested Lands: Israel-Palestine, Kashmir, Bosnia, Cyprus and Sri Lanka (2007)
12:30-13:30 Lunch Break
13:30-16:00 PANEL V: One state from within civil society social movements, and grassroot activism Chair: Omar Barghouti
The lived experience and stories of the invited activists will portray the current public mood in regard to the One-State option, and point at both the difficulties and the opportunities for promoting this line of thought among the various social movements and civil society organizations that are operating within the different communities. This mosaic of personal accounts and observations will provide the foundation for the following discussion about ‘the way forward’.
Haidar Eid, Al-Quds University Gaza, Co-founder of One-State Group in Gaza
Eitan Bronstein, Political Activist, Zochrot (“Remebering”)
Eyal Sivan, Goldsmith University, Film Director of The Specialist (1999) and Route 181: Fragments of a Journey in Palestine-Israel (2004)
Yousef Faker el Deen, Political Activist, Founder of Al-Jaras Al-Awda (“Bells of Return”) Syria
Rajaa Omari, Political Activist, Founder of Natrinkum (“We are waiting for you”), Haifa
16:00-16:15 Coffee Break
16:15-18:00 PANEL VI: The way forward
A roundtable with several participants of the conference will discuss what would be the immediate actions required for promoting the discussion about alternatives to the two-state paradigm, and for helping the ideas of One-State develop into a meaningful political agenda.
IAM previously reported on Israeli radical activist-academics who often take upon themselves an Arab identity. Dr. Uri Davis converted to Islam, Prof. Ariella Azoulay added Aisha to her name, and Dr. Tom Pessah wears a Keffiyeh, to name a few.
In a similar vein, last month, Dr. Stavit Sinai from the Department of Jewish Studies at the University of Konstanz in Germany, was convicted in Germany for using violence while interfering in an event in 2017 at Germany’s Humboldt University, hosting MK Aliza Lavie and a Holocaust survivor. She was part of a group of BDS activists who shouted and yelled during the conference, but she injured two people when she slammed the doors on them.
Such a behavior is not surprising, as Sinai was a student of Prof. Shlomo Sand and was chosen to become his teaching assistant at Tel Aviv University. Moreover, she was his Hebrew book editor of The Invention of the Jewish People. Naturally, When Sand’s book was criticized she wrote an op-ed in Sand’s defense, in Haaretz.
Responding to her op-ed, Galil Elyashiv, former Mossad operator, criticized her writing, “it is difficult to ignore a sentence in which the author ends her article. In her efforts to characterize Prof. Sand’s virtues, she emphasizes ‘that he fought in the wars of occupation and oppression of his country.’ Is that what the Department of General History at Tel Aviv University calls the Israeli wars since the War of Independence, or did the author forget, in her anger, what she learned?”
Clearly, Sinai’s scholarship is an extension of Sand’s.
For example, Sinai argues in an academic paper that when the state of Israel was accepted into the United Nations in 1947, it was “coinciding with the beginning of the Palestinian “Nakba” – which included the violent displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who became refugees – and culminating in the 1948 War.”
This is, of course, a false narrative. Had the Palestinians won the war with their allied Arab states, there would have been no Israel.
Sinai also argued, based on Sand’s theories, that Zionism’s nourished myths of the “Jewish people” claiming to have a common ancestry and a “territorial myth” which they name the “Land of Israel.” She borrows from Sand, that “Combined these two myths form the myth of exile, return, and revival, which regards the broadly defined territory known as Palestine as the biblical land from which ancient Judeans were exiled in the first or second century CE and as the place to which present-day Jews ought to return.” She erroneously espouses Sand’s false assumption that during the late previous century, the Zionists invented the longing of Jews to their ancestral homeland. She writes, “These political myths were cultivated by late 19th-century and early 20th century intellectuals whose secular reading of the sacred scriptures approached the Bible as a historical source… Anachronistically projecting their contemporary understanding of nationalism on the political structures that prevailed in the ancient past, this cohort of scholars has qualified ancient Judea as a modern sovereign nation and drew simultaneously a direct line from the ancient Hebrews to the Jewish communities of the present (Sand 2010).” In other words, she borrowed Sand’s claim that Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of Khazarian converts, and as such, there is no linkage to the Biblical Jews. Even if accepting this theory as true, there is enough linkage by the Sephardi Jews, as can be seen in the writings of Shlomo Iben Gabirol, Maimonides, or even the documents from the Cairo Geniza, to refute these claims.
Sinai joins Sand in his “Jewish People denial” and takes his teaching a step further. Sinai is a longstanding BDS activist, in 2012 She was among the group of BDS activists who interfered with a performance in Berlin of the Gevatron, the Israeli Kibbutz folk singers group. The Israeli news media broadcasted this, where Sinai is seen shouting and screaming.
In September 2019, Sinai was filmed protesting Israel’s Ambassador Jeremy Issacharoff, when the Israeli Seret Film Festival was held. She shouted at the megaphone, as described by her BDS peers, that “This whitewashing extravaganza was attended by the apartheid Ambassador Jeremy Issacharoff and other supporters of Israeli crimes.”
Evidently, Sinai is not only anti-Israel but also anti-Semitic. For example, Aish HaTorah, a Jewish Orthodox educational organization based in Jerusalem, published an article by Rabbi Ken Spiro, titled “The Bible as history.” The Rabbi presented his case, that “not only were Jews recording history well before Herodotus, but while Herodotus might record the events, the Jews were looking at the deeper meaning, and that deeper meaning can be found most importantly and most significantly within the Bible itself.” One of the comments to his article was written by Stavit Sinai, then, a student in the Department of Jewish History, Tel Aviv University, positing: “Not only this article, like the rest of the articles in this category, are afflicted with a blatant historical distortion and anachronism, but also, every word is saturated and replete with horrific racism. It is amazing to see how the feelings of the supremacy of Jewish religion and culture are absorbed.”
Arguably, holding such negative views of Judaism, Sinai should not be teaching Jewish History.
Now Sinai and her BDS team known as the Humboldt3, have been seeking donations from the anti-Israel crowd. They opened a fundraising account and titled their cause as “BDS Activists on Trial – Support the Humboldt3,” asking the public to “Help us in taking Israel to court!” with 118 donors who have raised 5,609 Euros.
The German court ordered Sinai to pay 450 Euros fine, but she already announced her preference for a prison term, pictured wearing a Keffiyeh. Probably to maximize her service for the Palestinian cause.
Sinai is just one of many uber-radical Israelis teaching in Western universities who devote all their energies to delegitimizing Israel. A recent study by the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University which analyzed security threats to Israel, named international delegitimization as a severe threat. More needs to be done to expose Sinai and other Israeli foot soldiers in the army of degetimizers.
A boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) activist was convicted in a German court of assault that authorities said was committed while protesting a 2017 event at Humboldt University in the German capital.
The Jerusalem Post reported that the incident occurred at a speaking event featuring Israeli Knesset Member Aliza Lavie and Israeli Holocaust survivor Deborah Weinstein, who were talking about life in Israeli. The activist, Stavit Sinai, and two other BDS activists disrupted the event.
The court convicted Sinai of banging on a door at the event, which resulted in injuries to two people. Sinai has to either pay a fine of 450 euros ($530.39) or serve a 30-day prison sentence.
Sinai, who calls herself an Israeli dissident in her Twitter bio, argued in a tweet that she was punched in the face at the event; accompanying the tweet was an image containing a statement that she didn’t regret her conduct and that she won’t be paying the fine.
“There’s no punishment that can silence me from speaking about the crimes of apartheid,” the statement read. “I am confident that one day the apartheid criminals would be sitting here instead of me.”
Sinai and the two other activists also faced charges of criminal trespassing; those were dismissed.
Frankfurt Mayor Uwe Becker, who is also the Hesse commissioner to combat anti-Semitism, praised the court’s decision as “an important success against the violent character of BDS and its supporters.”
“It unmasks the violent character of the BDS movement, because it shows that even Holocaust survivors are attacked by BDS when they speak out for the Jewish state,” Becker told the Post. “So it makes clear that the aim of BDS is not about peaceful protest against political decisions in Israel but the aim is the destruction and delegitimization of the Jewish state by all means.”
He added that the decision also shows that the BDS movement aims to silence views that oppose its narrative.
“It makes clear that BDS is lying about their history when they want to present themselves as a Palestinian human rights movement,” Becker said. “They are lying about their aims, when they proclaim the borders of 1967 as their major goal, and they are lying about their means when they want to present themselves as a peaceful movement.”
Ronnie Barkan, one of the other activists who was charged with disrupting the 2017 event, argued in an Aug. 3 Medium post that Sinai was banging on the doors because she was trying “to find out the details of the person who had just punched her in the face. Thanks to one of the Zionist witnesses who inadvertently showed the judge a video that he had never published before — the punching was clearly visible — giving immense credibility to Stavit’s testimony while discrediting each and every Zionist witness that testified against us.”
He also wrote that the trespassing charges were dismissed “on the basis of formality flaws by the prosecution” and said it was a win for them to be able to promote “an unapologetic discourse of resistance to the criminal Israeli apartheid regime in Berlin — the last standing bastion for Zionism.”
AUGUST 5, 2020 16:27 A Berlin court convicted on Monday a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions activist for assaulting people during a presentation by an Israeli survivor of the Holocaust at Humboldt University in the capital. In a dramatic setback to the claim of the BDS campaign that it is a nonviolent initiative targeting the Jewish state, the Berlin court declared Stavit Sinai guilty for her violent conduct.The Berlin daily B.Z. titled its article about the BDS activists at the trial: “It is so shameful. Disgusting hatred of Jews in and in front of the Berlin courtroom.” Sinai’s conviction appears to be the first criminal penalty for violent BDS activity in Germany. The paper reported about the anti-Israel extremist: “Lecturer Stavit S. is guilty. She hit the door of the hall ‘wildly’ from the outside, injuring two people… Either she pays €450, or sits in prison for 30 days.” The Jerusalem Post reported in 2017 that three BDS activists – Sinai, Ronnie Barkan and Majed Abusalama – stormed the Humboldt University in Berlin to disrupt a talk titled “Life in Israel – Terror, Bias and the Chances for Peace” by Yesh Atid MK Aliza Lavie and Deborah Weinstein, an Israeli survivor of the Holocaust, now 85 years old. The court dismissed the criminal trespass charges against the three. Abusalama said he is a Palestinian journalist from Gaza. He lives in the United Kingdom. The B.Z. journalist, Anne Losensky, wrote that the trial was about “trespassing and assault,” adding that “all three seem to enjoy the trial so they can use it as propaganda against Israel.” Losensky wrote that “they wear masks made of the Palestinian scarf [keffiyeh] – a symbol of the annihilation struggle against Israel.” She continued that they showed “raised fists – as if the criminal court were a tribunal against Israel.” According to the newspaper, Sinai declared: “I regret nothing.” Her lawyer said Israel’s policy is “apartheid.” Berlin’s domestic intelligence agency, which documents threats to the democratic order of the city-state, deemed the conduct of the BDS activists to be antisemitic in its 2018 report. Last year, the Bundestag declared BDS to be an antisemitic movement. B.Z. reported that Barkan is a 43-year-old Slovak and Sinai is a 35-year-old Romanian, both having Israeli passports. Barkan previously disrupted a Holocaust film festival in Berlin. BDS activists also protested outside of the courthouse.
German antisemitism commissioner praises verdict against BDS activist
“Monday’s court decision against an activist of the antisemitic BDS movement… is an important success against the violent character of BDS and its supporters.” By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL AUGUST 11, 2020 19:07 The Hesse commissioner to combat antisemitism lauded a Berlin court decision convicting a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement activist for assault. “Monday’s court decision against an activist of the antisemitic BDS movement for assaulting people during a presentation by an Israeli survivor of the Holocaust at Humboldt University in Berlin is an important success against the violent character of BDS and its supporters,” Uwe Becker told The Jerusalem Post. On Monday Stavit Sinai was found guilty of inflicting violence on people at the talk. According to reports, she hit the door of the hall “wildly” from the outside, injuring two people. She is required to pay either €450, or face a prison term of 30 days. “In two ways, this decision is an important milestone in the fight against Israel-related antisemitism in Germany,” Becker said. “It unmasks the violent character of the BDS movement, because it shows that even Holocaust survivors are attacked by BDS when they speak out for the Jewish state. So it makes clear that the aim of BDS is not about peaceful protest against political decisions in Israel but the aim is the destruction and delegitimization of the Jewish state by all means. “Secondly, this act of violence shows that BDS is not defending freedom of speech but BDS is trying to suppress any other opinion that is not compatible with the political agenda of BDS. “It makes clear that BDS is lying about their history when they want to present themselves as a Palestinian human rights movement. They are lying about their aims, when they proclaim the borders of 1967 as their major goal, and they are lying about their means when they want to present themselves as a peaceful movement.” The Post reported in 2017 that three allegedly antisemitic BDS activists – Sinai, Ronnie Barkan and Majed Abusalama – stormed the Humboldt University in Berlin to disrupt a talk titled “Life in Israel – Terror, Bias and the Chances for Peace” by then-Yesh Atid MK Aliza Lavie and Deborah Weinstein, an Israeli Holocaust survivor, now 85. Berlin’s domestic intelligence agency, which documents threats to the democratic order of the city-state, deemed the conduct of the BDS activists to be antisemitic in its 2018 report. Last year, the Bundestag declared BDS to be an antisemitic movement. Becker said the court’s decision is an “important signal that the fight against the antisemitic BDS movement is more and more successful. And it shows that it is important to unmask BDS and to help society to look behind the curtain of this dirty theater. “We have to [go] from BDS to promote BIS, ‘Buy from, Invest in and Support the State of Israel.’” ================================================================= https://twitter.com/Stav_Si/status/1291176844365045764 Stav @Stav_SiAug 6 Violence = the murder of 551 children and the liquidation of 89 entire families. Violence = 7 decades of the crime of #apartheid. Violence = getting punched in the face by an organizer of a propaganda event in which you were stuttering. #Humboldt3 vs. #CrimesAgainstHumanity
עליזה לביא @aliza_lavie Aug 5 3 שנים חלפו מאז ההתפרעות הגסה באוניברסיטת הומבולדט בברלין. לשמחתי סתווית סיני שהתפרעה, האשימה בשקרים ותקפה – הורשעה. מותר להביע דעות ולהתווכח אך לאלימות, לתקיפה ולהשגת גבול – להרצאה שתואמה מראש ובה השתתפה גם ניצולת שואה – אין מקום.
Ronnie Barkan and Stavit Sinai are organizing this fundraiser. Created July 3, 2020 Help us in taking Israel to court!
We are 3 BDS activists who are facing our second trial (Aug. 3rd, 2020) on trumped up charges of trespassing and assault, for protesting the actions of apartheid representative MK Aliza Lavie in 2017.
MK Lavie took part in overseeing the brutal assault on Gaza in 2014, which resulted in 2200 being killed, including 551 children and 89 entire families that were obliterated. She later acted as the Israeli Head of Mission to the European Council — defending the systemic mass incarceration and torture of Palestinian children and the premeditated massacre of unarmed demonstrators along the fence of the Gaza ghetto.
We confronted Lavie as she arrived at the Humboldt University in Berlin, on an explicit anti-BDS propaganda tour — doing public relations in collaboration with the Israeli foreign ministry in the attempt to justify Israeli racist and criminal policies against the Palestinians. During our protest we read out loud from Richard Falk and Virginia Tilley’s UN report, which squarely accuses Israel of practicing The Crime of Apartheid — as a form of an institutionalized regime that constitutes a crime against humanity.
After our previous trial (March 4th & 11th, 2019) was left without a verdict, we are now being taken to court for the second time. We will again reject the accusations against us — that serve as an instrument of political persecution against the BDS movement which is widely suppressed in Germany. Instead, we will challenge the court by stressing:
➊ Our obligation to confront individuals such as Lavie who are responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity ➋ That we have not forgotten the universal moral duty to resist crimes against humanity ➌ Reminding the court of its responsibilities under international law and the Nuremberg principles in not acting as bystanders nor shielding the perpetrators of grave crimes ➍ We are committed to resisting Israeli apartheid and will continue to do so despite the consequences of the trial
We now ask for your support and solidarity in confronting Israel again in the German court. This is also a wonderful opportunity to raise awareness and educate the public on challenging Israeli crimes.
Financials Each one of us is being represented by a different lawyer and this is according to German requirements. We currently have no organizational backing and will be covering the legal fees, and possibly a fine should the verdict be against us, out of our own pocket.
The expected amount for all three of us may reach 9000€ and above.
Please help us in covering the mounting legal fees as well as the educational activities that lie ahead.
You can help us by contributing here, or alternatively make a direct Bitcoin deposit to the following address: 3G7Ucgnx24TNpXuQBVRMVQG4r6fUJG3EAt
================================================================== https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2364235257191563 BDS בעברית 5 September 2019 · Stavit Sinai faces off apartheid representatives @ Babylon Berlinסתוית סיני מול שגריר ישראל ג’רמי יששכרוף ובאי פסטיבל SERET בברלין – ארוע תעמולה למדינת האפרטהייד הנערך בחסות שגרירות ישראל ומשרד העלייה והקליטה. The Israel-sponsored Seret Film Festival held its gala event on Sep. 1st at BABYLON Berlin. This whitewashing extravaganza was attended by the apartheid Ambassador Jeremy Issacharoff and other supporters of Israeli crimes. Across the street we held a #BDS demonstration, which also included some singing and speeches in English and in Hebrew. In this video: Stavit Sinai (#Humboldt3) faces off the apartheid representatives on the other side of the street, in their language.
חבורת הגבעטרון הייתה יעד למחאה של פעילי שמאל קיצוניים, ביניהם גם ישראלים, בהופעה בברלין. גדעון גוריון מהגבעטרון מספר: “עמדנו על הבמה המומים לחלוטין אבל לא זזנו מהמקום. ההרגשה שלנו הייתה נוראית, היינו חסרי אונים”
פעילי שמאל קיצוני מאירופה הפסיקו הופעה של להקת הזמר העברי “הגבעטרון” בברלין בצעקות נגד מדינת ישראל. חברי הלהקה אומרים: חלק מהמפריעים היו ישראלים. לסדרנים לקח לא מעט זמן להוציא אותם, ובאותו הזמן ההופעה הופסקה.
“לא הכינו אותנו לאפשרות שיקומו מפגינים מהקהל, הכל נראה רגוע ושלו, לא הייתה שום הכנה”, מספר גדעון גוריון, חבר להקת הגבעטרון. “עלינו לבמה והתחלנו, כרגיל, עם השיר ‘ים השיבולים’, כשעברנו למחרוזת הבאה פתאום קמו מארבעת הפינות האולם אנשים עם חולצות אדומות, הוציאו דגלים ושלטים והתחילו לצעוק”.
“עמדנו על הבמה המומים לחלוטין אבל לא זזנו מהמקום”, מספר גוריון, “הקהל בעצמו סייע לסדרנים להוציא את המפריעים. היו מעט הרמות ידיים בין המתפרעים לבין הקהל. ההרגשה שלנו הייתה נוראית, היינו די חסרי אונים, אבל בסוף הכל הסתדר וההופעה המשיכה עד הסוף כרגיל”.
נראה כי זמן רב חלף מאז שנכתב ספר שעורר תשומת לב ציבורית כה גדולה כפי שעורר ספרו של פרופ’ שלמה זנד, “מתי ואיך הומצא העם היהודי?” (הוצאת רסלינג). ואולם, סמוך לפרסומו של הספר בפברואר 2008, לא נמצא ולו היסטוריון אחד שהסכים להתייחס לטענות שבספר. בחלוף כמה חודשים הודו רבים מהמומחים מן החוגים להיסטוריה של עם ישראל, שהטענות ההיסטוריות שהעלה זנד היו ידועות ומוכרות להם, וכי דבר לא חודש בספרו.
ובכל זאת, ההתקפות הקשות על הספר לא בוששו לבוא עם הפיכתו לרב-מכר בצרפת ובמיוחד כשנעשה “פצצה תרבותית”, שריתקה חוגים שונים ברחבי אירופה (ובאחרונה אף באסיה). אולם עם פרסום מאמרו של רונן שובל, ראש תנועת “אם תרצו” (“ההמצאה של זנד”, הארץ 19.10), נחצה הגבול שמבדיל בין ביקורת לגיטימית על טקסט ובין כתבי הסתה משתלחים, הגובלים בנאצה ודיבה.
שובל רואה בדבריו של זנד ביטוי קיצוני “להתקפה אוטו-אנטישמית נגד המדינה”, ש”מכוון להעלמת העם היהודי”. הוא מאשים אותו ב”אפליית מדינת ישראל על רקע יהדותה”, ב”רטוריקה מסיתה”, ב”ביטול היהדות של המדינה והפיכתה ל’מדינת כל אזרחיה’, ב”קבלת טענת ‘השיבה'”, בניסיון “לעקור את עצם קיומו של עם ישראל” ו”להפוך את היהדות לדת”. לפי שובל, זנד אף גרוע ממכחישי השואה, משום שהוא מתוחכם יותר ומכיוון שאין דבר שמסייע יותר לאנטישמיות מאשר “אוטו-אנטישמיות פסוודו אינטלקטואלית”. מדבריו, עולה כי זנד הוא אויבה מספר אחת של מדינת ישראל, האשם במספר עבירות על החוק שדינן מאסר: בגידה, הסתה, חתירה, אפליה וגזענות.
לו היה נוטל שובל קורה מבין עיניו, היה מבחין בכך שפרופ’ זנד הוא מבין המתנגדים הבולטים בשמאל למימוש זכות השיבה של הפלסטינים, ומהבודדים שקוראים להכרה מיידית ונחרצת בזהות הישראלית – על אפם וחמתם של המתנגדים. גם זכותם של היהודים להגדיר את עצמם כעם אינה מוטלת בספק, ממש כפי שזכותו של גבר להגדיר עצמו כאשה. ואולם, אין חובה לקבל את נכונותה ואמיתותה של הגדרה עצמית זו. לו זנד היה עושה כן הוא היה חוטא למקצועו כהיסטוריון, המחויב אך ורק לאמת. כחוקר, ביקש זנד לא יותר מאשר למתוח ביקורת על המהות וההומוגניות בתפישת “העם היהודי”, שכה מוכרת למי שהתחנך בישראל, במיוחד לאחר 1967 – דבר שאינו שונה במאום ממה שציין בכתביו מייסד המדינה, דוד בן-גוריון.
יש להישמר מלראות את דבריו של שובל כעשבים השוטים בשולי השיח הפוליטי בישראל. אלה משקפים את המגמות האנטי-ליברליות והממוקדות-אתנית, שגוברות בימים אלה, והופכות כה מקובלות בישראל. ממי שעומד בראש תנועה קיקיונית, נהפך שובל למייצג ודובר ציוני נאמן בתרבות הפוליטית בישראל. בתרבות זו ניתן אפשר לכנות”אנטישמי” כל מי שמעז למתוח ביקורת על פוליטיקת הזהויות בישראל או מבקש לשנותה, או לזהותו כמי שחבר למכחישי השואה, גם אם הוא בן לפליטי מלחמת העולם השנייה וגם אם לחם במלחמות הכיבוש והדיכוי של מדינתו.
הכותבת היא תלמידת מחקר בחוג להיסטוריה כללית באוניברסיטת תל אביב.
A new thought-provoking book Academia: All the Lies, is published now in English by two academic authors from the University of Haifa, Dr. Tamar Almog and Prof. Oz Almog, a husband and wife team. The book was first published in Hebrew last year.
The authors have analyzed the system of higher education from various angles. They argue that the traditional university model has eroded, because, like other traditional models, it has been subjected to structural changes. Although the crisis in academia is the focus of the academic community and has engendered endless papers, reports, and books on the issue, its actual dimensions and its dramatic consequences are hidden from most of the public, scientists, and professors. For the authors, academia is in deep denial, misleading itself and the public, and therefore finding it difficult to reach educated and courageous decisions.
According to the abstract, the book is an “X-ray of the academic ivory tower.” Since higher education has been initially a “successful method,” it has decayed over time. Instead, a “culture of lying, denial and fixation” has taken over the institutions across the globe. The book unfolds the “inflation of scientific publications,” which causes “decline in the quality, relevance and reliability of science; the degenerated and dated Quality Control of empirical research; the transformation of faculty members into submissive and worn-out employees in an outdated production line; the outrageous wasting of budgets and resources; the rankings obsession that drags governments and institutions into a whirlwind of self-deception; The cynical monopoly and unabashed greediness of scientific publishing corporations; the lack of professionalism in managing institutions; the exploitation and deception of adjunct lecturers and research students; the waning attractiveness of an academic career; the transformation of the humanities into a pile of politically correct mumbo jumbo; the devaluation of the academic degree; the stubborn adherence to antiquated teaching methods and missing out on the Internet revolution; the disconnect between the curricula and the needs of society and the job market; and the marketing and branding ploys that are used to lure young people to sign up for expired institutions and courses.” The book also offers solutions to the problems it raises to improve the academic system.
More specifically, touching upon the IAM concerns, the authors argue that “The politization of social sciences has pulled the rug out from under the feet of the claim that they provide a general education. A large share of the public is of the view that for years now, humanitarian and social sciences courses have served an extreme and in-your-face pseudo-humanitarian political propaganda, which seeks to undermine the very foundations of society and should therefore not be propped up by public funds.”
Since post-modernist trends have taken over social sciences and humanities – causing the relaxation of the needs for empirical evidence – it is precisely that, according to the authors, “where there are no quantitative figures, a phenomenon can easily be exaggerated and manipulatively interpreted, especially when the researcher comes to the study with ideological agendas and motivations.” In fact, under the heading of “Rewriting History,” the authors argue that “With so much desire to correct and balance the historical narrative, reality has been ‘renovated,’ by hiding, denying, and fabricating facts as well as exaggerating them.”
There are chapters and subchapters such as “Closed Political Club,” questioning, “Are Academics leftists?” And another, discussing “Anti-Semitism and Hatred of Israel as a Test Case,” which deals with anti-Semitism on campus and the ties to BDS. The authors argue that “Many ‘scientific’ conventions in the humanities are tainted with distinct political color, and exclude researchers who do not align themselves with the agenda… Israeli experts, Jewish and others, whose thesis does not correspond with the pro-Palestinian narrative (which is, incidentally, mostly made up of lies), are boycotted on many campuses, their lectures torpedoed, and they are greeted with hateful graffiti, threats, and occasionally even physical violence.” The chapter discusses Israeli Apartheid Week activities on US campuses. The authors noted that “Many faculty in Israel and around the world – especially in the liberal arts – have become significant activists in the industry of lies, whose goal it is to demonize Israel.”
Academia: All the Lies – What Went Wrong in the University Model and What Will Come in Its Place
Tamar Almog, Oz Almog Published 2020 Youth Culture, Education Systems, alternative instruction
Publication Date: 2020 Academia: All the Lies is an X-ray of the academic ivory tower. It exposes the successful method, which has decayed over time, and the culture of lying, denial and fixation that has taken over institutions of higher education across the world. It unfolds the inflation of scientific publications, which results in an alarming decline in the quality, relevance and reliability of science; the degenerated and dated Quality Control of empirical research; the transformation of faculty members into submissive and worn-out employees in an outdated production line; the outrageous wasting of budgets and resources; the rankings obsession that drags governments and institutions into a whirlwind of self-deception; The cynical monopoly and unabashed greediness of scientific publishing corporations; the lack of professionalism in managing institutions; the exploitation and deception of adjunct lecturers and research students; the waning attractiveness of an academic career; the transformation of the humanities into a pile of politically correct mumbo jumbo; the devaluation of the academic degree; the stubborn adherence to antiquated teaching methods and missing out on the Internet revolution; the disconnect between the curricula and the needs of society and the job market; and the marketing and branding ploys that are used to lure young people to sign up for expired institutions and courses. But this book is not just a depressing snapshot of stagnated intellectual elite, which shuts its eyes in the face of changing times and betrays its social mission. Alongside the harsh criticism, Tamar and Oz Almog propose a course of recalculation and transition to a fresh model of research and education, tailored to the 21st century. The COVID-19 crisis, which is shaking and will continue to rattle the education and science systems, will shortly make the prophetic prediction of the Almog’s a reality – in which everything we have known to date about education and science will change dramatically. “Academia: all the Lies,” which was first published in Israel and elicited widespread public discourse, is a must-read for future students and their parents, employers, media, and policymakers. It is also a must-read for anyone who is engaged in science and education or dreams of a career in the field.
Table of Contents Acknowledgments xiii 1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 2 Survival at All Costs: The Economic Crisis ……………………………………………… 6 The Tectonic Rift of 2008 ……………………………………………………………………………6 End of the Age of Abundance …………………………………………………………………….7 Limiting the Privileges of the Aristocracy …………………………………………………..11 You’ll Approve Mine and I’ll Approve Yours ………………………………………………15 Two Are Fewer Than One …………………………………………………………………………18 Professional Mishmash ……………………………………………………………………………..21 Donors Close Their Wallets ………………………………………………………………………24 The Dubious Honor of Honorary Degrees …………………………………………………30 The Deceptive Demand for Higher Education …………………………………………..32 Higher Education for All …………………………………………………………………….32 Tuition Fees Increase More and More ………………………………………………….35 The Growing Burden of Subsidization …………………………………………………38 The Heavy Shadow of the Mountain of Debt ……………………………………………..39 A Temporary Lifeline from China ……………………………………………………………..42 The Exploited Workforce of Academia ………………………………………………………48 A Bottomless Barrel of Pension Debts ………………………………………………………..57 How Much Is Eureka Worth—And to Whom ……………………………………………..61 Clinging to the Foundation ………………………………………………………………………66 Sources of Funding for Scientific Research …………………………………………..66 The Race to the Research Budget ………………………………………………………..69 When Money Talks – Academia suffers …………………………………………………70 Flaws in the Traditional Financing Model …………………………………………….74 Out-of-the-Box Ideas …………………………………………………………………………..81 “Crowdfunding” in the Service of Science …………………………………………….83 Industry Takes the Crown …………………………………………………………………………88 Research Collaborations ……………………………………………………………………..88 Relationship Issues ……………………………………………………………………………..90 3 An Avalanche of Papers: The Crisis of Scientific Publishing …………………….. 97 A Scientist’s Workday ………………………………………………………………………………..97 The Scientific Journal ……………………………………………………………………………..102 The Industry of Science ………………………………………………………………………….105 The Hidden (and Rising) Bar ………………………………………………………………….108 Publish or Perish …………………………………………………………………………………….113 Struggling to Keep Up the Pace ………………………………………………………………121 The Poll-Itis Epidemic …………………………………………………………………………….126 Junk Science …………………………………………………………………………………………..132 Texts Without Readers ………………………………………………………………………132 More Quantity, Less Quality ………………………………………………………………133 A Leg Up from Musk …………………………………………………………………………137 Deceit in the Name of Truth ……………………………………………………………………139 A Breach of Trust ………………………………………………………………………………139 What’s Yours Is Mine …………………………………………………………………………141 Unraveling the Knot of Silence ……………………………………………………………….142 Half-Hearted Confessions ………………………………………………………………….142 You Can’t Get the Same Results Twice ………………………………………………..144 Positive Results Only …………………………………………………………………………145 Take It Back ……………………………………………………………………………………..146 And Yet—Denial ……………………………………………………………………………….148 The Black Market of Scientific Publishing ………………………………………………..151 A Mirror Up to Science …………………………………………………………………………..156 Fake Conferences, Too ……………………………………………………………………………158 It’s Not What You Know, It’s Who You Know……………………………………….158 Too Good to Pass Up …………………………………………………………………………161 The Hypocrisy of the Rich …………………………………………………………………162 Slowing Down the Rat Race …………………………………………………………………….166 4 The Great Science Robbery: The Crisis of Access ………………………………….170 Maxwell’s Magic Formula ………………………………………………………………………..170 The Reign of the Publishers ……………………………………………………………………175 The Crisis of the Academic Libraries ……………………………………………………….177 Open Access Publishing, Ltd. ………………………………………………………………….180 The Disappointing “Academic Spring” …………………………………………………….185 “Robin Hoods” In the Name of Access ……………………………………………………..188 If You Can’t Beat ‘Em – Buy ‘Em ……………………………………………………………..191 Towards the Triumph of Fairness and Reason …………………………………………..1955 Archaic Peer Review: The Quality Assurance Crisis ………………………………..206 Is Truth Dead? ………………………………………………………………………………………..206 The Scientific Review Mechanism ……………………………………………………………207 Trial by Friends …………………………………………………………………………………207 Behind the Scenes …………………………………………………………………………….210 Who Wants to Be a Reviewer? …………………………………………………………….211 The March of Anguish ………………………………………………………………………213 Criticizing the Critics ………………………………………………………………………………218 The “Lesser of Two Evils” Trap ………………………………………………………………..238 The Solution Right Under Their Noses ……………………………………………………245 The Pre-print Path …………………………………………………………………………….245 Open Platforms for Scientific Discussion ……………………………………………247 The Convention-Shattering Encyclopedia of the Masses ………………………248 Science 2.0: End of the Reign of Journals …………………………………………..253 6 The Measurement Madness: The Rating Crisis ………………………………………261 Can we grade scientific products? Should we? ………………………………………….261 Tell Me Where You Published, and I Will Tell You What Kind of Scientist You Are …………………………………………………………………..265 The Reference Criteria ……………………………………………………………………..265 Influence and Quality – Is That So? ……………………………………………………266 Everything for a Good Place on the Charts ………………………………………………277 Phony Protests and Reservations ……………………………………………………………..279 The Spotlight is Pointed at the Scientists ………………………………………………….281 Another Kind of Statistical Madness …………………………………………………..281 More Indices, More Problems ……………………………………………………………283 Continuing to Market a Defective Product ………………………………………….288 Which is the Best University? …………………………………………………………………..289 The American League ……………………………………………………………………….289 The Shanghai Surprise ………………………………………………………………………291 Experts at the Crown’s Service …………………………………………………………..293 A Formula Filled with Flaws, Mistakes, and Misdirections …………………….295 Flavor Enhancers for Spoiled Food …………………………………………………….307 The Trap of the Governmental Budgeting Model……………………………………..308 The Statistical Tables Have Turned ………………………………………………………….313 7 To a Lesser Degree: The Crisis of Higher Education ………………………………317 Cracks in the Myth ………………………………………………………………………………….317Depreciation of the Degree …………………………………………………………………….318 Degree Inflation ……………………………………………………………………………….318 An Expired Entrance Pass ………………………………………………………………….323 Diminishing Returns …………………………………………………………………………325 Not Ready for the Job Market …………………………………………………………….327 With Narrow Horizons ………………………………………………………………………329 The Deserted Campus Quads …………………………………………………………….336 Wasteful Subsidization …………………………………………………………………………….337 A Worn-Out Model of Instruction ……………………………………………………………341 Here but Not Hear ……………………………………………………………………………343 A Buffet-Style Learning Menu ……………………………………………………………347 Too Long, Didn’t Read It …………………………………………………………………..348 The Professor Has No Clothes …………………………………………………………..349 The Student is Always Right …………………………………………………………………….356 Re-Setting Expectations …………………………………………………………………….356 Shaming Disobedient Professors ………………………………………………………..358 Fast-Degree ………………………………………………………………………………………360 Same Old Bess in a New Dress ……………………………………………………………361 Honors Students Only ……………………………………………………………………….362 Can’t Stop the (Online) Course ………………………………………………………………370 Correspondence Learning …………………………………………………………………370 A New World of Screens …………………………………………………………………….371 Technological Improvements in the Classroom …………………………………..372 Let’s Share ……………………………………………………………………………………….374 From Dozens to Millions ……………………………………………………………………376 An “Exit” for Educational Initiatives …………………………………………………..377 The Year of the MOOC ……………………………………………………………………..378 No Longer a Marginal Phenomenon ………………………………………………….382 The Profit Dilemma ………………………………………………………………………….386 The Feedback Dilemma …………………………………………………………………….389 The Dropout Dilemma ……………………………………………………………………..390 Cut the Bullshit …………………………………………………………………………………393 The End of the Beginning …………………………………………………………………394 The Path to the Post-Academic Era ………………………………………………………….398 Studies Without Borders ……………………………………………………………………398 Fast Track to Employment …………………………………………………………………400 From Training to Job Placement ………………………………………………………..403 A Playlist of Certifications ………………………………………………………………….406 It Doesn’t Matter Where You Studied …………………………………………………407A Free Market of Education ………………………………………………………………408 Co-Learning Spaces …………………………………………………………………………..414 It’s OK Not to Go to College ……………………………………………………………..416 8 Liberating the Arts: The Crisis of the Humanities ………………………………….420 It’s Harder for the Soft Sciences ………………………………………………………………420 The Diminution of the American Mind ……………………………………………………423 A Cry of Bloody Murder Born of Denial …………………………………………………..424 Why Did Students Stop Showing Up? ………………………………………………………434 A World Without Truth …………………………………………………………………………..439 Is Everything Relative? ………………………………………………………………………441 The Critical Science Oxymoron …………………………………………………………446 The Identity Ball ……………………………………………………………………………….454 A Flawed Correctness ………………………………………………………………………..456 Closed Political Club ………………………………………………………………………………459 Are academics leftists? ……………………………………………………………………….459 Intolerance in the Temple of Pluralism ………………………………………………466 Anti-Semitism and Hatred of Israel as a Test Case ……………………………….468 The Boundaries of Academic Discussion …………………………………………….474 The Cumulative Image Damage from Radicalism ……………………………….478 Do the Humanities Have a Right to Exist in Their Current Format? ………….482 9 The Lost Paradise: The Crisis of the Academic Career ……………………………489 Falling in Love with Academia …………………………………………………………………489 The Illusion of Discovery ………………………………………………………………………..491 The Illusion of a Job ……………………………………………………………………………….492 Advanced Studies ……………………………………………………………………………..492 Between Student and Advisor …………………………………………………………….494 The Thesis and Its Review ………………………………………………………………….495 Is It Worth the Effort? ……………………………………………………………………….497 Why Are Moths Attracted to the Flame? ……………………………………………..504 The Social Price of the Surplus of Doctoral Students …………………………..505 The Illusion of Stability …………………………………………………………………………..507 All or Nothing …………………………………………………………………………………..507 Abolishing Tenure …………………………………………………………………………….511 The Illusion of Sabbatical Leave ………………………………………………………………513 The Illusion of Wages ……………………………………………………………………………..515 The Illusion of Promotion ………………………………………………………………………518Non-Hierarchical Hierarchy ………………………………………………………………518 The Bureaucracy of Rank ………………………………………………………………….520 Donning Wigs, Raising Eyebrows, and Arguing Over Nothing ……………..522 Professional Bribery, Intrigue and Shady deals ……………………………………534 The Illusion of Gender Equality ………………………………………………………………536 The Feminist Revolution Gears Down ………………………………………………..536 Hidden Gaps …………………………………………………………………………………….538 Research is Fun. Kids—Not as Much ………………………………………………….542 The Illusion of Peace of Mind …………………………………………………………………544 The Illusion of Reputation ………………………………………………………………………547 The Future of the Academic Career …………………………………………………………549 10 The End of the Age of Academia: A General Diagnosis and Prognosis ………551 The Lies and Denial ……………………………………………………………………………….551 On the Verge of Financial Bankruptcy ……………………………………………………..552 On the Verge of Moral Bankruptcy ………………………………………………………….555 On the Verge of Scientific Bankruptcy ……………………………………………………..556 On the Verge of Managerial Bankruptcy ………………………………………………….557 On the Verge of Educational Bankruptcy …………………………………………………558 Scientific Research in Academia—Trends and Recommendations …………….560 Publicly Owned, Not Privately Owned, Scientific Publications ……………..560 Mass Review, Not Judgment by the Few ………………………………………………561 Rankings Based on the Book, Not the Cover ………………………………………563 Self-Evident Greatness, Not Obsolete Status Symbols …………………………..563 Higher Education—Trends and Recommendations ………………………………….564 Zoom Out to Online Courses (Amid the Coronavirus Crisis) ………………564 Many Courses from Many Sources ……………………………………………………..570 Wallet-of-Expertise, Not Broad Academic Degree ……………………………….572 Subsidizing Learners, Not Institutions ………………………………………………..573 Autonomous Learners, Not Patronizing Teachers ……………………………….575 Getting Practical Education, Not A Symbolic Diploma ………………………..576 A Real Discussion of Core Curriculum, Not Loose and Sloppy General Education ……………………………………………………………577 Learning Spaces Around Town, Not a Closed Campus ………………………..578 Intermediate Guide for the Perplexed ……………………………………………….578 Tearing Down the University Conglomerate …………………………………………….579 Separating the Professor from the Scientist ………………………………………..579 Separating Teaching from Evaluation …………………………………………………581 The Next Generation of Science ………………………………………………………..582A Market for Education and a Market for Research …………………………….582 An Updated Model for Science Funding …………………………………………….586 Reinforcing Basic Research ……………………………………………………………….587 The Crisis in Academia as an Expression of the Crisis in American Culture ..589 Point of No Return …………………………………………………………………………………591 Endnotes ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..597
Landscape-altering shockwaves are a feature not only of nature, but are also found in human society. The source of the powerful energy propelling them is nearly always the bursting on the scene of a new technology which dwarfs whatever came before. It rapidly changes entrenched social patterns, and leads us to a crossroads characterized by a mixture of desperation and hope, conservatism and innovation, passivity and activity – and especially instability and uncertainty. Charles Dickens best described such sociological circumstances in his classic historical novel “A Tale of Two Cities” (1859): “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us”.1 Bizarrely, almost mystically, the Hebrew edition of this book came out about a week before the outbreak of the coronavirus crisis. While the publisher’s PR department was distributing copies to the media, most Israeli citizens were placed under home quarantine and bookstores, like nearly all other establishments, remained deserted. The book could, of course, be delivered or purchased in digital versions, but by this stage no one was thinking of buying anything other than food, medicine or toilet paper. But what was initially perceived as a bad case of the author’s curse quickly turned into a blessing in disguise, or more accurately, a reinforcement of thebook’s thesis on academia. It promptly became apparent that the forced quarantine, which kept millions in their homes and forced them to increase their use of digital media, was about to become a particle accelerator for the accessibility and flexibility which is revolutionizing how we are provided service, how we work, and how we study. In fact, everything we had predicted for the future of science and higher education now seems on the brink of fulfillment, and at a much faster pace than we expected. The fact that institutions of higher education were forced to turn around and immediately make the switch to online studies turned the spotlight on our book. It was covered extensively by Israeli media and, despite the impaired market, quickly became a bestseller. In mid-May, we were invited by the Council of Higher Education in Israel to give an online lecture on the book to the directors of all organizations devoted to the advancement of teaching in Israeli institutions. A short while later, the Universities of Tel Aviv and Haifa held an online panel on the book and the changes expected in academia following the coronavirus crisis. The Haifa panel included a Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry, the president of a technological college, and one of the most prominent authors in Israel, who is also a professor in the humanities. While we were writing a book on the fall of academia, never in our wildest dreams would we have expected that the book would be received by way of webinars attended by hundreds— gatherings at which no one would need any convincing that we are entering a new era for science and education. Academia—named after the Athenian hero Academus—was born in ancient Greece as a meeting point for lectures (historians unanimously agree that this is where Plato spoke with his students), but only in the 17th century did the ancient term turn into a common phrase among European scholars. With time, it became a generalizing synonym for the mechanisms of science and higher education in the modern age. The development of academia from ancient times until today is a fascinating evolutionary story, encompassing continents, nations and cultures. It is a relay race of the human spirit which has launched humanity towards immense achievements. But success is not invulnerable, and that which has worked in the past will not necessarily work in the future—especially when a substitute is found. Few in our day are able to imagine a world without institutions of higher education, but remember that in the not-so-distant past, no one could imagine soldiers without swords, farmers without horses, or mail without paper. People are able to comprehend and digest small changes in their lives, but find it difficult to accept the idea that even those basic and established arrangementswhich they have always taken for granted will one day disappear. Universities are somewhat taken for granted by many of us. We live in a time that has seen a rapid rise in the percentage of academics among the general population, a consistent improvement in quality of life and lifespan, and an explosion of innovations and inventions. It seems that science is more successful than ever, and that higher education is blossoming. But this picture is misleading. Global academia is in the throes of its broadest crisis yet. It is an economic, intellectual, organizational, moral, and educational crisis, and it is not a malfunction or some kind of temporary failure. The traditional university model, with roots in the Middle Ages, is in advanced stages of erosion and is sending off distress signals because it, like other traditional models in our times, is being subjected to structural changes. We are in the midst of a period of immense change, in which the old is no longer suitable and a substitute, born of dynamics of friction, is in its infancy. Although the crisis in higher education is the focus of conversation in the academic community, and has engendered an endless array of papers, reports and books on the issue, its true dimensions and its dramatic consequences are hidden from most of the public, and in truth, from most of the world’s scientists and professors as well. Academia is still deep in denial, misleading itself and the public, and is therefore finding it difficult to understand the true nature of things, and to reach educated and resolute decisions. The purpose of this book is to put the puzzle pieces together to form a panoramic overview of the state of higher education worldwide. However, this is not only a critical essay, meant to open eyes to the dawning of a new era, but also an optimistic projection, and in some ways, a recommendation for a rejuvenating model of research and education suitable for the 21st century. The human race is fast approaching a historical turning point in which the academic bubble will be burst wide open, institutions of higher education will lose their monopoly, and a scientific career will look much different than it does now. Before we get into the thick of things, we must emphasize a few points for our readers: This book deals with the most common and prominent phenomena in academia around the world, especially in leading scientific countries, and not with the nuances which uniquely characterize each nation and institution. The many footnotes and endnotes woven throughout the book include not only references for the data and insights contained in the text, but also professional literature meant to expand the reader’s view. In this sense, thebook also serves as a collection of important sources for any discussion of the current and future state of academia. Our book is fairly expansive compared to standard nonfiction (and we apologize to our readers for that), but it’s not that, to paraphrase the great Mark Twain, we would write you a shorter book but we didn’t have the time. In fact, it is just the opposite. After a research and writing process which took up three years, we tried to summarize as much as we could for our readers the complex landscape of a complex system in a complex time. Each chapter deals with a different aspect of the academic ecosystem, and an omission of any one of these would have caused us to stray further from the goal. Furthermore, because there is a sort of grave “indictment” here, we felt compelled to anchor it in as wide a range as possible of evidence, and to present arguments from different angles. But there is another reason for the expansiveness of the text. Most of the public—including a large proportion of scientists—is not familiar, or only partially familiar, with the meandering mechanism of global academia. The creaks in the old system cannot be comprehended, nor can the necessity of changing the system, without first understanding its basic principles. Therefore, we devoted more than a few pages in each chapter for an overview of this kind. This book is thus also an ethnographic document for those interested in the behind-the-scenes workings of academia. The comprehensive overview we have put together is based on thousands of sources: papers, books, surveys, reports, informational websites, discussion platforms, and blogs. In order to get a sense of the field and hone our insights, we have interviewed 212 academics of various levels of seniority and from a number of countries: Israel, the United States, England, Scotland, Australia, Germany, Italy, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Greece, Japan and Taiwan. Most of those interviewed requested that they remain anonymous, and we therefore decided not to use any names. Here we must note: the fear held by many faculty members, including senior academics, of exposing themselves is a symptom of the grim state of academia. We hope that a time will come in which scientists and lecturers will feel safe to freely express themselves regarding any and all problems and difficulties in their workplace. During our visits to campuses around the world, we also spoke with many students, who added insights from the point of view of those doing the studying. We compounded these observations with those collected a few years earlier during our research on Generation Y in Israel. This study of theyounger generation, published in 2016, made waves and stirred a wide-ranging debate among the general public, as well as in academia (the English version of the book was published in 2019).2 For us, this book was a grueling and complicated journey. We made an effort to base our diagnosis and prognosis on as wide an infrastructure as possible of data (which was not always available or complete), but nothing is over yet. Naturally, some errors, inaccuracies, and omissions were committed. We would be grateful for any comments and additions by readers, and we will do our best to include these in the next edition. Either way, we see the book as fertile ground for a debate on an issue whose significance to society, and to all of humanity, is hard to underestimate. A personal note in conclusion: we feel very lucky that we have gotten the opportunity to be citizens in a democratic country which encourages critical debate, and to work at a scientific institution which allows free research. But by the same token, we are heartbroken that in the current state of global academia, it is highly doubtful that younger researchers, without a tenured position and under pressure to publish as fast as they can, would dare take such a project upon themselves. We hope our book contributes to changing this reality.
In 2015, IAM wrote that Dr. Tom Pessah is an outlier even by the standards of radical Israeli faculty. He is a veteran professional activist who tends to sport a Keffiyeh during public events. Pessah’s Ph.D. thesis from Berkeley University was titled “Backgrounding: The meaning of cleansing in Israel/Palestine, 1948”. He is an ardent BDS activist and a supporter of a binational state, as he detailed in “Who’s Afraid of the Right of Return?”
Pessah is the chairperson of Zochrot, an organization dedicated to the Palestinian right of return. Of late, Pessach is the book review editor of the Tel Aviv University academic journal Israeli Sociology and also sometimes lectures at the Sociology and Anthropology at TAU.
IAM also reported that Pessah has pursued postdoctoral positions at the Hebrew University and Tel Aviv University and has taught two courses: “Ethnicity and ‘Race’ – A Global Perspective” at the Sociology and Anthropology Department at Ben-Gurion University; and “Violence and Politics – Selected Topics” at the Rothberg International School of the Hebrew University. Between 2017 to 2019 He was a fellow at a Van Leer Institute Jerusalem project.
Pessah often promotes his extremist political ideology. In 2016 he organized a conference for Zochrot “Third International Conference on the Return of Palestinian Refugees,” where he wrote, “Zochrot works to promote recognition and responsibility-taking by Jewish Israeli society for its part in the ongoing Nakba and realize the return of Palestinian refugees as the necessary redress of the Nakba.”
Pessah was the recipient of the Morris Ginsberg fellowship in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for 2014-5. The Fellowship was created through a grant of Morris Ginsberg, an eminent British-Jewish sociologist, to nurture postdoctoral students specializing in cutting edge research. Unfortunately, it was used to finance Pessah’s activism with Zochrot.
Pessah’s endorsement of BDS is clear. In 2010, a bill in “Support of UC Divestment from War Crimes,” was co-authored by Pessah. On October 29, 2018, in a teach-in at the University of Michigan, titled “What is BDS? And Why Does it Matter?” Pessah spoke as an expert on the BDS movement, where he said: “BDS has been a model of solidarity from my knowledge of participation in the movement… You see many Palestinians, many Jews, many Israelis working side by side, acknowledging the rights of Palestinians.”
In an article published by Zochrot, “Imagining Return” in 2012, Pessah reveals something of his motivation. The piece was “Dedicated to my comrades in Students for Justice in Palestine.” He explained that “I get regularly hugged by Palestinians. Not everyone hates us … I have Palestinian friends: they cook for me; they laugh at my jokes; we gossip; they burn discs for me; we get all mushy and cheesy with each other.” IAM often reported how Israeli academic-activists have been recruited by Palestinians. Israeli universities should not tolerate BDS activists among their ranks. The Minister of Higher Education, Zeev Elkin, should look into this matter.
Founded in 1998, Israeli Sociology is published in Hebrew twice yearly. The journal serves as a platform for local studies, yet in dialogue with sociological scholarship around the world. The journal encourages a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches, in line with the heterogeneity of the discipline. It further offers a platform for debating the sociological research agenda in general and the sociological reality in Israel in particular. The journal also includes an extensive book-review section that allows readers a wide-range view of the Israeli social scene. Israeli Sociology was founded by the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Tel-Aviv University, and is supported by the Institute for Social Research (established by the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Tel Aviv University) and by the Israeli Sociological Society.
Political sociologist Michael Mann posits the existence of a relationship between democracy in settler states and the massive cleansing of indigenous groups. The connection, according to Mann, is that these democracies represented settlers who shared a consensual ideology that denigrated indigenous groups and justified their cleansing. Through a series of comparisons between several settler democracies: California in 1860, Colorado in 1864, Queensland (Australia) between the 1860s and the 1880s, New Zealand in the 1860s, and Israel in 1948, I show that these settler societies were more ideologically diverse than Mann and others claim, and therefore more prone to internal disagreements. To overcome this diversity, the initiators of the cleansing used indiscriminate violence towards indigenous groups but were forced to present their actions as discriminate before state officials: they used one type of classification to overshadow another. This was a crucial condition for securing state resources for large-scale operations that caused massive deaths and displacement of indigenous groups. It also served to enhance the economic resources and status of the perpetrators both in relation to these groups and in relation to rivals within the settler society. In addition, the state’s representation of the cleansing has long-reaching effects on the legal status of indigenes and their lands and on the official narration of this history. The empirical chapters describe struggles within these democratic settler societies showing that securing the representation of the cleansing was crucial to its execution. The chapters on California, Colorado, and Queensland rely upon the protocols of investigative committees set up after episodes of costly state-sponsored violence. New Zealand is described through secondary sources. The chapter on Israel discusses the army’s operational orders, as well as interviews conducted with veterans, which can help us reconstruct how official representations were interpreted by actors on the ground.
The Settler Colonialism and Resistance Group met throughout 2017-2019to discuss a new understanding of the relations between the Zionist settlers and the local Arab-Palestinian population. In the first year the group discussed theoretical texts and the early work of its participants. In the second year the group focused on presentations of original research with the aim of publishing a collection of articles.
Lev Grinberg, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Daniel DeMalach, Sapir Academic College
Gadi Algazi Khaled Anabtawi Avishai Ehrlich Hanna Herzog Alexandre (Sandy) Kedar Jacob (Kobi) Metzer Mansour Nasasra Tom Pessah Areej Sabbagh-Khoury Oren Shlomo Na’aman Tal Erez Tzfadia Himmat Zu’bi
ספא אבורביעה, רמי אדוט, נעמה בן זאב, נאור בן יהוידע, שני בר און, יפעת גוטמן, דפנה הירש, מנאר חסן, בועז לב טוב, ראודה מורקוס-מח’ול, בני נוריאלי, רגב נתנזון, אריז’ סבאע’-ח’ורי, יובל עברי, תום פסח, טלי פפרמן, סמדר שרוןשתף דף זה:
על אודות בשלושת העשורים האחרונים חלה בין האנתרופולוגיה להיסטוריה התקרבות שמתבטאת בכמות הולכת וגדלה של עבודות המשתמשות במקביל בכלים מחקריים של שתי הדיסציפלינות. המפגש בין ההיסטוריה לאנתרופולוגיה עשוי לבוא לידי ביטוי בשימוש במתודות פרשניות מתחום האנתרופולוגיה לניתוח תופעות היסטוריות; בחקירת קהילות מסוימות שהתקיימו בעבר, ושבאמצעותן אפשר לבחון “שאלות גדולות” (כגון היחס בין מבנה חברתי לפעולה, טיבו של הכוח הפוליטי, דפוסים של יחסים חברתיים וכיוצא באלה); ובמחקר אנתרופולוגי המעמיד במרכזו תהליך שינוי היסטורי, או המבקש להבין תהליכים חברתיים המתרחשים בהווה דרך חקר שורשיהם ההיסטוריים. על אף התפתחות זו, המפגש בין האנתרופולוגיה להיסטוריה כמעט לא נתן את אותותיו בשדה האקדמי הישראלי. מטרת הקבוצה לפתח כלים למחקר ההיסטוריה החברתית, התרבותית והפוליטית של המרחב הישראלי-פלסטיני, הנשענים על נקודות המפגש שבין האנתרופולוגיה להיסטוריה. העמדה המחקרית שאנו מבקשים לפתח מקדמת הקשבה לסיפורי חיים, מתן תשומת לב לפרקטיקות יומיומיות וליחסים בין דמויות וקהילות, וניסיון לעמוד על האופנים השונים והמשתנים שבהם הן מבינות את המציאות ומייצרות אותה כחלק ממשא ומתן מתמשך המתנהל בינן לבין המדינה וסוכניה. באמצעות עמדה זו אנו מבקשים לנסח אלטרנטיבה ל”לאומיות המתודולוגית” הרווחת, ולתרום הן לפיתוח הכלים התיאורטיים והמתודולוגיים העומדים לרשותנו והן לדיון הציבורי.
https://zochrot.org/en/article/54388 Imagining Return Dedicated to my comrades in Students for Justice in Palestine By: Tom Pessah 10/2012 Tom Pessah (on the left) with Zochrot at The Human Rights March in Tel Aviv 2012
I should have taken your email! People were all around us at the rally, shouting and singing, I really wanted to talk to someone but I didn’t notice how well you were listening, how you had patience to talk to me and read the flyer I was distributing. You had a red beard and skullcap, and a blue shirt with “Israeli Peace” on it. I wore the black shirt of Students for Justice in Palestine.
You read my flyer and asked me, “where it says in 1967 Israel occupied more territories populated by Palestinians, what do you mean by ‘more’? Are you saying Israel of 1948 was also conquered”?
I know what you are really asking: do “we people” recognize “your” right to exist, or… you know, want to throw you into the sea?
Dude, I’m an Israeli Jew, just like you! I don’t want to throw any Israelis into the sea, honestly. I’m a horrible swimmer and I have asthma, so although the sea in Tel Aviv is warmer than around here, I’d rather just look at the waves, maybe dip in my toes once in a while. Besides, the sea gets polluted: throwing people in could be dangerous!
But because I am Israeli, I know where you’re coming from. This question is one of our formulas, isn’t it? The ones we use when people tell us they were displaced in 1948, and we get really scared. You know them all by heart, don’t you? “These things happen in wars”; “If they had won they would have done the same”; “If they hadn’t rejected the partition plan in 1947, it wouldn’t have happened”; “the Arab states should have done more for them”, etc., etc.
I’ve tried not using those formulas and just listening to Palestinians telling me the place they are from, the place they can’t return to. I’ve tried looking at them straight in the eye when they say it, without responding. I feel so nervous it makes me sick in the stomach. I cringe. I feel like I’m going to explode.
Because when I look them in the eye, it stops being “us and “them”. For one moment, I wonder what if I was “them”. In Lydda, Yitzhak Rabin drove them out, firing shots above their heads; he tells the story in his memoirs. In Al-Majdal, which is Ashkelon today, they were loaded onto trucks after the fighting ended, and dumped on the other side of the border. In Jaffa they really were driven into the sea, under bombardment. Children were lost in the waves as their families fled to Gaza in fishing boats (did you know that? It was we who threw them into the sea, not the other way round!). And then we took all of their property and they stayed refugees, for sixty years. For sixty years!
Now they are here, and here are their children, looking at me, straight in the eye. Do you see why we are so scared?
But they are just looking at me, actually they are smiling. You may not believe me, but I get regularly hugged by Palestinians. Not everyone hates us, Aryeh (I think you said that was your name?). I have Palestinian friends: they cook for me; they laugh at my jokes; we gossip; they burn discs for me; we get all mushy and cheesy with each other.
Yeah, don’t tell me: maybe my friends are nice, but how can I generalize? What about all the suicide bombers, all those photos of little babies dressed with weapons, don’t “they” teach their children to hate us? And then I could quote you some surveys about attitudes to Israel and willingness to compromise, and there we go, straight back to cliché-land.
Let’s go another way, and look at that fear again. A lot of it has got to do with this Right of Return thing. What do you imagine when you think of it? For a long time I was too scared to even try to picture it, but when I did, the first image that came up was from the Westerns I watched as a kid: the Indians swarming down the hills, shrieking, shooting arrows or whatever weapon people use nowadays: The attack of the barbarians.
But maybe imagine something different: a plane landing in Ben-Gurion airport with some “new immigrants” from the refugee camps in Lebanon. This really pompous politician is out to greet them, smiling from ear to ear. The first refugee comes down the steps and shakes people’s hands. The politician uses some fancy clichés, welcoming them to their homeland. These cute kids, third graders, are standing in line, with huge bouquets of flowers, too big for them to hold, pointing at the refugees who just got off the plane, looking a bit dazed by the strong sunlight and the humidity. And then some representative from the Ministry of the Interior goes up and gets their details. She’ll be calling them tomorrow about arrangements, where to go to from the hostel, when they can learn Hebrew, she’ll give them the contact information of the organizations that have volunteered to help them. And welcome back home, by the way.
There, isn’t that a nicer image than the previous one? But you think I’m totally crazy, don’t you? Don’t I realize the implications? What about the demographic balance? What about the Jewish nature of the state? What about all we have built over the last sixty years? Don’t Jews need a safe haven? And our right for self-determination?
So the options you are giving me, Aryeh, are these: we could get to keep our right for self-determination, our safe haven, my favorite bookshop-cafe in Rabin square in Tel Aviv, the songs my mother likes to hear on the radio on the holidays, our wonderful Hebrew slang, our “dugri” directness and our weather (well, maybe not our weather, at least not in August). But then I need to look my Palestinian friends in the eye and tell them: no matter how much you miss your homeland, you are never going back. Not you, not your parents, not your children, not your grandchildren, nor your grandchildren’s grandchildren. We got to miss the Holy Land for two thousand years, but you’re not Jewish, so you will never ever be allowed to return.
Or, we could completely destroy Israel, raze everything to the ground. Bring bulldozers, knock down all the beautiful buildings of Tel Aviv University, the mounds of grass, the corner outside the Arts building where students and teachers smoke weed together, the little frame-shaped sculpture that overlooks the sea, the café outside the university with the hot Moroccan shakshuka, we can knock down all of these and turn the university back into Sheikh Muwwanis, and let the refugees live in the village that was there before.
And you’re saying these are the only two possibilities. Seriously? Is that the best we Jews can come up with? We, the People of the Book? With Einstein and all our Nobel prize winners? With our Ladino love songs and marvelous Yiddish curses? With all of our films, winning prizes at every festival? Our thousands of years of poetry, from the Song of Songs to Amichai and Yonah Volach? The agricultural innovations we export to the whole world? Are you seriously suggesting that these two miserable options are the best we can think of? Why, I find that almost offensive. Aren’t we a little bit smarter than that?
Do I have a solution? I do have some ideas, but what I really want is to get people talking. I want to hear Palestinians telling us what they miss most, where they would like to live, what they would want it to be like. And we could tell them what is important to us, what we have learned over the last sixty years. It’s like two flatmates about to move in together – where shall we put the couch? What time do you get up in the morning? Oh no! Do you snore? Don’t waste all of that hot water in the shower! Those are the conversations we need to be having.
Now you really think I’m nuts, don’t you? We could be talking millions of people here, it’s a huge upheaval, where will we put them all?
The short answer is – we’ve done it before. Every time a wave of Jewish immigrants came to Israel, people said it would never work, there would be no room, everyone will starve. But we managed, somehow. This is no different. In fact, we’re stronger and more experienced now.
And the longer answer is that the reason this seems unimaginable is simply because of our fear. That fear has deep roots: Jews and Israelis have definitely been attacked and hurt, time and time again. It’s through this fear that we tend to think we are dealing with some kind of virus that must be kept in isolation. But Palestinians are human beings, and they deserve to be treated that way. We really could try and do that for a change, instead of forcing them to the other side of the border, setting up walls and checkpoints and prisons, and pretending any of that is a solution.
To truly overcome fear, reading this letter won’t be enough. What you need to do is to hang out with some of my Palestinian friends, see them celebrating Hanukka and Passover with us, stuff grapeleaves with them, all of that mushiness I was referring to earlier. You have no idea how much fun it is: let me know when you’re coming. Trust me, you’ll enjoy it! Just give it a try.
SOAS Academic Board Manipulated by Pro-Palestinian Activists
A Hebrew University program teaching Hebrew to students from SOAS London University was terminated due to pressure from pro-Palestinian groups. Behind the termination is Dr. Yair Wallach, the chair of the Jewish Studies at SOAS, and Dr. Tamar Drukker, a Hebrew lector who both succumbed to Palestinian pressure.
Wallach was trying to conceal his role in the termination, but the protocols of the Academic Board meetings reveal he provided the Board with false and politically motivated information.
In a recent exchange of Tweets with Pinsker Center, a pro-Israel student group in the UK, Wallach accused the Pinsker Centre of circulating unfounded rumors. A day before, Pinsker Center Tweeted that “It has been reported that @SOAS has bowed down to student pressure, and terminated its relationship with @HebrewU. Why should pressure from a minority fringe of activists deprive other students of the opportunity to enrich themselves at a world class institution in Israel?” Wallach responded that he was “disappointed” to see such “unfounded rumors,” claiming that “SOAS’s Year Abroad agreement with the Hebrew University ended as planned. SOAS signed a new agreement with Haifa University. Decision made on academic reasons. That’s it.” He added that the “Programs in both universities are excellent. We chose what seemed to us more suitable.”
Obviously, Wallach was unaware that the Palestinian group “Apartheid Off Campus” was claiming victory for this termination.
Unfortunately, Wallach was not telling the truth. In both January and March 2019, the Academic Board of SOAS convened to discuss the ‘Hebrew Year Abroad.’ Wallach prepared the reports for the two Board meetings, along with Dr. Tamar Drukker, his colleague from Jewish studies. The report is supportive of the Year Abroad program, “The premise of the Year Abroad is to allow students to study the language in an immersive environment, where they encounter it not only in language classes. This is the pedagogical value and logic of the Year Abroad.”
However, Wallach and Drukker informed the Board that “The main objection raised in the case of the Hebrew University is that the campus is on occupied territory.” Because “the campus’s periphery extends into occupied territory (part of the dormitory as well as the sports center). The main campus is not on occupied land (neither the Rothberg institute nor any other Hebrew University teaching facility). EU policy, according to the EU embassy in Israel, is to consider Mt. Scopus Campus as within the 1967 lines, that is, within “Israel proper,” and not to see the campus as located on occupied territory.”
Surprisingly, while Wallach and Drukker announced that Hebrew University is not situated on “occupied land,” they still proposed “two alternative options,” for teaching Hebrew – at the Palestinian Territories universities of Bir Zeit and al-Quds.
The report by Wallach and Drukker stated that “In Bir Zeit, which is in the Palestinian occupied territories, Hebrew is taught as a foreign language. Otherwise, teaching is conducted in Arabic or English.” This was not sufficient because students would have limited exposure to Hebrew. “In that sense, there is no point in sending them on a year abroad in the first place.” The second option was the Al-Quds university. “Teaching in al-Quds is conducted in Arabic, and again, Hebrew would be taught as a foreign language, which defeats the purpose of the year abroad. However, given al-Quds’s location in Jerusalem, at least students would have exposure to Hebrew. Depending on the quality of the program, and how it is tailored and organized, we would have considered such an option, had it existed.” But, according to the report, “there is no Hebrew program advertised in al-Quds. There is no mention of any Hebrew tuition in al-Quds’s website. We have emailed al-Quds to express our interest and to ask if they offer Hebrew, but have not received reply.” The report concluded that “Unfortunately, these are not viable options.”
Wallach and Drukker provided the Academic Board with a misleading proposal as if it was possible to teach Hebrew at Palestinian universities, that are in fact, no-go areas for Israelis. To recall, Amira Hass, the Haaretz pro-Palestinian journalist was asked to leave a conference at Bir-Zeit University, and so was Professor Ilan Pappe, because they were Israelis.
The report states that the proposal to teach Hebrew in Palestinian universities was made by Sai Englert. Dr. Simon (Sai) Englert is a BDS activist and an anti-Zionist Jew who currently teaches at Leiden University in the Netherlands. He is a socialist-activist who completed his Ph.D. at SOAS in 2018. He researches the changing relationship between the labor movement and the state in Israel under neoliberalism. Englert was recorded on a 5 minutes video discussing how anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism and how the dispute with the Palestinians is all Israel’s fault. In 2017 Englert was quoted by the BBC as a Jewish Ph.D. student at SOAS and a member of the university’s Palestine Society, who said: “The idea that somehow supporting BDS, supporting boycott etc is a blanket boycott on individuals I think is very dangerous. It’s not. “It’s about saying ‘we don’t want institutional links, economic links, political links with institutions, governments, companies that are complicit in attacks on rights’.”
This is not surprising, Wallach is a long-standing political activist, he should not have taught Israel Studies at SOAS. For example, he has little appreciation for Israeli Ambassadors. When Israeli ambassador Mark Regev was invited to speak at SOAS, Wallach responded, “I was not in favor of the invitation… Ambassador Regev is not a scholar or a public intellectual. He is a PR speaker representing the viewpoint of his government… but the intellectual value of an address by an official state spokesperson is questionable. This is why I saw little merit in the event. I declined to chair the talk, and advised the organizers to reconsider it.”
Clearly, the SOAS Academic Board has been led by the nose by these pro-Palestinian activists. This is not the first time that Palestinians recruit Israelis and Jews in their war against Israel. British Universities should not allow radical-political activists to manipulate their decision-making.
https://twitter.com/YairWallach/status/1290958596960903176 Yair Wallach @YairWallach Aug 5 Disappointing to see the @PinskerCentre circulate unfounded rumours. SOAS’s Year Abroad agreement with the Hebrew University ended as planned. SOAS signed a new agreement with Haifa University. Decision made on academic reasons. That’s it.
The Pinsker Centre @PinskerCentre Aug 4 It has been reported that @SOAS has bowed down to student pressure, and terminated its relationship with @HebrewU. Why should pressure from a minority fringe of activists deprive other students of the opportunity to enrich themselves at a world class institution in Israel? 1:31 PM · Aug 5, 2020·
Yair Wallach @YairWallach Aug 5 Replying to @YairWallach Programmes in both universities are excellent. We chose what seemed to us more suitable. Year Abroad is suspended due to COVID, will resume in 2021-22.
Oxford and other top British universities under fire for sending students to illegal Israeli settlements
Amnesty says the universities are “actively linking themselves to a whole system of illegality, discrimination and exploitation”. Adam RamsayWalid El Houri 3 August 2020
Leading British universities have been accused of “actively linking themselves to a system of illegality, discrimination and exploitation” by participating in the illegal occupation of East Jerusalem, openDemocracy can reveal.
The institutions, including the universities of Oxford, Manchester, and Leeds, run exchange schemes with The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. As part of the programme, students usually stay in halls of residence in a Palestinian area of Jerusalem illegally occupied by Israeli settlers.
Commenting on universities who take part in the scheme, one legal expert said “universities that believe in human rights, justice and the rule of law should refrain from being partners in projects that undermine international law and ignore the suffering of the victims”.
Munir Nuseibah, assistant professor at the faculty of law at Al Quds University, the Palestinian university in Jerusalem, added: “By participating in this exchange, the universities… disregard the international consensus that East Jerusalem is occupied and that its annexation by Israel is contrary to international law.”
The leading human rights organisation Amnesty International also criticised the universities, saying they are “actively linking themselves to a whole system of illegality, discrimination and exploitation”.
Kristyan Benedict, Amnesty’s crisis response campaign manager, added: “We’ve been calling for all businesses to cease their operations in Israel’s settlements and the parallels here are stark – a student village is little different to a settlement in its illegality if it’s been built on stolen land.”
‘I felt betrayed’
Speaking to openDemocracy on condition of anonymity, one student who took part in a year abroad scheme arranged by his British university described his shock at discovering that the accommodation provided for him was in occupied East Jerusalem.
“I really resented being used as a tool for the legitimisation of the occupation”, he said.
Rob Abrams, a British Jewish graduate from a summer programme at the Rothberg International School, which is part of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said: “I felt like I’d been lied to. I felt very betrayed. I was on a programme where we focussed on supposed coexistence, but there we were on land that, under international law, is an illegal occupation.”
The land in question is Al Samar, which belonged to the village of Lefta and today is referred to as the ‘French Hill’ settlement and hosts the university’s Student Village. This land, and the surroundings of the university in general, have been a site of contention between the Palestinian inhabitants and the university for decades.
The university has expanded by dispossessing Palestinians of territory, according to experts who have studied the campus. A strategy of policing Palestinians in the surroundings while keeping a pretence of fostering “community relations” has accompanied the expansion, they say.
openDemocracy has spoken to a number of students who have stayed in the student village, who confirmed that residents at the accommodation included students from SOAS, Leeds, and the University of Birmingham, all of whom advertise exchange programmes with the Hebrew University.
The Universities of Durham and Manchester, and University College London offer exchanges with the Hebrew University, and specifically advertise its student village on their websites, despite it being on occupied territory.
The University of Oxford, Queen Mary’s, University of London, and Trinity and University Colleges in Dublin also advertise years abroad at Hebrew University, but don’t specify on their websites what accommodation is available to students on these programmes, though students who have spent time at the Hebrew University have said that the overwhelming majority of students on years abroad from all universities stay at the student village, and therefore on occupied territory.
More than one student who had studied at the Hebrew University described the conditions on the campus as “segregation”.
“The truth is that Israeli, Palestinian and international students barely interact. The majority of Palestinian students are there at times of the year that there really aren’t that many Israeli students around,” said Rob Abrams.
“There’s a lot of suspicion and security in between the campus and the Palestinian villages around it. Soldiers regularly harass Palestinans near the student accommodation to keep them segregated and away from… the student village.
A Black student who had attended the university as part of her dance course at a US university also described the living conditions as “segregation”. She added that it was on a tour of the campus after she arrived that she was shown the fenced-off Palestinian area next to the campus.
Speaking to openDemocracy, she said she felt her university hadn’t properly prepared her for the highly racialised context to which it was sending her.
“My Black sisters had some experiences that were traumatic personally,” she said, describing being spat at and stoned in an Orthodox area of Jerusalem.
Another former student we spoke to said that a far-right student group on campus harassed him after he spoke out about the situation.
Palestinian SOAS student Yara Derbas, who is a member of the campaign group Apartheid Off Campus, accused the universities of “sending their students to directly take part in the maintenance of war crimes and normalise relationships with institutions which are rooted in the most brutal form of racism in our time: colonialism, apartheid and European supremacy.
“These programmes should have never been formed in the first place, and they must end immediately.”
More than a hundred students’ union officers have signed a letter condemning the exchange programmes.
In the letter, seen by openDemocracy, they draw a contrast between statements of support for the Black Lives Matter movement from universities and their involvement with Israeli institutions. It says: “It is an undisputed fact that UK universities are actively enabling Israel’s colonial policies against the indigenous people of Palestine.”
The letter continues “eleven UK universities maintain… exchange programmes with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which is not only partially built on illegally occupied land but is also openly and systematically racist against its Palestinian students and staff. Such partnerships effectively mean that many UK exchange students were housed in illegal settlements, contravening any ethical framework and International Law.”
Universities cancel programmes
When openDemocracy contacted the School of Oriental and African Studies to ask about its involvement in the scheme, a spokesperson said that the university had agreed to back out of its arrangement with the Hebrew University at the end of the 2019/20 academic year.
The spokesperson added: “As a result of concerns raised from the SOAS community, SOAS looked at the various options for Hebrew Year Abroad provision, and eventually it was agreed that we would move our provider to Haifa University after this coming academic year.”
The University of West London also responded to our inquiries by announcing that it had cancelled its partnership.
Commenting on these schemes being cancelled, Derbas added: “SOAS and UWL ceasing links with Hebrew University is a milestone in our academic boycott campaign, setting a precedent for other universities in the UK to break their links with Israel’s apartheid regime.”
However, a number of universities defended their schemes. Responding to questions from openDemocracy, a spokesperson for the University of Manchester said:
“These agreements are vital to delivering a world class learning experience to our students and to maintaining an international experience on campus. One of these agreements is with Hebrew University of Jerusalem, which is an internationally widely recognised institution in Israel which in turn has agreements across 27 countries.”
The university confirmed that it didn’t have a formal agreement with any Palestinian university.
Queen Mary, University of London, confirmed that two of its students have taken part in exchanges with The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, both in 2019, but added that it didn’t hold any information on the accommodation these students stayed in.
A spokesperson for the University of Birmingham said that it has “a robust due diligence process in place, which places student experience at its heart, when considering which partner institutions to work with to host study abroad students. We consider all issues in our review process for renewals and any continuation of agreements with our partners.”
A spokesperson from the University of Leeds said:
“[We have] more than 300 university partners worldwide – enabling [our] students to develop their skills and experience and enhance employability. One of these partnerships is with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
“Having been informed by a student, after their return to Leeds, of an issue relating to their accommodation, we are taking steps to discuss it with our partner university.”
Asked whether any of these partnerships were with Palestinian universities, Leeds confirmed that they weren’t.
Oxford University and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem did not respond to our request for comment.
Palestinian students behind bars
Meanwhile, Palestiniain students are facing what they have labelled a campaign of arrest by Israeli forces which have targeted more than eighty university and high-school students in the West Bank alone. A letter by the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association of North America addressed to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Brigadier General Rasan Alian, head of civil administration in the West Bank, describes the arrests as “a continuation of an undeclared but indisputable Israeli policy of targeting and disrupting Palestinian higher education”.
More recently, the Right to Education campaign at Birzeit University in the West Bank warned that “more than 80 detained students are exposed to an imminent danger as a result of the spread of Coronavirus inside Israeli prisons”, while the campaign of arrests of students continues.
Krystian Benedict from Amnesty International said: “Palestinian students face numerous obstacles in accessing education – including forced displacement, demolitions, restrictions on movement, attacks and harassment from Israeli settlers. UK universities must not contribute to a system of oppression which routinely violates the right to education of Palestinians.”
Student-led Palestinian rights group forces universities to break ties with illegal settlement
STUDENT campaigners claimed victory today after two universities pulled out of an exchange programme with a university on illegally occupied Palestinian land.
Soas and the University of West London (UWL) have both ended agreements with Israel’s Hebrew University of Jerusalem — partially built on occupied land in the east of the city.
They had come under pressure from the Apartheid Off Campus (AOC) campaign, which has accused British universities of “actively enabling Israel’s colonial policies against the indigenous people of Palestine.”
The programme has been offered at 11 institutions including the universities of Manchester, Oxford and Leeds.
As part of the exchange, British students usually stay in halls of residence in an illegally occupied area of East Jerusalem.
Some students who signed up for the year abroad were not told by their university that they would be staying in an illegal Israeli settlement, according to a report by Open Democracy.
AOC said that the expansion of the university’s Mount Scopus campus has driven the displacement of Palestinians from their land.
Soas announced that it will end its agreement with Hebrew University this year and move the programme to Haifa after concerns were raised by students.
“We decided that Haifa University offers a better option due to the structure of the programme and issues around students’ welfare,” a Soas statement said.
UWL also told Open Democracy that it was ending its involvement in the programme.
British universities have received a letter urging them to pull out of the programme, signed by 120 student union officers.
“Such partnerships effectively mean that many UK exchange students were housed in illegal settlements, contravening any ethical framework and international law,” it says.
But a number of universities, including Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds, have refused to break ties.
The University of Manchester told Open Democracy that its relationship with the Hebrew University is “vital to delivering a world-class learning experience to our students.”
AOC, which was launched in May this year, has vowed to continue mobilising students across the country until “all complicity with Israeli apartheid has ceased.
“It is unacceptable that UK students are sent to study on stolen land while the occupied population are denied their rights and freedom. Our recent victories show that,” it said.
Academic Board 13.03.2019 AB 18/19 4 F Appendix 1 The options for Hebrew Year Abroad provision AB is asked to approve the following Report Executive Summary ADC requested that the matter of Hebrew Year Abroad be referred to Academic Board for discussion. The Hebrew programme was asked to examine alternatives to the current arrangements with the Hebrew University. This document surveys the options for Year Abroad providers in Israel for the BA degrees in Hebrew and NME Studies. SOAS sends a small number of students each year to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Potential Hebrew schools were contacted by email and phone to ascertain the level of language provision and assistance they provide for students. This paper also provides a response to the counter-proposal sent in advance of the last Academic Board Sponsored by Ben Murtagh Recommendations & Next Steps The paper outlines a number of options based on teaching suitability, pastoral care and cost while noting political concerns. The Hebrew section recommends that we continue with the Hebrew University programme based on The suitability of the programme for our students and the degree of pastoral care offered. The best alternative to this is this Kibbutz Ulpan, there will be challenges in agreeing a programme that fits out students needs but there will be cost benefits. We have not yet visited Kibbutz Ulpan and if advised to seek an agreement with this provider a site visit would be necessary. The other non-university providers are seen as unsuitable for reasons explained in the paper. The Universities of Bir Zeit and al-Quds have also been considered but unfortunately these are not viable options. Academic Board should make a recommendation as to which provider the Hebrew programme should work with for future Hebrew Year Abroad provision. Financial Impact The Hebrew University Programme costs $12, 235 for a full year and $8,275 for half a year. Other university providers have a similar cost. Kibbutz Ulpan costs $1500 for half a year and $3000 for a full year. £750 has been budgeted (from SLCL) for any necessary visits to sites if directed to establish a relationship with a new provider. 48 Academic Board 13.03.2019 AB 18/19 4 F Appendix 1 Risks As with any Year Abroad programme the provision of pastoral care by the local provider is key in minimising a variety of risks that might affect student outcomes. The quality of the provision is essential in ensuring a good student learning experience. For these reasons we have focussed on these factors in assessing the suitability of potential providers. To choose a non-university provider other than Kibbutz Ulpan would increase risks in these two respects. In addition students there would be significant issues for students as they would be unable to apply for student visas with these providers. Equality implications Suitable pastoral care is only offered by the Universities and the Kibbutz Ulpan. To partner with a non-university partner which does not offer pastoral care would have implications for some students with specific learning, wellbeing and support needs. Consultations Providers listed in the paper have been consulted. 49 Academic Board 13.03.2019 AB 18/19 4 F Appendix 1 1 March 19 Survey of Year Abroad providers for the BA in Hebrew and Israeli Studies This document surveys the options for Year Abroad providers in Israel for the BA in Hebrew and Israeli Studies. SOAS sends a small number of students each year to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The Hebrew programme was asked to examine alternatives to the current arrangements with the Hebrew University. Potential Hebrew schools were contacted by email and phone to ascertain the level of language provision and assistance they provide for students. The main requirements from Year Abroad providers are on aspects of tuition, quality and pastoral care. At a minimum, providers should offer intensive courses of Hebrew instruction (Ulpan) of 4-6 weeks, followed by an academic term (or two) in levels suitable for our students. Some providers offer additional classes in English on non-language topics and themes, which is an advantage. Providers should provide adequate pastoral care for SOAS students, in welcoming the students and providing support and advice on a variety of issues, such as housing, mental health etc. Providers should offer assistance in obtaining student visas which would allow students one-year visa that would cover the period of study. Providers should have track record in teaching and looking after international students. The Alternative Proposal document mentioned two alternative options – the Universities of Bir Zeit and al-Quds. Unfortunately these are not viable options. The premise of the Year abroad is to allow students to study the language in an immersive environment, where they encounter it not only in language classes. This is the pedagogical value and logic of the Year Abroad. In Bir Zeit, which is in the Palestinian occupied territories, Hebrew is taught as a foreign language. Otherwise, teaching is conducted in Arabic or English. Therefore students would have very limited exposure to Hebrew, and they would not hear Hebrew spoken outside class, unless they travel especially to areas in Israel proper (which would be limited to weekends at best). In that sense, there is no point in sending them on a year abroad in the first place. The second option mentioned in the document was Al-Quds university. Teaching in a-Quds is conducted in Arabic, and again, Hebrew would be taught as a foreign language, which defeats the purpose of the year abroad. However, given al-Quds’s location in Jerusalem, at least students would have exposure to Hebrew. Depending on the quality of the programme, and how it is tailored and organised, we would have considered such an option, had it existed. But there is no Hebrew programme advertised in al-Quds. There is no mention of any Hebrew tuition in al-Quds’s website. We have emailed al-Quds to express our interest and to ask if they offer Hebrew, but have not received reply. We also requested more details from Sai Englert, the author of the proposal, but have not heard back. The options for the Hebrew Year Abroad are therefore outlines as below Current provider The Rothberg International School, The Hebrew University Jerusalem 50 Academic Board 13.03.2019 AB 18/19 4 F Appendix 1 Part of the Hebrew University, The Rothberg International School offers courses for overseas students since 1956. Currently has a student body of over 2000 students a year, from 90 countries. Students who go to Israel for the full-year take a summer intensive Hebrew course, followed by two academic semesters, in which they have between 8-12 hours of Hebrew instruction a week alongside other courses taught in English for them to choose. Students who do a Year Abroad between two countries come to Israel in January and do a four-week intensive Hebrew course before joining the other students for the spring semester. Students can apply for accommodation at university dorms, and receive pastoral care assistance 24/7. An emergency number is available for students at all hours. Registration for the programme entitles students to apply for a student visa. Cost: Full year: $12,235 Half year: $8,275 (discounted fees to SOAS students by agreement with the Rothberg International School) Alternative University providers offering a similar programme – 1. Ben Gurion University of the Negev Full year tuition $12,700 Half year: $8,700 Tuition Fees for all Semester or Year-Long Programs include weekly social activities, academic field trips, trips around Israel, access to the university sports center & health insurance. 2. Tel Aviv university Full year tuition: $12,950 Half year: $8,700 Program Trips, student activities, facility fees and health insurance are all included in the tuition fees quoted above. 3. Haifa University: Full year tuition: $12,300 Half year: $8,400 Foreign students registered for full time education in Israeli universities can get a student visa, valid for one year. Non university providers – different programme 51 Academic Board 13.03.2019 AB 18/19 4 F Appendix 1 The only non-University provider to meet SOAS minimum requirements, in terms of student support and pastoral care, is Kibbutz Ulpan – Ulpan Eztion Kibbutz Tzuba. This programme differs from university ones and does not easily correspond to UK academic year, and so would require special tailoring. This programme runs for 5 months, twice a year (starting in May or October). Students study Hebrew for 25 hours a week and work 24 hours a week, either in the kibbutz, or as interns in Jerusalem. They are not paid for their work, but are provided with free accommodation on the kibbutz, three meals a day, and there is pastoral care 24/7. The programme is aimed at university graduates, and the same language school also trains the British diplomatic staff in Israel. Students registered on this programme are eligible to apply for a student visa and the kibbutz movement hosting the programme can facilitate this procedure. Cost, for a five months programme 5500 NIS (approx. $1500) The dates for this programme do not correspond easily with our academic year. Based on a conversation with the manager, there is a possibility of making adjustments/changes, and requires further discussion. If this option is to be considered, a site visit would be required to confirm the conditions and teaching arrangement. Other language schools in Israel – unsuitable alternatives There are other potential Hebrew language schools in Israel, but they do not meet the requirements in terms of tuition and pastoral care. Most Hebrew Language teaching institutions are run by the Ministry of Education/Ministry of Absorption [of immigrants] and are mainly designated for new immigrants, not foreign students. There are some private Hebrew language teaching providers (ulpans), such as Ulpan Milah (Jerusalem), Gordon (Tel Aviv) Etzion (Raanana). These schools provide language tuition only, are not geared to provide assistance for students, and are not interested in taking such role in an arrangement with SOAS. They normally offer between 4-5 hours of language tuition a day, 4-5 days a week (20-25 hours). Students registered for a full-time Hebrew language programme in a private ulpan cannot apply for a student visa and will need to enter Israel as tourist, with a three-months visa only. Ulpan Milah, Jeursalem: Three months term – four mornings a week, four hours a day Cost: NIS3480 (about $950). There are no facilities to offer dorms, no social activities, no health insurance nor pastoral care/support 24/7. Similar provisions at Gordon Ulpan, Tel Aviv and Ulpan Etzion, Raanana Political objections 52 Academic Board 13.03.2019 AB 18/19 4 F Appendix 1 The main objection raised in the case of the Hebrew University is that the campus is on occupied territory. As explained in previous document, the campus’s periphery extends into occupied territory (part of the dormitory as well as the sports centre). The main campus is not on occupied land (neither the Rothberg institute nor any other Hebrew University teaching facility). EU policy, according to the EU embassy in Israel, is to consider Mt. Scopus Campus as within the 1967 lines, that is, within “Israel proper”, and not to see the campus as located on occupied territory. All other universities and schools referred to here are within Israel proper, the 1967 lines. Summary University schools for international students are the most suitable providers for Hebrew Year Abroad in Israel. Of these, the Hebrew University is in our view the best option in pedagogic terms, and its fees are comparable to other universities in Israel (similar or slightly cheaper). Private Hebrew schools do not meet the requirements for Study Abroad providers. They do not provide any pastoral care for students, are not set up to provide such assistance, whether in terms of housing and dormitories, mental health, or any other assistance. The most obvious problem is the issue of visa. These private schools cannot offer assistance in obtaining one year student visas, which means that students would enter the country on a three months tourist visas – shorter than their programme. This is not a viable option. The only non-University provider which meets the requirements in terms of pastoral care is the Kibbutz Ulpan. However their programme would have to be tailored, particularly for students who do a shared year abroad to ensure they can spend sufficient time in Israel for their half Year Abroad. This report was prepared by Dr. Tamar Drukker, Senior Lector in Hebrew, and Dr. Yair Wallach, Senior Lecturer in Israeli Studies.
Academic Board 30.01.19 AB 18/19 3E Appendix 3 The options for Hebrew Year Abroad provision AB is asked to consider the following Report Executive Summary ADC requested that the matter of Hebrew Year Abroad be referred to Academic Board for discussion. The Hebrew programme was asked to examine alternatives to the current arrangements with the Hebrew University. This document surveys the options for Year Abroad providers in Israel for the BA degrees in Hebrew and NME Studies. SOAS sends a small number of students each year to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Potential Hebrew schools were contacted by email and phone to ascertain the level of language provision and assistance they provide for students. Sponsored by Ben Murtagh Recommendations & Next Steps The paper outlines a number of options based on teaching suitability, pastoral care and cost while noting political concerns. The Hebrew section recommends that we continue with the Hebrew University programme based on The suitability of the programme for our students and the degree of pastoral care offered. The best alternative to this is this Kibbutz Ulpan, there will be challenges in agreeing a programme that fits out students needs but there will be cost benefits. We have not yet visited Kibbutz Ulpan and if advised to seek an agreement with this provider a site visit would be necessary. The other non-university providers are seen as unsuitable for reasons explained in the paper. Academic Board should make a recommendation as to which provider the Hebrew programme should work with for future Hebrew Year Abroad provision. Financial Impact The Hebrew University Programme costs $12, 235 for a full year and $8,275 for half a year. Other university providers have a similar cost. Kibbutz Ulpan costs $1500 for half a year and $3000 for a full year. £750 has been budgeted (from SLCL) for any necessary visits to sites if directed to establish a relationship with a new provider. Risks As with any Year Abroad programme the provision of pastoral care by the local provider is 51 Academic Board 30.01.19 AB 18/19 3E Appendix 3 key in minimising a variety of risks that might affect student outcomes. The quality of the provision is essential in ensuring a good student learning experience. For these reasons we have focussed on these factors in assessing the suitability of potential providers. To choose a non-university provider other than Kibbutz Ulpan would increase risks in these two respects. In addition students there would be significant issues for students as they would be unable to apply for student visas with these providers. Equality implications Suitable pastoral care is only offered by the Universities and the Kibbutz Ulpan. To partner with a non-university partner which does not offer pastoral care would have implications for some students with specific learning, wellbeing and support needs. Consultations Providers listed in the paper have been consulted. 52 Academic Board 30.01.19 AB 18/19 3E Appendix 3 Survey of Year Abroad providers for the BA in Hebrew and Israeli Studies This document surveys the options for Year Abroad providers in Israel for the BA in Hebrew and Israeli Studies. SOAS sends a small number of students each year to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. The Hebrew programme was asked to examine alternatives to the current arrangements with the Hebrew University. Potential Hebrew schools were contacted by email and phone to ascertain the level of language provision and assistance they provide for students. The main requirements from Year Abroad providers are on aspects of tuition, quality and pastoral care. At a minimum, providers should offer intensive courses of Hebrew instruction (Ulpan) of 4-6 weeks, followed by an academic term (or two) in levels suitable for our students. Some providers offer additional classes in English on non-language topics and themes, which is an advantage. Providers should provide adequate pastoral care for SOAS students, in welcoming the students and providing support and advice on a variety of issues, such as housing, mental health etc. Providers should offer assistance in obtaining student visas which would allow students one-year visa that would cover the period of study. Providers should have track record in teaching and looking after international students. Current provider The Rothberg International School, The Hebrew University Jerusalem Part of the Hebrew University, The Rothberg International School offers courses for overseas students since 1956. Currently has a student body of over 2000 students a year, from 90 countries. Students who go to Israel for the full-year take a summer intensive Hebrew course, followed by two academic semesters, in which they have between 8-12 hours of Hebrew instruction a week alongside other courses taught in English for them to choose. Students who do a Year Abroad between two countries come to Israel in January and do a four-week intensive Hebrew course before joining the other students for the spring semester. Students can apply for accommodation at university dorms, and receive pastoral care assistance 24/7. An emergency number is available for students at all hours. Registration for the programme entitles students to apply for a student visa. Cost: Full year: $12,235 Half year: $8,275 (discounted fees to SOAS students by agreement with the Rothberg International School) Alternative University providers offering a similar programme – 1.Ben Gurion University of the Negev Full year tuition $12,700 Half year: $8,700 Tuition Fees for all Semester or Year-Long Programs include weekly social activities, academic field trips, trips around Israel, access to the university sports center & health insurance. 53 Academic Board 30.01.19 AB 18/19 3E Appendix 3 2.Tel Aviv university Full year tuition: $12,950 Half year: $8,700 Program Trips, student activities, facility fees and health insurance are all included in the tuition fees quoted above. 3.Haifa University: Full year tuition: $12,300 Half year: $8,400 Foreign students registered for full time education in Israeli universities can get a student visa, valid for one year. Non university providers – different programme The only non-University provider to meet SOAS minimum requirements, in terms of student support and pastoral care, is Kibbutz Ulpan – Ulpan Eztion Kibbutz Tzuba. This programme differs from university ones and does not easily correspond to UK academic year, and so would require special tailoring. This programme runs for 5 months, twice a year (starting in May or October). Students study Hebrew for 25 hours a week and work 24 hours a week, either in the kibbutz, or as interns in Jerusalem. They are not paid for their work, but are provided with free accommodation on the kibbutz, three meals a day, and there is pastoral care 24/7. The programme is aimed at university graduates, and the same language school also trains the British diplomatic staff in Israel. Students registered on this programme are eligible to apply for a student visa and the kibbutz movement hosting the programme can facilitate this procedure. Cost, for a five months programme 5500 NIS (approx. $1500) The dates for this programme do not correspond easily with our academic year. Based on a conversation with the manager, there is a possibility of making adjustments/changes, and requires further discussion. If this option is to be considered, a site visit would be required to confirm the conditions and teaching arrangement. Other language schools in Israel – unsuitable alternatives There are other potential Hebrew language schools in Israel, but they do not meet the requirements in terms of tuition and pastoral care. Most Hebrew Language teaching institutions are run by the Ministry of Education/Ministry of Absorption [of immigrants] and are mainly designated for new immigrants, not foreign students. 54 Academic Board 30.01.19 AB 18/19 3E Appendix 3 There are some private Hebrew language teaching providers (ulpans), such as Ulpan Milah (Jerusalem), Gordon (Tel Aviv) Etzion (Raanana). These schools provide language tuition only, are not geared to provide assistance for students, and are not interested in taking such role in an arrangement with SOAS. They normally offer between 4-5 hours of language tuition a day, 4-5 days a week (20-25 hours). Students registered for a full-time Hebrew language programme in a private ulpan cannot apply for a student visa and will need to enter Israel as tourist, with a three-months visa only. Ulpan Milah, Jeursalem: Three months term – four mornings a week, four hours a day Cost: NIS3480 (about $950). There are no facilities to offer dorms, no social activities, no health insurance nor pastoral care/support 24/7. Similar provisions at Gordon Ulpan, Tel Aviv and Ulpan Etzion, Raanana Political objections The main objection raised in the case of the Hebrew University is that the campus is on occupied territory. As explained in previous document, the campus’s periphery extends into occupied territory (part of the dormitory as well as the sports centre). The main campus is not on occupied land (neither the Rothberg institute nor any other Hebrew University teaching facility). EU policy, according to the EU embassy in Israel, is to consider Mt. Scopus Campus as within the 1967 lines, that is, within “Israel proper”, and not to see the campus as located on occupied territory. All other universities and schools referred to here are within Israel proper, the 1967 lines. Summary University schools for international students are the most suitable providers for Hebrew Year Abroad in Israel. Of these, the Hebrew University is in our view the best option in pedagogic terms, and its fees are comparable to other universities in Israel (similar or slightly cheaper). Private Hebrew schools do not meet the requirements for Study Abroad providers. They do not provide any pastoral care for students, are not set up to provide such assistance, whether in terms of housing and dormitories, mental health, or any other assistance. The most obvious problem is the issue of visa. These private schools cannot offer assistance in obtaining one year student visas, which means that students would enter the country on a three months tourist visas – shorter than their programme. This is not a viable option. The only non-University provider which meets the requirements in terms of pastoral care is the Kibbutz Ulpan. However their programme would have to be tailored, particularly for students who do a shared year abroad to ensure they can spend sufficient time in Israel for their half Year Abroad. 55 Academic Board 30.01.19 AB 18/19 3E Appendix 3 This report was prepared by Dr. Tamar Drukker, Senior Lector in Hebrew, and Dr. Yair Wallach, Senior Lecturer in Israeli Studies.
The SOAS Students Union was the first UK students union to vote for and support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign launched in 2005 by Palestinian civil society organisations. For over 30 years, the SOAS Palestine Society has been one of the most active societies at SOAS. SOAS students have continuously supported the Palestinian struggle for liberation and decolonisation, with SOAS becoming one of the most active campuses in Britain.
In response to the 2005 call, the SOAS Students Union voted to join, support, and campaign for the boycott of Israel. At the October Union General Meeting this academic year (2014/2015), SOAS students decided to escalate their support for BDS. A school-wide referendum has been called for to decide whether SOAS, as an academic institution, should follow the BDS guidelines and join an academic boycott of Israeli institutions and companies.
SOAS currently has links with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJ), sending Hebrew language students to HUJ for their year abroad. The Hebrew University campus is located on Palestinian land, Jerusalem, which was confiscated in 1968, a practice which began in 1947 and directly contravenes International Law. Furthermore, the Hebrew University has direct links with the University of Ariel, which is based in the West Bank colony of Ariel, and recognises its degrees. Finally the Hebrew University offers preferential treatment to Israeli soldiers who are engaged in the daily human rights violations in Palestine, particularly Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem.
Find HERE a video exposing the military-academic collaboration between the Hebrew University and the Israeli Defence Force.
Find HERE a video showing the response of some students from Hebrew University which explains the situation they live every day on campus.
THE REFERENDUM WILL BE TAKING PLACE AT SOAS IN THE LAST WEEK OF FEBRUARY (23rd-27th)
The referendum will be open to ALL members of the SOAS community: students, academics, cleaners, security guards, caterers, faculty and support staff and management.
The referendum will be asking all members of the SOAS community whether they think SOAS should fully join the BDS campaign and implement academic boycott following the PACBI guidelines (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel).
– For more information on day-to-day events, discussions and more information coming up in the next weeks, access the SOAS BDS campaign Facebook page HERE
– For more information on what an Academic Boycott entails, read the guidelines on ‘Why Boycott Israeli Universities,’ issued by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP) – HERE
This webpage was last updated on: 18 Jan 2015 15:46