British and Irish Universities Support Palestinian Political Initiative Against Israel

21.10.2020

Editorial Note

Queen’s University Belfast, Trinity College Dublin, and Liverpool John Moores University are involved in a two-year research project that seeks to fight an international legal battle against Israel over several small villages of Bedouin in Area C, which is an Oslo II administrative division of the West Bank. The Palestinian Authority is responsible for medical and educational services to Palestinians. Israel does infrastructure construction.

The research project titled “humanitarian vulnerabilities of Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forced displacement in ‘E1’, an area of the West Bank allocated for the expansion of Israeli settlements,” is based in the Al Quds human rights clinic at Al Quds University and currently offers two positions of a research assistant. 

Heading the research project is Dr. Alice Panepinto, a Lecturer in Law at Queen’s University Belfast. Panepinto also serves on the board of trustees of Law for Palestine, an NGO in the UK, established in March 2020, which aims to build and create a network of legal professionals interested in Palestine from around the world. Before moving to Queen’s University Belfast, Panepinto studied and worked at Durham University, where she was also the secretary of the research cluster on Islam, Law and Modernity.

Panepinto is clearly biased against Israel. Evidently, she supported the academic boycott against Israel, as a signatory to a petition, in 2017, urging scholars to boycott the European Society of International Law Research Forum hosted by the Hebrew University.  In 2014 when Panepinto was a UN Fellow for Human Rights in Jerusalem and a PhD Candidate at Durham Law School, she told Middle East Eye, a London-based news outlet, after the Palestinian factions in Gaza launched over 100 rockets at Israel, that “The escalating Israeli aggression towards Gaza… calls into question whether international law is of any use in protecting civilians and non-combatants in the area… The answer rests in the ability of the international community to hold Israel accountable for any unnecessary and disproportionate military actions.”

Panepinto’s research project announces that the “Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forcible transfer have, unintentionally, become key players in the regional context, whilst simultaneously facing unique humanitarian vulnerabilities… Israeli policies and practices in those areas, including a restrictive permit and planning regime, demolitions and threats of demolitions of property and the active promotion of relocation plans all contribute to the coercive environment.”

Fighting against Israel through the International Criminal Court (ICC), Panepinto recently penned an article titled “ICC and Palestine Symposium: Mind the Gap– The ‘Palestine Situation’ before the ICC” on Opinio Juris, a journal of international law. Panepinto urges ICC to investigate Israel. Panepinto postulates that the ICC should decide whether it can investigate “international crimes in Palestine” to clarify if “impunity is granted for the most serious crimes of international concern.”  She also postulates that “the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza… are clearly under Palestinian sovereignty.” 

Panepinto claims that “Israel’s power in the West Bank is based on a temporary regime of military occupation established in 1967 at the end of the Six Day War – not on any form of legitimate authority. According to international humanitarian law, occupation does not give sovereignty, and any attempt to alter the demographic profile of occupied territories is prohibited.”

Alan Baker, an Israeli international lawyer who served as legal counsel for Israel’s Foreign Ministry and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada, responded and refuted Panepinto’s allegations. He noted this issue relates to disputed territories and not occupied. He explained that the Oslo Accords’ aim was and still is, to lay the groundwork for Palestinian-Israeli agreement on the permanent status of the territories. Both parties agreed upon the territorial division between areas A, B, and C, and the division of powers and responsibilities.

He wrote that Panepinto’s legal analysis is based on the flawed assumption as if there is “Palestinian sovereignty and sovereign territory, when no such assumption has any legal basis.” According to Baker, when Panepinto uses various designations such as “Palestinian state”, “Occupied Palestinian Territories” or “occupied Palestine,” assuming that at some stage there was a Palestinian state entity, but “the territories have never been part of any accepted Palestinian state, and no such entity has ever existed. No binding international treaty of resolution has ever determined that the territories are Palestinian.”  He added that such designations, taken from UN resolutions, are nothing more than the “wishful thinking of the political majority of states voting for such resolutions.” Therefore, she cannot invoke UN Charter article 2(4) because there isn’t and never has been any Palestinian political independence. Baker added no Palestinian national project existed before 1967 when Jordan annexed the West Bank areas and East Jerusalem, and Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip. Both Jordan and Egypt did not support a Palestinian national project between 1948 to 1967 during their annexations.

Baker argues that since 1967 Israel has never annexed the West Bank and Gaza areas or extended its sovereignty over those areas. 

The issue of the Bedouin is also complex.  For example, Israel’s TV Channel 13 report, “The Bedouin Village of Khan al-Ahmar Became a Symbol of the Struggle over Control of the Territories,” aired in August 2019, discussed how Khan al-Ahmar, a total of 28 families of the Jahlin tribe, became a Palestinian symbol.  According to one of the Israeli interviewees, “this is a battle over the road from Jerusalem to Jordan and the Dead Sea, no less.”

It is well known that the status of Judea and Samaria is one of the most complicated issues in the international arena.  Despite numerous efforts to solve the problems and the Israeli government’s generous offers at Camp David II in 2000, the Palestinians have never agreed to settle the conflict.  Their stubborn refusals have been noted most recently by the Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan.  Prince Bandar chastised the Palestinian rejection of the Abraham Accord among Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain and painted them as ingrates.

Given the Middle East developments, Panepinto and her colleagues do the Palestinians no favor by stiffening their resolve and denying reality.

Be it as it may, even more problematic is the fact that the three universities are lending their legitimacy to a blatantly political project that does not benefit the students and the taxpayers who support higher education. 

https://www.facebook.com/job_opening/1384982531691683/

Research Assistant

Al Quds Human Rights Clinic |عيادة القدس لحقوق الإنسان

Full-time
VACANCY 

Job title: Field Researcher (Research Assistant)
Project title: Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forced displacement: IHL vulnerabilities, ICC possibilities
Location: Al Quds Human Rights Clinic, Al Quds University-main campus 
Duration: 24 months (full time)

Job purpose
Al-Quds University Human Rights Clinic is seeking to appoint a Field Researcher (Research Assistant) for the project titled “Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forced displacement: IHL vulnerabilities, ICC possibilities” funded by AHRC-DfID Collaborative Humanitarian Protection Research Programme and led by Queen’s University Belfast (Northern Ireland). 
Details of the project can be accessed here: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FT007540%2F1
Working closely with the rest of the team, the Field Researcher will actively support senior colleagues in implementing field activities and liaising with the Bedouin communities, as well as providing research assistance as required. 

About Al-Quds Human Rights Clinic 
Al-Quds Human Rights Clinic (the Clinic) is a unit based in the faculty of law at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem that aims at teaching human rights defense skills through theory and practice. Through the work of its staff and students, the Clinic documents human rights and international humanitarian law violations in the occupied Palestinian territory (hereinafter oPt) focusing on the southeastern suburbs of Jerusalem. The Clinic is also involved in research and publication on issues related to its documentation activities. 
Project overview
The Clinic, in collaboration with colleagues at Queen’s University Belfast, Trinity College Dublin, and Liverpool John Moores University, will be involved in a two-year project that seeks: 
i. To better understand the humanitarian vulnerabilities of Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forced displacement in ‘E1’, an area of the West Bank allocated for the expansion of Israeli settlements (considered illegal under international law)
ii. To ascertain the effects of impunity for International Humanitarian Law (IHL) violations driving protection risks in E1;
iii. To analyse the International Criminal Court (ICC) role in improving humanitarian protection outcomes for the Bedouin communities in E1 through accountability for past abuses and in deterring future violations.
Detailed information and application instructions can be viewed on the Al-Quds Human Rights Clinic Website. 
https://legalclinic.alquds.edu/en/about-aqhrc/opportunities/vacancies.html
Deadline for applications: October 19th, 2020. 
It is envisaged that interviews will take place via video conference in the week beginning: October 24th, 2020
Please direct informal enquiries (in English) to Clinic via clinic@law.alquds.edu

==================================================
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FT007540%2F1

UKRI Logo (press to go to the UKRI home page)

Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forced displacement: IHL vulnerabilities, ICC possibilities  

Lead Research Organisation: Queen’s University of BelfastDepartment Name: Sch of Law

Abstract

This project seeks to better understand the humanitarian impact of continued forcible transfer of the Bedouin communities living in E1, Jerusalem, and how impunity for violations of international law contributes to the deterioration of humanitarian vulnerabilities. Through qualitative enquiry, combining desk based research and first hand semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, the project will gather together a significant body of evidence to highlight to ongoing deleterious impact of repeated violations of IHL (and impunity for violations) on those living at the sharp edge of the situation in Israel-Palestine, namely the Bedouin communities of E1.

In their 2017 report, Humanitarian Facts and Figures: Occupied Palestinian Territory, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs noted that forced displacement is listed as one of the four key drivers of humanitarian vulnerability. The report highlighted that, “between 2009 and 2016, Israeli authorities demolished or seized over 4,800 Palestinian-owned structures in the West Bank, mostly in Area C and East Jerusalem”. It further indicated that “46 Palestinian Bedouin communities in the central West Bank, home to some 8,000 Palestinians, the majority registered Palestine refugees, have been targeted by the Israeli authorities for “relocation” to a number of designated sites”. The expansion of Israeli settlements, considered illegal and condemned as a “flagrant violation under international law” by UN Security Council resolution 2334 of 2016, has been a driver for confiscation of Palestinian private and public land, demolition of homes (including Bedouin shacks) and repeated displacement of Palestinian civilians. The confiscation and demolition of property in Bedouin villages, and the ensuing forcible transfer/relocation of these vulnerable communities, is recognised as a violation of IHL and human rights by the UN, EU and other international actors. Forced displacement of civilians in an occupied territory is also considered a crime under International Criminal Law.

The planned expansion of the ‘Ma’ale Adumim’ settlement block east of Jerusalem is exacerbating the humanitarian vulnerabilities of the Bedouin and herder communities in the E1 area. Bedouin communities such as those residing in Abu Al-Nuwwar, Wadi Abu Hindi, Al Khan Al-Ahmar, Jabal Al-Baba and Sath Al Bahar are at the front line of defence for resisting Israeli settlement expansion, thus ensuring Palestinian access to Jerusalem. This scenario does not just affect individual Bedouin villages at risk of demolition and transfer, but carries grave implications for the broader Israeli-Palestinian situation. Thus, Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forcible transfer have, unintentionally, become key players in the regional context, whilst simultaneously facing unique humanitarian vulnerabilities that must be better understood.

A number of Israeli policies and practices in those areas, including a restrictive permit and planning regime, demolitions and threats of demolitions of property and the active promotion of relocation plans all contribute to the coercive environment, “which generates pressure on Palestinians to leave their communities”. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, impunity for violations of international law, including IHL, has been recognised as a “driver of conflict”. In espousing the benefits of holding violators of IHL to account, it has been noted that, “effective accountability not only ensures that perpetrators are brought to justice, but also ensures that victims have access to remedies and serves to deter future violations and to try to repair the harm suffered.” As such, it is vital to understand the impact of violations of IHL on the Bedouin and herder communities in Palestine, and engage with the ICC’s work. This project will work fill this gap, and produce an edited book and policy report.

Planned Impact

Who will benefit for the research?

There are three key beneficiaries of this research
(a) local groups and individuals facing humanitarian protection risks, namely Bedouin communities, including women and teenagers identified as specific vulnerable groups therein, whose improved capacity to understand, collect evidence of, and communicate issues and experiences illustrating IHL violations will enable greater participation in international accountability efforts, including at the ICC;
(b) in-country researchers and practitioners, in addition to the project partners, whose greater coordination and access to updated analysis will improve the efficiency, effectiveness and timeliness of engagement with international accountability efforts, including at the ICC; and
(c) the international community, including the State of Palestine, acting responsibly in line with the peace and security aims of the UN Charter, including accountability and guarantees of non-recurrence for violations of international humanitarian law through appropriate international legal fora (such as the ICC and UN, as well as the EU and other key players). All of this will maximize humanitarian protection of the Bedouin at risk of forced displacement by responding to past abuse by ensuring accountability for violations before an independent and impartial tribunal, building an environment founded on international law and conducive to full respect of all human rights, and offering some remedy to affected communities by acknowledging harm, seeking justice and empowering local groups to tell their story and be heard.

How will they benefit?

Each group will benefit from the planned activities by way of capacity building. And in particular, the Bedouin community will be in a stronger position to engage with the ICC preliminary examination activities.

In line with the overall purpose and aims of the AHRC-DFID humanitarian protection research grant, and as detailed in pathways to impact, this project offers potential impact in policymaking, practitioner and development contexts by addressing the IHL violations affecting Palestinian Bedouin at risk from the ground up, involving and building capacity of the communities affected, working with local researchers and practitioners and engaging with the preliminary examination activities at the ICC, UN and EU. Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forcible transfer have, unintentionally, become key players in the regional context, whilst simultaneously facing unique humanitarian vulnerabilities that must be better understood to enable and unlock the development potential of Palestine.

The impact, in line with the primary aim of this project, seeks to mitigate in the long term the significant and specific humanitarian challenges faced by the Palestinian Bedouin at risk of displacement in E1, with a view to reducing harm through an increased respect for international law. The specific humanitarian challenges underpin these communities’ possibilities for development as well, as illustrated by a range of UN reports and other sources (see Case for Support). As such, this research project on the E1 Bedouin speaks directly to the international community’s commitment to development in Palestine, and commitment to peace and justice in the region.

People

Alice Panepinto (Principal Investigator)Brendan Ciaran Browne (Co-Investigator)Munir Nuseibah (Co-Investigator)Triestino Mariniello (Co-Investigator)

ORCID iD

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3568-7565http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4993-3907

========================================
https://law4palestine.org/dr-alice-panepinto/

Dr Alice Panepinto

July 23, 2020Board of trustees

Panepinto is a Lecturer in Law at Queen’s University Belfast, where she researches international law, human rights and transitional justice, with a regional interest in the Middle East. Her teaching reflects both her research interests and applied work. Current and recent projects have attracted funding from ESRC-IAA, AHRC-DFID and the Society of Legal Scholars.

Law for Palestine was established in March 2020 and formally registered in the United Kingdom as a voluntary and non-profit initiative that aims to build and create a network of legal professionals interested in Palestine from around the world and to provide enriched and objective Palestinian legal content.

The organization is currently working on three major initiatives:

  1. “Palestine’s Legal Scene” project:
    This is a weekly report that reviews the legal dynamics of the Palestine question, and everything related to international law and Palestine. The report includes an account of the most important publications, activities and conferences related to Palestine at the local, regional, and international levels. The report further covers decisions, decrees, and judicial orders affecting the Palestinian cause, whether made at the official, academic or public levels. The report aims to be a reference for monitoring, documenting and archiving the latest human rights developments related to Palestine, and to present them to individuals, researchers, study centers, and official, academic and legal institutions concerned. Subscribe to get the “Palestine’s Legal Scene” weekly report.    
  2. “International Criminal Court & Palestine – Translation and Analysis Project”:
    In light of the sensitivity and significance of the case before the International Criminal Court regarding Palestine, which is expected to continue for years, it is noteworthy that the articles, regulations, and statements discussed by the court in this regard are considered a very important archive and reference in the history and current lived reality of Palestine. Given that most of the ICC articles regarding this case are issued in English, we work on collecting and translating all official materials relating to Palestine in order to provide them to Arabic and English readers for free and to remain as a reference for researchers and readers interested in the Palestinian issue. This project also has a section for summarising these materials and presenting them as simplified documents to reach the widest possible range of interested audience. The project also works to analyse, translate, summarise, and provide full commentary on data published in international research and studies centers in relation to the International Criminal Court and Palestine.
  3. “Legal training for Palestine” project:
    This project aims to provide training courses and legal research materials as well as training opportunities in the organisation in order to create a network of experts who are able to understand the Palestinian question in its various legal dimensions. As part of this project, the Organisation provides training in the fields of: international law and Palestine, ICC & Palestine, international humanitarian law, human rights, and advocacy in regards to Palestine. Also, the project collects academic materials related to Palestine and international law and makes it available to those interested. Finally, the project provides an opportunity for training in the organisation for those interested in getting involved and getting acquainted with everything related to Palestine and international law, in addition to connecting trainees with effective and partner organisations in relevant areas. Find out about the training opportunities with us (here).

================================
https://www.ukcdr.org.uk/funding-call/ahrc-dfid-collaborative-humanitarian-protection-research-programme-thematic-research-grants-call/

AHRC-DFID Collaborative Humanitarian Protection Research Programme – Thematic Research Grants call Thematic Research call: The protection of people in areas of war and conflict

The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) – part of UK Research and Innovation – and the Department for International Development (DFID) have established a new Collaborative Humanitarian Research Programme to help tackle one of the most pressing issues of our time: the protection of people in areas of war and conflict. With the World Bank predicting that nearly half (46%) of the world’s poor will live in fragile and conflict affected states by 2030, the AHRC and DFID are working in partnership to fund world-class research into humanitarian protection of people affected by conflict. The Thematic Research Grants call launched under this initiative will support a portfolio of research projects to better understand the causes of humanitarian protection risks/violations and to gather evidence about which interventions are most effective in improving humanitarian protection outcomes.

===================================================
https://twitter.com/AlicePanepinto/status/1313164070066020352

Alice Panepinto@AlicePanepintoPalestinian human rights peeps: two job opportunities for 2 years based at Al Quds university, working on some urgent research on displacement in E1, and how impunity for international law violations drives humanitarian vulnerabilities. PM me for info http://legalclinic.alquds.edu/en/about-aqhrchttps:///opportunities/vacancies.html
8:08 PM · Oct 5, 2020

=================================================

Researchers to assess humanitarian vulnerabilities of Palestinian Bedouin in West Bank

7th May 2020

An international collaboration of researchers is to embark on a two-year project having received funding to assess the humanitarian vulnerabilities of the Palestinian Bedouin at risk of displacement in an area of the West Bank that has been allocated for the expansion of Israeli settlements.

Dr Brendan Ciarán Browne from Trinity’s School of Religion, has been awarded the Research Development Grant worth approximately €500,000 from the AHRC-DFID Collaborative Humanitarian Protection Research Programme.

He will work with Principal Investigator Dr Alice Panepinto (Queen’s University Belfast), and Drs Triestino Mariniello (Liverpool John Moores University) and Munir Nuseibah (Al Quds University).

The project, entitled Palestinian Bedouin at risk of forced displacement: IHL vulnerabilities, ICC possibilities, will focus on the ‘E1’ area of the West Bank allocated for the expansion of Israeli settlements, which was condemned as a “flagrant violation under international law” in the landmark UN Security Council resolution 2334 (2016).

The project will see those involved working closely with the Palestinian Bedouin community in E1 to gather testimonies of everyday life under threat of forcible transfer, with a view to engaging with the ongoing activities of the International Criminal Court on the situation in Palestine.

The grant will support desk-based research, fieldwork, and community based outreach activities with the Palestinian Bedouin in E1, in addition to two academic conferences and an edited book.

Dr Browne, Trinity, said:

“This is a significant grant that will allow for important collaborative research with members of the Palestinian Bedouin community who are at risk of forcible transfer in the West Bank.”

“The legal work that will be conducted will be complimented by capacity building projects with the Palestinian Bedouin community in E1, ensuring that the impact of the project is felt both locally and at the International Criminal Court.”

Dr Brendan Ciarán Browne joined Trinity in 2016 as assistant professor of conflict resolution, discipline of peace studies based in Belfast. His work can be accessed here.

Tags: research

Media Contact:

Thomas Deane, Media Relations Officer | deaneth@tcd.ie | +353 1 896 4685
========================================================

ICC and Palestine Symposium: Mind the Gap– The ‘Palestine Situation’ before the ICC  
04.02.20
Alice Panepinto

[Alice Panepinto is a lecturer in law at Queen’s University Belfast, where she researches and teaches human rights, international law and contemporary issues in property law.]

In determining its territorial jurisdiction in Palestine, the ICC is presented with a golden opportunity to revive the global reach of international criminal justice. When Pre-Trial Chamber I will rule on the question of whether “the “territory” over which the Court may exercise its jurisdiction comprises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza”, it will do much more than establish whether the ICC has territorial jurisdiction in Palestine. The Court faces a crucial decision: either it recognises that the ICC has judicial oversight over international crimes in Palestine (by virtue of the reasons put forth by my colleagues in this symposium), or it decides that Palestine remains in the blind spot of international justice, a legal black hole of where impunity is granted for the most serious crimes of international concern. As such, in accepting or rejecting territorial jurisdiction over Palestine, the Court will be forced to clarify its position within international law: not just on its ability to seek accountability for alleged crimes in Palestine; but also, more generally, on its willingness to uphold its mandate as “a permanent institution” with “the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern” (Article 1, Rome Statute). By considering two core tenets of international law, my contribution illustrates how the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and Gaza (which I will not consider in detail) are clearly under Palestinian sovereignty, despite the limitations to the full exercise of that sovereignty imposed by Israel’s protracted occupation. To conclude otherwise would create a gap that no other tribunal can bridge. 

International law prohibits annexation through force

The territory indicated in the ICC Prosecutor’s request to Pre-Trial Chamber I comprises the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. These areas are commonly referenced in all UN documents, and by and large across the international community, as constituting Palestine today, distinguishing it from Historic Palestine (prior to 1948), regardless of whether the designation is Palestinian State, the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or Occupied Palestine. The events of 1967, resulting in the occupation by Israeli forces of these parts, which continues today, have not modified the UN and international community’s designation of these territories, which remain Palestinian and never became Israeli (despite Israel’s unilateral declaration of annexation of East Jerusalem, which has not been recognised by the UN and the vast majority of states). Under international law, the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” is prohibited (UN Charter article 2(4)). This principle is mirrored in The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (adopted by the General Assembly on 24 October 1970 with resolution 26/25 (XXV), wherein ‘no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal’.

Sceptics could argue that in 1967 Palestine had not reached the criteria for statehood, and thus the maxim that ‘international law prohibits annexation through force’ does not hold. But regardless of the atypical connotations of formal statehood of Palestine at that time, it is undeniable that in 1967 the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza were neither Israeli nor terra nullius. Those parts were inhabited by Palestinians, and controlled by Jordan and Egypt respectively, in recognition and support of the Palestinian national project and political independence. Thus, the Palestinian territories constituted a sufficiently and clearly distinct political entity in 1967, suggesting that the prohibition contained in the ratio of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter applied. As such, there is international consensus on the fact that the start of the Israeli occupation of Palestine in 1967 did not annex the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza to Israel, nor did Israel attempt to do so openly. Therefore, it would be surprising, and indeed contra legem, if Pre-Trial Chamber I refused territorial jurisdiction over these parts based on the argument that in 1967 they were annexed to Israel, or are disputed between Israelis and Palestinians, because of the prohibition contained in Article 2(4).

Occupation does not transfer sovereignty under international law

The second issue to consider is whether the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, established with the events of 1967 and continuing to the present day can corroborate Israeli claims to those parts. This can be answered conclusively by drawing on International Humanitarian Law as encapsulated in a maxim attributed to Oppenheim: ‘there is not an atom of sovereignty in the authority of the occupying power’. Based on this assessment, even a protracted, transformative occupation, which conceals the intention to conquer territory or establish a single apartheid regime, cannot under international law enable the transfer of sovereignty (for a more detailed discussion of each of these issues, see GrossKormanBen Naftali, Gross & MichaeliKoskenniemiBhuta ). Indeed, even the carving up of the West Bank into Areas A (under Palestinian administration), B (under Palestinian administrative control, and Israeli security control) and C, entirely under Israeli security and administrative control, in Oslo II has not stripped Palestinian sovereignty from Area C (and to an extent, Area B) and substituted it with Israeli sovereignty. Despite the fact that such measures are still in place, they were designed to be a temporary arrangement to administer the West Bank, and certainly do not remove Palestinian sovereignty therein (notwithstanding the limited exercise of Palestinian sovereignty in those parts due to the occupation). And while in practice, in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in particular, Palestinian jurisdiction has been eroded, as I have discussed elsewhere, this does not deny Palestinian title to those areas. The international community, including the ICC, cannot acquiesce lightly to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of Israeli military and civilian courts in the West Bank. Against the backdrop of the current Israeli administration’s intention to annex large swathes of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the de facto exercise of Israel’s extraterritorial jurisdiction is gradually absorbing Palestinian land within the Israeli state; if this remains unchallenged, the process of conquest through an expansion of jurisdiction could become irreversible, clearly contravening international law.  

Taking the example of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine (which are a “flagrant violation under international law” in the landmark UN Security Council resolution 2334 of 2016), the fact that they are located primarily in Area C has shielded them from scrutiny in the Palestinian justice system. Some have argued that Palestine cannot delegate jurisdiction over the settlements to the ICC (or other international courts) because under Oslo II it does not possess criminal jurisdiction in those parts. But this position is oblivious to the context of the occupation, and the power dynamics between Israel and Palestine. Indeed, one of the side effects of Oslo II, endorsed by the international community, has been the virtual exclusion of the Palestinian Authority from large parts of the West Bank (in particular ‘Area C’ – over 60% of the West Bank), and, relatedly, the suspension of Palestinian jurisdiction over those parts. That vacuum has been filled by Israeli jurisdiction, operating extraterritorially through a range of military and civilian legal means, which have resulted in strengthening Israel’s hold of those parts, including areas where the settlements are located. As such, the limitations imposed on the exercise of Palestinian jurisdiction in the occupied territories is not based on an intentional will to dispose of it in favour of Israel through Oslo II or any other means. The difficulties in exercising Palestinian sovereignty and jurisdiction fully in the West Bank is to be attributed solely to the effects of the ongoing occupation, and an excessive entrenchment of Oslo II that goes beyond the original aims and timeframe of that bilateral agreement.

ICC inaction will allow further Israeli international law violations in Palestine

So according to international law, the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza were neither annexed to Israel in 1967, nor subsumed within Israeli sovereignty throughout the protracted occupation and effects of Oslo II that continue today. Thus, there is no legal basis for Pre-Trial Chamber I to recognise those parts as falling outside Palestine, and within Israel. The Court now is faced with a unique opportunity to clarify its adherence to international law in Palestine, recognising once and for all that it is neither Israeli territory nor ‘contested’ between two claimants. The fact that, for some, the contours of Palestinian statehood are atypical, need not hinder the Court’s assessment of its territorial jurisdiction in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. The ICC’s mandate and international law should guide Pre-Trial Chamber I in affirming the Court’s jurisdiction in Palestine.

Situations of atypical statehood pose a tangible challenge to international courts seeking to enforce international law. Yet, it is paradoxical that the system does not allow international law violations, including widespread harm suffered by the inhabitants of entities approaching statehood, quasi states or de facto states – or however one wishes to conceptualise states which fall short of full statehood – to be properly adjudicated because procedural rules prevent courts from exercising territorial jurisdiction. In some contexts, denying or refusing to acknowledge statehood can “become a pretence for enforcing politics”, and potentially a shield for abusers of human rights, international humanitarian law and criminal justice. By allowing grey areas of contested statehood to become legal black holes of unaccountability, the international legal order seems to concede that there is a degree of “planned misery” tolerated by the system in some places. This would be inconsistent with the international peace and security aims of the UN Charter as the founding document of the present international legal order, and the human rights imperatives set out in numerous instruments that underpin the present system.  

In this regard, it is important to consider the exceptional nature of the mandate of the Court as “a permanent institution” with “the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern” (Article 1, Rome Statute). In considering the universalist v delegation-based foundations of ICC jurisdiction, the “ICC Statute is a special type of multilateral treaty”, because (as argued by Stahn) the “fundamental premise of the Statute goes beyond protection of sovereignty and state interests” and, instead, is “geared at the protection of individuals and the establishment of a system of justice”. Thus, its “normative justification” is supported by “the fact that individuals face direct individual criminal responsibility under international law for international crimes”. Thus (citing Stahn) “accession to the Statute merely activates the power of the ICC to exercise a jurisdiction grounded in international law. Jurisdictional constraints encountered by the acceding state do not necessarily affect the jurisdictional title of the ICC”. So given the Court’s special purpose, it would be paradoxical if Pre-Trial Chamber I did not recognise territorial jurisdiction in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, as that would trump the Court’s core mandate to hold individuals to account for international crimes.

Indeed, while uncontested Palestinian statehood would alleviate many of the Court’s concerns, “statehood, as a remedy, does not correspond to the reality and scope of Palestinian grievances today”. Accountability for grave violations of international law, such as those considered in the OTP’s preliminary examination activities, cannot be dependent on the formalities of statehood for assessing territorial jurisdiction. So if, by avoiding recognising its territorial jurisdiction, even the ICC is unable and unwilling to pursue accountability for international criminal law violations in Palestine, the prospects of a just solution for Palestinians and Israelis are slim. For a body already struggling with its image and reputation, a more decisive ICC intervention on alleged crimes committed on Palestinian territory provides the perfect opportunity to prove critics wrong.  

1 Comment

Alan Baker:

Ms. Panepinto’s legal analysis bases itself on the flawed assumption that there exists Palestinian sovereignty and sovereign territory, when no such assumption has any legal basis. The various designations she uses, such as “Palestinian state”, Occupied Palestinian Territories” or “occupied Palestine” all assume that the territory concerned was, at some stage, granted to or belonged to a genuine Palestinian state entity. But the territories have never been part of any accepted Palestinian state, and no such entity has ever existed. No binding international treaty of resolution has ever determined that the territories are Palestinian. All the above designations taken from UN resolutions and international community determinations, are nothing more that political determinations representing the wishful thinking of the political majority of states voting for such resolutions. As such, she cannot invoke UN Charter article 2(4) because there his not, nor has there ever been any Palestinian political independence or territorial integrity. The writer mistakenly claims that Jordan and Egypt controlled the territories prior to 1967 “in recognition and support of the Palestinian national project and political independence”. This is nonsense and an utter, false interpretation of history. There was never any Palestinian national project before 1967. The fact that Jordan annexed the West Bank areas and East Jerusalem in the 1950’s would not appear to be indicative of Jordan’s supporting any Palestinian national project. Ms. Panepinto appears to ignore the fact that since 1967 Israel never annexed the West Bank and Gaza areas, and as such never claimed, or extended its sovereignty over those areas. To the contrary, the whole aim of the Oslo Accords was, and remains to lay the groundwork for Palestinian-Israeli agreement on the permanent status of the territories. But she appears to totally ignore the agreements. Her statement: “even the carving up of the West Bank into Areas A, B and C, in Oslo II has not stripped Palestinian sovereignty from area C and substituted it with Israeli sovereignty.” is pure nonsense. Both Israel and the PLO agreed that the ‘carving up’ of the territory was for the practical purpose of governance and management. Sovereignty was not given to anyone by the agreement, and was not taken from anyone. Hence the title of the agreement “interim agreement”. to the contrary – the two parties agreed that the issue of the permanent status of the territory, and as such, any possible determination of sovereignty between them, would be the outcome of the permanent status negotiations. They undertook not to alter the status of the territory prior to the outcome of such negotiations. Why is Ms. Panepinto ignoring these legal and historic facts? The territorial division between areas A, B, and C , and the division of powers and responsibilities, was agreed to, and not imposed. As such it became, and remains a form of lex specialis, pending any agreed outcome of the permanent status negotiations – including through an agreement emanating from the Trump peace plan. One might have assumed that a serious researcher on the issue of the disputed territories, participating in a serious symposium on the ICC, would familiarize herself with the agreements between the Palestinian leadership and Israel, rather than impose on the readers of ‘opinio juris’ flawed and misleading assumptions and personal political bias and hostility to Israel, all of which have absolutely no linkage to reality and to the existing legal situation.==============================================================

https://theconversation.com/a-tiny-west-bank-village-is-due-to-be-demolished-heres-how-international-law-could-be-used-to-intervene-97885
A tiny West Bank village is due to be demolished: here’s how international law could be used to intervene
June 14, 2018 7.09 pm AESTBy Alice Panepinto. Lecturer in Law, Queen’s University BelfastDisclosure statement: Alice Panepinto has received funding from ESRC-IAA-GCRF / Warwick University for previous research on the Al Khan al Ahmar case. Queen’s University Belfast provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

The village of Al Khan al Ahmar is home to 180 people on the West Bank of Palestine. It has 40 houses, a mosque and a school built from old tyres and mud. But its residents don’t know if their village will still exist tomorrow – after Israel confirmed plans to demolish the Bedouin settlement.

If the demolition does go ahead, it could amount to a violation of international humanitarian law. Forcible transfer of civilians living under occupation, demolition of Palestinian homes, and the expansion of settlements all violate the Fourth Geneva Convention.

According to some human rights organisations, destroying the village might also be considered a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court – something which the rest of the world has a responsibility to prevent.

It was on May 24 2018 that the Israeli Supreme Court put a summary end to the Al Khan al Ahmar judicial saga in Israel. Three judges (with direct personal links to Israeli settlements) authorised the state to proceed with the demolition. It could happen any time now, despite the community which lives there having nowhere to go.

That tiny Bedouin community has been fighting a legal battle since 2009, when a donor-funded school built of used tyres and mud was ordered to be demolished. The case later expanded into plans to remove the entire village.

The argument of the Israeli state – now endorsed by the court – is that none of the makeshift structures in Al Khan al Ahmar were ever granted planning permission. Applications for permits were submitted by the villagers numerous times, but invariably refused. As a result, it is impossible for the community (and other Bedouin villagers in the area) to build anything “legally” according to Israeli law.

Israel’s power in the West Bank is based on a temporary regime of military occupation established in 1967 at the end of the Six Day War – not on any form of legitimate authority. According to international humanitarian law, occupation does not give sovereignty, and any attempt to alter the demographic profile of occupied territories is prohibited.

For too long now the Israeli Supreme Court has exercised its jurisdiction over Al Khan al Ahmar and other Palestinian Bedouin villages in the West Bank. A sober appraisal of this scenario would indicate the need for an impartial international tribunal, independent from the Israeli state, to consider the international illegality of the planned demolition.

Indeed, in 2017, International Criminal Court prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, listed Israeli plans “to relocate Bedouin and other herder communities … through the seizure and demolition of residential properties” as potential war crimes that may fall under the court’s jurisdiction.

Israel’s plans to demolish the village present a perfect opportunity for foreign governments to reaffirm their commitment to human rights and the international rule of law.

Time for legal pressure

The world cannot afford to look away while Bedouin communities like Al Khan al Ahmar are erased to make way for the Israeli settler project.

Under the Geneva Conventions, while there is no specific action mandated for third parties, countries committed to international law cannot remain idle when faced with serious violations. Third state responsibility must be effective.

For a start, states cannot simply accept an illegal situation which results from a serious violation of international law. There must be accountability for these violations.

Foreign countries now have an opportunity to acknowledge the unwillingness of the Israeli courts to carry out a genuine investigation into the violation of international law in Al Khan al Ahmar – and a duty to endorse the ICC’s preliminary investigations into demolitions in the West Bank.

This is a tragic story of perverse justice, and it’s time for the international community to put its weight behind the ICC.

So far, some of the signs have been encouraging. In the US, 76 members of the House of Representatives have signed a letter to Prime Minister Netanyahu, urging him to halt the demolitions. The letter states:

The destruction and displacement of such communities would run counter to shared US and Israeli values, while further undermining long-term Israeli security, Palestinian dignity, and the prospects for peacefully achieving two states for two people.

France has expressed “deep concern”, Germany is “extremely worried” and the EU as a whole has raised the issue with Israeli authorities.

In the UK, the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, has urged Israel not to proceed with the demolition and other ministers have visited Al Khan al Ahmar and issued strong statements against the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision.

Royal role

It is encouraging that the UK government has spoken up – especially about a region severely damaged by the legacy of British colonialism.

Yet at a time of escalating bloodshed in Gaza, Prince William is about to visit Israel as a representative of the UK government amid reports of a thriving arms trade between the two countries.

There are of course many more ways in which the UK can uphold its obligations, including intervening on the arms trade and other collaborations with Israel that enable settlement activity which is driving Bedouin displacement.

At the very least, when Prince William visits the region on behalf of the UK government, a visit to Al Khan al Ahmar should be high on the agenda.

=====================================================

https://criticallegalthinking.com/2017/11/23/statement-against-holding-esil-at-the-hebrew-university/

Statement by Legal Scholars and International Lawyers Against Holding ESIL Forum at the Hebrew University in East Jerusalem

by Concerned International Lawyers • 23 November 2017

To add your name, please email: palpetition17@gmail.com. The statement is open to all law academics and international lawyers. You do not have to be a member of ESIL or based in Europe to sign.

The European Society of International Law (ESIL) is holding its Research Forum at the Hebrew University in February/March. Ten Palestinian human rights organisations have condemned this decision calling on ESIL to reconsider its decision and urging international lawyers and academics to not participate in this event.

As legal scholars and international lawyers committed to the rule of law and human rights, we are dismayed by the decision of the European Society of International Law (ESIL) to hold its 2018 annual research forum at the Mount Scopus Campus of the Hebrew University. We believe that holding the annual forum on international law in an occupied territory legitimates this occupation and all of the other human rights violations that are part of it.

While we are aware that the original buildings of the Hebrew University are located in the area that was designated in 1948 as the “Demilitarised Zone”, whose status is contested, the University has expanded significantly since the 1967 occupation, and significant parts of it fall beyond the “Demilitarised Zone” line and are in the Palestinian occupied territory.

We believe that it is unbecoming for an organisation that is committed to the rule of law and international law to hold its annual forum in an institution whose campus is at least in part on an occupied territory. It is more so when this occupation is in its 50th year. Therefore, we shall not participate in this event, and we urge ESIL to reconsider its decision.

Institutions are for affiliation purposes only.

Professor (Emeritus) Georges Abi-Saab, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva Professor (Emeritus) John Dugard, University of Leiden and the University of the Witwatersrand, former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Professor (Emeritus) Richard Falk, Princeton University, and former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Dr. Noha Abueldahab, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution Huwaida Arraf, National Lawyers Guild, Free Palestine Subcommittee Co-Chair Dr. Grietje Baars, City, University of London Dr. Nesrine Badawi, American University in Cairo Dr. Samia Bano, SOAS, University of London Dr. Arnulf Becker Lorca, Brown University Dr. Jason Beckett, The American University in Cairo Dr Simon Behrman, Royal Holloway, University of London Faisal Bhabha, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Dr. Brenna Bhandar, SOAS University of London Dr. Amar Bhatia, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Professor (Emeritus) George Bisharat, UC Hastings College of the Law Dr. Isra Black, University of York Professor Bill Bowring, Birkbeck, University of London Dr Yassin M’Boge Brunger, Queen’s University Belfast Audrey Bomse, National Lawyers Guild (US), Palestine Subcommittee Reem Al-Botmeh, Birzeit University, Palestine Professor Marcel Brus, University of Groningen Dr. Michelle Burgis-Kasthala, University of Edinburgh/Australian National University Pierre-Alexandre Cardinal, McGill University Professor  Irina Ceric, Kwantlen Polytechnic University Professor Cyra Akila Choudhury, Florida International University Dr. Tanzil Chowdhury, University of Birmingham Professor Olivier Corten, Directeur du Centre de droit international, Université libre de Bruxelles Dr. Marios Costa, City, University of London Luigi Daniele, Lecturer/Doctoral researcher, Nottingham Trent University and University of Naples Federico II Professor (Emeritus) Eric David, Président du Centre de droit international, Université libre de Bruxelles Dr. Julia Dehm, La Trobe University Dr. Sara Dehm, University of Technology Sydney Professor François Dubuisson, Université libre de Bruxelles Dr. Nadine El-Enany, Birkbeck University of London Noura Erakat, George Mason University Dr. Luis Eslava, University of Kent Prof. Mohammad Fadel, University of Toronto Dr. Michael Fakhri, University of Oregon Dr. Tomaso Ferrando, University of Bristol Professor  Martin Gallié, Université du Québec à Montréal Professor Conor Gearty, London School of Economics Mariana Gkliati, University of Leiden Professor Gustavo Gozzi, University of Bologna Dr. Maj Grasten, Copenhagen Business School Professor Penny Green, Queen Mary University of London Dr. Markus Gunneflo, Lund University Friederycke Haijer, Utrecht University Prof. Wael Hallaq, Avalon Foundation Professor in the Humanities, Columbia University Dr Vanja Hamzić, SOAS University of London Dr. Jeff Handmaker, International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam Dr. Kevin Hearty, Queen’s University Belfast Dr. Gina Heathcote, SOAS University of London Dr. Loveday Hodson, University of Leicester Dr. Nora Honkala, City, University of London Emily Jones, Lecturer in Law, University of Essex Dr. Henry Jones, University of Durham Dr. Ioannis Kalpouzos, City, University of London Dr. Michael Kearney University of Sussex Dr. Asem Khalil, Vice-President for Community Affairs, H.H. Shaikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani Chair in Constitutional and International Law, Birzeit University, Palestine Professor Laleh Khalili, SOAS University of London Dr. Adil Hassan Khan, Melbourne Law School Dr. Zeynep Kivilcim, Berlin Institute for Advanced Study Kojo Koram, Lecturer in Law, University of Essex Tor Krever, University of Warwick Dr. Vidya Kumar,  University of Leicester Dr. Troy Lavers, University of Leicester Anne Lagerwall, Université libre de Bruxelles Dr. Thomas MacManus, Queen Mary University of London Professor (Emeritus) Wade Mansell, University of Kent Dr. Anne-Charlotte Martineau, Ecole Normale Supérieure Alexandra Masako Goossens, Graduate Institute, Geneva Dr. Mazen Masri, City, University of London Dr. Heidi Matthews, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University Dr. Akanksha Mehta, University of Sussex Ladan Mehranvar, lawyer, SJD candidate in International Law, University of Toronto Professor Chantal Meloni, University of Milan Parvathi Menon, Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Procedure, Luxembourg Dr. Nima Mersadi Tabari, City, University of London Dr. Mathias Möschel, Central European University, Budapest Dr. Usha Natarajan, The American University in Cairo Professor Vasuki Nesiah, New York University Professor Donald Nicolson OBE, University of Essex Dr. Munir Nusseibeh, Al-Quds Human Rights and IHL Clinic, Al-Quds University, Palestine Dr. Gearóid Ó Cuinn, Lancaster University Dr. Paul O’Connell, SOAS, University of London Dr. Amr Osman, Hamad bin Khalifa University Professor Dianne Otto, Melbourne Law School Dr. Genevieve R. Painter, Concordia University Dr Alice Panepinto, Queen’s University Belfast Dr. Imranali Panjwani, The University of Notre Dame Australia Dr. Rose Sydney Parfitt, University of Kent/University of Melbourne Dr. Amin Parsa, Independent Scholar, Prev., Lund University Dr. Charlie Peevers, University of Glasgow Professor (Emeritus) Sol Picciotto, Lancaster University Professor Trevor Purvis,  Carleton University Dr. Adamantia (Mando) Rachovitsa, University of Groningen Dr. Rahul Rao, SOAS University of London Professor Danya Reda, Peking University School of Transnational Law Dr. John Reynolds, National University of Ireland Maynooth Jillian Rogin, Assistant Professor, University of Windsor Professor Hengameh Saberi, Associate Professor, Osgoode Hall Law School Dr. Hani Sayed, American University in Cairo Dr. Bérénice K. Schramm, Université du Québec à Montréal Professor Iain Scobbie, University of Manchester Rehana Seedat, Muslim Legal Network Queensland Moheb Shafaqyar, Refugee Law Clinic Berlin, Humboldt-University Berlin Dr. Halla Shoaibi, Birzeit University Oishik Sircar, Jindal Global Law School/ Melbourne Law School Dr. Adrian Smith, Carleton University Dr. Graham Smith, University of Manchester Dr. Nimer Sultany, SOAS University of London Dr. Mayur Suresh, SOAS University of London Dr. Mai Taha, The American University in Cairo Dr. Anastasia Tataryn, University of Liverpool Sâ Benjamin Traoré, University of Neuchâtel Dr. Ntina Tzouvala, Melbourne Law School Dr. Umut Özsu, Carleton University Professor Lynn Welchman, SOAS University of London Professor David Whyte, University of Liverpool Professor Daniel Wilsher, City, University of London Dr. Sujith Xavier, University of Windsor Dr. Federico Zanettin, Università di Perugia Paola Zichi, SOAS, University of London

Explanatory Note

Location of the Hebrew University

During the 1948 war, it was agreed between the Israeli and Jordanian military commanders that the Mount Scopus area, which included the Hebrew University (HUJI) buildings, would be a demilitarised zone. After Israel occupied the West Bank (including Jerusalem) in 1967, the Israeli Government confiscated the land around the Hebrew University and Hadassah hospital, and HUJI embarked on large-scale expansion plans. The expansion extended beyond the “Demilitarised Zone” and included private Palestinian land. As it stands today, significant areas of the Hebrew University are in occupied Palestinian area, and are effectively settlements. The areas are marked with the black line in the map below (the red line is the Demilitarised Zone), and they include: part of the Maiersdorf Dormitories, all of the Alan Bronfman Dormitories, the Students Village, the Lerner Family Indoor Sports Complex and the Gilbert Tennis Courts.

Role in the Settlement Project

HUJI is at least in part in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). These parts are settlements for they are used to house the population of an occupying power in an occupied territory. Furthermore, HUJI’s Mount Scopus campus as a whole is part of Israel’s illegal extension of its powers and control over the OPT. As a large higher education institution with thousands of students and employees, its presence in this area stimulates settler activities in East Jerusalem, especially in the adjacent neighbourhoods of the French Hill, Ramat Eshkol and Sheikh Jarrah and beyond. HUJI benefits from the settlement infra-structure, the transport lines, and the access roads, which are all in the occupied territory, some of which are on privately-owned Palestinian land. This infra-structure is also designed in a way to favour Israeli settlements in the area, and to the detriment of the local Palestinian population. HUJI’s campus is an integral part of Israel’s settlement enterprise in East Jerusalem.

HUJI itself does not see Israel’s occupation as an occupation, and does not distinguish between the “Demilitarised Zone” and other occupied areas. In fact, HUJI views the occupation favourably and calls it “liberation”, insinuating that Palestinian or Arab control should be seen as an occupation. As its official website states, “On the 7th of June, the Old City of Jerusalem was liberated, and the city was reunited. Efforts to return the university to Mt. Scopus began immediately, but the full restoration and building of the old/new campus took many years.” [Emphasis added]. HUJI also awarded the then Chief of Military Staff, Yitzhak Rabin, an honorary doctorate for his role in the occupation, or as HUJI’s website puts it his role “in reuniting Jerusalem, and for enabling the return of the university to Mt. Scopus.”

In 2012, the Israeli Government announced plans to build a new military college nearby (which will be wholly or in part in the OPT) because of its proximity to the University. The University did not oppose these plans, on the contrary, it expressed its support for them.

Assurances given by the Organisers to ESIL’s Board

The local organisers of the event gave a number of assurances to ESIL regarding the event.

The assurances offered by the organisers (based on emails sent by ESIL) are:

— to make a good faith effort to involve Palestinian scholars in the event.
— to facilitate visa formalities for conference participants and arrange video conference facilities for speakers who are unable to travel to Israel.
— to ensure that no part of the RF takes place in the occupied territories.
— to include Palestinian-owned hotels in East Jerusalem in the list of recommended places to stay.
— to not invite government officials to speak at the event.
— to carefully monitor security and inform the Board of any developments.

While some of these are common sense assurances, they do not address the main issue, which is that a significant part of the HUJI is on occupied territory; that, in effect, HUJI is part of the settlements project; and that holding the event at HUJI is effectively an endorsement of the occupation and the associated human rights violations. None of the assurances provided can remedy these problems.

More specifically, some of the assurances are either impractical or plainly offensive to Palestinians.
Assurance number 2 ignores the widespread boycott of Israeli academic institutions by Palestinian scholars (who also call on other academics to boycott) in protest against the role of Israeli academia in maintaining the occupation. Even if a few Palestinian scholars wanted to participate, they will most likely be unable to attend because of Israel’s restrictions on their movement.
Assurance number 3 “to ensure that no part of the RF takes place in the occupied territories” is impossible to comply with because HUJI itself sits at least in part on occupied land.
Assurance number 4 about including Palestinian-owned hotels in East Jerusalem in the list of recommended hotels is disrespectful to the local Palestinian population. It implies that the damage done by ESIL’s endorsement of the occupation and settlements could be remedied if the conference goers are given the option to spend a few hundred dollars in Palestinian-owned businesses.

HUJI’s Complicity in the Occupation

HUJI is complicit in Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in a number of ways:

1. In addition to being an integral part of the settlement enterprise in East Jerusalem, it actively played an important role to the illegal taking of Palestinian property in East Jerusalem, including attempts to evict nine Palestinian families from their homes.

2. HUJI maintains very intimate links with the Israeli army and Israeli security arms. These links include academic cooperation. One example is the Talpiot Programme academic and military training designed and delivered by HUJI and the army (for the programme’s website in Hebrew, see http://www.talpiot.mod.gov.il/traing/Pages/default.aspx). Other academic programmes included specially tailored programmes for the personnel of the Israeli secret service (General Security Service, also known as the Shabak) which is responsible for torturing Palestinian political prisoners. HUJI promotes the General Security Service as a potential employer for its students and graduates.

3. HUJI has taken measures to support Israeli soldiers who are in active combat. During the 2014 in Gaza, HUJI supported the war effort by fundraising for and offering financial support for its soldier students who participated in combat. HUJI and its official students union had a campaign to collect goods to be delivered to the soldiers fighting in Gaza.

4. As opposed to some universities in South Africa which took a formal institutional position against apartheid and consistently condemned it, HUJI has never made any public statement against the occupation and its associated human rights violations. In fact, HUJI shows support for the occupation and refers to it as “liberation”.  

======================================================

https://www.middleeasteye.net/live/live-blog-gaza-under-attack?page=45

Voices: Will international law protect Palestinians?
2014

Alice Panepinto is a UN Fellow (Human Rights) in Jerusalem and a PhD Candidate at Durham Law School and told MEE:

“The escalating Israeli aggression towards Gaza, which has so far caused 1,361 injuries and 178 deaths – including 138 civilians of which 36 children – (source: UN-OCHA), calls into question whether international law is of any use in protecting civilians and non-combatants in the area. Will the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, acceded to in April 2014, assist the Palestinians of Gaza? And are the recently ratified human rights instruments relevant? The answer rests in the ability of the international community to hold Israel accountable for any unnecessary and disproportionate military actions.” 

============================================https://www.dur.ac.uk/ilm/research/?mode=staff&id=9021

Research Ms Alice Panepinto Member of the Islam, Law and Modernity Member of the Law and Global Justice Biography Alice joined the Durham Law School as a PhD candidate in October 2010. She holds a law degree from the University of Turin, Italy, and an LLM from SOAS, University of London, where she focused on Public International Law, Law and Society in the Middle East, Human Rights and Islamic Law. In 2014 she is serving as a UN Fellow in Jerusalem, working on human rights and justice sector. Before returning to academia, Alice completed a traineeship on international peace and security issues at the Delegation of the European Commission to the UN and a legal research internship at the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights (Interights). She has also worked for the International Training Centre of the International Labour Organisation as a research and training assistant. At Durham Law School, alongside her PhD, Alice served as Deputy Convener (PGR) of the Law and Conflict at Durham (LCD) research cluster (2011-2013) and as secretary of Islam, Law and Modernity (ILM) (2011-2013) research cluster.

Durham University ⇨ Islam, Law and Modernity

Islam, Law and Modernity (ILM) has been established with the purpose of providing an interdisciplinary environment for research, discussion and commentary on a variety of social, political and legal issues relating to the Islamic world.

Throughout the Muslim World, there are calls for re-Islamisation of the legal systems, either for the strict application of the Shari’ah in its traditional form based on imitation (taqlid), or for a return to the roots or the principles of the Shari’ah (Maqasid al-Shari’ah), a re-opening of the door to independent reasoning (ijtihad), or even for a move towards the practice of Islam in a secular state or a combination of some of these – yet even amongst Islamic scholars there is no agreement on the path to be taken. Such disagreements are exacerbated by the differences in interpreting primary sources of law between the Shi’a and Sunni schools of thought. At the same time, one can notice that some Arab and Muslim States have taken steps that have resulted in a certain rapprochement of Islamic and secular principles. The recently enacted constitutions of States such as Iraq and Afghanistan, countries that have in recent history come under the influence of Western law-makers and policies, contain provisions which, on the one hand, declare the Shari’ah to be the highest source of the law of the land, while at the same time subscribing to the ideals of democracy. Many Muslim countries to this day have laws and justice systems based to a large extent on post-colonial and in fact secularised models left behind by the colonial powers and adopted by the former colonies. Arab States are engaged in international relations which are in fact dominated by Western thinking. Many Muslims live in Western countries where they enjoy and actively exercise the rights and freedoms granted under their laws. Globalisation will result in greater interaction between societies and different spheres of law. Such globalisation-influenced processes are not uniform in the Islamic world, however, as alongside liberalisation in some countries, radicalisation and more literal interpretation of Islam occurs in others, who feel threatened by Western interference. There are also prevalent cultural distortions between various Islamic countries that may inhibit their ability to act uniformly, such as, for example, the controversial concept of temporary marriage. All of these issues have recently been thrown into much sharper relief by events in the Middle East in the so-called “Arab Spring” since 2010.

Israeli Academics Mobilized to Defend BDS

15.10.2020

Editorial Note

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.

https://twitter.com/GavinWilliamson/status/1314506646115278848
Antisemitism is abhorrent and I am urging universities to root it out by adopting the IHRA definition. If universities ignore the issue, I have asked officials to consider options e.g. directing the Office for Students to impose a new registration condition or suspending funding.1:03 PM · Oct 9, 2020https://twitter.com/GavinWilliamson/status/1314506646115278848/photo/1
https://twitter.com/GavinWilliamson/status/1314506646115278848/photo/2

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

===============================================================

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/antisemitism-universities-gavin-williamson-funding-cuts-b911500.html
Universities may face cuts if they reject definition of antisemitism, says education minister

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.”

PA  

====================================

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/09/williamson-accuses-english-universities-of-ignoring-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”.

Advertisement

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.

==============================================

This is Google’s cache of http://kunsthalle.kunsthochschule-berlin.de/School-for-Unlearning-Zionism.html. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 1 Oct 2020 13:21:19 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more.Full versionText-only versionView sourceTip: To quickly find your search term on this page, press Ctrl+F or ⌘-F (Mac) and use the find bar.

School for Unlearning Zionism

School for Unlearning Zionism

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’.

See Program
Access Link for Online Events

בית הספר לאַנְלֶרְנִינג-ציונות

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.

See Program
Access Link for Online Events


Die KHHP (Kunsthalle am Hamburger Platz) der Weißensee Kunsthochschule Berlin wird unterstützt durch

=========================================================

אקדמיה לשוויון Academia for Equality أكاديميون من أجل ألمساواة

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

School for Unlearning Zionism

School for Unlearning Zionism

11 October at 19;23

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!

=========================================

School for Unlearning Zionism

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

===================================================

https://www.facebook.com/School-for-Unlearning-Zionism-114224687101212/

School for Unlearning Zionism · 

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

=====================================================

Stop Antisemitism Now

12 October at 00:11  · 

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: [OIED-intake@brown.edu](mailto:OIED-intake@brown.edu)
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

===================================================

https://www.academia.edu/6736912/_The_essence_of_Alexandria_pt_2_Manifesta_Journal_16_December_2012_pp_22_27
Ariella Azoulay, “When the Body Politic Ceases To Be an Idea”, Manifesta Journal | The European Biennial of Contemporary Art, #16.

IMG-7345.jpg

Caption: “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.”

Homi K. Bhabha Succumbed to BDS: Canceled Israeli Sociological Society Conference Keynote Speech

08.10.2020
Editorial Note
 
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.

Homi K. Bhabha

============================================

https://www.facebook.com/IsraelSociology/about
האגודה הסוציולוגית הישראלית Israeli Sociological Society
@IsraelSociology  · Community
1,136 people like this
1,223 people follow this
Community · College & University
Department of Sociology and Anthropology Ben Gurion University 84105 Beersheba, Israel
ADDITIONAL CONTACT INFO
http://www.israel-sociology.org.il/secretary@israel-sociology.com

About

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.

Homi K. Bhabha

14.9.2020

======================================================
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/amid-criticism-scholar-homi-bhahba-pulls-out-israel-conference

Amid criticism, scholar Homi Bhahba pulls out of Israel conference Ali Abunimah Activism and BDS Beat 15 September 2020

Homi K. Bhabha, the renowned scholar of postcolonial studies, has confirmed his withdrawal from a conference in Israel amid criticism of his acceptance of the invitation.

Bhabha, a humanities professor at Harvard, had been 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,” 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.

Criticism

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.”

This Dahiya Doctrine involves the deliberate destruction of civilian areas and infliction of suffering on the population as Israel has perpetrated in Lebanon and Gaza.

Tel Aviv University, like all of its peer institutions, maintains deep ties with Israel’s military and intelligence establishment.

===============================================================================

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”

Clarion India

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”.==========================================================

https://www.tau.ac.il/events/art-culture-sociaty-8-7-20
הרצאה של כלל האוניברסיטה
אמנות, תרבות וחברה בעידן הפוסט קורונה
Dean’s International lecture series
08 ביולי 2020, 19:00 מפגש מקוון 

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.

==============================================https://www.chronicle.com/article/a-narrative-of-divided-civilizations/

A Narrative of Divided Civilizations

By Homi K. Bhabha
SEPTEMBER 28, 2001

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.

Pro-Palestinian Activists Pressured Scientific Journal ‘Molecules’ to Cancel Special Issue by Guest Editor from Ariel University

30.09.2020

Editorial Note

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.

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules/special_issues/organic_fluorophores


    

Error 404 – File not found

The webpage you are looking could not be found.
The URL may have been incorrectly typed, or the page may
have been moved into another part of the mdpi.com site.Return to the main page
Contact

=======================================

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules/special_issues/organic_fluorophores

Molecules, EISSN 1420-3049, Published by MDPI AG     

Special Issue “Advances in Organic Fluorophores: Design, Synthesis, and Applications”

A special issue of Molecules (ISSN 1420-3049). This special issue belongs to the section “Organic Chemistry“.

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.

Keywords

organic fluorophores fluorescence synthesis imaging detection

Published Papers

This special issue is now open for submission.


=====================================================


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 ExeterLeedsOpen, 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.





https://noarielties.org/
A Campaign for Non-Recognition of and No Ties With Ariel University

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’s Battles on anti-Israel activities

24.09.2020
Editorial Note

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.” 

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. 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/racism-appointment-row-toronto-university-200919163253751.html

‘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.

‘Anti-Palestinian racism’

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.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-judicial-council-urged-to-investigate-judge-accused-of/Canadian Judicial Council urged to investigate judge accused of blocking senior U of T appointmentSEAN FINE JUSTICE WRITER
19.09.2020

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.
==================================================

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/09/17/search-for-new-director-of-u-of-t-law-facultys-international-human-rights-program-leads-to-resignations-allegations-of-interference.html

Search for new director of U of T law faculty’s International Human Rights Program leads to resignations, allegations of interference

Shree Paradkar

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.

==========================================================

Scandal-hit U of T law school internal emails contradict dean’s new email to staff over key hiring decision

Shree Paradkar

By Shree ParadkarRace & Gender ColumnistFri., Sept. 18, 2020

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?

===========================================================
https://www.palestinechronicle.com/canada-university-rescinds-job-offer-due-to-pressure-from-pro-israel-donor/

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)===========================================================

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSequFh6r-FJdpe875P–bXBnJ4jjOEw0A5yPwiFcK-E2GxRzg/viewform

Statement on Palestine Speech Suppression and University of Toronto Faculty of LawSTATEMENT FOR SIGNING BY LAWYERS AND ACADEMICS (BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE CANADA).

SIGNING DEADLINE IS WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 23, 10 AM

PLEASE INPUT YOUR FULL NAME AND ANY POSITION AND INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION IN THE FORM BELOW THE STATEMENT TEXT. THE LIST OF SIGNATORIES WILL BE UPDATED PERIODICALLY.

IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY DIFFICULTIES SIGNING, PLEASE CONTACT: azeezah.kanji@utoronto.ca.

STATEMENT TEXT:

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 [1].

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 [2]) 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.

[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-u-of-t-law-school-under-fire-for-opting-not-to-hire-human-rights/, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadian-judicial-council-urged-to-investigate-judge-accused-of/; https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/09/racism-appointment-row-toronto-university-200919163253751.html

[2] For example:

https://cfe.ryerson.ca/blog/2020/08/professor-petition-and-president-professor-bhabha-b%E2%80%99nai-brith-and-president-lenton;https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/davide-mastracci/cjfe-palestine-israel-gaza-idf_a_23409900/;https://www.otherplaces.mano-ramo.ca/rehab-nazzal-critical-art-and-censorship-encounter-of-a-palestinian-canadian-artist/;https://cpt.org/cptnet/2019/11/26/report-regarding-violence-york-university;https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/court-allows-lawsuit-against-bnai-brith-to-go-ahead;https://www.cjnews.com/news/canada/justin-trudeau-defends-his-opposition-to-bds-at-town-hall

Drafted by:
Dania Majid, Arab Canadian Lawyers Association
Azeezah Kanji, legal academic and journalist

SIGNATORIES:

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
==========================================================

https://www.cjpme.org/fs_220

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.

[xix] Rami Ayyub, “Palestinians warn Israel-UAE deal imperils Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa mosque,” Reuters, August 14, 2020.

[xx] Jack Khoury and Noa Landau, “Palestinians Slam ‘Betrayal’ by UAE in Deal With Israel: ‘Reward of the Occupation’s Crimes’” Haaretz, August 13, 2020.

[xxi] Nadda Osman, “Israel-UAE deal: Normalisation raises concern over change in status of Al-Aqsa – Report,” Middle East Eye, August 30, 2020.

[xxii] Levon Sevunts, “Canada welcomes normalization of relations between Israel and U.A.E.” Radio Canada International, August 14, 2020.

=============================================

http://mondoweiss.net/2020/09/84-of-canadians-think-the-icc-should-investigate-israeli-officials-over-alleged-war-crimes
84% of Canadians think the ICC should investigate Israeli officials over alleged war crimes“This demonstrates that Canada’s tendency to apply double standards when it comes to Israel is very unpopular with Canadians,” IJV’s National Coordinator Corey BalsamBY MICHAEL ARRIA  SEPTEMBER 16, 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.

You can read the whole survey at CJPME‘s website.

===========================================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.

https://www.cjpme.org/survey2020

2020 SURVEY ON CANADIAN ATTITUDES ON ISRAEL-PALESTINE

Overview

CJPME is delighted to release the results of a Canada-wide survey it has co-sponsored with Independent Jewish Voices Canada, and the United Network for Justice and Peace in Palestine-Israel.  

CLICK HERE for the latest survey results – Release 2 – from Wednesday, September 16.

Part 1 (Released June 16, 2020): Out of Touch: Canada’s Foreign Policy Disconnected from Canadians’ Views, or in .pdf format.

– Canadians’ position vis-à-vis Israel’s annexation plans

– Canadians’ view on greater alignment with the international community, especially regarding Canada’s bid for a UN Security Council seat

Part 2 (Released September 16, 2020): No Double Standards: Canadians Expect Greater Impartiality Vis-À-Vis Israel, or in .pdf format.

– 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.

Note that all charts presented on this page are public domain – free of copyright restrictions.==========================================================
https://unjppi.org/blog-posts/ekos-opinion-survey-2020-israel-palestine-canadas-foreign-policy

EKOS Opinion Survey-2020 Israel-Palestine – Canada’s Foreign Policy

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%).


Picture

Executive Summary

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.

U of Haifa Minerva Center’s Political Activism Disguised as Academics

17.09.2020
Editorial Note
 
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.   

https://minervaextremelaw.haifa.ac.il/index.php/en/32-center-events/390-webinar-with-peter-beinart

Webinar with Peter Beinart

Debating
Futures for Israel / Palestine

Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 16:00-18:00 (Israel time-GMT+3)

Recording is available on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/qsAZhlzE0v4

Event was live and available on Facebook as well

Online discussion with

Peter Beinart
Newmark School of Journalism at CUNY and editor at large of Jewish Currents

Moderated by

Dr. Itamar Mann
PI at the Minerva Center for the Rule of Law under Extreme Conditions, Faculty of Law, University of Haifa.

With:

Prof. Fania Oz-Salzberger
Faculty of Law, University of Haifa

Samer Abdelrazzak Sinijlawi
Chairman, Jerusalem Development Fund

Adv. Gilead Sher
Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)

Dr. Assaf Malach
Shalem College, Jerusalem

Background material:
Opinion by Peter Beinart published in the New York Times, July 8, 2020: I No Longer Believe in a Jewish State

==========================================

https://minervaextremelaw.haifa.ac.il/index.php/en/32-center-events/385-international-webinar-july-2020

International Webinar: Twenty Five Years since Oslo

Haifa Logo trans

Minerva logo transp

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..

Program

Wednesday, July 22, 16:00 – 17:30: Recording is available here
Realities on the ground: governance, control and resistance

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.

Monday, July 27, 16:00 – 17:30: Recording is available here
Emerging forms of governance, control and resistance

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

Wednesday, July 29, 16:00 – 17:30: Recording is availabale here
Resistance and future paths to political change

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.

See here for short biographies of participants

organizers:
Dr. Rottem Rosenberg Rubins (rottemro@tauex.tau.ac.il), and Dr. Oren Shlomo (orenshl@gmail.com)
https://minervaextremelaw.haifa.ac.il/index.php/en/2-uncategorised/386-twenty-five-years-since-oslo-participants-biographies

Twenty Five Years since Oslo – participants biographies

Twenty Five Years since Oslo: Contemporary Forms of Governance, Control and Resistance
in Israel and Palestine

International Webinar

July, 2020

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.  

=============================================================================

Minerva RLEC – Twenty Five Years since Oslo: Contemporary Forms of Governance, Control and Resistance in Israel and PalestineVideos

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFh2lYv9I5s
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSbSxvIIKeU
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4atviE5RVY
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZNAOLl58bk

======================================================

http://www.bgu.ac.il/RS_Minerva/Minerva_Centers.htm
Minerva Centers

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.

Haim Bresheeth-Zabner on Israel: Proto-Fascist Apartheid State

09.09.2020
Editorial Note
 
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.”

Published last month, Bresheeth-Zabner’s new book is titled An Army Like No Other: How the Israel Defense Force Made a Nation

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

By Haim Bresheeth-Zabner

    August 24, 2020

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.

__________________________________

An Army Like No Other

From An Army Like No Other: How the Israel Defense Force Made a Nation by Haim Bresheeth-Zabner. Used with permission of the publisher, Verso Books. Copyright © 2020 by Haim Bresheeth-Zabner.

Haim Bresheeth-Zabner
Haim Bresheeth-Zabner

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)

==============================================================================================

https://pledgetimes.com/middle-east-israel-is-a-militarized-state-preferring-the-state-of-war-2/

Middle East. “Israel is a militarized state preferring the state of war”

Bhavi Mandalia by Bhavi MandaliaAugust 17, 2020 in World

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.

Reviews

“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.”

– Kirkus

“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.”

– Rod Such, Electronic Intifada

==============================================================

https://www.humanite.fr/middle-east-israel-militarized-state-preferring-state-war-692492

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

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  

==========================================================

Haim Bresheeth on Stuart Hood 1.jpg
Haim Bresheeth on Stuart Hood 2.jpg

=========================================================

http://www.jfjfp.org/ London, 17/18 Nov 2007

Challenging the Boundaries: A Single State in Palestine/Israel

Weekend Conference

Venue: The Brunei Gallery, SOAS, University of London
Fees:£30 (includes lunches, coffee, tea and biscuits)
£20 Concession (includes lunches, coffee, tea and biscuits)

Please post your cheque, payable to ONE STATE GROUP, with attached note of email address to
C/O SOAS Palestine Society, Thornhaugh Street, London WC1H 0XG

Or book by email

Please note that seats are limited, book in advance
 
Organised by London One State Group and SOAS Palestine Society

 
Conference Program
 
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.

BDS Activist Stavit Sinai – Shlomo Sand’s Disciple – Convicted in German Court for Violence

03.09.2020

Editorial Note

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.

======================================================= 
https://jewishjournal.com/news/worldwide/320283/bds-activist-convicted-of-assault-in-berlin-court/
  BDS Activist Convicted of Assault in Berlin Court   Bhttps://twitter.com/Stav_Si/status/1292136763872477185yAaron Bandler
August 13, 2020

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.” 

=========================================================

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/bds-jew-hater-convicted-for-violent-assault-in-germany-637527

BDS ‘Jew-hater’ convicted for violent assault in Germany

Conviction appears to be the first criminal penalty for violent BDS activity

By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL

 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.

=====================================================================

https://www.jpost.com/bds-threat/german-antisemitism-commissioner-praises-verdict-against-bds-activist-638164

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.

twitter.com/ZvikaKlein/sta
===============================================================

https://www.gofundme.com/f/humboldt3

BDS Activists on Trial – Support the Humboldt3

€5,609 raised of €9,000 goal

118 donors 823 shares 118 followers

TEAM FUNDRAISER

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

THANK YOU!
Stavit, Majed and Ronnie
https://medium.com/humboldt3

==================================================================
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.

=================================================================

https://www.mako.co.il/news-world/international/Article-c3d916c08964a31004.htm

צפו: “מפוצצים” הופעה של הגבעטרון

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”

חדשות 2|חדשות
רסם 09/10/12 19:41  

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”. 

=============================================

https://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/1.1226689

סתוית סיני | נמצא אויב העם

  • 25.10.2010
  • 00:21
  • עודכן ב: 04:30

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.

Book Discussing What Went Wrong in the Academic Model

26.08.2020
Editorial Note

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.”

The book has met with a barrage of criticism from academics, but most importantly, it is generating an important debate. 
The book Academia: All the Lies: What Went Wrong in the University Model and What Will Come in its Place, is free of charge on Amazon Kindle eBooks.

https://www.academia.edu/43903387/Academia_All_the_Lies_What_Went_Wrong_in_the_University_Model_and_What_Will_Come_in_Its_Place

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

Introduction

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.

BDS Activist in Israeli University: Tom Pessach at TAU

19.08.2020
Editorial Note 

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.

  The Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Tel Aviv University 

=========================================

https://socis.tau.ac.il/index.php/en/about-us

Israeli Sociology A Journal for the Study of Society in Israel

About Us

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.

Editor: Alexandra Kalev

Book Review Editor: Tom Pessah

Editorial Assistant: Dana Vaknin

Board Members

Adi Moreno, Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, Avihu Shoshana, Erica Weiss, Galit Ailon, Gil Eyal, Gili Drori, Hadas Mandel, Isaac Sasson, Nissim Leon, Nitza Berkovitch, Yariv Feniger, Yehouda Shenhav

==============================================

https://www.hfg.org/gumtree/Display/HFGDisplay.cfm?GID=311

Title: Backgrounding: The meaning of cleansing in Israel/Palestine, 1948 

Name: Tom Pessah tompessah@gmail.com 

Year: 2012 

Type: Dissertation Fellowship

Summary: 

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.

==================================================================================

https://www.vanleer.org.il/en/projects/settler-colonialism-and-resistance/

Settler Colonialism and Resistance

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.

Led By

Lev Grinberg, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Daniel DeMalach, Sapir Academic College

Participants

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

Coordinator

Tom Mehager

================================================================================================

https://www.vanleer.org.il/he/node/841

מפגשים בין האנתרופולוגיה להיסטוריה במחקר המרחב הישראלי-פלסטיני

אנתרופולוגיה   |   היסטוריה   |   היסטוריה חברתית   |   ישראל-פלסטיןשנות פעילות: 2011 – 2013

סטטוס:

לא פעילהראש/י קבוצה:ד”ר דפנה הירשמשתתפים: 

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  

This text was publishe first here.

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.