26.10.23

Editorial Note

A new petition titled “Sociologists in Solidarity with Gaza and the Palestinian People” was posted recently, with some two thousand signatures from students and staff. It includes many Arabs and some Jews, including David Feldman, Professor of Sociology at Oberlin College, and two Israelis, Eliran Arazi from the Hebrew University and Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, and Dr. Eliran Bar-El, Lecturer in Sociology, University of York.

The petition states, “Sociology as a discipline is rooted in a recognition of relationships of power and inequality. As sociologists and human beings, we unreservedly condemn the latest violence against the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank at the hands of the Israeli regime. Over the past seven days, the government of Israel has undertaken, in its own words, a ‘complete siege’ of Gaza—the second most densely populated place on the planet, home to 2.1 million residents, of which 1.7 million are refugees.”

Since Israel “claims” its actions are justifiable responses to the Hamas violence against Israeli civilians, “it has targeted the civilian Palestinian population of Gaza, while exhibiting little regard for the loss of human life. Using racist and dehumanizing language.” It then quotes Israel’s Defense Minister, Yoav Gallant, who remarked, “We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.” Because in just ten days, “Israel has dropped over 6,000 bombs on Gaza, hit the Rafah crossing on the border to Egypt several times, targeted hospitals and ambulances, members of the press, universities, United Nations’ schools and relief offices, and used white phosphorus, a highly flammable munition that the United Nations has banned for use in dense civilian areas. Israeli forces have also cut off water, food, electricity, and medical supplies, which has pushed hospitals to a breaking point. This is an act of collective punishment.” 

This, “in contravention of international law threatens the lives of over two million people, half of whom are children, with unimaginable violence and displacement.”

As of writing, ״over 4,385 Palestinians have been murdered, including a staggering 1,756 children, and over 13,561 injured. Israel’s military campaign has also displaced nearly half of Gaza’s population. It has unconscionably demanded that 1.1 million residents relocate from Northern to Southern Gaza in 24 hours, while simultaneously bombing caravans of those attempting to evacuate, and continuing to bomb the Southern part of Gaza. Calls for “evacuation” parallel the military offenses of 1948 and 1967, when Palestinians were forced to leave their homes and never allowed to return. The majority of people in Gaza are long-term refugees, and now again face genocide and ethnic cleansing. At the same time, Israeli settlers across the West Bank, recently armed by the Israeli government with 10,000 assault rifles, have targeted Palestinian civilians, with over 50 already murdered and two villages depopulated in the last week. We are witnessing internationally supported genocide. This latest siege comes as a continuation and escalation of the daily violence Palestinians faced for decades from Israeli colonization; an apartheid regime whose occupation is in clear violation of international law, but persists with the support of powerful governments globally. “

The petitioners are upset that the Western world sides with Israel and protest the “increased harassment of pro-Palestinian voices around the globe. We join people around the world who are raising their voices in protest of this assault on human life.”

They conclude that “As educators, it is our duty to stand by the principles of critical inquiry and learning, to hold the university as a space for conversation that foregrounds historical truths, and that contextualizes this past week’s violence in the context of 75 years of settler colonial occupation and European empire. We are also deeply troubled by the lack of concern and care for Palestinian and Muslim students at many of our universities, as well as efforts to clamp down on student organizing and free speech. We cannot sit back and witness the continuation of this genocidal war. We demand that our governments push for an immediate ceasefire. This stance follows in the tradition of the civil rights movement, anti-war and anti-apartheid protests of decades past. Aligning ourselves with these freedom struggles, we call on all of our colleagues to stand in solidarity with Palestinians and against settler colonialism, imperialism, and genocide.”

The petition is a classic example of the anti-Israeli activists in the academy. First, it decontextualizes the Israeli action from any empirical reality. Nowhere does the petition mention the brutal, ISIS-style attack of Hamas on the civilian population in the border communities. One would not know from the text that the terrorists burned people, raped women, beheaded babies, and kidnapped more than two hundred people to serve as hostages. 

Second, Hamas is also hurting the civilian population in Gaza. The organization is in complete control of the enclave and, over the years, siphoned billions of dollars of international aid to build a virtual military fortress replete with missiles, rockets, drones, and miles of tunnel. Most egregiously, many, if not most, of the installations are built in or under public buildings, mosques, schools, and hospitals. This turns the civilians into human shields, a practice strictly prohibited in International Humanitarian Law (IHL). On the other hand, Israel has always tried to comport with IHL, even warning civilians to leave the premises before a strike. 

As for the Israeli signatories, Eliran Arazi is a “PhD researcher at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Advanced School in the Social Sciences (EHESS-Paris). He is currently also a research fellow at the Musée du quai Branly. Already in 2012, he signed a BDS petition.

Dr. Eliran Bar-El is a lecturer in Sociology at the University of York. In 2016, he also signed a BDS petition.

Clearly, by signing the sociologists petition, Arazi and Bar-El are signaling to Arab peers they are on their side, like many anti-Israel Israeli academics who are recruited to Western Universities.

References:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wIKLuNYWre8jdV-tqqVJjz_GyM9_WasWjVuV9HSwazs/edit

Sociologists in Solidarity with Gaza and the Palestinian People

Sociology as a discipline is rooted in a recognition of relationships of power and inequality. As sociologists and human beings, we unreservedly condemn the latest violence against the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank at the hands of the Israeli regime.

Over the past seven days, the government of Israel has undertaken, in its own words, a “complete siege” of Gaza—the second most densely populated place on the planet, home to 2.1 million residents, of which 1.7 million are refugees. While claiming its actions are a justifiable response to recent Hamas violence against Israeli civilians, it has targeted the civilian Palestinian population of Gaza, while exhibiting little regard for the loss of human life. Using racist  and dehumanizing language, Israel’s Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, remarked, “We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.” 

In just ten days, Israel has dropped over 6,000 bombs on Gaza, hit the Rafah crossing on the border to Egypt several times, targeted hospitals and ambulances, members of the press, universities, United Nations’ schools and relief offices, and used white phosphorus, a highly flammable munition that the United Nations has banned for use in dense civilian areas. Israeli forces have also cut off water, food, electricity, and medical supplies, which has pushed hospitals to a breaking point. This is an act of collective punishment, in contravention of international law, which threatens the lives of over two million people, half of whom are children, with unimaginable violence and displacement. As of writing, over 4,385 Palestinians have been murdered, including a staggering 1,756 children, and over 13,561 injured. 

Israel’s military campaign has also displaced nearly half of Gaza’s population. It has unconscionably demanded that 1.1 million residents relocate from Northern to Southern Gaza in 24 hours, while simultaneously bombing caravans of those attempting to evacuate, and continuing to bomb the Southern part of Gaza. Calls for “evacuation” parallel the military offenses of 1948 and 1967, when Palestinians were forced to leave their homes and never allowed to return. The majority of people in Gaza are long-term refugees, and now again face genocide and ethnic cleansing. At the same time, Israeli settlers across the West Bank, recently armed by the Israeli government with 10,000 assault rifles, have targeted Palestinian civilians, with over 50 already murdered and two villages depopulated in the last week. 

We are witnessing internationally supported genocide. This latest siege comes as a continuation and escalation of the daily violence Palestinians faced for decades from Israeli colonization; an apartheid regime whose occupation is in clear violation of international law, but persists with the support of powerful governments globally. In 2023 alone, the United States has sent $3.8 billion to prop up the Israeli military and consistently legitimized Israel’s human rights violations on a global stage. The European Union too has brazenly supported Israel’s aggression, while failing to reflect on the historical irony to “never again” commit genocide. 

Furthermore, the dehumanizing language used by heads of state, military leaders, and journalists throughout the West, has begun to increase anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim sentiment and violence. This has already led to horrible consequences, like the stabbing murder of Wadea Al-Fayoume, a six-year old Palestinian American child, a hate crime against a Sikh teen, and increased harassment of pro-Palestinian voices around the globe.

We join people around the world who are raising their voices in protest of this assault on human life. As educators, it is our duty to stand by the principles of critical inquiry and learning, to hold the university as a space for conversation that foregrounds historical truths, and that contextualizes this past week’s violence in the context of 75 years of settler colonial occupation and European empire. We are also deeply troubled by the lack of concern and care for Palestinian and Muslim students at many of our universities, as well as efforts to clamp down on student organizing and free speech.

We cannot sit back and witness the continuation of this genocidal war. We demand that our governments push for an immediate ceasefire. This stance follows in the tradition of the civil rights movement, anti-war and anti-apartheid protests of decades past. Aligning ourselves with these freedom struggles, we call on all of our colleagues to stand in solidarity with Palestinians and against settler colonialism, imperialism, and genocide.

Click here to become a signatory.

Signatories

1. Mary Romero, Professor of Justice Studies and Social Inquiry, Arizona State University
2. Aldon Morris, Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Black Studies Northwestern University 
3. Ruth Milkman, Distinguished Professor of Sociology, CUNY
4. Dorothy Roberts, George A. Weiss University Professor of Law & Sociology, Raymond Pace & Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Professor of Civil Rights, University of Pennsylvania 
5. Julian Go, Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago
6. Jessica Halliday Hardie, Professor of Sociology, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, CUNY
7. José Itzigsohn, Professor of Sociology, Brown University
8. Michael Burawoy, Professor of Sociology, Emeritus, University of California Berkeley
9. Craig Calhoun, University Professor, Arizona State University
10. Eric Margolis, Arizona State University
11. Fatma Müge Göçek, Professor, University of Michigan
12. Moon-Kie Jung, Professor, University of Massachusetts
13. David Cook-Martín, Professor, CU Boulder
14. Michael Rodríguez-Muñiz, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley
15. Jessie Daniels, Professor of Sociology, CUNY
16. Gianpaolo Baiocchi, Professor of Sociology and Individualized Studies, New York University
17. Arathi Sriprakash, Professor of Sociology and Education, University of Oxford 
18. Howard Winant, Distinguished Professor of Sociology Emeritus
19. Anna Guevarra, Professor and Founding Director,  Global Asian Studies, University of Illinois Chicago 
20. Melissa Weiner, Professor, College of the Holy Cross
21. Tianna Paschel, Associate Professor of Sociology and African American Studies, University of California, Berkeley
22. Mara Loveman, Professor, UC Berkeley
23. Cedric de Leon, Professor of Sociology and Labor Studies, UMass Amherst
24. William I Robinson, Distinguished Professor of Sociology, University of California at Santa Barbara 
25. Joe Feagin, Professor of Sociology, Texas A&M University
26. Tanya Golash-Boza, Professor of Sociology at UC Merced
27. Deborah Gould, Professor of Sociology, UC Santa Cruz
28. Ranita Ray, Associate Professor, University of New Mexico
29. Brandon Andrew Robinson, Chair and Associate Professor of Gender & Sexuality Studies, UCR
30. Ruth McAreavey, Professor of Sociology, Newcastle University 
31. Rebecca Elliott, Associate Professor of Sociology, London School of Economics
32. Heba Gowayed, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Boston University
33. Eman Abdelhadi, Assistant Professor of Comparative Human Development, University of Chicago
34. James M. Thomas, Associate Professor, University of Mississippi 
35. Heather Randell, Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota
36. Shay-Akil McLean
37. Vaclav Masek, USC PhD Student
38. Evangeline Warren, PhD Candidate, The Ohio State University
39. Yannick Coenders, Postdoctoral Fellow/Assistant Professor of Sociology, Washington University in St. Louis
40. A Johnson
41. Julien Larregue, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Université Laval
42. Chen Liang, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Texas at Austin
43. Jack Thornton, PhD candidate, University of Pennsylvania
44. Victoria Reyes, Associate Professor, University of California, Riverside
45. Muhammad Ridha, PhD Candidate, Northwestern University
46. Gabriel Hetland, Associate Professor, SUNY Albany
47. Ricarda Hammer, Assistant Professor of Sociology, UC Berkeley
48. Daniel R. Morrison, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Alabama in Huntsville 
49. Christy Thornton, Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins University
50. Cihan Tugal, Sociology, UC Berkeley
51. Nabila Islam, Doctoral Candidate, Brown University
52. Andrea Constant, PhD Student, The Ohio State University 
53. Saida Grundy, Associate Professor of Sociology, Boston University
54. Patricia McIsaac. Elementary Teacher
55. Irene Pang, Assistant Professor, School for International Studies, Simon Fraser University
56. Veda Hyunjin Kim, Assistant Professor of Sociology-Anthropology, Ohio Wesleyan University
57. Shantel Gabrieal Buggs, Assistant Professor, Florida State University 
58. Zachary Levenson, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Florida International University
59. Benjamin Bradlow, Assistant Professor of Sociology and International Affairs, Princeton University
60. Raquel Douglas, Ph.D. student, Brown University
61. Amaka Okechukwu, Assistant Professor, George Mason University 
62. Jamie O’Quinn, Assistant Professor of Sociology, California State University San Bernardino 
63. Shannon Malone Gonzalez, Assistant Professor, University North Carolina-Chapel Hill
64. Semassa Boko, Graduate Candidate, University of California Irvine
65. Danielle E. Midgyett, PhD Student, University of Delaware
66. Daniel Aldana Cohen, Assistant Professor of Sociology, UC Berkeley
67. Katie Kaufman Rogers, Assistant Professor, Regis University
68. Salma Mostafa, graduate Sociology student at Northwestern University
69. Pilar Gonalons Pons, Associate Professor University of Pennsylvania
70. Paloma E Villegas, Associate Professor, California State University, San Bernardino
71. Yichen Shen, graduate student, Department of Sociology, Northwestern University
72. Cati Connell, Associate Professor of Sociology at Boston University
73. Karin Yndestad, PhD Candidate, Northwestern University
74. christina ong, PhD Candidate, University of Pittsburgh
75. Vivian Shaw, Mellon Assistant Professor, Vanderbilt University
76. Santiago J. Molina, Assistant Professor, Northwestern University
77. Archana Ramanujam, PhD student, Brown University
78. Carolina Hernandez, M.A., University of Pittsburgh
79. Spyros Sofos, Assistant Professor, Simon Fraser University
80. Nicole Jenkins, Assistant Professor Howard University 
81. Madeleine Govia, MSDS
82. Carilee Osborne, PhD Student, Brown University
83. Xianni Zhang, PhD Student, University of Michigan
84. Brett Kellett, PhD Student, University of Michigan
85. Yeneca Lee, PhD student, University of Pittsburgh
86. Cat Dang Ton, PhD Student, Department of Sociology
87. Jean Beaman, Associate Professor, University of California-Santa Barbara
88. Lanora Johnson, PhD Candidate, University of Michigan
89. Eyako Heh, Sociology PhD Student, Northwestern University
90. Erika Kim, PhD Student, University of Michigan
91. Xavier Durham, UC Berkeley
92. Georgiann Davis, Associate Professor, University of New Mexico
93. Katie Jensen, Assistant Professor of Sociology and International Studies, UW-Madison
94. Sonia Planson, Postdoctoral Fellow, Brown University
95. Kalyani Jayasankar, Postdoctoral Scholar, University of Southern California
96. Laura Garbes, Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota
97. Kelsey Weymouth-Little, PhD Student, UC Irvine
98. Dr Babalwa Magoqwana- Nelson Mandela University 
99. Mo Torres, Assistant Professor, University of Michigan
100. Carmen Gutierrez, Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
101. Charles Bradley, PhD student, University of Virginia 
102. Edlin Veras, V.A.P., Swarthmore College
103. Liora O’Donnell Goldensher, Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech
104. Parker Martin, PhD Candidate, University of Michigan
105. Karina Santellano, Research Postdoctoral Scholar, Arizona State University
106. Rahim Kurwa, UIC
107. Iolanthe Brooks, Graduate Student, Northwestern University
108. Saher Selod, Associate Professor, Simmons University
109. Sosi Segal Lepejian, PhD student, University of Michigan
110. Joshua Eisenstat, PhD Candidate, New York University
111. Kayonne Christy, PhD Candidate, The University of Michigan – Ann Arbor
112. Juan D. Delgado, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Michigan
113. Kate Averett, Associate Professor, University at Albany, SUNY
114. Racheal Pinkham, PhD Student, University of Pittsburgh
115. Anna Palmer, PhD Student, UC Berkeley 
116. Susila Gurusami, assistant professor, UIC CLJ
117. Amy Zhang, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Texas at Austin
118. Ryan Thombs, PhD Candidate, Boston College 
119. Andrea Beltran-Lizarazo, PhD candidate, Boston University
120. Jessica Law, PhD Student, UC Berkeley
121. Eylem Taylan, PhD Student, UC Berkeley
122. Janna Huang, PhD Student, UC Berkeley Sociology
123. Steven Herrera Tenorio, Ph.D. Student, University of California-Berkeley
124. Prashasti Bhatnagar, Sociology PhD Student, UCLA
125. Hajar Yazdiha, Assistant Professor, USC
126. Gözde Güran, Assistant Professor, Georgetown University
127. Dialika Sall, Asst. Professor, CUNY-Lehman College
128. prabhdeep singh kehal, Postdoctoral Associate, University of Wisconsin-Madison
129. Abi Ocobock, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Notre Dame 
130. katrina quisumbing king, Assistant Professor, Northwestern University
131. Kirsten Vinyeta, Assistant Professor, Utah State University
132. Stephanie L. Canizales
133. Dori-Taylor Carter, PhD Student, UC Berkeley
134. Mishal Khan, Postdoctoral Fellow, Yale University 
135. Grey Rochon, PhD Student, University of California Irvine
136. Roi Livne, Associate Professor, University of Michigan
137. Hashem Alrefai, PhD Candidate Department of Sociology University of Pittsburgh
138. Nicholas Occhiuto, Assistant Professor, Hunter College-CUNY
139. Wynn Strange, PhD Candidate, Portland State University 
140. Amelia Roskin-Frazee, Sociology PhD Student, University of California, Irvine 
141. Vera Parra, PhD Student, UC Berkeley 
142. Kayla Thomas, Sociology PhD Candidate, Yale University 
143. Raquel Zitani-Rios, Sociology PhD Student, UC Berkeley 
144. Yagmur Ali Coskun, graduate student, UC Berkeley 
145. Maura Fennelly, PhD Candidate, Northwestern University 
146. Jared Eno, PhD student in Sociology and Public Policy, University of Michigan
147. Carla Shedd, Associate Professor, Georgetown University 
148. Jalia L. Joseph, Doctoral Candidate, Texas A&M University 
149. Hoai-An Nguyen, PhD Candidate, Sociology at UCSB
150. Simone Kolysh, PhD
151. Musa Jalal, PhD Candidate, University of Illinois
152. Amanda C. Ball, Doctoral Candidate, Brown University 
153. Pallavi Banerjee,  Associate Professor, University of Calgary
154. Amanda Fehlbaum, Associate Professor of Sociology, Youngstown State University
155. Deborah Little, (Retired) Assoc. Professor, Sociology, Adelphi University
156. Miranda Ysabel Simes, PhD Student, Northwestern Sociology
157. Sabiha Mohyuddin, PhD student, University of California, Santa Barbara
158. Jomaira Salas Pujols, Assistant Professor, Bard College
159. Lauren Bickell, PhD Student, University of California, Santa Barbara
160. Nandita Sharma, Professor, sociology, University of Hawaii at Manoa
161. Diditi Mitra, Associate Professor, Sociology
162. Ana Sandoval, PhD candidate, Rutgers University-Newark
163. Alicia Riley, Assistant Professor of Sociology and Core Faculty in Global Health, UC Santa Cruz
164. Bastien Bosa, profesor titular, Universidad del Rosario 
165. nadirah farah foley, Assistant Professor of Education, Washington University in St. Louis
166. Enrique Alvear Moreno, University of Illinois at Chicago 
167. Max Besbris, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison
168. Alexandro José Gradilla, Associate Professor, Chicana/o Studies, CSU Fullerton 
169. Hayden Fulton, PhD Candidate, University of South Florida
170. Tara Gonsalves, Assistant Professor, Northwestern University
171. Camilo Leslie, Assistant Professor, Tulane University
172. Idalia Robles De León, Doctoral Student, UC Santa Barbara
173. Timothy Perez, PhD Student, University of California, Santa Barbara
174. Michael Billeaux Martinez, Instructor, Madison Area Technical College
175. Alex Hanna, Director of Research, the Distributed AI Research Institute
176. Solome Haile, PhD student, Princeton University
177. A Latina, Muslim and feminist PhD student full of grieve and rage
178. Sujatha Fernandes, Professor, University of Sydney
179. Youbin Kang, PhD student, University of Wisconsin – Madison
180. Julio Salas, PhD student, University of California, Berkeley
181. Tiffany Hamidjaja, PhD Student, University of California, Berkeley 
182. Ana Vieytez, Graduate Student in Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles
183. Elyesa Koytak, Assistant Professor, Istanbul Medeniyet University
184. Chetna Khandelwal, Doctoral Student, University of Calgary
185. Jay Cavanagh, Doctoral Student, University of Calgary
186. Yasemin Bavbek, PhD Candidate, Brown University
187. Anthony Ocampo, Professor, Cal Poly Pomona
188. Sonia Rab Alam, PhD, MPH, Tech sector 
189. Daniela Carreon, Graduate Student, Arizona State University
190. Karim Safieddine, PhD Student, University of Pittsburgh
191. Autumn Mitchell, UC Berkeley sociology 
192. Diego Ayala, PhD Student, UC Berkeley 
193. R. L’Heureux Lewis-McCoy 
194. Andrew Lee, PhD Student, UCSB
195. Leslie Salzinger, Associate Professor, UC Berkeley
196. Mathieu Desan, Assistant Professor, University of Colorado—Boulder
197. Tara Gonsalves, Assistant Professor, Northwestern University
198. Marisa Omori, Associate Professor, University of Missouri-St. Louis
199. Marisa Meno, PhD Student, University of California-Santa Barbara
200. Shiv Issar, Doctoral Candidate, University of Oregon
201. Andrea de la Barrera Montppellier, PhD Candidate
202. Valentina Cantori, PhD Candidate, University of Southern California
203. Reeta Seetal; Sociology Graduate Student at University of Calgary
204. Andy Clarno, Associate Professor, UIC
205. Michael Nishimura, PhD Student, UC Santa Barbara
206. Toya Thomas (myself)
207. Kristina Beggen, PhD Student, University of Oregon
208. Abigail Andrews, Associate professor, UCSD
209. Uma Palam
210. Mengyang Zhao, Assistant Professor, UC Santa Cruz
211. Lisa Hajjar, Professor of Sociology, UC Santa Barbara 
212. Nida Kirmani, Associate Professor, Lahore University of Management Sciences 
213. Nazanin Shahrokni, Associate Professor of International Studies, Simon Fraser University
214. Vineet Gupta, PhD Student, Northwestern University
215. Bahar B, PhD student, Toronto 
216. Brittney Rose, PhD Student, Vanderbilt University
217. Bernania Meja, Undergraduate Student, UofC
218. Dr. Baljit Nagra
219. MJ Hill, PhD candidate, UCLA
220. Nafeesa Andrabi, PhD Candidate, UNC Chapel Hill
221. Durgesh, Ph.D Student, Johns Hopkins University
222. Ishan Santra, PhD Student
223. Maryann Bylander, Associate Professor of Sociology, Lewis & Clark College 
224. Jacob Hood, PhD Student, New York University
225. Gyunghee Park, Westchester Community College
226. Sanam Vaghefi (Visiting Scholar at Istanbul Ibn Haldun University)
227. Nikkolette Lee, PhD Student, UC Berkeley
228. J Overholser, PhD Student, University of Calgary 
229. Gabriela Flores, PhD student, and University of California, Merced
230. Ramazan Aras
231. Patricia Ward, Postdoctoral Researcher, TU Dresden
232. Meaghan Mingo
233. Shafia batool 
234. Ayaz Ali 
235. Azeem Brar, President University of Calgary Sociology and Law and Society Association, University of Calgary
236. David Su, UC Berkeley
237. Melissa Quesada, PhD Candidate, University of California, Merced
238. Katelyn Malae, PhD candidate, UC Irvine 
239. alithia zamantakis, Research Assistant Professor, Northwestern University
240. Anh Nguyen Tran, PhD Student, UC Merced
241. Claudia Johnson, Sociology, UC Merced
242. Ariana Valle, Assistant Professor, UC Davis 
243. Claire-Anne Lester, PhD, Stellenbosch University. Sociology 
244. Edelina Burciaga, Assistant Professor, University of Colorado, Denver
245. Marissa Maline, PhD student, UC Merced
246. Kimberly Garcia-Galvez, PhD Student at UC Merced 
247. Sari Hanafi, Prof., American University of Beirut 
248. Zhehang Zhang UC Berkeley 
249. Jullanar Z. Williams, Ph.D. Student, University of California Merced 
250. Jorge Ochoa, PhD Student, Northwestern University
251. Shelby Singson, Undergrad Sociology, University of Calgary
252. Alondra Espinoza, PhD Student, UCI
253. Rasha Naseif, PhD student at UC Merced 
254. Hyunsik Chun, PhD Candidate, University of Iowa
255. David Su, PhD student, UC Berkeley Sociology
256. Grace Vu, PhD Student, UCLA
257. Jai Mica Vaca, PhD Student, the University of California, Merced 
258. Anthony James Williams, Postdoctoral Teaching Fellow, College of the Holy Cross
259. Kritika Pandey, Graduate Student
260. Minwoo Jung, Assistant Professor, Loyola University Chicago
261. Matthew Nichter, Associate Professor, Rollins College
262. Destina Bermejo, PhD student in Sociology, UC Merced
263. Kristen Bryant, PhD Candidate, UCSB
264. Jess Bier, associate professor, Erasmus University Rotterdam 
265. Kritika Pandey, Graduate Student, USC
266. Joshua DeGuglielmo, undergraduate University of Calgary
267. Tania Saeed, Associate Professor, Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)
268. Jeremiah Lawson, PhD Candidate at UC Irvine, UAW
269. Jonathan Ben-Menachem, PhD candidate, Columbia University 
270. Navneet Khan, Research Scholar, MMAJ Academy of International Studies Jamia Millia Islamia University 
271. Barry Eidlin, Associate Professor of Sociology, McGill University
272. Haiyi Cheng, undergraduate, Renmin University of China
273. Marisa Salinas, Assistant Professor CSUSM
274. Kyungmo Chun, PhD student, UT Austin
275. Jordanna Matlon, Associate Professor, American University
276. Duane Wright, PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology UC Davis
277. Professor Gargi Bhattacharyya, University of the Arts
278. Manuela Zechner, PhD, Jena University, Germany
279. Dr Brenda Herbert, Goldsmiths, University of London
280. Asma H. Malkawi
281. Alison Phipps, Professor of Sociology, Newcastle University UK
282. Victoria Piehowski, Assistant Professor, SUNY-at Buffalo
283. Pablo Gracia, Professor in Sociology, Trinity College Dublin
284. Marie kortam
285. Beth Bramich, former Sociology PhD candidate, Goldsmiths
286. Órla Meadhbh Murray, Lecturer in Sociology, Durham University 
287. Syeda Masood, PhD candidate, Brown University. 
288. Paroj Banerjee, DPU, UCL
289. Gopal Kumar Choudhary Assistant professor LNMU Darbhanga Bihar India 
290. Rima Majed, Assistant Professor of Sociology, American University of Beirut
291. Elisabeth Wide, PhD researcher, The University of Helsinki
292. Luke Martell, University of Sussex
293. Dr Bethan Harries, Newcastle University 
294. Yen-Tung Lin, PhD candidate, UC Berkeley
295. Dr Miranda Iossifidis, Newcastle University
296. Tracy Shildrick, Professor of Inequalities, Newcastle University, UK 
297. Walaa, PhD candidate, Goldsmiths university of London
298. Dr Anna Bull, University of York
299. Danielle Antoinette Hidalgo, Associate Professor of Sociology, Chico State 
300. Dr Baris Cayli Messina, University of Lincoln, UK
301. Angela Martinez Dy, Senior Lecturer, Loughborough Uni London
302. Khoi Quach, PhD Student, UC Berkeley
303. Ece Örmeci, PhD student, TU Dresden.
304. Ryan J Fisher, PhD Candidate, UCSB
305. Ali Meghji, Associate professor, Univ Cambridge
306. Mrs Gabriella Mwedzi
307. Ash Layo Masing, PhD candidate, University of Cambridge 
308. Rukiye Sahin, PhD Student, Istanbul Medeniyet University
309. Stéphane Dufoix, Professor of Sociology, University of Paris-Nanterre
310. Christiana Ajai-Thomas, PhD Candidate, London School of Economics and Political Science 
311. Dr Sara Camacho Felix, Assistant Professor, London School of Economics & Political Science
312. Janice McLaughlin, Professor, Newcastle University
313. Kyran de Silva, PhD Student, University of Southampton
314. noura nasser, PHD sociology student, the LSE
315. Jean-Claude Lionbeat, Visiting Fellow, Sociology, CUCR
316. Sneha Annavarapu, Yale NUS college 
317. Professor Sally Hines
318. Carla Rivera Blanco, MPhil/PhD Sociology, LSE
319. Jonathan Schoots, Post Doctoral Fellow, Stellenbosch University
320. Emily Nicholls, Lecturer in Sociology, University of York UK
321. Mickey Keller, PhD student, Goldsmiths College
322. Eloísa Martín, Prof. of Sociology, Federal University of Rio de Janeir
323. Hunter Sagaskie, PhD student, UCLA
324. Dr Nilmini Fernando, Adjunct Fellow Griffith University
325. Claire Decoteau, Professor of Sociology, University of Illinois at Chicago
326. Silvia Pasquetti, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Newcastle University
327. Shalini Nair, University of Sussex
328. Dr Erin Shannon, independent sociologist
329. Patricia Hamilton, Lecturer in Sociology, University of York
330. MC Whitlock, PhD, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of North Georgia
331. Michael Follert, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, StFX University
332. Irem Yildirim, PhD Candidate, McGill University
333. Stephanie Lai, Sociology Student at the University of Calgary 
334. Silyane Larcher, Research Scholar in Political Science, CNRS (France)
335. Michela Musto, Assistant Professor, Brown University 
336. Sigrid Corry, Ph.D Candidate, London School of Economics
337. Peter Gardner, Senior Lecturer, University of York
338. Anima Adjepong, Associate Professor, University of Cincinnati 
339. Stephanie Guirand, Doctoral Researcher, Goldsmiths, University of London
340. Rima Sabban, Professor of Sociology, United Arab Emirates 
341. Gulzar R. Charania, Associate Professor, University of Ottawa
342. Merve AKYOL, Sociologists, University of Leeds 
343. Sarah Mayorga, Associate Professor, Brandeis University
344. Liz Ablett, University of Newcastle, UK
345. Professor Lyla MEhta, Institute of Development Studies, UK 
346. Alexandra Kassir, Assistant professor of sociology, American University of Beirut
347. Director Non Violence United Green Party Kenya
348. Laird Gallagher, PhD Candidate, Brown University
349. David Feldman, Visiting Assistant Professor of Sociology, Oberlin College
350. Teke Wiggin, PhD candidate, Northwestern
351. Casey Stockstill, Assistant Professor, Dartmouth College
352. Sophie Marie Niang, PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge
353. Ms Angela Loum PhD researcher at Goldsmiths university 
354. David Fasenfest, Editor, Critical Sociology
355. Elizabeth Korver-Glenn, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Washington University in St. 
356. Eric Reeves, PhD Student, New York University
357. Rachel Rosen, Professor of Sociology, UCL Social Research Institute
358. SunAh Laybourn,  Assistant Professor, University of Memphis 
359. Zophia Edwards, Assistant Professor, Johns Hopkins University 
360. Francisca Corbalan, Postdoc, CIAE – Universidad de Chile
361. Katie Duarte, PhD Candidate
362. Sarah Reibstein, Postdoctoral Fellow, Rutgers University 
363. Aris Komporozos-Athanasiou, Associate Professor of Sociology, University College London
364. Ilya Slavinski, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice and Sociology, Dominican University New York
365. Alfredo Saad Filho, King’s College London 
366. Chris Maggio, Visiting Clinical Assistant Professor, UIC
367. Erika Slaymaker, PhD Candidate, The University of Texas at Austin
368. Heidi Gottfried, professor, Wayne State University
369. Shay O’Brien, Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard University
370. Meghan Barnes
371. Edemilson Paraná, Associate Professor of Social Sciences, LUT University – Finland
372. Amanda Lewis, Professor of Black Studies & Sociology, University of Illinois Chicago
373. Chandra Russo, Associate Professor, Colgate University
374. Leah Reisman
375. Abdullah Omran, PhD student, Indiana University
376. Apollonya Porcelli, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Bucknell University 
377. Ghazah Abbasi, Postdoctoral Associate, Brooks School of Public Policy, Cornell University 
378. Mariam Al Hasbani, PhD in Sociology
379. Ananda Martin-Caughey, Assistant Professor, Brown University
380. sneha gantla, PhD candidate, Brandeis University 
381. Marcelle Cohen, UCSB
382. Perdana Roswaldy, PhD Student, Northwestern University
383. Ellen Lamont Associate Professor of Sociology Appalachian State University
384. Taylor Alarcon, Columbia University
385. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva 
386. Piet Bracke, Professor in Sociology, Ghent University, Belgium
387. Inaash Islam, Assistant Professor, Saint Michael’s College
388. Guillermina Altomonte, Assistant Professor, Sociology Department, NYU
389. Jacelyn Omusi, PhD Student, NYU
390. Phi Hong Su, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Williams College 
391. Gowri Vijayakumar, Associate Professor of Sociology
392. Rocio Garcia, Assistant Professor, Arizona State University 
393. Sarah Devos, PhD Student, Ghent University
394. Freeden Blume Oeur, associate professor of sociology, Tufts University
395. Esther Lermytte, PhD student, Ghent University
396. Erin Eife, National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Brown University
397. Karolina M. Dos Santos, Faculty Fellow, NYU: Gallatin Individualized School of Study
398. Aven Peters, PhD Student, Northwestern University
399. Ibrahim Bechrouri, Adjunct Assistant Professor, City University of New York
400. Jeannette Hernandez 
401. Navdeep Kaur, Community Organizer, Jakara Movement
402. April Fernandes, Associate Professor, North Carolina State University
403. Niall Reddy, Researcher, Wits University
404. Camille Wets, PhD student, Ghent University
405. Martin van Bruinessen, Professor Emeritus, Utrecht University
406. Daniel Olmos, Assistant Professor of Sociology, CSU Northridge
407. Watufani Poe, Assistant Professor of Language, Literacy, and Culture at the University of Pittsburgh
408. Souhail Chichah, Visiting Lecturer, Williams College
409. César Rodríguez, Associate Professor; San Francisco State University 
410. Tina M. Park, Head of Inclusive Research & Design, Partnership on AI
411. Chris Tinson, Chair, African American Studies, SLU
412. Tiago Vieira, PhD candidate 
413. Luis Flores, Post Doctoral Researcher, Harvard University 
414. Karida L. Brown, Professor of Sociology, Emory University
415. Jaeeun Kim, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan
416. Jorge D Vasquez, Postdoctoral Fellow, American University
417. Aaron Foote, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Central Michigan University
418. Zach Lewis, PhD Student, New York University
419. Samar Mashadi, PhD Candidate Religious Studies, McMaster University 
420. Helen Rizzo, Associate Professor, AUC
421. Dr. Olivia Perlow, NEIU
422. Jacob Caponi, PhD Candidate, University of Michigan
423. Thomas J Billard, Assistant Professor, Northwestern University
424. David G. Embrick, Associate Professor and Director, UConn
425. Kristen Schilt/University of Chicago Sociology
426. Harleen Kaur, Assistant Teaching Professor, ASU
427. Keenan Wilder, PhD Candidate, Brown University
428. Ray Jureidini, Professor, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar
429. Nahida El Assi 
430. Loubna Ou-Salah – university of Antwerp (Belgium)
431. Lauren Clingan, PhD Candidate, Princeton University 
432. Jennifer Heath, co-editor Book of the Disappeared: The Quest for Transnational Justice
433. Hawa Patel, MPhil Student, University of Cambridge
434. Sara Elloukmani, PhD, University of Antwerp
435. Michael McCarthy, Sociologist, Marquette University
436. Diana Toledo 
437. Nazli Kibria, Boston University
438. José Manuel Mejía V., Graduate Student, Sociology UCSB
439. Rahsaan Mahadeo, Assistant Professor, Providence College 
440. Steven Osuna, Associate Professor, California State University, Long Beach 
441. Ph.D. candidate, Johns Hopkins University
442. Weixiang Chen, PhD Student, CUNY Graduate Center
443. Isabel Garcia Valdivia, Postdoctoral Fellow, Brown University
444. Mark Methven, ABD Boston College
445. Kelly Nielsen, UC San Diego
446. Wael Hallaq, Avalon Foundation Professor, Columbia University
447. Professor of Sociology, University of Pittsburgh
448. Sam Ghebrai, PhD Candidate, Western University
449. Dr. Halide SalamProfesor Emerita, Radford U
450. Jasmin Zine, Professor, Sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University
451. Maria Labourt USC
452. Elizabeth Nimmons, Ph.D. 
453. Tiantian Liu, PhD Candidate, Sociology, Johns Hopkins University
454. Ran Fang, PhD student, Hong Kong University
455. Clayton Covington, PhD Student, Harvard University
456. Turi Mendoza, PhD Candidate, CUNY Graduate Center
457. Dr. Wahid Omar 
458. Maeve Higgins
459. Diana Graizbord, University of Georgia
460. Marco Castillo, PhD Candidate, CUNY Graduate Center
461. Cristine Khan, Ph.D. Candidate, CUNY Graduate Center
462. Shannon Almeida, Phd Student, CUNY Graduate Center Sociology 
463. Dilara Yarbrough, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice Studies, San Francisco State University
464. Noura Embabi, PhD Student, CUNY Graduate Center
465. Dalia Yousef, PhD student, CUNY GC
466. Alanna Gillis, Assistant Professor of Sociology, St Lawrence University 
467. Yoselinda Mendoza, Sociologist and Researcher 
468. Dr Mosa Phadi University of the Free State 
469. Benjamin Vescovi, MS Sociology, Hunter College
470. Jessica Breakey, PhD student at University College London 
471. Sewheat Haile, PhD student, New York University
472. Raphi Rechitsky, National University 
473. Matthew Thompson, PhD Student, CUNY Graduate Center
474. Robin Bartram, assistant professor, University of Chicago 
475. Madeline Troche-Rodriguez, Associate Professor,  City Colleges of Chicago 
476. Alannah Caisey, Ph.D
477. Emily Paine, Assistant Professor of Clinical Medical Sociology (in Psychiatry and Sociomedical Sciences), Columbia University
478. Michelle Rabaut, PhD Candidate in Sociology, University of Michigan
479. Calvin John Smiley, PhD – Association Professor, Sociology, Hunter College-CUNY
480. Jane Guskin, PhD Candidate, The Graduate Center, City University of New York
481. Salman Sikandar, Phd student, UMass Amherst
482. Adam Murphree, Ph.D. (not in academia)
483. Virgilio Urbina Lazardi, PhD Candidate, New York University
484. Jacob Rosette, CUNY Graduate Center
485. Sharon Elise, Professor of Sociology, California State University San Marcos
486. Tugrul Keskin, Kapadokya University
487. Caleb Dawson, UC President’s Postdoctoral Fellow, UC Merced
488. Isha Bhallamudi, PhD Student, UC Irvine 
489. Farha Ternikar, Professor of Sociology & director of GWS, Le Moyne College
490. Luz Gomez, professor, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid
491. Isabelle Caraluzzi, PhD Student, New York University 
492. Amina Jamal, Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University
493. Yeji Lee, PhD student, NYU
494. Miranda Grundy, GC Sociology PhD Student
495. Alex Eleazar, PhD Candidate, University of California-Santa Barbara
496. Kairit Kall, Lecturer of Sociology, Tallinn University
497. Alex Fenton, Research Fellow, German Centre for Science and Higher Education Research, Berlin
498. Subadevan, PhD student, Brown University
499. Nallely Mejia, Postdoctoral Fellow, New York University
500. Lesley Wood, Associate Professor, York University
501. Upasana Kohuwa Goswami, Doctoral Student, UMass Amherst
502. Kaan Agartan, Associate Professor of Sociology, Framingham State University
503. Valentina Floegel, PhD Student, University of California Los Angeles
504. James Jones, Assistant Professor, Rutgers University
505. Prishani Naidoo
506. Olu Demuren, PhD Student, New York University 
507. Ieva Zumbyte, Postdoctoral Fellow, University College Dublin
508. Jesse Yeh, Assistant Professor of Instruction, Northwestern University
509. Sunera Thobani, Professor, University of British Columbia
510. Ashley Auger, BA Student, University of Calgary
511. Sirma Bilge, professor, Université de Montréal
512. Dr. Eliran Bar-El, Lecturer in Sociology, University of York
513. Bronwyn Lee, PhD candidate, Binghamton University
514. Joyce M. Bell, Associate Professor in Race, Diaspora & Indigeneity and Sociology, University of Chicago
515. Melissa McLetchie, PhD student, York University 
516. Dr Monish Bhatia, University of York 
517. Dr Jennifer Chubb
518. Sanjida Salman, PhD Candidate, York University
519. Conely de Leon, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Toronto Metropolitan University
520. Ailish Burns, Graduate Student, Brown University
521. Leila Mouhib, Lecturer, ULB & UMons
522. Andrew Malmuth, PhD Candidate, UCLA Department of Sociology
523. Hossein Serajzadeh, Associate Professor of Sociology, Kharazmi University, Iran
524. Brianna Garneau, PhD Candidate, York University
525. Summer, PhD Candidate, UCLA
526. Mieke Van Houtte, professor, Ghent University
527. Abigail Mariam, Ph.D.
528. John l Esposito, Distinguished University Professor, Georgetown University
529. Andrew Thompson, Visiting Professor, College of the Holy Cross
530. Sabrina Alimahomed-Wilson, Professor of Sociology
531. Xavier Fields, PhD Student, University of Michigan
532. Laura Halcomb, PhD candidate UCSB 
533. Samantha Plummer, Associate Research Scholar, Columbia University
534. Katherine Furl, PhD Candidate, UNC-Chapel Hill
535. Timothy Johnson, PhD Student, University of Illinois at Chicago
536. Ron Pagnucco, Professor Emeritus of Peace Studies, College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University
537. Awish Aslam, PhD Candidate, University of Western Ontario
538. Tirza Ochrach-Konradi, PhD Student, University of Illinois at Chicago
539. Kasi Woods, PhD Student, University of Illinois at Chicago
540. Chloe Unrein, University of Michigan
541. Soleil Smith, Sociology graduate student, University of Illinois Chicago
542. Emily Via, PhD Candidate, University of Illinois at Chicago
543. Courtney, Assistant Professor, University of Nevada Las Vegas
544. Erielle Jones, PhD Student, University of Illinois at Chicago 
545. Paula Winicki Brzostowski, PhD Candidate, UC Berkeley
546. Jake Alimahomed-Wilson, Professor, California State University, Long Beach
547. Sal Schmisek, PhD Student, University of Illinois – Chicago
548. Sarah Shah, Assistant Professor, The University of Toronto Mississauga
549. Jimena Perez, Graduate Student, UC Berkeley Geography 
550. Trina Vithayathil, Associate professor of global studies
551. Julián Bilmes, Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology, PhD in Social Sciences, National University of La Plata, Argentina
552. Birgan Gokmenoglu, Lecturer in Sociology, Birmingham City University
553. Derek Silva, Associate Professor, King’s University College 
554. Asemeh Ghasemi, Assistant Professor, Islamic Azad University, Iran
555. Gwendolyn Berumen, PhD Student, University of Texas at Austin
556. Michelle Mott, Visiting Assistant Professor of Sociology, College of the Holy Cross
557. Salma Mutwafy, PhD Candidate, Brown University
558. Jade Crimson Rose Da Costa, Postdoctoral Researcher, The University of Guelph 
559. April Herron
560. Annika Lindberg, Researcher, University of Gothenburg
561. Hakan Yilmaz, CUNY Graduate Center
562. Michael Warren Murphy, Assistant Professor of Black Studies, Occidental College
563. Simon Fern, PhD Student Rice University
564. Brittany Battle, Assistant Professor, Wake Forest University
565. Solen Sanli Vasquez, Sociology Instructor, Santa Rosa Junior College
566. M. Muhannad Ayyash, Professor of Sociology, Mount Royal University 
567. Claudia Vergara, MES, York University 
568. Nino Cricco, Graduate Student, Harvard University
569. Lauren Harvey, Ph.D. Student, Rice University
570. Nalya Rodriguez, Postdoctoral Scholar- Teaching Fellow, University of Southern California 
571. Charlotte Xue Lian Wang, Columbia University 
572. Masou Kowsari, Professor  University of Tehran
573. Deirdre Oakley, Professor, Georgia State University 
574. Sharan Kaur Mehta, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of New Mexico 
575. Sarah El Sebaye, postgraduate student, Cairo University
576. Caroline Wolski, Ph.D Student Rice University
577. Cristina Awadalla, Graduate Student, UC Santa Barbara
578. Gerardo Otero, professor of sociology and international studies, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada 
579. Jeffrey Mitchell, Associate Professor,Umeå university
580. Mahruq Khan, Teaching Associate Professor, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
581. Angela LaScala-Gruenewald, PhD Candidate, CUNY Graduate Center
582. Devin Kaiser, graduate student, UIC sociology
583. Candi Cipactli Corral, Assistant Teaching Professor, NAU
584. Madeline Smith-Johnson, PhD Candidate, Rice University
585. Anderson Antonio da Silva 
586. Robinson Rodríguez-Pérez, Professor, University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez
587. Angela Silva, PhD Candidate, University of Illinois, Chicago
588. Kiana Wilkins, PhD Candidate, Rice University
589. Egle Gusciute, Assistant Professor, University College Dublin
590. Ren Ruso, Graduate Student, University of Illinois Chicago
591. Jacqui Gingras, Professor, Sociology, Toronto Metropolitan University
592. Silvia Maeso, Principal Researcher, Centre for Social Studies (Portugal)
593. Ahmad jafari sociology researcher and social science teacher in Iran, Tehran 
594. Alex Da Costa, Associate Professor, University of Alberta
595. Haley Volpintesta, Graduate Student, Sociology Department UIC
596. Swati Chintala, PhD Candidate NYU
597. Lucas Savino, Associate Professor, Centre for Global Studies, Huron University College, Canada
598. Beeta Salsabilian, Sociology PhD student 
599. Jee Sun Lee, PhD Student, Rice University
600. Shaikh Mohammad Kais, Professor of Sociology, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh
601. Clifford Andrew Welch, Universidade Federal de São Paulo 
602. Carla A. Pfeffer, Michigan State University
603. Yader Lanuza, Assistant Professor, UCSB
604. Alicia Poole, PhD Candidate, McGill University 
605. Heather Daniels, PhD candidate, UC Merced 
606. Sabra J Webber, Professor Emerita, Ohio State University
607. Javadi Yeganeh, Mohammad Reza. Associate Professor of Sociology. University of Tehran
608. Makere Stewart-Harawira, Professor, University of Alberta
609. Gabriela Torres-Mazuera
610. Hugo Ceron, associate professor, Lehigh university 
611. Dia Da Costa
612. Gerardo Rodriguez Solis, Graduate Student, University of California Santa Barbara
613. Donna L Chollett, Professor emeritus, University of Minnesota, Morris
614. Karina Rider, Postdoctoral Fellow, Stanford University
615. Luin Goldring, Professor, York University (Toronto)
616. Katherine Smock, PhD Candidate, University of California Los Angeles
617. Alejandro Hernandez, Assistant Professor LTA, Concordia University
618. Ali Janadleh, assistant professor of Sociology, Allameh Tabataba’i University 
619. Jaime Marroquín Arredondo, Western Oregon University, Stanford Humanities Center
620. Shamsul Arefin, Graduate Student, University of Massachusetts Amherst 
621. Ratiba Hadj-Moussa, Professor, Department of Sociology, York University, (Toronto)
622. Paulo Vinicius Baptista da Silva. Associação Brasileira de Pesquisadores/as Negros/as
623. Hamid Masoudi, Assistant Professor, University of Birjand, Iran
624. Eli Friedman, Associate Professor, Cornell University 
625. Sarah Levine, Western University 
626. علیرضا اژدری
627. Jack Corbett, Professor, Portland State University
628. Pengfei Liu, PhD Student, UC Davis
629. Christina Wilmot, PhD Student, UCLA Sociology 
630. Ryhana/student of sociology in iran
631. Tugba Iyigun
632. Abed beheshtian
633. Eric Leonard, Research Director, Franch Institute for Development Research
634. Farzaneh.ahmad (graduated in cultural sociology)
635. Mehmet Aysan, University of Western Ontario PhD graduate
636. Nurullah Ardıç, Professor, ITU
637. Zakaria Rhani, Full Professor of Anthropology, Mohammed V  University in Rabat
638. Maria de Lourdes Beldi de Alcantara, Professora , FMUSP
639. Henry Veltmeyer, PhD Global Development Studies, Saint Mary’s University
640. Katie Alexander, PhD Student, Rice University
641. Christopher Powell, Associate Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University
642. Josh Seim, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Boston College
643. Jéssica Malinalli Coyotecatl Contreras
644. Doç. Faruk Karaarslan
645. Victoria Tran, PhD candidate, UCLA
646. Jennie Germann Molz, Professor, College of the Holy Cross
647. Beatrice Anane-bediakoh, York University
648. J’Mauri Jackson, Ph.D. Student in Public Policy & Sociology, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
649. Melissa Williams, PhD Student, York
650. Kyanna Richard, PhD Student, University of California, Irvine
651. María Elena Serrano Flores
652. Bilal Yıldırım, PhD, Sakarya University
653. Sıtkı Karadeniz, Associate Professor 
654. Halil Yıldız, Dr., MEB
655. Pilar Ortiz, Instituto VioDemos / Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Santiago de Chile
656. Sıtkı Karadeniz, Associate Professor,  Mardin Artuklu University 
657. Asude Yağmur Durgun, Koç University
658. Zubeyir Nisanci, Assist. Professor, Marmara University
659. Andrea Kelley, Postdoctoral Fellow, Michigan State University
660. Assoc. Prof. Ahmet Gökçen Samsun University -Türkiye
661. Bedri Gencer, professor, Yıldız Technical University
662. Mehmet Şahin
663. Kadri Aissa Emeritus professor of sociology University Franceniversity P8 France
664. Joshua Makalintal, Graduate Student, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Innsbruck (Austria)
665. Mehmet Ali Demirdag, Mardin Artuklu University
666. OUSSEDIK Fatma Université d’Alger
667. Aaron Pollack, Professor/Researcher, Centro de Investigaciones y Educación Superior en Antropología Social
668. Linda Green Professor of Anthropology University of Arizona
669.    Rıfat Bilgin, Prof.Dr. Fırat University
670. Hadi Yasser, Sociologist
671. Kristin George, PhD Candidate, UC Berkeley Dept of Sociology 
672. Seyedmohammad Alhosseini
673. Louise Seamster, Assistant Professor, University of Iowa
674. Hassan E.T., PhD candidate
675. İhsan Çapcıoğlu, Ankara Üniversitesi, Türkiye.
676. Tad Skotnicki, Associate Professor, UNC Greensboro
677. Enakshi Dua, Professor, York University
678. Ahmed Hamila, Professor, Université de Montreal 
679. Mahmut Kaya
680. İbrahim Nacak – Assoc.Prof.Dr – Selcuk University
681. ZAHİR Kızmaz
682. Elif Çevik, Sociologist
683. Mehmet Salih GECİT
684. Münire Handan Kaya,  PhD Student, Istanbul University
685. Rojda Kurt 
686. Fiona Gladstone, Postdoctoral Associate, Duke University
687. Neha Mahboob, Student, Toronto Metropolitan University
688. Büşra Tosun Durmuş, Assistant Proffesor,Marmara University 
689. Natalia Ribas-Mateos, UAB
690. Assistant Professor, Ayse Polat, Istanbul Medeniyet University
691. Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Çİl, Selçuk University
692. Jeanny Posso, PhD Antropology, Universidad del Valle
693. Nuh Özdemir 
694. Cintia Quesada, Lecturer, California State University, Fresno
695. Leandro Vergara-Camus, Associate-Professor, Université de l’Ontario français
696. Recep YILDIZ Associate Proffesor  Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University
697. Donatto Daniel Badillo Cuevas, doctorante Programa de Posgrado en Estudios Latinoamericanos, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
698. Sevil Kaysı, mimar sinan fine art university sociology ma
699. Luis Urrieta, Professor, University of Texas at Austin
700. Cinthia J. Romo Alba; PhD student; Washington University in St. Louis
701. Ivonne del Valle, Associate Professor, Department of Spanish and Portuguese, UC Berkeley
702. Gala Rexer, Lecturer, University College London
703. Rabi, Student, UTSC
704. Sedef Arat-Koç, Associate Professor, Toronto Metropolitan University
705. Zouitni khadija. Sociologist. Mohammed V University. Rabat
706. Medine Arslanalp 
707. Saadia Radi,   chercheure, anthropologue, Rabat
708. Badiha Nahhass, Mohammed V University of Rabat
709. Raminder Dubb, Undergraduate Student, California State University of Long Beach Department of Sociology
710. Tasfia Ahmed. Undergrad Student 
711. Jiyoun Yoo, University of Illinois
712. Jennifer Pennington, Adjunct Professor, MNSCU
713. Kimberly Sustaeta, Undergrad Student, Cal State University of Long Beach
714. Mustafa Derviş Dereli, Assoc. Prof., Necmettin Erbakan University
715. Dr. Onur Acaroğlu, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Northampton
716. Nurefşan Hamdan, master student, Ibn Haldun University
717. Rafif Rida Sidawi.     Sociologist 
718. Christina Pao, PhD Student, Princeton University
719. Dr. İbrahim Kaygusuz
720. Maria Perez
721. Ammar Hamdache, Sociologist, Marco 
722. maheen, miss, student
723. A. Bayat, Sociology, University of Illinois
724. Ariel Ducey, Professor, University of Calgary
725. Swati Birla,  SUNY-New Paltz
726. Bushra.turk@stu.ihu.edu.tr 
727. Ilham Ibrahim, MA Student, Ibn Haldun University 
728. Zeynep Karakurt
729. Michelle Cera, PhD Candidate, New York University
730. Junyoung Verónica Kim, Assistant Professor, University of Pittsburgh 
731. Emin Yaşar Demirci, Prof.Dr., Van Yüzüncüyıl University
732. Cornelia Flora, Distinguished Professor Emerita, Iowa State University
733. Nesibe Demir, Ph.D Candidate, Ibn Haldun University
734. Reda Sadiki, Medical Doctor & Author, Morocco 
735. Herbert Docena, Professorial Lecturer, University of the Philippines, Diliman
736. Nuri TINAZ, Professor of Sociology, Marmara University, Tûrkiye
737. Ben Snyder, Associate Professor of Sociology, Williams College
738. Imren Turner 
739. Fareen Parvez, Associate Professor, Umass- Amherst
740. Mo Woods, PhD Candidate, The Ohio State University
741. * Elisabet Barrios Dugenia, PH.D Candidate, UC Irvine (*Editor’s note below)
742. Mushtaq Ahmad Wani, Doctoral Student, IBN Haldun Üniversite 
743. Rachid Benbih, faculté des Langues, des Arts et des Sciences humaines  Ait Melloul, Université Ibn Eohr
744. Marianne Madoré, PhD Candidate CUNY
745. Mustafa Koc, Professor, Department of Sociology, Toronto Metropolitan University
746. Viviththa Shrirajh, Year 3 Nursing Student
747. Chantrey J. Murphy, Associate Professor, California State University, Long Beach
748. Alex Kempler, Graduate Student, The Ohio State University
749. Merve Reyhan Ekinci, PhD student, Ibn Haldun University 
750. Bogumila Hall, PhD, Polish Academy of Sciences
751. Imogen Tyler, Professor of Sociology, Lancaster University 
752. M’hammed Belarbi,   Professor / Public Law and  Political science Faculty of Law / University Cadi Ayyad Marrakech, Morocco
753. Fatimah 
754. Víctor Manuel Quintana Silveyram Doctor in Sociology. Professor-researcher, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, MEXICO
755. Thomas Serres, UC Santa Cruz
756. Aharmouche Fatima Zahra, Professeure universitaire sociologue. Université Ibn Zohr. 
757. Chantal Figueroa, Assistant professor of Sociology, Colorado College 
758. Irene Shankar, Associate Professor, Mount Royal University 
759. Betül Babacan Sevim, PhD student, Boğaziçi University
760. Zeynel Hakan Aser, PhD cand.
761. Matthew Fritzler, PhD Candidate, Sociology, UC Santa Barbara
762. Ala Sirriyeh, Lancaster University
763. Kimberly Higuera, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Cal Poly, SLO
764. Sehel fidan 
765. Mara Viveos Vigoya, Universidad Nacional de Colombia 
766. Caroline Martínez, Graduate Student, UC Irvine
767. Zahra Ali, Assistant Professor, Rutgers University-Newark
768. Vanessa Nunez
769. Jyoti Puri, Simmons University
770. Mel Mahmoudi, Undergraduate Student 
771. Ronit Lentin (ret) Associate Professor Sociology, Trinity College Dublin
772. Farah Hamouda, PhD student , Vanderbilt University 
773. Melanie E L Bush, Professor, Adelphi University
774. Amanda Hernandez, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Southwestern University 
775. Anjerrika Bean, Ph.D., Assistant Director, Howard University Center for Women, Gender, and Global Leadership
776. Fernanda Rios Petrarca, PHd Sociology, professor at Universidade Federal de Sergipe
777. Arezki Ighemat, Ph.D in economics and Master of Francophone Literature (Purdue University)
778. Lesley Schneider, Assistant Professor, North Carolina State University
779. Dip Kapoor, Professor, University of Alberta
780. Monserat Rodríguez Rico, grad student UIC 
781. DR.KHALID HANTOOSH
782. Haider zwwer. Iraq
783. Tania Élias Magno da Silva
784. Mirebeigi Vahid
785. Kari Marie Norgaard, Professor, University of Oregon
786. Majid, iran
787. Dr. Katarzyna Rukszto, Sheridan College
788. Hye Jee Kim, PhD Candidate, Stanford University
789. Dr. Yahya AYDIN-Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University
790. Jay Arena, Associate Professor, College of Staten Island-CUNY
791. Cawo Abdi, Associate Professor, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
792. Mark Thomas, Professor, Department of Sociology, York University (Toronto)
793. Artchil B. Fernandez, sociology graduate student, University of the Philippines (UP) – Diliman
794. Isabella Irtifa, Sociology PhD student, University of Minnesota – Twin Cities 
795. FATIM ZAHRA RAFALI, Ph.D. Student, IBN ZOHR AGADIR/Morocco
796. Kriti Budhiraja, PhD candidate, University of Minnesota Twin CIties
797. Ms. Sherine Seoudi. B.A in Business Administration, Fresno State University
798. Uriel Serrano, UC Irvine 
799. Anindita Adhikari, Postdoctoral fellow, University of Michigan
800. Zahra Baghdari
801. Snigdha Kumar, PhD candidate, University of Minnesota
802. Hassan Abdel Salam, Prof., Sociology
803. Mark Goodman, Sociology, York University
804. Hyunjae Kwon, Graduate Student, University of Minnesota
805. Daniel Curto-Villalobos, University of Minnesota
806. Michael Goldman, Sociology and Global Studies, University of Minnesota
807. Marisol Zarate, PhD Candidate, Stanford University
808. Caity Curry, PhD Candidate, University of Minnesota 
809. Mary Hovsepian,  Duke University  
810. Shuhruh Akhand, undergraduate student at the University of Toronto
811. Dr. Oscar Fabian Soto, postdoctoral fellow, UC Irvine
812. Vanessa Jimenez-Read, PhD student, University of Michigan
813. Frances Hasso, Professor, Duke University
814. Daniel Cueto-Villalobos, PhD Candidate, University of Minnesota
815. Fatma Zehra Hamarat, MA Student, Ibn Haldun University
816. Maghraoui Driss Associate Professor, AlAkhawayn University, Ifrane, Morocco
817. José Anazagasty, PhD
818. GeorgePatrick J. Hutchins, MD/PhD Student, Harvard University 
819. Shania Kuo, PhD Student, University of Minnesota
820. Brieanna Watters, PhD Candidate, UMN
821. Redy Wilson Lima, PhD Candidate, CEsA/CSG/ISEG-ULisboa
822. Labiba Chowdhury, Bachelors student at Toronto Metropolitan University
823. Deborah Brock, Associate Professor, York University
824. Farifta Rahman, University of Toronto 
825. Marta Maria Maldonado 
826. Antonia Randolph, Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill
827. Mary Shi, PhD Candidate, UC Berkeley
828. LaToya Baldwin Clark, Professor, UCLA
829. Brandon Sward, PhD
830. Dr Sherene Idriss, Lecturer in Culture and Society, Western Sydney University
831. Monica J. Sanchez-Flores, Associate Professor, ECS, Thompson Rivers University
832. Oton De Souza, Undergraduate,  UC Berkeley Sociology
833. Dr Ben Green, Research Fellow, Griffith University
834. Madina Tahiri 
835. Brian Sargent, Assistant Professor, University of Massachusetts Amherst 
836. Jacob Ginn, PhD Student, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
837. Hyun Ok Park, Professor of Sociology, York University
838. Tennille Allen, Professor, Lewis University 
839. Maura Toro-Morn, Sociology, Illinois State University 
840. Joss Greene, Assistant Professor of Sociology, UC Davis
841. Rowan Greywolf Moore, M.A.; PhD Student, Arizona State University; Adjunct Faculty, Pima Community College
842. Dr Eve Mayes, Senior Research Fellow, Deakin University
843. Aziz Hlaoua, anthropologue, université Mohamed V de Rabat 
844. Sylvie Tuder, PhD student at UNC Chapel Hill
845. César Ayala, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles
846. Emily Fox, PhD student, University of California Santa Barbara
847. Associate Professor Joanne Bryant, UNSW
848. Alicia Torres, PhD History, FLACSO Sede Ecuador 
849. Yolé Tiangbe, Student, Rollins College
850. Professor michaeline Crichlow Duke University 
851. Erin Wright, PhD Student, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill
852. Dr Adrian Farrugia, La Trobe University
853. Courtney Allen, PhD student, University of Washington 
854. Fatemeh Javaheri, Associate Professor of Sociology ,Kharazmi University of Iran
855. Rose Werth, PhD Candidate in Sociology at Northwestern
856. Nuri Can Akin, PhD Candidate, The New School for Social Research
857. Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah, Future Fellow, Macquarie University 
858. Dr Robbie McVeigh
859. Sarah McGill Brown, MA. PhD student in sociology at UNC Chapel Hill
860. Maria Antonieta Barron, Profesor de Carrera de la Facultad de Economía, UNAM, México 
861. Blu Buchanan, Assistant Professor, UNC Asheville
862. Chinyere Odim, Doctoral Student, Brown University
863. Jeylan Mortimer, Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota
864. Jeffrey Broadbent, Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota
865. Allison McKim, Associate Professor of Sociology, Bard College
866. Kimberly Kay Hoang
867. David Pellow, Professor, UC Santa Barbara 
868. Lara Schiffrin-Sands, PhD Candidate, UC Berkeley
869. Houa Vang, Assistant Professor, CSU Stanislaus
870. Jasmine L. Harris, Associate Professor of African American Studies at the University of Texas at San Antonio 
871. Allahshokrhatamzadeh, Teacher
872. Erika Busse, Associate Professor, Macalester College
873. Salsabil kassem /suriyeliyim /türkiye
874. Rebecca Ewert, Assistant Professor of Instruction, Sociology, Northwestern University
875. Elizabeth Nagib, Student, Students Justice for Palestine
876. Rosa Navarro, PhD Student, Sociology- UC Santa Cruz
877. Prof. Concepicón Martinez-Maske
878. Corinne Tam, Graduate Student, UC Santa Barbara
879. Shania Montúfar, Ph.D. Student, The University of Texas at Austin
880. Timothy Haney, Professor of Sociology, Mount Royal University
881. Gert Van Hecken, associate professor, university of Antwerp
882. Amanda Burroughs, PhD Student, Virginia Tech
883. Karen Crespo Triveño, PhD Student at UCSC 
884. Annasel Dugenia, MSW, J&J
885. Francisco Martínez Gómez Dr en Ciencias Sociales. Centro de Investigaciones Socioeconómicas de la Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila. Saltillo, Coahuila México 
886. Summer Sullivan, PhD Student, University of California, Santa Cruz
887. Sidra Kamran, Assistant Professor, Lewis & Clark College
888. Ahmet ASLAN, PhD, Sociologist
889. Mirian Martínez-Aranda, Assistant Professor at the University of California, Irvine  
890. Alejandra Navarro – independent researcher
891. Andrew Woolford, Professor of Sociology and Criminology, University of Manitoba
892. Blair Sackett, Brown University
893. Amr M Mostafa,  student at Fresno State University 
894. Mohammadali
895. Saoud El Mawla. Professor.retired. Lebanese university, and Doha Institute for Graduate Studies
896. Yang Vincent Liu, PhD Candidate, Michigan State University 
897. Benjamin Klasche, PhD, Tallinn University
898. Nida Ahmad, Independent researcher
899. Dalal Bajes Salem
900. Zahra
901. AJ Likosar, Graduate Student in Sociology, Virginia Tech
902. Elif Akçadaşoğlu 
903. Vajihe Armanmehr, PhD Student in Economic Sociology and Development.  Research Assistant, Social Development & Health Promotion Research Center. Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Iran
904. Rae Willis-Conger, UC Berkeley
905. Mx. Robin Lawson, VT
906. Samantha Agarwal, postdoc, American University 
907. Jess Robinson, PhD Student, Columbia University
908. Alexander Means,  Associate Professor, University of Hawaii
909. Somayeh Tohidlou,   Assistant Professor, Department of Social Studies, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS), Iran
910. Arous Zoubir Professor of Sociology, University of Algiers 2, Algeria
911. Siyabulela Tonono, Coordinator of the Centre for Black Thought and African Studies
912. Nataliya Nedzhvetskaya, PhD Candidate, UC Berkeley
913. Jennifer Whitmer, Associate Professor of Sociology, California State University Stanislaus 
914. Joonatan Nõgisto, Junior Researcher, Tallinn University
915. Smaeil.koohkanzadeh,  resercher, FUM
916. زهراغیاثی هستم دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد جامعه شناس 
917. Dr Indigo Willing. Sociologist. TASA member.
918. Jenny Chan, Associate Professor of Sociology, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
919. José Luis Alcalá Zamora Granadino 
920. Zhour Bouzidi, sociologist, Moulay Ismail University
921. Bryan Viray, PhD candidate at the Australian National University and Short-Term Scholar at the University of Michigan, Ann-Arbor
922. Professor Dr. Munshi Israil Hossain, Department of Sociology, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh
923. Mekia Nedjar, Oran 2 University Algeria
924. Guilherme Chihaya, Associate Professor, Nord University 
925. Sevim polat doktor
926. Alexandra Tomaselli, Senior Researcher, Eurac Research
927. SAFAR ZITOUN Madani, Université Alger 2, 
928.  Jeff zayat,Network Engineer los Angeles CA 
929. Maria Khristine Alvarez, PhD Candidate, University College London
930. Abdullah F. Alrebh, PhD. Grand Valley State University
931. Tukufu Zuberi, Professor University of Pennsylvania
932. Hugo Goeury, PhD Candidate, Sociology
933. Barbara Denuelle PhD Candidate in Social Anthropology at the University of Kent
934. Aaron Winter, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, Lancaster University
935. Noureddine Bahri, PhD student, Sociology, FLSH Meknes, Morocco 
936. Lisa Palmer, Associate Professor De Montfort University 
937. Kim Allen, Associate Professor, University of Leeds, UK
938. Abdelmalek Ouard, Sociologist, Moulay Ismail University, Morocco
939. Dr Ece Kocabıçak, Lecturer in Sociology, The Open University
940. Veronika Stoyanova, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Kent, UK
941. Dr Christopher Shaw, University of Sussex
942. Dr Deirdre Duffy, Senior Lecturer, Lancaster University 
943. Simone Varriale, Lecturer in Sociology, Loughborough University, UK
944. Dr Kirsteen Paton, University of Glasgow 
945. Monica Moreno Figueroa, Professor of Sociology, University of Cambridge
946. Bochra Kammarti, Research fellow École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris
947. Yassine Ferfera, Professeur d’économie retraité, ENSSEA/CREAD Alger
948. Merve Mercan, Phd candidate 
949. Bouchaib MAJDOUL
950. Boussaïd Khadidja, Sociological researcher, CREAD, University of Algiers 2, Algeria
951. Sarah Armstrong, University of Glasgow
952. منير السعيداني Mounir SAIDANI Centre for Economic and Social Studies and Research  CERES Tunisia
953. Catherine Oliver, Lecturer in Sociology, Lancaster University
954. Sobia Kapadia, senior research manager, Middlesex University 
955. Dr Fatima Rajina, Senior Research Fellow, Stephen Lawrence Research Centre, De Montfort University
956. Arous zoubir professor of sociogy university of algeries 2
957. Simina Dragos, PhD Candidate, University of Cambridge
958. Salem elabbassi  Moulay Ismail university
959. Marta Mascarenhas, CES
960. Saide Mobayed, PhD Candidate, University of Cambridge
961. Aziz Hlaoua, anthropologue, université Mohamed V de Rabat 
962. Irina Velicu, Dr. Resercher CES
963. Walaa Ammar, Ghent University 
964. Seyed Mohammad Karbasi, Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering Department 
965. Joana Sousa, Researcher, Centre for Social Studies, Univ Coimbra
966. Kirsty Finn University of Manchester 
967. Burhan Ghalioun, professeur de sociologie et auteur
968. Giovanni Allegretti, PhD, Reseracher at the Centre for Social Studies of Coimbra University, Portugal
969. Arous ZoubirProfessor of Sociology- University of Algiers 2 
970. Dr Rebecca Gordon, Lecturer in Social Sciences University of the West of Scotland
971. Jaouad Agudal, Professor of Sociology, University of Hassan First
972. Ana Louback, PHD candidate, Centro de Estudos Sociais – CES
973. Rose Barboza, Research and professor, Centre for Social Studies, Univ. Coimbra/ Universidade de Brasília (UnB)
974. Michela Giovannini, Researcher Center for Social Studies (Coimbra, PT) and University of Trento (Italy)
975. Rose Barboza, Researcher and professor, Centre for Social Studies, Univ. Coimbra/ Universidade de Brasília (UnB)
976. Conor Wilson, University of the West of Scotland 
977. Rachel Carvalho, PhD candidate, University of Coimbra/Ces
978. Patrícia Ferreira, posdoc researcher, Centre for Social Studies (Coimbra, Portugal)
979. Rachid Jarmouni professor of sociology university Moulay Ismail Meknes Morocco
980. Daniela Jorge, University of Coimbra
981. Rita Silva, PhD student, Centro de Estudos Sociais, Universidade de Coimbra
982. Laura Brito (Phd candidate, CES-UC)
983. Patrícia Branco, CES-UC
984. Francisco Venes, PhD Candidate, Centro de Estudos Sociais
985. Catriona Gray, University of Bath
986. Spoorthi Gangadikar, PhD, Université Paris 8
987. Gwendal Roblin, PHD Student, Poitiers University
988. Diego Antolinos-Basso, research engineer, CEVIPOF / médialab, Sciences Po Paris
989. Hestia Delibas, PhD student, CES
990. Wiame Idrissi Alami, PhD, Grenoble Alps University
991. María Fernanda Rodríguez, PhD Candidate, University of Cambridge
992. Laure Tisseyre, Docteure, Université libre de Bruxelles
993. Hippolyte Regnault, PhD student, Paris-Dauphine University & Aix-Marseille University
994. Julie Castro, MD, PhD, Postdoc at HETS Geneva
995. Paola Di Nunzio, Research Manager, Centre for Social Studies
996. Breanna J. McDaniel, PhD
997. YOUSEF GONSETH Flora P.h.D candidate University Paris VIII
998. Meghna Nag Chowdhuri, Research Fellow, UCL
999. Sérgio Barbosa, PhD candidate, Centre for Social Studies (CES), University of Coimbra / Research Fellow, Institute for Advanced Studies on Science, Technology and Society (IAS-STS), TU Graz
1000. Iman EL FEKI, PhD candidate, Université de Strasbourg, France
1001. Ahmed Mousa badawi, Freelance Sociological Researcher, Egypt 
1002. Dr Kate Herrity, Kings College
1003. Siwar Harrabi – Researcher in Sociology /Criminology
1004. Alec Cali, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Amsterdam 
1005. Carlotta Benvegnù, Associate professor, Université d’Evry – Paris Saclay
1006. Dr Saskia Papadakis, Royal Holloway, University of London
1007. Scott T. Grether, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Longwood University
1008. Ceren Şengül
1009. Sirine Al hachimi, PhD, University Abdelmalek Essaâdi
1010. Kostani ben Mohamed 
1011. BACHI Jasmine, étudiante à l’Ecole Normale Supérieur de Lyon
1012. Cami Touloukian, Doctoral Candidate, Teachers College, Columbia University
1013. Saadeddine IGAMANE, professor researcher, Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdellah University, Morocco 
1014. Marie Trossat, PhD candidate, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne
1015. Zouhair JEBBAR, SOCIOLOGY-PHD CANDIDATE, IBN TOFAIL UNIVERSITY, MOROCCO
1016. Boutaleb kouider, professor of economy, University of Tlemcen (Algeria )
1017. Faika Tahir Jan, Ph.D Candidate, Virginia Tech. 
1018. Ozlem Goner, Associate Professor, City University of New York
1019. Caterina Peroni Research associate CNR Italy 
1020. Ahmed Jemaa, MA, University of Tunis (Central European University alumni)
1021. Xu Liu, PhD Candidate, Goldsmiths, University of London 
1022. Marianne Quirouette, assistant professor, Université de Montréal 
1023. Aerin Lai, PhD researcher, University of Edinburgh
1024. Matteo Bortolini, Università of Padova, Italy
1025. Mouhssine AITBA 
1026. Ronja Walther, MSc, Trinity College Dublin
1027. Faika Tahir Jan, Ph.D Candidate, Virginia Tech
1028. Gaetano Marco Latronico, PhD Student, Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra
1029. IULIUS-CEZAR MACARIE, PhD | University College Cork 
1030. Xuan Thuy Nguyen, Associate Professor, Carleton University 
1031. Aidan O’Sullivan, Lecturer in Criminology,  Birmingham City University 
1032. Joana Monbaron, PhD candidate, Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra
1033. Aneira J. Edmunds
1034. Dr Vinod Sartape, Assistant Professor of Sociology, MIT World Peace University, Pune
1035. Kirsty Morrin, UoL
1036. Mohamed Saib Musette – Sociologist, Algeria
1037. Sara Araújo, researcher, Centre for Social Studies – University of Coimbra 
1038. Djamila Belhouari Musette, Sociologist- Algeria
1039. Ignasi Bernat Molina, postdoctoral scholar, University of Barcelona
1040. Dr Emily Luise Hart, Leeds Beckett University 
1041. Somia Bibi Independent Researcher 
1042. Patrick Heller, Professor of Sociology, Brown University
1043. Fatema Abdulhusein, student
1044. Samiha Salhi, Professor of sociology, Moulay Ismail University, Morocco.
1045. Stefano Barone, Lecturer, University of Central Lancashire
1046. Jeff Stilley, Instructor, Virginia Tech
1047. Dr Martin Myers, University of Nottingham 
1048. Wardah Alkatiri, Ph.D. , Universitas Nahdlatul Ulama Surabaya (UNUSA), Indonesia.
1049. Damiano De Facci, Temporary lecturer and research assistant, Paris-Dauphine University
1050. Masoud Zamani-moghadam, PhD in Sociology, Iran
1051. Samira Jarrar, PhD student, Aix-Marseille University
1052. Professor Kalwant Bhopal 
1053. Carolina Triana-Cuéllar, Doctoral researcher, University of Sussex
1054. abdullah rezai
1055. Christina Hughes, Assistant Professor, Macalester College
1056. Julia Legrand, researcher at centre de recherche sociologique et politique de Paris
1057. Elorri Harriet, Phd student, Geneva University
1058. Adrián Groglopo, PhD in sociology and senior lecturer, University of Gothenburg 
1059. Mahvish Ahmad, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, London School of Economics
1060. Marc Mason, Senior Lecturer, University of Westminster 
1061. Sophia Woodman, senior lecturer, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh
1062. Aurora Escudero, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
1063. Ana Teixeira de Melo, Researcher, Psychologist, Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra, Portugal
1064. Sambhavi Ganesh, PhD candidate (South Asian Studies), University of Edinburgh 
1065. hazal tural, University of Edinburgh
1066. Professor Manali Desai, Sociology, Cambridge
1067. Marta Kowalewska, PhD Student, University of Edinburgh
1068. Yentl de Lange, PhD candidate, University of Amsterdam
1069. Ruba Al-Hassani, Lancaster University 
1070. Hanaa Mustafa
1071. Whitney Hayes, Virginia Tech
1072. Victoria Redclift, Associate Professor of Political Sociology, UCL
1073. Matea Senkic, PhD researcher, University of Edinburgh
1074. Rima EL HERFI, architect
1075. Karen Gregory, Senior Lecturer, Sociology, University of Edinburgh
1076. Robert D. Weide, California State University, Los Angeles 
1077. Michael Twomey, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Univ. Michigan, Dearborn
1078. Adel Bousnina, Professor, University of Tunis
1079. Dmytro Kozak, CEU PhD candidate
1080. Kubra kocabas
1081. Anna Fox, PhD Student, University of Chicago
1082. Sam Mousa
1083. Inês Nascimento Rodrigues, Researcher, CES
1084. Seyma Yetkin , PhD student at CEU 
1085. Zerrin Bulut , Adjunct, DePaul University 
1086. liam weikart / VA Tech sociology instructor
1087. Dr Faye Wade, University of Edinburgh
1088. Professor Colin Clark, Professor of Sociology and Social Policy, Associate Dean (Research and Innovation), University of the West of Scotland 
1089. Dِr Ahmed Abozaid, University of Southampton 
1090. Sue Renton, University of Edinburgh
1091. Cara Hunter, PhD Candidate, Edinburgh University
1092. Elif Buse Doyuran, PhD student, University of Edinburgh
1093. Anthony Jimenez, Assistant Professor of Sociology, RIT
1094. Youness Loukili
1095. Dr. Lisa Howard, University of Edinburgh
1096. Nour El Houda Bennama, Mrs, Arab (Muslim) 
1097. Hyeyun Jeong, PhD student, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities
1098. David L. Brunsma
1099. Roger Jeffery, Professor, University of Edinburgh
1100. Suvi Keskinen, Professor in Ethnic Relations, University of Helsinki (Finland)
1101. Nour El Houda, Mrs, School of Education, University of Leeds
1102. Hana Mustafa, University of Leeds
1103. Sidi Moussa Khaled, Mr, School of Art, University of Leicester 
1104. Kaitlin Shartle, Associate in Research, Duke University
1105. Hayat Kallas
1106. Claudia Howald, PhD Student, CES-UC Portugal
1107. Llibert Mendez de Vigo Arnau, PhD Candidate in Sociology, University of Edinburgh 
1108. Ulrika Mårtensson, Professor, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology
1109. Nathan Pécout–Le Bras, PhD student in Anthropology, University of Ottawa
1110. Risa Murase, PhD student, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
1111. Michalis Lianos, Professor of Sociology, University of Rouen
1112. Dr Merve Sancak- Loughborough University
1113. Nematollah Nemati . Associate professor Islamic Azad University Damghan branch
1114. Muhammad Ahsan Qureshi, Researcher, Tampere University, Finland
1115. Elena Shih, Assistant Professor of American Studies, Brown University
1116. Atiya Husain, Assistant Professor, Carleton University
1117. Sofia Laine, PhD, Research Professor
1118. Alaa A, PhD Student, York University
1119. Caro Carter, Erasmus University Rotterdam
1120. Theresa O’Keefe, Senior Lecturer, University College Cork, Ireland. 
1121. Erykah Benson, Graduate Student, University of Michigan
1122. Melodi Var Ongel, PhD student, Syracuse University
1123. Tayler Nelson, PhD candidate, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
1124. Janae Renten
1125. Stellan Vinthagen, Endowed professor, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
1126. Dr D J Crewe. Leeds Beckett University
1127. Dr Eleni Dimou, Lecturer in Criminology, Open University UK
1128. Lacey Kostishack 
1129. Alexandra Arraiz Matute, Carleton University
1130. Nick Thoburn, Professor of Sociology, University of Manchester
1131. Priyanka K, PhD candidate, Sociology, Cambridge
1132. Fionnghuala Nic Roibeaird, PhD Candidate, Queen’s University Belfast
1133. Elías García Rosas. Doctor en Derecho y psicólogo. universidad Autónoma del Estado de México.
1134. Anaïs Duong-Pedica, PhD candidate, Åbo Akademi University
1135. Forrest Lovette, PhD Student, University of Minnesota
1136. Pyar Seth, Doctoral Candidate, Johns Hopkins University 
1137. Simone Schneider, PhD candidate, Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge
1138. Daniel Colligan, Ph.D Candidate, CUNY Graduate Center
1139. Srila Roy, Professor of Sociology, Wits University, South Africa 
1140. John C. Antush, Student, CUNY Graduate Center, Dept. of Sociology
1141. Remi Joseph-Salisbury, Reader, University of Manchester 
1142. Jasmien Meeson, Undergraduate, Toronto Metropolitan University 
1143. Peter McMylor, Department of Sociology, University of Manchester
1144. Alishya Dhir, Researcher, Durham University 
1145. Mohsen Saboorian, Assistant Professor, University if Tehran
1146. Egla Martinez, Social Justice and Human Rights, IIS, Carleton University, Canada
1147. Cathy Hu, PhD student, UC Berkeley
1148. Nicole Muffitt, PhD Student, University of Illinois Chicago
1149. Connor Strobel, Harper-Schmidt Fellow and Collegiate Assistant Professor, University of Chicago
1150. Simranjit Steel, Assistant Professor, University of Memphis
1151. Marite Fregoso. City Colleges of Chicago-HWC
1152. Dr Mark Bahnisch, University of New South Wales 
1153. Ellen Frank Delgado- PhD Student, University of Edinburgh
1154. Sebastien Roux, Research Director in Sociology, CNRS (France)
1155. Heidi Nicholls, Postdoctoral Fellow, Johns Hopkins University
1156. Rachel Bergman, PhD student, University of Minnesota Department of Sociology
1157. Dr. David Scott, The Open University 
1158. parviz Ejlali retired associate professor IMPS Tehran
1159. Katie Rainwater, Visiting Assistant Teaching Professor, Florida International University 
1160. Françoise Bartiaux, Em. Prof., Université catholique de Louvain (Belgium)
1161. Chiara Bertone, Associate Professore, University of Eastern Piedmont (Italy)
1162. Khalid Lahsika, sociologue université Mohamed V de Rabat 
1163. Richard Tardanico, Florida International University 
1164. Dr Alke Jenss 
1165. Farhan Qazi
1166. Dr. Derek Morris, University of Edinburgh 
1167. Karim Mitha, University of Glasgow
1168. Conrad Jacober, PhD Candidate in Sociology, Johns Hopkins 
1169. Aseel Ibrahim, MA student, York University 
1170. Jenn Sims, Associate Professor, University of Alabama in Huntsville 
1171. Edmund Coleman-Fountain, Lecturer in Sociology, University of York 
1172. James Cummings, Lecturer in Sociology, University of York
1173. Selene Diaz, visiting assistant professor
1174. Sean Chabot, Professor of Sociology, Eastern Washington University
1175. Roxana Pessoa Cavalcanti, Dr, University of Brighton
1176. Simin Fadaee, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, University of Manchester 
1177. Can Owen, UX Researcher, UC Irvine PhD 
1178. amin allal Researcher CNRS Lille France 
1179. Nacira GUENIF, Professor, University Paris 8
1180. Justen Hamilton, Ph.D., University of California, Riverside
1181. Iman Afify, Research Assistant, American University in Cairo
1182. Jeremy F. Walton, University of Rijeka
1183. Baker Khuder Jasem 
1184. Lisa S. Park, Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
1185. Sulafa Nofal,  University of Brasilia (UNB)
1186. Calvin John Smiley, PhD, Associate Professor, Sociology, Hunter College-CUNY
1187. Agnese Battista, Master Student, Crisis and Security Management
1188. Amelia Wallace, PhD student, UNC-Chapel Hill
1189. Grayson Bodenheimer, Graduate Student, Indiana University
1190. Sinda Garziz, Master student at the school of social innovation – Ottawa 
1191. Dr Kristina Saunders, University of Glasgow 
1192. Julian Mezarina, sociólogo, independiente
1193. Kawtar Lebdaoui, Professor of sociology, Morocco
1194. Glenda Babe, Western University 
1195. Mia Smith, PhD student, UNC
1196. Pavithra Sarma, SGSSS ESRC-funded PhD student (Education and rooted in trans-disciplinary work), Moray House School of Education and Sport, University of Edinburgh
1197. AbdullMajeed salah dawood, university of anbar 
1198. Dr James Beirne, Maynooth University, Ireland
1199. Niamh Moore, Senior Lecturer, Sociology, University of Edinburgh
1200. Abi O’Connor, PhD candidate, University of Liverpool
1201. Marta Araújo, Senior Researcher, Centre for Social Studies – University of Coimbra
1202. Sajjad Moghayyad, Sociology MA student, University of Tarbiat modares, Tehran
1203. Sagynzhan Abduakhap, BSc Public Administration, Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences
1204. Alice Corble, Leverhulme EC Research Fellow, University of Sussex
1205. Ryan Moore, Lecturer Faculty, San Francisco State University
1206. Alireza Ghadimi
1207. Tania Tosta, Sociology professor, Federal University of Goias
1208. Eyyup YILMAZ – Loyola University Chicago
1209. Begum Zareefa Islam, PhD student, Virginia Tech
1210. Stefanie Doebler, lecturer, Lancaster University
1211. Associate Professor Caroline Lenette, University of New South Wales 
1212. Alexia Palomino-Cortez, PhD Student, University of Illinois at Chicago
1213. Alf Nilsen, Director, Centre for Asian Studies in Africa, University of Pretoria 
1214. Kerry Woodward, Professor, California State University, Long Beach
1215. Su-ming Khoo, Associate Professor and Head of Sociology, University of Galway, Ireland
1216. Maryam AlHajri, University of Edinburgh
1217. Siri Neerchal, PhD Student, Harvard University
1218. Baptiste Brossard, University of York
1219. Katy Sian, Dr, University of York 
1220. Dr Julius Elster, Senior Lecturer in Sociology and Youth, London Metropolitan University
1221. Ankit, PhD Candidate, Sociology dept, UC Santa Cruz
1222. Robin Gabriel, Ph.D. Candidate, University of California Santa Cruz 
1223. Ja Bulsombut, Ph.D. Student, University of California, Santa Cruz
1224. Tim Gill
1225. Allen Magaña, PhD student, Sociology Department, UC Santa Cruz
1226. Erin Arikan
1227. Emma Grove, University of Edinburgh
1228. Hafedh Abderrahim ISAM, université de Gabes
1229. Dr Viji Kuppan, Centre For Hate Studies, University of Leicester
1230. Claudia M. Prado-Meza, PhD. Assistant professor, University of Colima, Mexico
1231. Zahra Bei, PhD Candidate, University College London/IoE 
1232. Hossein Mirzaei,Associate Professor of Sociology,University of Tehran,Iran.
1233. Dr Debra Ferreday, Lancaster University, UK
1234. Tyler McDaniel, PhD Candidate, Stanford University
1235. Mohammad Ali Dadgostarnia, PhD student of Political Sociology, Allameh Tabataba’i university
1236. Sofia Butnaru, PhD Student, University of Chicago
1237. Nikoleta Sremac, PhD Candidate, University of Minnesota Sociology
1238. Fatima Sajjad, associate Professor , UMT Lahore
1239. Jennifer J. Casolo, Pluriversidad Maya Ch’orti’
1240. James Karabin, PhD Student, University of California Santa Cruz
1241. Shaira Vadasaria, Assistant Professor, University of Edinburgh
1242. Veronica Lerma, Assistant Professor, UC Davis
1243. Mai Awad, PhD student in Sociology at University of California Santa Cruz 
1244. Mohamed Jahah. Sociologue 
1245. Michelle Gomez Parra, PhD Candidate, The University of California, Santa Cruz
1246. Hannah Pullen-Blasnik, PhD Candidate, Columbia University
1247. Jonas Van Vossole, Post-doc, Center for Social Studies, Coimbra University
1248. Charles Post, Professor, City University of New York
1249. Katy H, Columbia University
1250. Marie-Claude Haince, Visiting Researcher, Université de Montréal 
1251. Jessie Miller, University of Illinois Chicago
1252. Jayati Lal, College of Holy Cross
1253. Peggy Watson,  University of Cambridge
1254. Cierra Raine Sorin, Doctoral Candidate in Sociology at UC Santa Barbara 
1255. Mahdi.hasanzadeh
1256. Eva Jewell, Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Toronto Metropolitan University
1257. Giulia Selmi, assistant professor, university of Parma (IT)
1258. Catherine Stinton, PhD Student, University of York
1259. Idir SMAIL, docteur en sociologie, université de bejaia
1260. Professor Jo Littler, Goldsmiths 
1261. Luisa Farah Schwartzman , University of Toronto 
1262. Steven Roberts, Professor of Education and Social Justice, Monash University 
1263. Tawfik Sultan, Center for Educational Research and Development – Yemen
1264. Aïsha Lehmann, PhD Student, University of Illinois Chicago
1265. Amanda Lu, Postdoctoral Scholar, Stanford University
1266. Dr Cath Lambert, University of Warwick
1267. Coco, graduate student, UCSB
1268. Juan Duchesne Winter, Emeritus Professor, University of Pittsburgh
1269. Carrie Hamilton, PhD Student, University of California Santa Cruz
1270. Ahmet Zahit Ekren, Graduate Student, Sabancı University-Cultural Studies
1271. SABAHETA, Assoc. Professor, Luke FINLAND 
1272. Daniela Cherubini, assistant professor, university of Parma, italy
1273. Aziz Iraki professeur à l institut national d aménagement et d urbanisme de Rabat, Maroc 
1274. Savannah Salato, PhD Student, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
1275. Radhika Mongia, Associate Professor, Sociology, York University
1276. Kelly Jones, PhD Student, UC San Diego
1277. Dr. R. Hoyng, Lancaster University
1278. Hanna Goldberg, Graduate Assistant, CUNY Graduate Center
1279. Amin bozorgiyan, Phd candidate at department of anthropology in university of Nice (Côte d’azur) France
1280. Daanika Gordon, Assistant Professor, Tufts University
1281. Rose Porter, Doctoral Student and Adjunct Instructor, Sociology 
1282. Joseph Kaplan, PhD Student, UCLA
1283. Naina Bawri, PhD candidate, University of Sussex 
1284. Naomi Smith, Lecturer, Sociology, University of the Sunshine Coast
1285. Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities (affiliation for identification only)
1286. Iam Chong Ip, Associate Professor, Institute of Social Research and Cultural Studies, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University
1287. Steph O. Landeros–Ph.D. student at University of Nevada, Las Vegas
1288. Jean Halley, Professor of Sociology, College of Staten Island and Graduate Center of the City University of New York
1289. Christopher Santiago, Doctoral Lecturer of Sociocultural Anthropology, College of Staten Island (CUNY)
1290. Ryan DeCarsky, PhD Student, University of Washington
1291. Claire Sieffert, PhD Candidate, New York University
1292. Jacob Conley, Grad Student, UNC-CH
1293. Katharina Klaunig, PhD Student, University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill
1294. Meredith Riley, Grad Student UNC-CH
1295. Jorge Mancilla, Graduate Student, UNC Chapel-Hill
1296. Anna Gardner, Graduate Student, UNC Chapel Hill
1297. Yunlin Li, Graduate Student, UNC-Chapel Hill
1298. Raphael Porteilla, Profess, University of Bourgogne, France
1299. Claudia Prestel, Professor, University of Leicester and Monash University
1300. Imad, Teaching Assistant, UNC
1301. Roland Prefferkorn, Professor Emeritus, Université de Strasbourg
1302. H. Jacob Carlson, Assistant Professor, Kean University
1303. Dr Shah, University of London
1304. Priyanjali Mitra, PhD student, UChicago 
1305. Katie Beekman, PhD student, Vanderbilt University
1306. Nantina Vgontzas, Assistant Professor of Labor Studies, City University of New York
1307. Jarvis Benson, PhD Student, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
1308. Alexandra Ro, PhD Student, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
1309. Zakia Salime Rutgers
1310. Annisa P. Rochadiat, Assistant Professor of Communication, California State University Stanislaus
1311. Shre Kapoor 
1312. Derek Sayer, Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta
1313. Meeta Rani Jha, Lecturer, UC, Berkeley 
1314. Michael Quiboloy, UC Berkeley
1315. Johanna Quinn, Assistant Professor, Fordham University
1316. Jessica Lopez Espino, Assistant Professor, University of California, Santa Barbara
1317. Mehmet Soyer, Assistant Professor, Utah State University  
1318. Robert D. Weide, Associate Professor, Cal State LA
1319. Dr. Sajjad Ali 
1320. Nicholas Vargas
1321. Joshua Kalemba, Dr Western Sydney University 
1322. Dr Andrew Whelan, University of Wollongong
1323. Dr. Fabricio Rodríguez, ABI Freiburg 
1324. Abdullah Çiftçi, Akdeniz University, Turkey
1325. George Kalivis, PhD Candidate in Visual Sociology, Goldsmiths, University of London
1326. Vina Adriany, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
1327. Atty. Emmanuel S. Caliwan, Sociology Graduate student, University of the Philippines Los Baños 
1328. Dr. Alfian Helmi, IPB University Indonesia
1329. Sara Goldrick-Rab 
1330. Jason Contino, PhD Student, UCLA
1331. Mohammad Hossein Bahrani PhD . 
1332. Asyanadiva Fazrary, Sociology, University of Edinburgh
1333. Yusuf Şahin
1334. Dr. Şeyma Ayyıldız, Manisa Celal Bayar University
1335. Sara Bragg, Associate Professor sociology of education, IoE, University College London
1336. Mohammed Ababou, Laboratoire de Sociologie et Psychologie. USMBA, FÈS
1337. Raviteja Rambarki, PhD Student, University of Hyderabad 
1338. Joowon Yuk, Associate Professor of Sociology, Kyungpook National University
1339. Inseo Son, National Research Foundation of Korea Academic Research Professor, Korea University
1340. Roh, Joongkee  professor  Hanshin University
1341. Gabriella Paolucci Associate professor of Sociology University of Florence, Italy
1342. Kim-taeyoung, Master, Kyungpook National University
1343. Dr. Gunmin Yi, Research Fellow, Institute for Political & Economic Alternatives
1344. Qonita, M.Pd, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
1345. Chin Yong Chong, Ph.D candidate, Gyeongsang National University Dept. of Political Economy, South Korea
1346. Fatemeh Sajjdi
1347. Dr Marcus Maloney, Coventry University
1348. Melissa Nolas, Reader – Goldsmiths, University of London
1349. HEO KYEUNGJIN
1350. May Geelani
1351. Dr Aileen O’Carroll
1352. Teresa Cunha Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra
1353. Rosalba Altopiedi ricercatrice
1354. Umut Erel, Open University
1355. Muh. Khaerul Watoni A., M. Pd
1356. Mufti Fauzi
1357. Inhwa Kang, BK Assistant Professor, Seoul National University
1358. Dr Eva Cabrejas/ Spanish and Latin American Studies/ Zapatista indigenous women/
1359. sina aminizadeh, Assistant Processor of  Social Sciences, Shahid Bahonar University, Kerman. iran
1360. Merve Reyhan Baygeldi 
1361. Brenda Mondragon (University College Cork)
1362. Dana L Givan Early Years Practitioner CEC
1363. Asma alipor
1364. نرجس فرحبخش 
1365. Sonia Dayan-Herzbrun, Professor emerita Paris
1366. Reza Mansour Khanaki, Master of Sociology, Islamic Azad University, Iran
1367. Reza alipour, phd student, the university of Ferdowsi, Iran
1368. B Camminga
1369. Dr Lucy Bryant, Open University
1370. Thuraya AL-NASERI, Master student. Ibn Haldun University.
1371. Young Hee Lee, Professor, The Catholic University of Korea
1372. Mr. Damianos Tzoupis, PhD student at the University of Edinburgh
1373. Weeam Hammoudeh, Assistant Professor, Birzeit University
1374. Dr Stephanie Ejegi-Memeh, University of Sheffield
1375. Dr Leah Gilman, University of Sheffield
1376. Dr Matthew Hanchard, signed in a personal capacity and not representative of any stance taken by my employing institution.
1377. Dr Laura Connelly, Lecturer, University of Sheffield
1378. Forouhar Farzaneh, Professor, Sharif University of Technology
1379. Ebru YILMAZ
1380. Diana Prasatya 
1381. Osama Seyhali, PhD student at sociology department, Ibn Haldun University 
1382. Astrid Brodén, Alumni of University of Cambridge
1383. Heba Attallah, master student in sociology department, Ibn Haldun University 
1384. Schmitt Lalia, PhD student, EPHE-PSL, France
1385. Catrinel Toncu, MA student in Sociology and Social Anthropology at Central European University
1386. Hye Min Oh, Lecturer at Korea National University of Arts
1387. Luciane Lucas dos Santos, researcher, Centre for Social Studies
1388. Katalin Halasz, Brunel University London
1389. Faida Nur Rachmawati, Student at Gadjah Mada University
1390. Hwansuk Kim, Professor, Kookmin University, South Korea
1391. Ouasmani Fatima ,professor-researcher
1392. Lesley Hustinx, Associate Professor Sociology, Ghent University
1393. Hwanhee Kim, Dr, Inmuyeon
1394. Jennifer Bouek, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Delaware
1395. Francesca Romana Ammaturo, Senior Lecturer, London Metropolitan University
1396. Ben Spies-Butcher, Macquarie University 
1397. Ginevra Floridi, Lecturer in Sociology and Quantitative Methods, University of Edinburgh
1398. Laura Sochas, University of Edinburgh
1399. Jessica Gagnon, University of Manchester 
1400. Mark Doidge, Loughborough University 
1401. Il-hwan Kim
1402. Seo Dongjin, Professor, Kaywon University of Art and Design
1403. Aziz Hlaoua, anthropologist, Mohamed V university of Rabat Morocco 
1404. Gemma Gibson, Teaching Associate, University of Sheffield
1405. Dr Catherine Hartung
1406. Annalisa Frisina (University of Padova)
1407. Chansook Hong, Dr., SNU
1408. Narzanin Massoumi, Senior Lecturer, University of Exeter
1409. Miray Philips, Assistant Professor, University of Toronto
1410. Aline Courtois, Senior Lecturer, University of Bath
1411. HyangKoo Shon, Professor, Dongguk University
1412. Kwang-Yeong Shin, Fellow, Chung-Yeong University
1413. Dr Claire Dorrity, University College Cork
1414. Tara Dourian, PhD candidate in sociology, France/Canada
1415. Jarron Bowman, Postdoctoral Fellow, Kalamazoo College
1416. Barbara Santibanez, PhD, University of Bordeaux
1417. Dr Rachele Salvatelli, Research Fellow, Northumbria University 
1418. Fatemeh yazdani
1419. Mahdi tavazoni 
1420. Professor Maggie O’Neill, University College Cork 
1421. Hanane Essaydi, African Studies, Marrakesh university 
1422. Mahla Takallou 
1423. Seyede kowsar hashemizadeh
1424. Yao Xu, PhD Student, Stanford Sociology
1425. Dan Kitson, PhD student, Brown University 
1426. Esther Moraes
1427. Caoimhe McDonald 
1428. A. Jaidery
1429. Pooya jamali, sociology student in atu
1430. Abdessabour lagramate. Professor of Sociology. University ibn tofail.
1431. Matin sharifi culture and communication studies researcher, allameh tabatabaei univ.
1432. Ali Askari
1433. Hyukkyoo, CHOI
1434. Madeleine Straubel, PhD Candidate, UNC Chapel Hill
1435. Hocine LABDELAOUI/Université Alger 2
1436. Karis Campion, City, University of London
1437. Lars Hulgaard, Professor PhD
1438. Chun Wonkeun, Assistant Professor, Jeju University
1439. Vincenza Pellegrino, University of Parma, Italy
1440. Ana Margarida Esteves,  Integrated Researcher, ISCTE-Lisbon University Institute 
1441. Jasper Cattell, PhD Student, Brown University
1442. Professor Yasmin Gunaratnam, Kings College (London)
1443. Jenny Thatcher 
1444. Braxton Brewington, Phd Student, UNC-CH
1445. Andrew Keefe, JD/PhD Student, Harvard University
1446. Jesse Wozniak, Associate Professor, West Virginia University
1447. Jasmine Gani, University of St Andrews
1448. Asriani Noer Afifah PCA
1449. Gwendolyn Zugarek, Lecturer, Appalachian State University
1450. Sohoon Yi, Assistant Professor, College of International Studies, Korea University 
1451. Alf Nilsen, Director, Centre for Asian Studies in Africa, University of Pretoria
1452. Rogier van Reekum, Erasmus University 
1453. Ayşe Çandır sociologist, Phd Candidate Kadir Has University 
1454. Johnnie Lotesta, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Appalachian State University
1455. Samira kooshki 
1456. Felicia Arriaga, Assistant professor, Baruch College
1457. Annavittoria Sarli, Dr, University of Parma
1458. Eli Melby, PhD candidate, University of Bergen
1459. فاطمه شیخ زاده 
1460. Muhammad Fahmi Nurcahyo, S.Sosio / Student at Magister Media and Cultural Studies Gadjah Mada University
1461. Muhammad Zahid Lecturer in Sociology at Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan Pakistan 
1462. Karen Hammond, Lecturer in Criminal justice and criminology, University of the West of Scotland 
1463. Zaid, Asstt Prof, Sociology AWKUM
1464. Evan Cui, PhD Student, UCLA 
1465. Scarlet Harris, University of Cambridge 
1466. Mohammad reza ghaemi nik. Associate professor of sociology of razavi university in mashhad iran
1467. Asif Mushtaq, PhD Candidate, IIT Bombay 
1468. Tom Boland, University College Cork
1469. Jai, PhD scholar at IIT-Bombay
1470. Tia Dafnos, Associate Professor, University of New Brunswick
1471. Daryl Martin, University of York
1472. Ebru Yılmaz, PhD Student at Ankara Social Sciences University, Women and family studies 
1473. Simab Khan
1474. Shaikh maseera Abu sufiyan 
1475. Olivia Jin, PhD Student, Stanford University
1476. Kasey Henricks
1477. Sarah Ellis, Senior Lecturer
1478. Anindya Kundu, professor, FIU
1479. Dr Kavita Maya, Research Fellow, Gender Institute, Royal Holloway University of London
1480. Swan Ye Htut, PhD Student, Stanford University
1481. Sarah Philipson Isaac, PhD student, Dept. of sociology, Gothenburg university
1482. ShakournematiSociology doctoral student
1483. Senior Professor Diana Mulinari.  Lunds University. Sweden 
1484. Pedro Hespanha, PhD in Sociology, Centro de Estudos Sociais Universidsde de Coimbra
1485. Benlarbi Driss professeur de sociologie université Moulay Ismail Meknes Maroc 
1486. Suchisree Chatterjee, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay 
1487. Andrew J. Shapiro, PhD Candidate, CUNY Graduate Center
1488. Hannes Lagerlöf, PhD in Sociology, University of Gothenburg
1489. Md Saquib Firdosi 
1490. Büşra Işık, Msc Student, Yildiz Technical University
1491. Nargis khan
1492. Julia Suárez-Krabbe, Associate Professor, Roskilde University 
1493. Mauricio Rogat, PhD, REMESO
1494. Dr N Kennedy
1495. Shaikh Mobasshir 
1496. Khan Ayesha Mobasshir 
1497. Katy Fox, PhD – Mycelium Design
1498. Iznallah, Student, IIT Bombay
1499. Davood Taleghani, Phd candidate of Social Knowledge of Muslims, University of Tehran
1500. Mohammad soltanieh
1501. Michael Marten, University of Aberdeen
1502. Emina Zoletic, PhD student, University of Warsaw, Fulbright fellow Syracuse University
1503. Steven W. Thrasher, PhD, CPT, former board member of CONTEXTS
1504. Emily Ernst, Sociology PhD Student at University of California, Merced
1505. Christian Maddox, PhD Student, Washington University in St. Louis
1506. Dana Kornberg, Assistant Professor, UC-Santa Barbara
1507. Armin Sauermann, PhD Student, Washington University in St. Louis
1508. Rene Iwo, PhD Student, UNC Chapel Hill
1509. Iteoluwakiishi (Rebecca) Arigbabu, Ph.D. Student, Washington University in St. Louis
1510. Abhiti Gupta
1511. Lynne Turner, PhD Candidate, The Graduate Center, CUNY
1512. Dr Ashli Mullen, University of Glasgow 
1513. Alejandra Ledesma, UC Berkley former student
1514. Siddartha Aradhya, PhD, Stockholm University 
1515. Dr. Darcy Tetreault, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas
1516. Alejandro Abisambra, Northwestern University
1517. Dr Kathryn Daley, RMIT University
1518. Carl Cassegard, Professor, University of Gothenburg
1519. Julia Willén, assistant lecturer, REMESO, Linköping university
1520. Joseph van der Naald, PhD Candidate, CUNY Graduate Center 
1521. Karin Skill, Assistant professor, Linköping university, Sweden
1522. Anders Neergaard, Professor, Linköping University 
1523. Lisa Karlsson Blom, PhD candidate, Linköping university 
1524. Mythili Rajiva, Associate Professor, University of Ottawa
1525. Susmit, Grad Student, IIT Bombay 
1526. Amir NodehFarahani, Sociologist, Allame tabatabai University 
1527. Joti Sekhon, retired
1528. Mahsa Saadati, university student, French language and literature 
1529. Victoria Brockett, Graduate Student, University of Illinois at Chicago
1530. Sam Neylon, PhD Student, CUNY Graduate Center
1531. Han Koehle, MSW, Washington University in St. Louis
1532. Tom Haseloff, PhD Candidate, UC Berkeley
1533. Brian Connor, Senior Lecturer of sociology, University of Maryland 
1534. Esmaeil Khalili; Freelance researcher in Sociology of Knowledge; Former researcher in ISCS; Member of Iranian Sociological Association
1535. Patrik Zapata, professor in Public administration, University of Gothenburg 
1536. Susanna Lundberg, senior lecturer of sociology/social work/labour science, Malmö University Sweden
1537. Greg Wolfman, independent researcher
1538. Lydia Dana, PhD Student in Sociology, University of Illinois Chicago
1539. Saadia Toor, City University of New York
1540. Priyanka Das, IIT Bombay
1541. Nid. S – Student – UofT
1542. Efşan Çelikçi 
1543. Fatemeh Motalleb 
1544. Sam Maron, Lecturer of Sociology, Emmanuel College
1545. Serena Coppolino Perfumi, PhD student, Stockholm University 
1546. Asha Larson-Baldwin, PhD student at Washington University in St. Louis
1547. Marilia Verissimo Veronese
1548. Anthony Palafox, PhD Student, UC Berkeley
1549. Blythe George, Assistant Professor, UC Merced
1550. KIM Myeongsoo, Chonnam National University, Republic of Korea
1551. Roderick A. Ferguson, William Robertson Coe Professor of WGSS and American Studies
1552. Kallan Larsen, Graduate Student, UNC-Chapel Hill
1553. Baranmogharabian 
1554. Jose B. Castiblanco, PhD Student, The New School for Social Research
1555. Yoke Sum Wong, Associate Professor, Alberta University of the Arts
1556. Dr Nisha Biswas, Scientist, CSIR
1557. Ellen Berrey, Associate Professor, University of Toronto
1558. Sanjana, student, Ashoka University
1559. Mohd Shaban Khan
1560. Swatija Manorama FAOW member activists
1561. Dr. Mehmet Baris Kuymulu, Assistant Prof., Middle East Technical University, Dept. of Sociology 
1562. Anuradha Kapoor, Feminist Activist
1563. Mohammad Hossein Saei, Assistant Professor, in Journalism and news Department of Communication and Media, Faculty of Islamic Republic of Iran Radio and Television Broadcasting University (IRIBU) – Tehran, Iran
1564. Fauziah Rahmat 
1565. Mohammadsadegh Karbalaeizadeh, Phd candidate of Sociology, University of Tehran
1566. Abdus Salam Sociologist
1567. Rajni Palriwala, Professor (retd.) University of Delhi
1568. Papori Bora, Assistant Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University 
1569. Nandini Sundar, University of Delhi 
1570. Ambika Tandon, University of Cambridge
1571. Maitrayee Chaudhuri . Retired Professor. Jawaharlal Nehru University. New Delhi
1572. Sujata Patel
1573. Said Moidfar Tehran University
1574. Amrita, University of Cape  Town 
1575. Satish Deshpande, Professor (Retired), University of Delhi
1576. Waldo Campos Undergraduate Student at UC Berkeley 
1577. Ferdose Idris PhD Candidate Princeton University 
1578. Suranjan Sinha, independent researcher, formerly University of Delhi, Sociology faculty.
1579. Ruchi Chaturvedi Associate Professor, University of Cape Town
1580. Asanda Benya, University of Cape Town 
1581. Fatemeh mohammad beigi, Economics student of Allameh Tabatabai University of Iran
1582. Giselle EL RAHEB, Chargée d’enseignement pédagogie & andragogie, collectif SOS Palestine La Rochelle
1583. Alexandra D’Urso, PhD, independent scholar
1584. Francesca Esposito, Border Criminologies
1585. SJ Cooper-Knock, University of Sheffield
1586. AbdelMadjid Ben Habib, Associate professor in the department of psychology in the faculty of human and social sciences in university of Tlemcen in Algeria
1587. Rushikesh, PhD student in Sociology, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay 
1588. Sadie Pendaz-Foster, Inver Hills Community College
1589. Faisal Garba, Senior Lecturer, University of Cape Town
1590. Dilar Dirik, PhD, independent researcher 
1591. Abhijit Dasgupta, Professor of Sociology (Retd)
1592. Kenna Sim, PhD student, Linköping University
1593. Kennouche Tayeb sociologue Alger Algerie
1594. Maaz Shaikh, Doctor, Dentist
1595. Zahra Kheirkhah 
1596. Areesh Ahmad, Ramjas College, DU
1597. Almas Saeed, Research scholar, University of Delhi
1598. Angela M. Toffanin, researcher, Italy
1599. Karen Engle, Professor, University of Windsor 
1600. Marcello Maneri, Professor of Sociology, Università di Milano-Bicocca 
1601. Madhusree Dutta, MS, Filmmaker
1602. Walaa, PhD candidate, GOLDSMITHS UNIVERSITY OF london
1603. Raka Sen, PhD Candidate, University of Pennsylvania 
1604. Michaela Benson, Professor in Public Sociology, Lancaster University
1605. Jungyoon Park, graduate student, kyungpook national university
1606. Mohammad Sohrab, Professor, MMAJ Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India 
1607. Sheeba Naaz, research scholar, Jamia Millia Islamia, India 
1608. Dr Mary Robson
1609. Paran Amitava, Alumni of School of Social Work, Tata Institute of Social Sciences 
1610. Daniel Breslau, Associate Professor, Science and Technology Studies, Virginia Tech
1611. Sheena Sood, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Delaware Valley University
1612. Mustajab Khatir, Assistant Professor, MANUU
1613. Asia jan, Post Graduate Student at Aligarh Muslim University 
1614. MSc. Sociology. Yasmin
1615. Samina Hossain, PhD student, University of Wisconsin 
1616. Mouldi Guessoumi, Professor of Sociology, University of Tunis.
1617. Asadolah  Naghdi.  Professor of Sociology .basu.ac.ir
1618. Stephen Wulff, PhD candidate, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
1619. Nicolás Torres-Echeverry, Ph.D. Candidate, Univrsity of Chicago
1620. Nadia Ahmad, PG student 
1621. Changez khan
1622. Jasmine Hill, Assistant Professor, UCLA
1623. Paige DePasquale, PhD Student, Northeastern University
1624. Olivia Hu, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Pennsylvania
1625. Taisto Witt, PhD Student, McGill University
1626. Charlotte Gaudreau, PhD candidate, McGill University
1627. Yi-Cheng Hsieh, PhD Student, McGill University
1628. Hannah Zawahri, Jordanian/Palestinian- American 
1629. Tokarieva Marharyta, MA student in Sociology and Social Anthropology
1630. Christopher Thorén, PhD student, department of sociology and work science, Gothenburg university 
1631. Gisell Sarinana, Undergraduate, UC Berkeley Sociology
1632. André Kaysel Velasco e Cruz, assistent professor, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Brazil) and visiting scholar, UC Berkeley.
1633. Ann-Marie, PhD Candidate, McGill University 
1634. Seunghan Paek, Assistant Professor, Pusan National University
1635. Shannon Bucci, Graduate Student, CU Denver 
1636. Dr Ali kassem, National University of Singapore
1637. Catherine Tan, Assistant Professor, Vassar College
1638. Sumaira Sociologist 
1639. Areeg Faisal
1640. Chan-Jong Park, Assistant Professor, Chung-Nam National University
1641. Reiko Ogawa, Professor, Chiba University
1642. Patricia Uberoi, Professor of Sociology (Rtd), Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, India
1643. Chulhee Chung Professor Chonbuk National Universityniversity
1644. Sevdulje Ramadani, MA graduate in sociology and social anthropology (CEU)
1645. David Sanchez Garcia, MPhil University of Cambridge, MA The New School
1646. Amy Verdun, PhD in Political and Social Sciences
1647. Veronica Grönlund, phd student, Gothenburg university 
1648. Helena Håkansson, University of Gothenburg
1649. Sofya Aptekar, Associate professor, CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies
1650. Mabrouka Ben M’Barek, University of Massachusetts Amherst
1651. José David López Blanco , PhD Student, Universidad Carlos III
1652. Shannon Gleeson, Edmund Ezra Day Professor, Cornell University 
1653. Patrick Bond, Distinguished Professor, University of Johannesburg Department of Sociology
1654. Erin Michaels, Assistant Professor of Sociology, UNCW
1655. Rommy Morales Olivares. University of Barcelona
1656. Annie Hikido, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Colby College
1657. Victoria Sánchez Belando, Adjunct Prof. University of Barcelona. 
1658. Jacklyn cock, professor emeritus, wits university, 
1659. Bru Lain, associate professor. Universitat de Barcelona 
1660. Amat Saeed
1661. Abrar Alshammari, PhD student, Princeton University 
1662. Melanie Samson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Johannesburg
1663. Yomna ElSharony, PhD Student, Cornell University 
1664. Meghan Tinsley, Senior Lecturer, University of Manchester
1665. SUZAN ILCAN, Professor, University of Waterloo, Canada
1666. Aoife Dare, DSocSc candidate, University College Cork, Ireland
1667. Rania Tfaily, Associate Professor, Carleton University
1668. Alice Corble, Research Fellow, University of Sussex
1669. Fahmo Rage, Teacher K-12 education 
1670. Srushti Upadhyay, PhD Candidate, University at Buffalo 
1671. Tamara Humphrey, Assistant Professor, Sociology, University of Victoria 
1672. Abigail A. Fuller, Lecturer, University of Southern Maine
1673. Kathryn Wiley, PhD Candidate, University of Texas at Austin
1674. Jules, Soupault, PhD Student; University of Victoria
1675. Arman Zakeri;  Assistant Prof.  Tarbiat Modares University(۲۰۱۹-۲۰۲۳)
1676. Clinton Nichols, Assistant Professor, Dominican University 
1677. Azim Hasanzadeh, M.Cs. in social research, social researcher in minority, ethnicity, gender and inequality 
1678. Khaled aboudouh, sohag University,  egypt
1679. Robyn Smith, Lecturer, Brunel University London 
1680. SeyedAlireza Afshani, Professor of Sociology, Department of Social Sciences, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran 
1681. Prof. Ari Sitas, University of Cape Town
1682. Jin Ding
1683. Taylor E. Hartson, PhD Student, University of Notre Dame
1684. Keyhan safari, social researcher and lecturer
1685. Katharine Rockwell 
1686. Aarti Ratna, Associate Professor, Northumbria University
1687. David Webber, Solent University, Southampton
1688. P Prakash University of Toronto
1689. Ansh Sharma, MA student, Ambedkar University Delhi 
1690. Kenyon Cavender, Grad Student, Binghamton University Sociology
1691. Rabab Abdulhadi, Professor of Ethnic Studies and Director of the Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Studies Program, San Fransisco State University
1692. Sonia Chabane, Consultant, SC Rights Consultancy
1693. Katie Moran, PhD Student, Princeton University
1694. Muath Abudalu, Humboldt University in Berlin
1695. Subini Annamma, Associate Professor, Stanford University
1696. Sadia Habib, Lecturer, University of Manchester 
1697. Luke Yates, University of Manchester 
1698. Margaux Neve PhD student- EHESS
1699. Dr Saleema Burney, Research Fellow, University of Birmingham 
1700. Professor Sariya Cheruvallil-Contractor 
1701. Daniel Chai, UCLA Sociology PhD Student
1702. W. Carson Byrd, University of Michigan
1703. Giti khazaie, University of Tehran
1704.  Christina Jackson, Associate Professor of Sociology
1705. Waqas Tufail, Reader, Leeds Beckett University
1706. Dr Fauzia Ahmad, Goldsmiths 
1707. Gargi Bhattacharyya, University of the Arts 
1708. Kiran Grewal, Professor of Sociology, Goldsmiths, University of London 
1709. Samia Rahman, PhD Student, Goldsmith’s University of London 
1710. Kasia Paprocki, Associate Professor, London School of Economics and Political Science
1711. Brandon Saucedo Pita, PhD Student, University of Southern California
1712. zohre soroushfar, PHD Candidate, Alzahra university
1713. Dr. Evelyn Callahan, UCL
1714. Mohamed Shedeed, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Ohio State University
1715. Carmela Muzio Dormani, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Mercy University
1716. Loubna BELAID
1717. Ben Frymer, Associate Professor, Sonoma State University
1718. Letisha Brown, Assistant Professor, University of Cincinnati 
1719. RA Saxton, PhD Candidate, George Mason University 
1720. Ji-Eun Ahn, University of Edinburgh
1721. Sadia Saeed, Associate Professor, University of San Francisco 
1722. Jeffrey Parker, Assistant Professor, University of New Orleans
1723. Maxwell Roberts, Graduate Student, UCI
1724. Preethi Krishnan, Associate Professor, O.P.Jindal Global University, India 
1725. Karida Brown, Professor, Emory University 
1726. Tim Winzler, Tutor, University of Glasgow 
1727. Shahrokni, Shirin, Associate Professor, York University
1728. Nicolette Manglos-Weber, Associate Professor of Religion & Society, Boston University
1729. Ali Kadivar, Assistant professor of sociology and international studies, Boston College 
1730. Mackenzie Niness, Graduate Student, University of Delaware
1731. Dalton Lackey, Doctoral Candidate, University of Maryland
1732. Jonah Stuart Brundage, Assistant Professor, University of Michigan
1733. Jon Blum, PhD Candidate, Boston College 
1734. LaTrina Johnson-Brown, EdD Student, American University 
1735. Ning Hsieh, Associate Professor, Michigan State University
1736. Kourtney Nham, PhD Student, UC San Francisco
1737. Özgün Aksakal, PhD Candidate, LSE
1738. Crystal Eddins, Associate Professor, University of Pittsburgh
1739. Dylan Farrell-Bryan, PhD, Yale University 
1740. Atef Said, Associate Professor , University of Illinois at Chicago 
1741. Sophie Webb, PhD Candidate, UCSD
1742. Vicky Walters, Lecturer, Massey University
1743. Soibam Haripriya 
1744. Dr Shaida Nabi  Independent 
1745. Ehab Asfari
1746. Anthony Alvarez, assoc prof, csuf
1747. Samara Merhi, Undergraduate Student, University of Calgary 
1748. Nima Shojaei, PhD in Political Sociology, Iran.
1749. Siphelo Ngcwangu, Prof, University of Johannesburg Sociology Department 
1750. John O’Brien, Associate Professor, Social Research and Public Policy, NYU Abu Dhabi
1751. Roger Southall, Emeritus Professor, Sociology, University of the Witwatersrand.
1752. Kezia Lewins, Senior Lecturer, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg
1753. Irfan Ahmad, Professor Dr, Ibn Haldun University, Turkey
1754. Niknejat , Phd candidate
1755. Diane Pranzo, Assistant Professor IHU, Istanbul
1756. Luisa Gandolfo, Senior Lecturer, University of Aberdeen
1757. Nthabiseng Motsemme, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Johannesburg
1758. Emilia Howker, Senior Tutor, University of Manchester 
1759. Michael Kwet, Dr, University of Johannesburg
1760. Sophina Choudry, Senior Lecturer, University of Manchester 
1761. Mina Jafarisabet, PhD Candidate, Freie Universität Berlin & the University of Helsinki
1762. Professor Jimi Adesina – University of South Africa (South Africa)
1763. Laura Lucia Parolin
1764. Ozge Ozduzen, Lecturer, University of Sheffield 
1765. Dr Carol Stephenson
1766. Karina Vabson, PhD student, Estonian Academy of Arts
1767. Zainab Gaffoor, University of Cape Town
1768. Sara Farris, Reader, Goldsmiths University of London
1769. Dr Svenja Bromberg, Lecturer, Goldsmiths, University of London
1770. Vikki Bell, Professor of Sociology, Goldsmiths, University of London
1771. Dr Jacqui O’Riordan, University College Cork
1772. Virinder Kalra 
1773. Anastasia Yang, Dr, University of Edinburgh 
1774. Atiyeh. Gaza. Graduated in sociology from Iran
1775. Zuhan Azad, Lecturer, F.C College Lahore
1776. Martin Savransky, Reader,  Goldsmiths, University of London
1777. Anas Askar, PhD, Bowie State University 
1778. Rashida Bibi, Research Associate, Faculty of Social Science
1779. Marie Larsson, PhD student Lund University
1780. Zeynep üner, İbn Haldun Sosyoloji öğrencisi
1781. Diane Reay University of Cambridge 
1782. پرویز بگ رضایی دکترای جامعه شناسی ، ایران ، ایلام 
1783. Jingyu Mao, Edinburgh University
1784. Angeliki Sifaki, MSCA Fellow, CES, University of Coimbra, Portugal
1785. Gayatri Nair, Asst Prof Sociology
1786. Gabreella Friday, Postdoctoral Researcher at Brown University 
1787. Ms Ragi Bashonga, University of Johannesburg
1788. Diana Cordoba, Assistant professor, Queen’s University, Canada
1789. Julian Hartman, Postdoctoral Fellow, Cornell University
1790. Heather Schoenfeld, Associate Professor, Boston University
1791. Dr Amy Cortvriend, lecturer in criminology, Loughborough University 
1792. Matthew Jerome Schneider, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Pembroke
1793. zeinab ahmadi, M. A. in women’s studies
1794. Amin Asfari, Regis University 
1795. Luqman Muraina, PhD candidate, University of York
1796. Dr Uttara Shahani, University of Oxford
1797. Aminath Rooshan Zuhury, Graduate, Monash University 
1798. Kamilia Al-Eriani, University of Melbourne
1799. zohre ahmadloo sociology student
1800. Martin Preston, PhD Researcher, University of Bristol
1801. Dominic Walker, PhD Candidate, Columbia University 
1802. Nathan Kalman-Lamb, Assistant Professor, University of New Brunswick 
1803. Kate Cairns, Associate Professor of Childhood Studies, Rutgers University-Camden
1804. Cécile Jouhanneau, Associate Professor, Political Science, University Paul Valéry Montpellier (France)
1805. Rodrigo C. Bulamah, Professor of Anthropology, University of the State of Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) 
1806. Dr Hil Aked, author ‘Friends of Israel: the backlash against Palestine Solidarity‘
1807. Megan Linton, Carleton PhD student
1808. Aaron Doyle, Professor, Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University
1809. Tonya Davidson, Carleton University
1810. Xiaobei Chen, Professor of Sociology, Carleton University, Canada
1811. Cihan Erdal, PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Carleton University
1812. Yukiko Tanaka, Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Toronto Scarborough
1813. Jamilah Dei-Sharpe, Course Instructor, Carleton University
1814. Dr. Jacqueline Kennelly, Professor, Sociology, Carleton University
1815. Mariya Khan, University Illinois Chicago 
1816. Alexandra P. Gelbard, Ph.D., Florida International University 
1817. Afaf NAIMI, Graduate Student, Ibn Haldun University, Istanbul 
1818. Hala Abdelgawad, Doctoral Tutor, University of Sussex
1819. Lecho Kibinimat, University of Surrey
1820. Erin Madden, assistant professor, Wayne state University 
1821. Dr Sabreena Ghaffar-Siddiqui, Sheridan College
1822. Carlos Sedano, Sociologo, Mexico 
1823. Professor Kate Hardy, Professor of Global Labour, University of Leeds, UK
1824. Maria Siddiqui, PhD student at Virginia Tech 
1825. Professor Beverley Skeggs, Lancaster University 
1826. Dina Ali, Graduate Student, Carleton University
1827. Amy Argenal, Assistant Teaching Professor, UC Santa Cruz
1828. Hanna Uddbäck, PhD, Malmö university 
1829. Fozia Mir
1830. Laura Bullon-Cassis, Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy, Geneva Graduate Institute
1831. Mrs Michelle Graffagnino
1832. Karen Ashikeh . EarthNeighborhood.com
1833. Walner Osna, sociologue, University of Ottawa 
1834. Angharad Morgan, University of Lancaster, PhD candidate in Education and Social Justice
1835. My Nguyen, Sociology PhD student, University of Minnesota – Twin Cities
1836. Shaista Chishty, PhD student, Cardiff university 
1837. Richelle Swan, Professor, CSUSM
1838. Adeola Young
1839. Ahmad Amir Zulhafiz atudent UniSHAMS
1840. V. Kantzara, Panteion University
1841. Alessia Dalceggio, PhD student, London Metropolitan Universit
1842. Dr. Masha Kardashevskaya, Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Manitoba
1843. Po-Han Lee, Assistant Professor, National Taiwan University
1844. Keely Grossman, PhD Student, Carleton University
1845. Alison Wiggins, UCL
1846. Benjamin Foley, PhD, The Q StudioLab, Middle School Teacher
1847. Bhumika M, PhD Candidate, The New School
1848. Dr. Joy Meyer
1849. Melanie Bush, Professor, Adelphi University, MFMT, USSEN
1850. Kayla Genereux, Graduate Student in Sociology, Carleton University
1851. Sajedeh Allameh, Social Researcher
1852. Saurabh Arora, University of Sussex
1853. Jan Nespor, Professor, The Ohio State University
1854. Roxanna Villalobos, Sociology, UC Santa Cruz
1855. Dr. Vahid Shalchi Associate Professor of Sociology, Allameh Tabataba’i University 
1856. Christina Chica, Doctoral Candidate, UCLA
1857. Shaila Wadhwani (PhD Candidate), Marquette University
1858. Jess Rubin, MycoEvolve, Roots and Trails
1859. Simeon J. Newman, postdoc, Max-Weber-Institut für Soziologie, Universität Heidelberg
1860. Eliran Arazi, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS)
1861. Dr Sharon Walker, University of Bristol
1862. Dr Sobia Ahmad Kaker, Department of Sociology, University of Essex 
1863. Dr Ana Tomičić, ARETE Institute for sustainable prosperity 
1864. Calla Brugmans, Graduate Student, McGill University
1865. Thalia Anthony, Professor of Law, University of Technology Sydney
1866. Sneha Singh, Doctoral Candidate, University of Auckland 
1867. Monisha Jackson, PhD Student, Georgia State University
1868. CC Cannon, PhD Student, Georgia State University
1869. Kayland Arrington, PhD Student, Georgia State University
1870. Angela-Faith Thomas, PhD Student, Georgia State University
1871. Matthew Harmon, MA Student, Georgia State University
1872. Amanda Porter
1873. Laila Reshad, Sociologist, UC Berkeley
1874. Iris Pissaride, PhD candidate, University of Cambridge
1875. Saeedeh Amini, associate professor of sociology, Allameh Tabataba’i university
1876. sharmila, academic, IIT Bombay
1877. Nadia Fotouhi
1878. Judith Jordà Frias, PhD candidate, University of Coimbra
1879. Samine Joudat, PhD candidate, Claremont Colleges
1880. Syed Arabi Idid, IIUM, Malaysia
1881. Klara Pölzl, PhD Candidate, University of Edinburgh
1882. Alison Chiadzwa
1883. Professor Carole Elliott, University of Sheffield
1884. Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, Sociology, University of Barcelona
1885. Samer Alatout, Buttel-Sewell Professor, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
1886. Harshad Keval, Lecturer, Edinburgh Napier University
1887. Dr April-Louise Pennant
1888. Wayej Kuruni, MA Student, Ibn Haldun University, Turkiye.
1889. Azam Ravadrad, Professor, University of Tehran
1890. Dr Anamika Twyman-Ghoshal, Senior Lecturer, Brunel University London
1891. Dr Amani Hassani, Brunel University
1892. Shirin Assa
1893. Linda Lapina, Roskilde University
1894. Oscar Dirlewagner, Associate Professor, Northwestern University of New Mexico
1895. Dr Esther Muddiman, Lecturer in Sociology of Education, Cardiff University (UK)
1896. Diana E. Lopez, Gender Advisor, KIT 
1897. Dr Giulia Champion, The University of Southampton
1898. Dominic Dinh, PhD-Student, University of Cologne
1899. Yasmiyn Irizarry, Associate Professor, UT Austin
1900. Antonio Álvarez-Benavides, Ph. D, National University of Distance Education (UNED) – Spain
1901. Andrea Grippo, Ph.D., Institut für das künstlerische Lehramt, Akademie der Bildenden Künste Wien.
1902. Mahvish Ahmad, Assistant Professor in Human Rights and Politics, Department of Sociology, London School of Economics
1903. Dr Farah Ahmed, Senior Research Associate, University of Cambridge 
1904. Paul O’Connor, Associate Professor, Department of Government and Society, United Arab Emirates University
1905. Adele Phillips, PhD student at Canterbury Christ Church University 
1906. Kim hye-ok, Kyungpook National University
1907. Simone, Lecturer, university of Sussex
1908. Miguel Chavez, PhD Student, Department of Sociology at Northwestern University
1909. Phillip Primeau, Carleton University
1910. Karlia Brown, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Illinois at Chicago 
1911. Dr. Katerina Manevska, Radboud University, The Netherlands
1912. Demar Lewis IV, Visiting Assistant Professor, University of Maryland
1913. Miranda Dotson, PhD Student Northeastern
1914. Meghan Daniel, University of Illinois at Chicago
1915. Catherine Atkinson, Lecturer, University of Manchester
1916. Blanka Koffer, Dr., historian and anthropologist, Berlin
1917. Alessandro Giuseppe Drago, Ph.D. Candidate, McGill University
1918. Dr. Erin O’Callaghan, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Colorado State University
1919. Angelique Golding PhD Candidate QMUL
1920. Addison Malone, Ph.D. Student, Sociology of Technology and Science, Georgia Institute of Technology
1921. Fabio de Nardis, Professor of Political Sociology, University of Salento
1922. Giulio Pitroso, PhD Candidate, Griffith University

_____________________________________________________________________

*Editor’s Note (requested by Dr. Elisabet Barrios Dugenia)

Dr. Elisabet Barrios Dugenia has informed Israel Academia Monitor that she is a pacifist and has never expressed or endorsed support for Hamas or any other organization engaged in violence. Her name appeared in reference to a document that has since been removed from the internet.

19.10.23

Editorial Note

Last week, the University of Haifa Rector, Prof. Gur Elroey, suspended six students due to expressions of support for Hamas on social media. The students are members of Hadash, the Israeli Communist Party. Elroey sent a letter of “suspension from studying,” to these students which stated, “In light of your statements on social media and your support for the terrorist attack on the Jewish communities surrounding Gaza and the murder of innocents, you are suspended from your studies at the University of Haifa until the issue is investigated.” 

Shortly afterward, twenty-five senior lecturers at the University of Haifa appealed against the rector’s decision in a letter, claiming that the suspension was “illegal.” 

This letter was signed by Prof. Zohar Eviatar, Prof. Dafna Birenboim-Carmeli, Prof. David Blank, Prof. Ayelet Ben-Yishay, Prof. Asad Ghanem, Prof. Avner Gilady, Dr. Dalia Sachs, Prof. Meir Hemmo, Prof. Yuval Yonay, Prof Meir Yaish, Dr. Cedric Cohen-Skalli, Prof. Tamar Katriel, Dr. Lior Levy, Dr. Aran Livio, Prof. Micah Leshem, Dr. Ilan Saban, Dr. Uri Simonson, Dr. Amid Saabneh, Prof. Amalia Saar, Prof. Avraham Oz, Prof. Kobi Peter (Peterzil), Prof. Sandy Kedar, Dr. Ram Reshef, Prof. Zohar Segev, and Dr. Ido Shachar.

Elroey responded harshly to the lecturers: “Women and men, young and old, IDF soldiers and minor girls were raped, kidnapped and murdered,” Prof. Elroey answered, “Young people were shot in the back and the fate of the women, the victims of the festival, was the same as that of the female soldiers and girls. Heads were chopped off. Bodies were dismembered and mutilated. Humans were burned alive. Children were taken captive without their parents. Entire families were wiped out. Wiped out! Hundreds of families are anxious about the fate of their missing, and you are busy with the issue of whether I exceeded my duty and acted contrary to the regulations after suspending six students until it is clarified. We are working to comply with the regulations along with the officer in charge of disciplinary actions.”

The storm surrounding the twenty-five professors has not abated. Over ten thousand students from the University of Haifa signed a petition demanding the dismissal of the twenty-five lecturers. Soon after, the same lecturers addressed another letter to the Reactor. 

In the new letter, the professors sought to clarify their position. They claimed: “We are shocked by the dance of demons that developed around the previous letter we sent you demanding to cancel the suspension of the students who allegedly expressed identification with Hamas. The uproar against the letter resulted from an effort, not by you, but by others, to blacken it and paint it as a defense of the right to support terrorism in the name of the right to freedom of expression. Our only argument in the letter: the defense of a fair procedure. Our letter to you did not touch on questions of freedom of expression or freedom of opinion at all. All we believed was that before taking harsh measures such as suspension and removal from the dormitories, a transparent and fair procedure should be held, in accordance with university regulations. On the contrary, we thought that precisely in such a difficult and tragic reality, where the danger of deterioration into incitement, persecution and violence is huge, it is of particular importance to adhere to a proper, transparent and fair procedure. In the end, or rather in the beginning, we are all human beings. The signatories of the letter, the rector, the president and the entire university community, we were all filled with grief and astonishment, and we all acted in a sub-optimal way. It might have been more appropriate to contact you directly before sending the letter, to express and hear your position. We are sorry for that. We hope that together we will find a way to return a proper balanced discourse to our university community.”

Not surprisingly, according to the Arab anti-Israel media outlet in London, The New Arab, “Israel’s Haifa University expels five Palestinian students over social media posts.” The New Arab did not report that the students were suspended until further inquiry, but stated they were “expelled.” According to the New Arab, the students say they did nothing wrong, they only posted “pro-Palestinian content.” One of the students claimed she was “expelled” after “sharing a video interview of Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani, decades old, centered on the Palestinian cause and was not directly related to the current escalation of violence in Gaza.” Another “expelled” student said, “On Saturday, I posted a story on Instagram featuring a tank image.” The second student said, “It’s becoming evident that the last remaining freedom of expression for Arab students is only permissible if it favors the Israeli perspective.”  

Academia for Equality (A4E), a group of radical-leftist activist academics IAM has covered before, jumped into the fray. It offers support to the suspended students.

The brutal attack on Israelis along the border with Gaza is crunch time for those who would like to turn praising Hamas into a free speech issue. Hamas is a terror group and has been considered as such in the West. Accordingly, supporting the group and those accused of inciting terror is illegal. But there is a larger moral issue involved here. Those who support Hamas have failed to make a moral distinction between national terrorism and the ISIS-type brutality of the terrorists who buttered innocent civilians and kidnapped others to serve as human shields. There was no support in the West for ISIS; the same should be applied to Hamas. 

Universities in the West should pay attention to supporters of Hamas on their campuses.

IAM will report on this issue in due course.

References:

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

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

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

https://www.colbonews.co.il/academy/158265/
10,000 כבר חתמו: עצומה לפיטורי המרציםבעצומה נכתב: “אנחנו, סטודנטים באוניברסיטת חיפה, דורשים לפטר לאלתר את 25 המרצים החתומים על המכתב שלפיו אין להשעות סטודנטים שהביעו תמיכה במעשי הטבח. אנחנו לא מוכנים לשבת בהרצאות של אותם מרצים, שמשתמשים בתירוץ של ‘חופש הביטוי’ כהצדקה לתמיכה בטרור רצחני”

פורסם בתאריך: 14.10.23 08:25

מאת: שושן מנולהיותר מ-10,000 אנשים חתמו על עצומה שפרסמו סטודנטים באוניברסיטת חיפה אשר דורשים לפטר לאלתר 25 מרצים במוסד האקדמי. כפי שפורסם לראשונה ב”כלבו – חיפה והקריות”, בתחילת השבוע השעתה האוניברסיטה ארבעה סטודנטים בגלל פוסטים שפרסמו ברשתות החברתיות, ובהם תמיכה במתקפת הטרור של חמאס על ישראל וברצח ישראלים. במכתב ששלח הרקטור פרופ’ גור אלרואי לסטודנטים אלה נכתב: “לאור התבטאותך ברשתות החברתיות ותמיכתך במתקפת הטרור על יושבי עוטף עזה ורצח חפים מפשע, הנך מושעה מלימודיך באוניברסיטת חיפה עד לבדיקת הנושא”. בתגובה, בעיצומם של הקרבות המשתוללים בדרום ובעוד ישראל כולה מתאבלת על מתיה, חתמו 25 מרצים בכירים באוניברסיטה על מכתב שמכנה את ההשעיה “לא חוקית”. במכתב שנשלח לאלרועי נטען כי “אין לך סמכות להשעות סטודנטים. החלטה כזו מפרה את התקנונים של האוניברסיטה ופוגעת בזכויות אזרח ובזכויות סטודנטים המוקנות להם הן על פי משפט המדינה והן על פי תקנון משמעת האוניברסיטה”.

כעת, לאחר שסטודנטים בחוג למזרח תיכון פנו לאוניברסיטה בדרישה לפטר את המרצים ולבטל את הרשמתם לסמינריונים ולשיעורים המתקדמים שמלמדים שלושה מרצים בחוג אשר חתמו על המכתב, מגיעה גם העצומה.

“אנחנו, סטודנטים הלומדים באוניברסיטת חיפה, דורשים לפטר לאלתר ולצמיתות את 25 המרצים תומכי הטרור החתומים על המכתב שטוען כי אין להשעות סטודנטים אשר הביעו תמיכה במעשי הטבח המזעזעים המתרחשים בימים אלו”, נכתב בעצומה שפורסמה באתר “עצומה”, “אנחנו לא מוכנים לשבת בהרצאות של אותם מרצים, ולא ייתכן שהאוניברסיטה שממומנת על ידינו, הסטודנטים, תיתן יד להמשך ההעסקה של אותם המרצים שמשתמשים בתירוץ של ‘חופש הביטוי’ כהצדקה לתמיכה בטרור רצחני, שנחשבת בחוק לעבירה פלילית”.

מהאוניברסיטה נכתב בתגובה: “עמדת האוניברסיטה למכתב המרצים היתה ברורה, אך חשוב להדגיש שהמכתב עסק אך ורק בנהלים פנימיים של האוניברסיטה ובשום אופן לא בעמדת הסטודנטים שהושעו. האוניברסיטה, כמו כל החברה הישראלית, עוסקת כעת בהירתמות מלאה לטובת סיוע לתושבי העוטף, לצה”ל ולכוחות הביטחון, וזה הנושא היחיד שמעסיק אותנו כעת”.

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

https://newshaifakrayot.net/?p=315503

המרצים מאוניברסיטת חיפה שהתנגדו להשעיית סטודנטים תומכי חמאס: “פעלנו באופן לא מיטבי”

25 המרצים באוניברסיטת חיפה שכינו את השעייתם של סטודנטים שהביעו תמיכה בחמאס וברצח ישראלים “בלתי חוקית”, נדהמו מעוצמת התגובה של האוניברסיטה ושל הציבור ומיהרו לשלוח מכתב הבהרה שבו הם אומרים: “אנו המומים ממחול השדים”

דורון גולןפורסם ב: 15/10/23 , 12:39

הסערה סביב 25 המרצים באוניברסיטת חיפה שהתנגדו להשעיית סטודנטים  שהביעו תמיכה בחמאס, ממשיכה להכות גלים. אותם מרצים פנו במכתב לרקטור האוניברסיטה פרופ’ גור אלרואי, וביקשו לתרץ את מעשיהם בכל ש:”כולנו היינו שרויים באבל ותדהמה, וכולנו פעלנו באופן לא מיטבי”

בשבוע שעבר השעה פרופ’ אלרואי מלימודים באוניברסיטת חיפה שישה סטודנטים שהביעו תמיכה במעשי הרצח של ארגון החמאס. מיד לאחר מכן פנו 25 מרצים בכירים באוניברסיטה נגד החלטת הרקטור להשעות את הסטודנטים בטענה שההשעיה “לא חוקית”.

מכתב רקטור אוניברסיטת חיפה, פרופ’ גור אלרואי

פרופ’ אלרואי ענה להם בחריפות: ” נשים וגברים, צעירים וזקנים, חיילות צה”ל וילדות קטינות נאנסו, נחטפו ונרצחו” ענה פרופ’ אלרואי לאותם מרצים. צעירים נורו בגבם וגורל הנשים, קורבנות המסיבה, היה זהה לזה של החיילות והילדות. ראשים נערפו. גופות בותרו וחוללו. בני אדם נשרפו בחיים. ילדים נלקחו בשבי ללא הוריהם. משפחות שלמות נמחקו. נמחקו! מאות משפחות חרדות לגורל נעדריהן ואתם עסוקים בסוגיה האם חרגתי מתפקידי ופעלתי בניגוד לתקנון לאחר שהשעיתי שישה סטודנטים מלימודים עד לבירור שאנחנו פועלים לקיים בהתאם לתקנון יחד עם הממונה על המשמעת”.

התגובה החריפה של האוניברסיטה והכעס הציבורי שהתעורר, הביאו את אותם 25 מרצים לשלוח אמש (שבת) מכתב הבהרה לפרופ’ אלרואי שבו הם טוענים כי פעלו באופן לא מיטבי. “אנו המומים ממחול השדים שהתפתח סביב המכתב הקודם ששלחנו לך בדרישה לבטל את השעיית הסטודנטים שהביעו לכאורה הזדהות עם החמאס. הסערה כנגד המכתב נבעה ממאמץ, לא שלך, אך של אחרים, להשחירו ולציירו ככתב הגנה על הזכות לתמוך בטרור בשם הזכות לחופש ביטוי. בכך נמחק הטיעון היחיד במכתב: הגנה על הליך הוגן”.

מכתב ההבהרה של המרצים מאוניברסיטת חיפה

מכתבנו אליך לא נגע בשאלות של חופש ביטוי או מרחב הדעה כלל. כל שסברנו הוא שבטרם נוקטים צעדים קשים כמו השעיה והרחקה מהמעונות, יש לקיים הליך שקוף והוגן, בהתאם לתקנון אוניברסיטה. אדרבה, חשבנו כי דווקא במציאות קשה וטראגית כל כך, שבה הסכנה להידרדרות להסתה, לרדיפה ולאלימות גדולה, יש חשיבות מיוחדת לדבוק בהליך תקין, שקוף והוגן. בסופו של דבר , או ליתר דיוק בתחילתו של דבר, אנחנו בני אדם. חותמי המכתב, הרקטור, הנשיא וכל קהילת האוניברסיטה, כולנו היינו שרויים באבל ותדהמה, וכולנו פעלנו באופן לא מיטבי. ייתכן שהיה ראוי לפנות ישירות אליך קודם לשליחת המכתב, להשמיע ולשמוע את עמדתך. על כך אנו מצרים. אנחנו מקווים שנמצא יחד את הדרך להחזיר שיח שקול ראוי לקהילת האוניברסיטה שלנו”.

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

https://www.newarab.com/news/haifa-university-expels-palestinians-over-social-media-postsIsrael’s Haifa University expels five Palestinian students over social media posts

The New Arab Staff
10 October, 2023Palestinian students at Haifa University in Israel say they were suspended from the institution after posting pro-Palestinian content to social media and messaging platforms.

Israel’s Haifa University expelled five Palestinian students on Sunday over their social media posts on the Gaza war.

Speaking to The New Arab’s Arabic-language sister site, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed about her experience, one of the students said she was expelled after sharing a video interview of Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani through messaging service WhatsApp’s Story feature.

The interview, now decades old, centred on the Palestinian cause and was not directly related to the current escalation of violence in Gaza.

“Someone took a screenshot of my post and sent it to the university,” the student said. “I haven’t done anything wrong. I’m only expressing my opinion.”

Another expelled student said: “I was notified last evening about my removal and suspension from the university due to my expressed solidarity with Gaza. On Saturday, I posted a story on Instagram featuring a tank image. However, just hours later, I removed it upon hearing of potential monitoring and the risks associated with such expressions.”

“It’s becoming evident that the last remaining freedom of expression for Arab students is only permissible if it favours the Israeli perspective,” the second student said.

Adalah, a legal organisation for Palestinian rights in Israel, released a statement Monday addressing the concerns of several students from Haifa University who had received notices of expulsion or suspension from the university’s administration.

The centre, represented by attorney Adi Mansour, communicated with the university on behalf of the affected students. They emphasised that the dismissals are potentially unlawful, and that the students were not summoned or heard before such decisions were made.

Referring to the university’s internal guidelines, Adalah said the students’ rights cannot be violated without a process in which they can address allegations against them and defend their position.

About 800 Palestinians and 900 Israelis have been killed since Saturday, when fighters from the Palestinian group Hamas launched a surprise large-scale attack on Israeli territory. Israel has been bombarding Gaza since, killing mostly civilians. Hamas has continued to fire rockets into Israel.

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

מרצים דורשים לבטל השעיית סטודנטים פלסטינים באוניברסיטת חיפה; קו סיוע לסטודנטים ערבים

מרצים דורשים לבטל השעיית סטודנטים פלסטינים באוניברסיטת חיפה; קו סיוע לסטודנטים ערבים

הסטודנטים הושעו לאור פוסטים שלהם לכאורה ברשתות, זאת מבלי שנעשה הליך בירור כנדרש בתקנון האוניברברסיטה

מערכת “זו הדרך”

10.10.2023

עודכן: 12.10.2023 

קבוצה של מרצים פנתה אתמול (שני) אל פרופ’ גור אלרואי, רקטור אוניברסיטת חיפה, בעקבות השעייתם של סטודנטים פעילי חד”ש ללא הליך משמעתי תקין. הם דורשים לבטל מיידית את הצעד המשמעתי. במכתבם המרצים כתבו “שמענו שמספר סטודנטים וסטודנטיות קיבלו ממך הודעה שהם מושעים מהאוניברסיטה, וחלקם אף נדרש לפנות את חדרם במעונות, בשל פרסומים שלהם לכאורה ברשתות החברתיות. אנו סבורים שאין לך סמכות להשעות סטודנטים, ושהחלטה כזו מפרה את התקנונים של האוניברסיטה ופוגעת בזכויות אזרח ובזכויות סטודנטים המוקנות להם הן על פי משפט המדינה והן על פי תקנון משמעת האוניברסיטה”.

לדבריהם, “לא ברור כלל אלו סעיפים אתה סבור שהסטודנטים המושעים הפרו, ואיזה הליך של בירור עובדות הספקת להפעיל בזמן הקצר עד לנקיטה בפעולה החריפה של השעיה וגירוש מהמעונות, כאשר ככל הידוע לנו, הסטודנטים שהושעו לא קיבלו אפילו זכות להשמיע את גרסתם”.

כאמור, המרצים קראו לבטל מידית את ההשעיה ואת הגירוש של סטודנטים מהמעונות. “בכל מקרה בו מתעורר חשש להפרת תקנון המשמעת יש לפעול על פי החוק ותקנוני האוניברסיטה באופן שוויוני ותוך מתן משקל ראוי לשיקולים של חופש ביטוי וזכויות אדם ואזרח. בשעה שהחברה הישראלית נאבקת על שמירת שלטון חוק והפרדת הרשויות, אנו מקווים שתדע לשמור על עליונות החוק גם באוניברסיטת חיפה”, הדגישו. בין הפונים אל הרקטור הפרופסורים זהר אביתר, איילת בן-ישי, אסעד גאנם, אבנר גלעדי, מאיר חמו, יובל יונאי, תמר כתריאל, מיכה לשם, עמליה סער, אברהם עוז, קובי פתר (פטרזיל), סנדי קדר וזהר שגב.

גם אקדמיה לשוויון, ארגון של כ-800 מרצים יהודים וערבים המחויבים לשוויון, זכויות וסולידריות בכל המוסדות להשכלה גבוהה שיגר מכתב לפרופ’ אלרואי. במכתב נאמר “על פי איזו סמכות הושעתה הסטודנטית באופן מיידי כאשר טרם הואשמה בעבירת משמעת וטרם נשמע עניינה בפני ועדת משמעת? האם נבחנה האפשרות לאפשר לסטודנטית להציג את טענותיה בטרם ההשעיה? מהי ההתבטאות שבה מדובר, ועל איזו עבירה בתקנון האוניברסיטה מתבססות הטענות כנגד הסטודנטית? לא מצאנו בתקנון עבירה רלוונטית. מהיכן קיבלה האוניברסיטה את המידע על הפרסום ברשתות החברתיות ולכמה סטודנטים נשלחו הודעות דומות?”.

“בתקופות מתיחות קודמות למדנו כי סטודנטים ערבים הפכו מטרה להסתה ולהאשמות שבמקרים רבים התבררו כחסרות בסיס עם שוך הסערה. נדגיש כי גם אם ועדת משמעת שתכונס בעתיד תמצא שלא נפל פגם בהתנהגותה של הסטודנטית, או שהתנהגות זו לא הצדיקה השעיה מלימודים, השעיה מיידית כזו גורמת נזק שלא יירפא לסטודנטית, לסביבת הלימודים באוניברסיטה, ולזכויות המוגנות במשטר דמוקרטי”, הדגישו.

יצוין שפעילי אקדמיה לשוויון הקימו מערך תמיכה לסטודנטים ערבים-פלסטינים בכל האוניברסיטאות והמכללות בכל היבט הקשור למצב הנוכחי, החל מעניינים הקשורים לביטחון האישי ועד לפניות אקדמיות.

ניתן לפנות בעברית או ערבית למערך התמיכה של אקדמיה לשווין באמצעות הטלפון:

079-6106559

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

https://maki.org.il/%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%93%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%98%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%A4%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%99-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9-%D7%91%D7%90%D7%95/

המפלגה הקומוניסטית הישראלית

מרצים דורשים לבטל השעיית פעילי חד”ש באוניברסיטת חיפה; קו סיוע לסטודנטים ערבים

פורסם לפני 6 ימים

קבוצה של מרצים פנתה אתמול (שני) אל פרופ’ גור אלרואי, רקטור אוניברסיטת חיפה, בעקבות השעייתם של סטודנטים פעילי חד”ש ללא הליך משמעתי תקין. הם דורשים לבטל מיידית את הצעד המשמעתי. במכתבם המרצים כתבו “שמענו שמספר סטודנטים וסטודנטיות קיבלו ממך הודעה שהם מושעים מהאוניברסיטה, וחלקם אף נדרש לפנות את חדרם במעונות, בשל פרסומים שלהם לכאורה ברשתות החברתיות. אנו סבורים שאין לך סמכות להשעות סטודנטים, ושהחלטה כזו מפרה את התקנונים של האוניברסיטה ופוגעת בזכויות אזרח ובזכויות סטודנטים המוקנות להם הן על פי משפט המדינה והן על פי תקנון משמעת האוניברסיטה”.

לדבריהם, “לא ברור כלל אלו סעיפים אתה סבור שהסטודנטים המושעים הפרו, ואיזה הליך של בירור עובדות הספקת להפעיל בזמן הקצר עד לנקיטה בפעולה החריפה של השעיה וגירוש מהמעונות, כאשר ככל הידוע לנו, הסטודנטים שהושעו לא קיבלו אפילו זכות להשמיע את גרסתם”.

כאמור, המרצים קראו לבטל מידית את ההשעיה ואת הגירוש של סטודנטים מהמעונות. “בכל מקרה בו מתעורר חשש להפרת תקנון המשמעת יש לפעול על פי החוק ותקנוני האוניברסיטה באופן שוויוני ותוך מתן משקל ראוי לשיקולים של חופש ביטוי וזכויות אדם ואזרח. בשעה שהחברה הישראלית נאבקת על שמירת שלטון חוק והפרדת הרשויות, אנו מקווים שתדע לשמור על עליונות החוק גם באוניברסיטת חיפה”, הדגישו. בין הפונים אל הרקטור הפרופסורים זהר אביתר, איילת בן-ישי, אסעד גאנם, אבנר גלעדי, מאיר חמו, יובל יונאי, תמר כתריאל, מיכה לשם, עמליה סער, אברהם עוז, קובי פתר (פטרזיל), סנדי קדר וזהר שגב.

גם אקדמיה לשוויון, ארגון של כ-800 מרצים יהודים וערבים המחויבים לשוויון, זכויות וסולידריות בכל המוסדות להשכלה גבוהה שיגר מכתב לפרופ’ אלרואי. במכתב נאמר “על פי איזו סמכות הושעתה הסטודנטית באופן מיידי כאשר טרם הואשמה בעבירת משמעת וטרם נשמע עניינה בפני ועדת משמעת? האם נבחנה האפשרות לאפשר לסטודנטית להציג את טענותיה בטרם ההשעיה? מהי ההתבטאות שבה מדובר, ועל איזו עבירה בתקנון האוניברסיטה מתבססות הטענות כנגד הסטודנטית? לא מצאנו בתקנון עבירה רלוונטית. מהיכן קיבלה האוניברסיטה את המידע על הפרסום ברשתות החברתיות ולכמה סטודנטים נשלחו הודעות דומות?”.

“בתקופות מתיחות קודמות למדנו כי סטודנטים ערבים הפכו מטרה להסתה ולהאשמות שבמקרים רבים התבררו כחסרות בסיס עם שוך הסערה. נדגיש כי גם אם ועדת משמעת שתכונס בעתיד תמצא שלא נפל פגם בהתנהגותה של הסטודנטית, או שהתנהגות זו לא הצדיקה השעיה מלימודים, השעיה מיידית כזו גורמת נזק שלא יירפא לסטודנטית, לסביבת הלימודים באוניברסיטה, ולזכויות המוגנות במשטר דמוקרטי”, הדגישו.

יצוין שפעילי אקדמיה לשוויון הקימו מערך תמיכה לסטודנטים ערבים-פלסטינים בכל האוניברסיטאות והמכללות בכל היבט הקשור למצב הנוכחי, החל מעניינים הקשורים לביטחון האישי ועד לפניות אקדמיות.

ניתן לפנות בעברית או ערבית למערך התמיכה של אקדמיה לשווין באמצעות הטלפון:

079-6106559

10 באוקטובר 2023 ב-דמוקרטיה.

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

https://www.colbonews.co.il/academy/158083
25 מרצים נגד השעיית תומכי הטרור: “לא חוקית”

במכתב ששלחו 25 מרצים בכירים באוניברסיטת חיפה לנשיא אוניברסיטת חיפה ולרקטור בעקבות השעייתם של שישה סטודנטים שהביעו תמיכה בחמאס, הם כתבו: “אין לך סמכות להשעות סטודנטים. החלטה כזו מפרה את התקנונים של האוניברסיטה ופוגעת בזכויות אזרח” 

פורסם בתאריך: 11.10.23 15:37 מאת: שושן מנולה

25 מרצים בכירים באוניברסיטת חיפה יוצאים נגד החלטת הרקטור פרופ’ גור אלרואי להשעות מהלימודים שישה סטודנטים, לנוכח פרסומים שלהם ברשתות החברתיות שבהם הם הביעו תמיכה בחמאס וברצח ישראלים, ומכנים את ההשעיה “לא חוקית”.

כפי שפורסם ביום שני ב”כלבו – חיפה והקריות”, ביום ראשון השעתה האוניברסיטה ארבעה סטודנטים ערבים בגלל פוסטים שפרסמו ברשתות החברתיות ובהם תמיכה במתקפת הטרור של חמאס על ישראל. במכתב ששלח אלרואי לארבעה נכתב: “לאור התבטאותך ברשתות החברתיות ותמיכתך במתקפת הטרור על יושבי עוטף עזה ורצח חפים מפשע, הנך מושעה מלימודיך באוניברסיטת חיפה עד לבדיקת הנושא”. מאז נשלחו מכתבים דומים לשני סטודנטים נוספים.

במכתב ששלחו לרקטור כתבו המרצים: “שמענו שמספר סטודנטים קיבלו ממך הודעה שהם מושעים מהאוניברסיטה, וחלקם אף נדרש לפנות את חדרם במעונות, בשל פרסומים שלהם לכאורה ברשתות החברתיות. אנו סבורים שאין לך סמכות להשעות סטודנטים, ושהחלטה כזו מפרה את התקנונים של האוניברסיטה ופוגעת בזכויות אזרח ובזכויות סטודנטים המוקנות להם הן על פי משפט המדינה והן על פי תקנון משמעת האוניברסיטה”.

עוד כתבו המרצים: “לא ברור כלל אלו סעיפים אתה סבור שהסטודנטים המושעים הפרו, ואיזה הליך של בירור עובדות הספקת להפעיל בזמן הקצר עד לנקיטת הפעולה החריפה של השעיה וגירוש מהמעונות, כאשר ככל הידוע לנו, הסטודנטים שהושעו לא קיבלו אפילו זכות להשמיע את גרסתם. אנו קוראים לך לבטל מידית את ההשעיה ואת הגירוש של סטודנטים מהמעונות. בכל מקרה שבו מתעורר חשש להפרת תקנון המשמעת יש לפעול על פי החוק ותקנוני האוניברסיטה באופן שוויוני ותוך מתן משקל ראוי לשיקולים של חופש ביטוי וזכויות אדם ואזרח. בשעה שהחברה הישראלית נאבקת על שמירת שלטון חוק והפרדת הרשויות, אנו מקווים שתדע לשמור על עליונות החוק גם באוניברסיטת חיפה”.

אלרואי השיב למרצים במכתב זועם שבו הוא כתב: “קראתי בהשתאות ובאי אמון את מכתבכם המנותק מכל מציאות. החברה הישראלית (או כמסתבר, חלקים גדולים ממנה) עוברת תקופה קשה שלא נודעה כמותה. טרוריסטים רצחניים חצו את הגבול ורצחו כ־1,200 (או יותר) בני אדם. האירוע המתגלגל שאנו עדים לו מאז שבת השחורה הוא בגדר פשע נגד האנושות ואחד ממעשי הטבח הקשים של המאה ה-21. נשים וגברים, צעירים וזקנים, חיילות צה”ל וילדות קטינות נאנסו, נחטפו ונרצחו. צעירים נורו בגבם, וגורל הנשים קורבנות המסיבה היה זהה לזה של החיילות והילדות. ראשים נערפו, גופות בותרו וחוללו, בני אדם נשרפו חיים, ילדים נלקחו בשבי ללא הוריהם, מאות משפחות חרדות לגורל נעדריהן, משפחות שלמות נמחקו – נמחקו! – ואתם עסוקים בסוגיה אם חרגתי מתפקידי ופעלתי בניגוד לתקנון לאחר שהשעתי שישה סטודנטים מלימודים עד לבירור שאנחנו פועלים לקיים בהתאם לתקנון ביחד עם הממונה על המשמעת”.

עוד כתב הרקטור כי “הסטודנטים הושעו בגלל שפרסמו פוסטים שביטאו תמיכה ברורה בטרור החמאס וברצח חפים מפשע. מכתבי ההשעיה יצאו לסטודנטים תומכי חמאס, תומכי אויב בזמן מלחמה. עמדה בפניי אפשרות אחרת, והיא להגיש נגדם תלונה במשטרה. בחרתי באפשרות הראשונה – השעיה. באוניברסיטת חיפה לומדים סטודנטים יהודים, נוצרים, דרוזים וגם מוסלמים, שנתקלו בפרסומים ברשתות החברתיות של חלק מחבריהם ללימודים והם מתקשים לחזור לאוניברסיטה לאחר שצפו בגילויי השמחה. אותם סטודנטים שחלקו איתם את אותו ספסל לימודים עד לפני שבוע. זה פשוט לא נתפש. מחובתנו, כפי שכתב גם נשיא האוניברסיטה, להגן על קהיליית אוניברסיטת חיפה כולה – סטודנטים, סגל אקדמי וסגל מינהלי, וסטודנטים נפגעי המלחמה זקוקים להגנתנו ולתמיכתנו כעת, יותר מכולם”.

גם נשיא האוניברסיטה פרופ’ רון רובין שלח מכתב תשובה למרצים וכתב: “תקנון האוניברסיטה הוא מורה דרך שלנו לטיפול בחיים השגרתיים של המוסד והוא משרת אותנו נאמנה. התקנון לא עונה על מצבים שהם מעבר לדמיון, לא כל שכן אותו שבר חסר תקדים שחווינו. אף מסמך – גם לא התקנון שלנו – לא יכול להכיל את אשר עברנו באותו יום נורא של טבח חסר אבחנה וחסר תקדים. כמנהיגי הקהילה הנבחרים מוטלת עלינו החובה להגן על הקהילה שלנו בעתות משבר ולנקוט צעדים שאמורים לשמור על המרקם השברירי של היום שאחרי. על כן, גילויי שמחה ותמיכה באותם שונאים שביצעו מעשי רצח המונים, שחשבנו שהם נחלת העבר, יזכו לתגובה מיידית שלנו. על כך לא נתפשר. מתינו מוטלים לפנינו, ויש לנו חובה ערכית לכבד אותם. לסטודנטים שמורה זכות הערעור, ואנחנו מוכנים גם להגן על החלטותינו בכל פורום – משפטי וציבורי”.

פרופ’ יובל יונאי מחותמי המכתב: “נראה לי שאנחנו נסחפים מהר מאוד בכיוונים לא רצויים, ותוך כדי כך עושים דמוניזציה של סטודנטים ערבים ופוגעים במו ידינו בשמה הטוב של האוניברסיטה. יורשה לי להעלות ספקולציה שאני לא יכול להוכיח אבל נראית לי אמינה וסבירה – אין אף סטודנט שהתבטא בעד הטבח הנורא ואין אף סטודנט שרקד על הדם. ההשעיה של הסטודנטים יוצרת תחושה שזה המצב, אבל אף אחד מאיתנו, לבד מהרקטור, לא ראה מה נכתב והופץ על ידי הסטודנטים המושעים. סיבה אחת לביטחון היחסי שלי בטענה הזו היא שאף אחד לא ידע בשבת על הטבח הנורא. ידענו שהיתה חדירה של אנשי חמאס אבל מימדיה לא היו ברורים, ובטח לא הפרטים המזוויעים שהחלו להיחשף רק ביום שני, אחרי שהתלמידים כבר הושעו. סיבה נוספת היא שאני מכיר את הסטודנטים באוניברסיטה. אני לא מכיר כל אחד באופן אישי, אבל אני שומע ועוקב אחרי דעותיהם באופן ישיר ועקיף, וקשה לי להאמין שמישהו מהם יתמוך במעשים הברבריים שנעשו”.

לדבריו, “סטודנטית אחת שהושעתה מוכרת לי מקורס שלימדתי. אני לא יודע מה דעותיה הפוליטיות, אבל אני מכיר את אישיותה ואת מזגה, וברור לי שהיא לא היתה מעלה על דעתה לתמוך בטבח אזרחים. במקרה אחר, ראיתי שני פוסטים שבעטיים כנראה הושעתה סטודנטית אחרת. בשני המקרים מדובר בפוסטים שמסתובבים זמן רב ברשת ולא בדברים שהופצו ביום הטבח. באחד מהם יש ריאיון עם ע’סאן כנאפני, שכזכור חוסל על ידי ישראל לפני כ-50 שנה. אפשר לשאול למה היא עשתה שיתוף לפוסט הזה ביום שבת הנורא, אבל מכאן ועד להגיד שהיא ‘רקדה על הדם’ הדרך ארוכה. כמובן, הכל ספקולציות. אני לא יכול להיות בטוח, אבל איך אפשר להגיע למסקנות אם אפילו לא שאלו אותה, וההחלטה התקבלה בחופזה ביום ראשון שבו כולנו עוד היינו בהלם, והרקטור מן הסתם היה טרוד באלף ואחת בעיות דוחקות? אף אחד מהמושעים לא קיבל הזדמנות להגן על עצמו. למיטב ידיעתי הם שמעו לראשונה על כך שהם חשודים בדבר נורא עם קבלת מכתב ההשעיה”.

יונאי הוסיף כי “אין שום הצדקה לפגוע בזכויות של סטודנט בלי לתת לו אפשרות להתגונן. ברור גם שלרקטור אין סמכות להשעות סטודנטים. יש תקנון מחייב שנותן תשובה למקרים של צורך בהרחקה בשל נזק מיידי. פוסט שמישהו כותב זה לא ‘פצצה מתקתקת’. סטודנטים יהודים כותבים דברים נוראיים על ערבים וקוראים להרוג את כל תושבי עזה, וחלקם גם מאיימים על פלסטינים אזרחי ישראל. אם נתחיל לפשפש בעמוד האישי של כל סטודנט נגלה הרבה דברים לא נעימים, ולפי קנה המידה של הרקטור נצטרך להשעות רבע או שליש מהסטודנטים שלנו. אנו צריכים לחנך אותם, לא להשעות אותם. הטענה שזה לא נורא כי זה משהו זמני ולא נגרם נזק בלתי הפיך היא פשוט לא נכונה. השעיה כזו יכולה להרוס את עתידה של סטודנטית שהגיעה מהרבדים החלשים ביותר של החברה הישראלית, שגם כך קשה לה להתמודד בסביבה זרה ועוינת, וגם השעיה יכולה להשפיע על ההליך המשמעתי שיבוא אחריו, כי כבר ידוע שהרקטור חרץ את דינה. העצמאות של שופטים ושל דיינים במקרה המשמעתי היא דבר קדוש, ואסור לבעלי סמכויות ביצועיות להתערב בתהליך. הרקטור שגה שגיאה רצינית. האוניברסיטה מתפארת בכך שלא רק אוניברסיטת חיפה נקטה את זה. לצערי, זו לא הוכחה, ונראה שעוד כמה מוסדות נסחפו בכיוון לא טוב. אלפי הלייקים שהחלטת האוניברסיטה קיבלה ברשתות החברתיות היא לדעתי סימן שלילי ולא משהו להתגאות בו. אנו צריכים לחנך לסובלנות ולשמירת החוק, לא למצוא תירוצים במצב הקשה להפקעת זכויות אזרח בסיסיות. אני רוצה להאמין שהאוניברסיטה היא אי של שפיות, אבל השעיית הסטודנטים וחריצת גורלם גם בחילופי הדברים כאן מעידה על אובדן שפיות. זמנית אני מקווה”.

פרופ’ אסעד ע’נאם, מרצה נוסף שחתם על המכתב: “לא קראתי את הפוסטים שכתבו הסטודנטים אבל המכתב שלנו מכוון לתגובה הפזיזה והלא אחראית של רקטור האוניברסיטה, שאמור להיות אמון על חופש הביטוי ועל זכותם של הסטודנטים שלו לקבל הליך הוגן. הרקטור, ברגל גסה, מתנהג כמו סופרמן או טרזן שיכול להוציא סטודנטים לחופשה או להפסיק את לימודיהם בגלל שהוא סבור שלמשפט כזה או אחר יש משמעות של תמיכה בטרור. לדברים הנוראיים שקרו בעוטף עזה ועכשיו קורים בעזה יש משמעויות רחבות גם של טרור. גם בצד הפלסטיני כל צעד ישראלי נתפש כפשע מלחמה או טרור. כל משפט של גינוי לתקיפות ישראליות בעזה נתפש בצד הישראלי כתמיכה בטרור. כמובן שאי אפשר לקבל את מה שנעשה על ידי אנשי חמאס, אבל העניין של לשתף או לא לשתף – אני לא יודע עד כמה זו אכן עבירה. נניח שזה עבירה ונניח שנכתבו דברים קשים, חובתו של הרקטור לפנות לערכאה האחראית, שזו ועדת המשמעת, ולזמן את הסטודנטים לבירור, לתת להם להשמיע את דבריהם ואחר כך לקבל החלטה”.

לדבריו, ההשעיה המיידית של הסטודנטים לא נעשתה במקרה: “לדעתי, כל העניין הזה קורה בגלל שהאוניברסיטה כבר הרבה שנים רוצה להראות שהיא לא אוניברסיטה ערבית ולא שלוחה של אוניברסיטת ביר זית, אז הרקטור משתמש בהזדמנות הזאת כדי לתקוף כל גילוי של דברים שאולי הוא לא מסכים איתם. יכול להיות שאני גם לא מסכים להם, אבל לתקוף כל דבר על מנת להראות שהוא נאמן ואיש ימין זה לא מקובל. אנחנו אומרים גם לסטודנטים שלנו ביום יום – תבדקו מהו מקור הידע שלכם, תהיו בטוחים שזה הכוונה של הטקסט. כמובן שזה גם רלוונטי לרקטור כאדם שאמון על מערכת סטודנטיאלית. אין לי ספק שהסטודנטים יחזרו ללימודים ובית המשפט יבטל את ההשעיה. ככה לא נוהגים. זו עדות לכך שיש פה הנהלה שלא מתייחסת לסטודנטים הערבים. כאשר היו תקיפות על פלסטינים בחווארה לא ראיתי שהאוניברסיטה עשתה בירור אם היו סטודנטים יהודים שלה השתתפו בזה. זה אומר שכאשר מדובר באוכלוסייה חלשה שהרקטור יכול לרמוס את הזכויות שלה ברגל גסה, הוא עושה זאת בלא להניד עפעף”.

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

https://maki.org.il/%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%91%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a1%d7%93%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%9c%d7%94%d7%a9%d7%9b%d7%9c%d7%94-%d7%92%d7%91%d7%95%d7%94%d7%94-%d7%99%d7%99%d7%a4%d7%92%d7%a9%d7%95-%d7%91%d7%a2%d7%a7/

מרצים במוסדות להשכלה גבוהה ייפגשו בעקבות ההסתה נגד הסטודנטים הערבים

פורסם לפני 20 שעות

אקדמיה לשוויון תקיים הערב (ראשון) מפגש מקוון של אנשי סגל במוסדות להשכלה גבוהה בעקבות אווירת ההסתה המופנית כלפי הסטודנטים הערבים-הפלסטינים בימים האחרונים ואיומים בהשעיה מהלימודים במספר אוניברסיטאות ומכללות.

“אקדמיה לשוויון מתנגדת לפגיעה בכל צורה בחופש הביטוי ובחופש האקדמי והפוליטי של הסטודנטיות והסטודנטים הערבים ומטרת המפגש לשמוע, להפגין סולידיות ולדון בדרכי הפעולה ובצעדים העתידיים המבטיחים חופש ביטוי וחופש האקדמי לכל”, נמסר.

המפגש יתקיים הערב בשעה 19:30בהשתתפות ד”ר אריז’ סבאע’-ח’ורי, האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים; עו”ד עדי מנסור, עדאלה – המרכז המשפטי לזכויות המיעוט הערבי בישראל; עו”ד סוסאן זהר היועצת המשפטית של קואליציית הארגונים למצב חירום בחברה הערבית; וטן מאדי-סטודנטית וחברה תא חד”ש באוניברסיטת בן גוריון וד”ר תמר ברגר, האקדמיה לאמנות בצלאל.

באקדמיה לשוויון פעילים מאות מרצים יהודים וערבים המחויבים לשוויון, זכויות וסולידריות והארגון הקים מערך תמיכה לסטודנטים ערבים בכל האוניברסיטאות והמכללות “בכל היבט הקשור למצב הנוכחי, החל מעניינים הקשורים לביטחון ועד לפניות אקדמיות. אל תהססו לפנות אלינו, בעברית או בערבית”.

פניות למערך התמיכה של אקדמיה לשוויון: באמצעות הטלפון 079-6106559.

עוד בנושא: https://zoha.org.il/124576

15 באוקטובר 2023 ב-דמוקרטיה.

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

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0dD29E42u8eE5Kpu5vySz4wwCqz79AewCkdXY8b1FFB2JvL8DPn4g5jiunNK5yXVCl&id=100069169630866

Academia for Equality

Hebrew and English follows:

 الطلاب والطالبات الأعزاء، منظمة أكادميون من أجل المساواة هي منظمة مكونة من محاضرين يهود وعرب الملتزمين.ات بالمساواة، بالحقوق، والتضامن. أقمنا شبكة دعم للطلاب.ات العرب في كل الجامعات والكليات ونحن هنا لخدمتكم.ن، بكل توجه يتعلق بالوضع الحالي، بدءًا بالامور المتعلقة بأمنكم.ن الشخصي وحتى الاستفسارات الأكاديمية. لا تتردد.ي في التوجه الينا، بالعبرية أو العربية، عبر الهاتف في الرقم 079-6106559 أو ال “واتس-اب” على الرابط 

סטודנטים וסטודנטיות יקרים, אקדמיה לשוויון הוא ארגון המורכב ממרצים יהודים וערבים המחויבים לשוויון, זכויות וסולידריות. הקמנו מערך תמיכה לסטודנטים ערבים בכל האוניברסיטאות והמכללות ואנו כאן לרשותכם, בכל היבט הקשור למצב הנוכחי, החל מעניינים הקשורים לביטחון האישי שלכם ועד לפניות אקדמיות. אל תהססו לפנות אלינו, בעברית או ערבית, בטלפון 079-6106559 או בוואטסאפ בקישור Dear Students, Academia for Equality is an organization of Jewish and Arab lecturers deeply committed to the principles of equality, rights, and solidarity. We are united in our mission to support students during these challenging times. To that end, we’ve established an emergency support line specifically for Arab students and colleagues across all universities and colleges. Our aim is to assist you with any concerns related to the current political situation, whether they pertain to personal safety or academic inquiries. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us in either Hebrew or Arabic. You can contact us via phone at 079-6106559 or connect with us on WhatsApp using the following link:

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

https://www.colbonews.co.il/academy/157776/
בגלל תמיכה בחמאס: האוניברסיטה השעתה ארבעה סטודנטיםארבעה סטודנטים ערבים קיבלו מכתב מרקטור אוניברסיטת חיפה פרופ’ גור אלרואי שבו נכתב: “לאור התבטאותך ברשתות החברתיות ותמיכתך במתקפת הטרור על יושבי עוטף עזה ורצח חפים מפשע, הנך מושעה מלימודיך עד לבדיקת הנושא”. האוניברסיטה: “מגלים אפס סובלנות”

פורסם בתאריך: 9.10.23 09:23

מאת: שושן מנולה

אוניברסיטת חיפה השעתה אתמול (ראשון) מהלימודים ארבעה סטודנטים בגלל פוסטים שפרסמו ברשתות החברתיות ובהם תמיכה במתקפת הטרור של חמאס על ישראל.

במכתב ששלח הרקטור פרופ’ גור אלרואי לארבעת הסטודנטים נכתב: “לאור התבטאותך ברשתות החברתיות ותמיכתך במתקפת הטרור על יושבי עוטף עזה ורצח חפים מפשע, הנך מושעה מלימודיך באוניברסיטת חיפה עד לבדיקת הנושא”.

ל”כלבו – חיפה והקריות” נודע כי ארבעת הסטודנטים שהושעו הם ערבים. השעייתם תהיה בתוקף עד לבירור הנושא על ידי האוניברסיטה. כפי שפורסם אתמול, פתיחת שנת הלימודים באוניברסיטאות נדחתה בשבוע ליום ראשון, 22 באוקטובר.

מאוניברסיטת חיפה נמסר בתגובה: “האוניברסיטה מגלה אפס סובלנות לסטודנטים שמביעים תמיכה בהתקפת הטרור על יישובי עוטף עזה וברצח אזרחים ישראלים חפים מפשע. מכתבי השעיה כבר יצאו לקומץ סטודנטים שאינו מייצג את הכלל”.

מכתב ההשעיה שנשלח לסטודנטים

12.10.23

Editorial Note

Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups published a statement on the conflict in the Gaza Strip soon after the massacre of some 1300 Israeli citizens in communities surrounding the Palestinian enclave. It stated, “We, the undersigned student organizations, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence. Today’s events did not occur in a vacuum. For the last two decades, millions of Palestinians in Gaza have been forced to live in an open-air prison. Israeli officials promise to ‘open the gates of hell,’ and the massacres in Gaza have already commenced. Palestinians in Gaza have no shelters for refuge and nowhere to escape. In the coming days, Palestinians will be forced to bear the full brunt of Israel’s violence. The apartheid regime is the only one to blame. Israeli violence has structured every aspect of Palestinian existence for 75 years. From systematized land seizures to routine airstrikes, arbitrary detentions to military checkpoints, and enforced family separations to targeted killings, Palestinians have been forced to live in a state of death, both slow and sudden. Today, the Palestinian ordeal enters into uncharted territory. The coming days will require a firm stand against colonial retaliation. We call on the Harvard community to take action to stop the ongoing annihilation of Palestinians.” 

The groups supporting this statement include: African American Resistance Organization; Bengali Association of Students at Harvard College; Harvard Act on a Dream; Harvard Arab Medical and Dental Student Association; Harvard Chan Muslim Student Association; Harvard Chan Students for Health Equity and Justice in Palestine; Harvard College Pakistan Student Association; Harvard Divinity School Muslim Association; Harvard Middle Eastern and North African Law Student Association; Harvard Graduate School of Education Islamic Society; Harvard Graduate Students for Palestine; Harvard Islamic Society; Harvard Law School Justice for Palestine; Harvard Divinity School Students for Justice in Palestine; Harvard Jews for Liberation; Harvard Kennedy School Bangladesh Caucus; Harvard Kennedy School Muslim Caucus; Harvard Kennedy School Muslim Women’s Caucus; Harvard Kennedy School Palestine Caucus; Harvard Muslim Law School Association; Harvard Pakistan Forum; Harvard Prison Divest Coalition; Harvard South Asian Law Students Association; Harvard South Asians for Forward-Thinking Advocacy and Research; Harvard TPS Coalition; Harvard Undergraduate Arab Women’s Collective; Harvard Undergraduate Ghungroo; Harvard Undergraduate Muslim Women’s Medical Alliance; Harvard Undergraduate Nepali Students Association; Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee; Middle East and North African Graduate School of Design; Student Society Neighbor Program; Cambridge Sikhs and Companions of Harvard; Undergraduates Society of Arab Students.

The Harvard groups were not the only ones. Columbia University students put out a statement in which Hamas’ brutality was not even acknowledged. The head of the New York University Law School Student Bar Association stated, “I will not condemn Palestinian resistance.” Other academics who made a career of bashing Israel lined up to condemn Israel as well. 

The moral callousness and intellectual obtuseness of students and faculty that mobilized to support “Palestinian resistance” in the form of a wholesale butchery of innocent civilians should not surprise anyone familiar with Western universities’ trends. The critical, neo-Marxist paradigm, which became dominant in all social sciences, sees Israel as a colonial, apartheid state and the Palestinians as the quintessential victims. In this ideologically driven paradigm, facts of history do not matter, and if they collide with the sanctioned narrative, they are either disregarded or twisted. Since its inception in 2004, IAM has brought countless examples of academic writings that demonized Israel and sanitized the “Palestinian resistance” of Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. IAM has also pointed numerous times to the Palestinians who had the opportunities, on several occasions, including the 1993 Oslo agreement, to receive statehood. The latter was sabotaged by a campaign of suicide bombers from Hamas and PIJ orchestrated by the Islamist regime in Iran. Between 2000 and the end of the Second Intifada in 2005, over one thousand Israeli civilians died, and over eight thousand were wounded. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians threatened the Iranian mullahs on two levels. It threatened to take away their legitimacy as a self-appointed protector of the Palestinians and, more importantly, impeded the liberation of Jerusalem, which, according to Shiite theology, was a precondition to the return of the twelve Imam, the Mahdi. 

Be this as it may, the willful blindness of the academic cohorts exceeded all boundaries of decency and morality, not to mention intellectual integrity, this time around. In massacring the more than a thousand civilians in the Gaza adjacent communities, the Hamas and PIJ adopted the ISIS playbook, killing babies by decapitating them, killing parents in front of their children, raping women, burning people in their own homes, and massacring young people who attended a music festival. Women, children, and older people were torn from their families and taken to Gaza to serve as hostages. As President Biden said, “Women raped and paraded like trophies.” Rear Admiral John Kirby, who serves as White House spokesman, broke down and cried during a press conference when he talked about women bloodied by multiple rapes were paraded. The President and many others noted that not since the Holocaust were so many Jews murdered in such a brutal way in one day. 

And there is one more important thing to remember. IAM repeatedly emphasized that the pro-Palestinian advocates are not doing any favors to Palestinians. As many Palestinian critics observed, Hamas has ruled with an iron hand over the two million people, giving them no choice in how they are governed and no opportunity to live a decent life. The billions of dollars in foreign aid given to Gaza ended up in the hands of Hamas and were used for building an extensive military apparatus. The rest was spent on extravagant houses and other perks of power. The neighborhood of Al-Rimal, where the bigwigs of Hamas and PIJ live, was described as the “Beverly Hill of Gaza.” 

It has been said that those who do not speak out against evil are complicit in evil. The Harvard groups and other advocates raise a new question: What should we call those who distort reality to support evil by describing it as “virtuous resistance”?  

References:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HfMvVpey18ArAnVHtp8UlqT_8V5zaR9sFE5ohC4Ls7U/edit

Joint Statement by Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups on the Situation in Palestine

We, the undersigned student organizations, hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence. 

Today’s events did not occur in a vacuum. For the last two decades, millions of Palestinians in Gaza have been forced to live in an open-air prison. Israeli officials promise to “open the gates of hell,” and the massacres in Gaza have already commenced. Palestinians in Gaza have no shelters for refuge and nowhere to escape. In the coming days, Palestinians will be forced to bear the full brunt of Israel’s violence. 

The apartheid regime is the only one to blame. Israeli violence has structured every aspect of Palestinian existence for 75 years. From systematized land seizures to routine airstrikes, arbitrary detentions to military checkpoints, and enforced family separations to targeted killings, Palestinians have been forced to live in a state of death, both slow and sudden. 

Today, the Palestinian ordeal enters into uncharted territory. The coming days will require a firm stand against colonial retaliation. We call on the Harvard community to take action to stop the ongoing annihilation of Palestinians.

African American Resistance Organization 

Bengali Association of Students at Harvard College

Harvard Act on a Dream

Harvard Arab Medical and Dental Student Association

Harvard Chan Muslim Student Association 

Harvard Chan Students for Health Equity and Justice in Palestine

Harvard College Pakistan Student Association

Harvard Divinity School Muslim Association

Harvard Middle Eastern and North African Law Student Association

Harvard Graduate School of Education Islamic Society

Harvard Graduate Students for Palestine

Harvard Islamic Society 

Harvard Law School Justice for Palestine

Harvard Divinity School Students for Justice in Palestine

Harvard Jews for Liberation

Harvard Kennedy School Bangladesh Caucus

Harvard Kennedy School Muslim Caucus

Harvard Kennedy School Muslim Women’s Caucus 

Harvard Kennedy School Palestine Caucus

Harvard Muslim Law School Association

Harvard Pakistan Forum

Harvard Prison Divest Coalition

Harvard South Asian Law Students Association

Harvard South Asians for Forward-Thinking Advocacy and Research

Harvard TPS Coalition

Harvard Undergraduate Arab Women’s Collective

Harvard Undergraduate Ghungroo

Harvard Undergraduate Muslim Women’s Medical Alliance

Harvard Undergraduate Nepali Students Association

Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee

Middle East and North African Graduate School of Design Student Society

Neighbor Program Cambridge

Sikhs and Companions of Harvard Undergraduates 

Society of Arab Students

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

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/10/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-terrorist-attacks-in-israel-2/

OCTOBER 10, 2023Remarks by President Biden on the Terrorist Attacks in Israel

State Dining Room

2:24 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good afternoon.

You know, there are moments in this life — and I mean this literally — when the pure, unadulterated evil is unleashed on this world.

The people of Israel lived through one such moment this weekend.  The bloody hands of the terrorist organization Hamas — a group whose stated purpose for being is to kill Jews.

This was an act of sheer evil.

More than 1,000 civilians slaughtered — not just killed, slaughtered — in Israel.  Among them, at least 14 American citizens killed.

Parents butchered using their bodies to try to protect their children.

Stomach-turning reports of being — babies being killed.

Entire families slain.

Young people massacred while attending a musical festival to celebrate peace — to celebrate peace.

Women raped, assaulted, paraded as trophies.

Families hid their fear for hours and hours, desperately trying to keep their children quiet to avoid drawing attention.

And thousands of wounded, alive but carrying with them the bullet holes and the shrapnel wounds and the memory of what they endured.

You all know these traumas never go away.

There are still so many families desperately waiting to hear the fate of their loved ones, not knowing if they’re alive or dead or hostages.

Infants in their mothers’ arms, grandparents in wheelchairs, Holocaust survivors abducted and held hostage — hostages whom Hamas has now threatened to execute in violation of every code of human morality.

It’s abhorrent.

The brutality of Hamas — this bloodthirstiness — brings to mind the worst — the worst rampages of ISIS.

This is terrorism.

But sadly, for the Jewish people, it’s not new.

This attack has brought to the surface painful memories and the scars left by a millennia of antisemitism and genocide of the Jewish people.

So, in this moment, we must be crystal clear: We stand with Israel.  We stand with Israel.  And we will make sure Israel has what it needs to take care of its citizens, defend itself, and respond to this attack.

There is no justification for terrorism.  There is no excuse.

Hamas does not stand for the Palestinian people’s right to dignity and self-determination.  Its stated purpose is the annihilation of the State of Israel and the murder of Jewish people.

They use Palestinian civilians as human shields.

Hamas offers nothing but terror and bloodshed with no regard to who pays the price.

The loss of innocent life is heartbreaking.

Like every nation in the world, Israel has the right to respond — indeed has a duty to respond — to these vicious attacks.

I just got off the phone with — the third call with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  And I told him if the United States experienced what Israel is experiencing, our response would be swift, decisive, and overwhelming.

We also discussed how democracies like Israel and the United States are stronger and more secure when we act according to the rule of law.

Terrorists purpo- — purposefully target civilians, kill them.  We uphold the laws of war — the law of war.  It matters.  There’s a difference.

Today, Americans across the country are praying for all those families that have been ripped apart.  A lot of us know how it feels.  It leaves a black hole in your chest when you lose family, feeling like you’re being sucked in.  The anger, the pain, the sense of hopelessness.

This is what they mean by a “human tragedy” — an atrocity on an appalling scale.

But we’re going to s- — continue to stand united, supporting the people of Israel who are suffering unspeakable losses and opposing the hatred and violence of terrorism.

My team has been in near constant communication with our Israeli partners and partners all across the region and the world from the moment this crisis began.

We’re surging additional military assistance, including ammunition and interceptors to replenish Iron Dome.

We’re going to make sure that Israel does not run out of these critical assets to defend its cities and its citizens.

My administration has consulted closely with Congress throughout this crisis.  And when Congress returns, we’re going to ask them to take urgent action to fund the national security requirements of our critical partners.

This is not about party or politics.  This is about the security of our world, the security of the United States of America.

We now know that American citizens are among those being held by Hamas.

I’ve directed my team to share intelligence and deploy additional experts from across the United States government to consult with and advise the Israeli counterparts on hostage recover- — recovery efforts, because as president I have no higher priority than the safety of Americans being held hostage around the world.

The United States has also enhanced our military force posture in the region to strengthen our deterrence.

The Department of Defense has moved the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group to the Eastern Mediterranean and bolstered our fighter aircraft presence.  And we stand ready to move in additional assets as needed.

Let me say again — to any country, any organization, anyone thinking of taking advantage of this situation, I have one word: Don’t.  Don’t.

Our hearts may be broken, but our resolve is clear.

Yesterday, I also spoke with the leaders of
France, Germany, Italy, and the UK to discuss the latest developments with our European allies and coordinate our united response.

This comes on top of days of steady engagement with partners across the region.

We’re also taking steps at home.  In cities across the United States of America, police departments have stepped up security around centers for — of Jewish life.

And the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are working closely with state and local law enforcement and Jewish community partners to identify and disrupt any domestic threat that could emerge in connection with these horrific attacks.

This is a moment for the United States to come together, to grieve with those who are mourning.

Let’s be real clear: There is no place for hate in America — not against Jews, not against Muslims, not against anybody.  We reject — we reject — what we reject is terrorism.  We condemn the indiscriminate evil, just as we’ve always done.

That’s what America stands for.

You know, just over 50 years ago — I was thinking about it this morning, talking with the Secretary of State, the Vice President in my office and — over 50 years ago, as a young senator, I visited Israel for the first time, as a newly elected senator.

And I had a long, long trip — or meeting with Golda Meir in her office just before the Yom Kippur War.  And I guess she could see the consternation on my face as she described what was being faced — they were facing.

We walked outside in that — that sort of hallway outside her office to have some photos.  She looked at me and w- — all of a sudden and said, “Would you like to have a photograph?”  And so, I got up and followed her out.

We were standing there silent, looking at the press.  She could tell, I guess, I was concerned.  She leaned over and whispered to me — she said, “Don’t worry, Senator Biden.  We have a secret weapon here in Israel” — my word this is what she said — “We have no place else to go.”  “We have no place else to go.”

For 75 years, Israel has stood as the ultimate guarantor of security of Jewish people around the world so that the atrocities of the past could never happen again.

And let there be no doubt: The United States has Israel’s back.

We will make sure the Jewish and democratic State of Israel can defend itself today, tomorrow, as we always have.  It’s as simple as that.

These atrocities have been sickening.

We’re — we’re with Israel.  Let’s make no mistake.

Thank you.

2:34 P.M. EDT

05.10.23

Editorial Note

On previous occasions, IAM mentioned Mada al-Carmel, the Arab Center for Applied Social Research founded in Haifa in 2000. According to its website, Mada “works to further the human, civil and political rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel through applied social research and policy analysis. Mada amplifies Palestinian perspectives in Israeli civil and political discourse, aiming to stimulate alternatives to state policies that privilege one national group over another.”

Recently, Mada al-Carmel published an edited volume in Arabic titled “Zionism and Settler Colonialism: Palestinian Approaches,” portraying Israel negatively and as a settler-colonial entity. The volume is edited by Nadim Rouhana, former Director of Mada al-Carmel and professor of International Affairs and Conflict Studies at Tufs University, and Areen Hawari, the Director of the Gender Studies Program at Mada al-Carmel. This book results from academic workshops by Mada al-Carmel, Palestinian scholars, and graduate students in Palestine. The workshops focused on the “study of Zionism as a settler-colonial project, examined its practices, and studied its foundational assumptions and its intellectual, religious, and political worldviews.” According to Mada, the workshops addressed “Zionism’s settler colonial underpinnings, also addressed the transformations that the Zionist project has undergone, as a result of its continued failure to subjugate the ongoing Palestinian resistance.” 

Mada explains that the book “contributes to the debate about the position of the settler-colonial studies in understanding the nature of the Israeli State and in developing Palestinian strategies for liberation in light of this understanding. Thus, the book is a contribution to the growing literature on decolonization in the context of Palestine studies. The contributors to this volume come from different disciplines, live in different geographical areas with different political and legal status within Palestine and work in and study in diverse academic contexts. Some of the writers approached Zionism and its colonial project from a historical perspective, others focused on both its historical and current practices, and some chapters investigated the resistance to the project.” 

As Mada describes it, the volume also includes chapters that analyze the “colonial structure itself, and the overlap between Zionism’s settler-colonial dimension with the religious and national ones. In addition, the volume addressed the knowledge production around the question of Zionism as a settler colonialism by Israeli academic institutions and by Zionism’s opponents.” 

Worth noting that many of the authors are employees in Israeli academic institutions. Moreover, Mada’s negation of Jews to their rights to self-determination in their ancestral homeland is nothing but antisemitic.

Mada al Carmel is also active abroad. The Arab Center Washington DC, a research organization dedicated to furthering the political, economic, and social understanding of the Arab world in the United States and addresses fundamental aspects of US-Arab relations, has recently published an article titled “Political Persecution of Palestinians Using the Education System and Israeli Universities” written by Mada al-Carmel. It claims that the current government in Israel is deepening “the country’s structurally racist policies toward Palestinian citizens of Israel,” and “poses more of a threat than previous governments… it will directly and openly reduce the space for democracy in Israel while directing ever stronger doses of racism at Palestinian society.” 

To prove its case, Mada al-Carmel charged Israel with “growing police hostility and repression toward Palestinian citizens, further restrictions on public and individual freedoms, moves to rein in the judiciary, deeper “Zionization” of academic curricula and the education system in general, and restrictions on the political activity and struggle of Palestinians within the country.” The government, according to Mada al-Carmel, “advanced policies and laws that have grave impacts for the Palestinian education system and the political activities of Palestinian students at Israeli universities.” Such measures have been “proposed or passed” without serious opposition.

The Knesset approved two such bills in preliminary readings: The first, the Supervision of Schools Bill (Amendment—Prohibition on Employment of Terrorist Convicts and Supporters and Supervision of Study Content for Prevention of Incitement) aims to support the firing of teachers supporting “terrorist organizations.” The second bill is the Student Rights Bill (Amendment – Removal of Students Who Support Terror From Educational Institutions and the Dismantling of Terror-Supporting Cells).

For Mada, the bills “clearly target the Palestinian education system in general and Palestinian teachers in particular.” Because they “bolster security supervision at education facilities and give the domestic security apparatus the power to investigate the political backgrounds of teachers before they are appointed, and would also make it easier to dismiss them.” 

Mada claims that the bills’ reference to “solidarity with a terrorist organization” is “a vague term that is clearly intended to target teachers who express support for Palestinian patriotic causes, or for any other political cause, and even to target those who mark national occasions. In Israeli eyes, such acts are seen as tantamount to support for terrorism.” 

According to Mada, “Palestinian students have been brought before university disciplinary committees and Palestinian staff have been fired over posts on social media.” And that “Israel’s clampdown on Palestinian students, teachers, and education staff predates these proposed legal changes.” 

For Mada, “There has been a marked increase in surveillance and monitoring of Palestinians’ statements, writings, and activities since the Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip in 2014. Palestinian students have been brought before university disciplinary committees and Palestinian staff have been fired over posts on social media.” The proposed amendments would “give legal cover to these practices targeting the Palestinian education system, its staff, and its students.”  

Mada claims that the draft law would punish Palestinian students at Israeli universities for raising the Palestinian flag. The bill was titled the Student Rights Bill (Amendment – Removal of Students Who Support Terror from Educational Institutions and the Dismantling of Terror-Supporting Cells). For Mada, the draft law targets student union activity and the national student movement active at Israeli universities. It punishes Palestinian students, activists, and student organizations on the grounds of “terrorism,” up to and including expulsion.  

Mada al-Carmel concluded that the Israeli legislation “targets the Palestinian education system and Palestinian students from primary school to university.” The Israeli government is also “working to stamp out any political or national expression by students of all ages, as well as by Palestinian teachers.” Adding, “the current administration aims to implement in order to control and politically harass Palestinians, restricting their struggle, their protests, and their ability to express their political opinions and their national identity… through the intimidation of teachers and the securitization of Palestinian education.” 

Contrarily, when reading the proposed law on the Knesset website, the bill proposes “that the guidelines of the Israeli curriculum, according to circulars issued by the Ministry of Education Director General, be binding for all schools that operate by law in Israel and are subject to the ministry’s supervision. It is further proposed to restrict the employment of an education worker who is linked to terrorist activity, including the following: Making the issuance of an employment permit conditional upon the lack of a security record with such linkage; suspension of the permit if the worker is indicted for a terrorist offense or if the Director General is convinced that the worker has displayed identification with a terrorist organization or with an act of terrorism; revoking the permit if the worker has been convicted of a terrorist offense.”  The explanatory notes to the bill state: “Two children, aged 13–14, have recently participated in murderous acts of terrorism. These acts did not arise in a vacuum, but rather grew on the fertile soil of unbridled incitement taking place in schools in which the Palestinian curriculum is studied in east Jerusalem. This curriculum includes delegitimization and demonization of the Jewish people and the State of Israel, and glorification of terrorists and acts of terrorism against [the Jewish people and the State of Israel]. When this content is part of the education system from a young age, it has a destructive and long-term effect. “Today, supervision of the Palestinian study content is deficient, and the arrangement according to which teaching personnel can be suspended or dismissed is largely to be found in circulars of the Ministry of Education Director General. According to the existing arrangement, the possibility of suspending or dismissing teaching personnel is complicated, limited and liable to take years.”

Mada’s dismissal of “terrorism” should raise an alarm. 

It must be said that there is a steady increase of Arab students at Israeli universities, most of whom come to study, not to cause trouble.  

REFERENCES:

Political Persecution of Palestinians Using the Education System and Israeli Universities

Political Persecution of Palestinians Using the Education System and Israeli Universities

Sep 21, 2023 

Mada al-Carmel

Since the formation of Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu’s sixth government December 29, 2022, it has become clear—as outlined in previous papers from Mada al-Carmel—that this administration will deepen the country’s structurally racist policies toward Palestinian citizens of Israel, that it poses more of a threat than previous governments, and that it will directly and openly reduce the space for democracy in Israel while directing ever stronger doses of racism at Palestinian society.1

Examples of this trend include growing police hostility and repression toward Palestinian citizens, further restrictions on public and individual freedoms, moves to rein in the judiciary, deeper “Zionization” of academic curricula and the education system in general, and restrictions on the political activity and struggle of Palestinians within the country. In recent months, the government has advanced policies and laws that have grave impacts for the Palestinian education system and the political activities of Palestinian students at Israeli universities. These measures have been proposed or passed with no serious opposition from within the Israeli political and party systems, or in the public sphere, and have only stirred modest responses from Palestinians themselves.

Clamping Down on the Palestinian Education System

The Knesset has recently approved two such bills in preliminary readings. The first, the Supervision of Schools Bill (Amendment—Prohibition on Employment of Terrorist Convicts and Supporters and Supervision of Study Content for Prevention of Incitement) aims to facilitate the firing of teachers who express support for “terrorist organizations.”2 The second, the Student Rights Bill (Amendment – Removal of Students Who Support Terror From Educational Institutions and the Dismantling of Terror-Supporting Cells), stipulates that a representative of the Shin Bet domestic security service should once again be deployed at the Ministry of Education, a post that was previously scrapped, officially at least, in 2005.3 The first bill was approved on its preliminary reading on May 31, by 45 votes against 25.

The second bill was tabled by Jewish Power MK Zvika Fogel, who gained notoriety a few months ago when he suggested that he wanted to see the West Bank Palestinian village of Huwwara “closed” and “burnt,” and that violence carried out there by Israeli settlers against Palestinians was legitimate as it helped to deter Palestinian attacks. His bill was approved on its preliminary reading on July 19 by 52 votes to 30, and would create a committee at the Education Ministry made up of five members, including a representative of Shin Bet, to oversee appointments within the education system.

The two bills were tabled following approval by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, and clearly target the Palestinian education system in general and Palestinian teachers in particular. They would bolster security supervision at education facilities and give the domestic security apparatus the power to investigate the political backgrounds of teachers before they are appointed, and would also make it easier to dismiss them. The bills’ reference to “solidarity with a terrorist organization” is a vague term that is clearly intended to target teachers who express support for Palestinian patriotic causes, or for any other political cause, and even to target those who mark national occasions. In Israeli eyes, such acts are seen as tantamount to support for terrorism.

Palestinian students have been brought before university disciplinary committees and Palestinian staff have been fired over posts on social media.

Israel’s clampdown on Palestinian students, teachers, and education staff predates these proposed legal changes. There has been a marked increase in surveillance and monitoring of Palestinians’ statements, writings, and activities since the Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip in 2014. Palestinian students have been brought before university disciplinary committees and Palestinian staff have been fired over posts on social media. Government-funded primary and preparatory schools have been banned from marking national occasions or observing strikes called for by the High Follow-up Committee for Arab citizens of Israel (HFC). The proposed amendments would help give legal cover to these practices targeting the Palestinian education system, its staff, and its students.

In response to the proposed amendment to the Supervision of Schools Bill, human rights organization Adalah and the regional Follow-up Committee on Educational Affairs issued a joint statement saying, “The law is another attempt to deepen the regime of control over the Palestinian education system and to return us to the period of military rule that was imposed on Palestinians in Israel from 1948 to 1966.” The statement added that, “The proposed law is unconstitutional, as it allows for surveillance of education system staff on the assumption that they pose a security threat simply on the grounds of being Arab, and treats Palestinian Arab citizens as enemies.” It also warned that even the act of making such proposals is damaging, as it sows fear among staff. The statement called for increased awareness, and for efforts to counter the stir caused by the proposals by raising education employees’ awareness of their legal rights when dealing with such issues in a professional and principled way, and with a sense of ownership. “Teachers are caregivers whose role is not limited to delivering set curricula,” the statement read, urging Palestinian teachers to organize.4

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), meanwhile, said the main aim of the proposed laws is to impose surveillance and securitization on the Palestinian education system and to prepare for the return of a Shin Bet representative to the ministry, as well as to allow for non-education personnel to seize control of the education system. It said that the proposals represent implicit incitement against an entire community on the grounds that it supports “terrorism.” In ACRI’s view, the vague text of the law adds to the atmosphere of persecution, fear, and repression facing Palestinian education staff, part of a trend of censorship and a silencing of critics within the education system as a whole.5

Attempts to Repress Palestinian Students’ National Identity at Israeli Universities

In mid-July, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation approved the tabling of a draft law that would see Palestinian students at Israeli universities punished for raising the Palestinian flag. The bill was titled the Student Rights Bill (Amendment – Removal of Students Who Support Terror from Educational Institutions and the Dismantling of Terror-Supporting Cells). On July 19, the Knesset approved it on its preliminary reading, by 50 votes in favor to 32 against.6

The draft law targets student union activity and the national student movement that is active at Israeli universities, and would provide for punishments against Palestinian students, activists, and student organizations on the grounds of “terrorism,” up to and including expulsion. It would also punish students caught raising the Palestinian flag. According to ACRI, the law would oblige academic institutions to halt the education of students found guilty of making statements deemed to be supportive of “terrorism” and to permanently expel them. In addition, any academic degree they had gained outside the country would not be recognized.7

The Student Coalition (al-Tajammu al-Tullabi) released a statement condemning the bill, which reads, “This law intensifies the political persecution that Palestinians inside Israel and national activism in general have faced since the Nakba.” It goes on to say, “What 75 years of persecution, harassment, and attempts at erasure and ‘Israelization’ have failed to achieve will not succeed against a generation that is proud of its identity, its belonging to its people, and the justness of its cause, and that refuses to submit in any way.”8

The Student Front said in its own statement that, “The bill that would ban raising the Palestinian flag at universities and expel students who do so reflects utter hysteria over the student movement, its popularity, and the way students have gathered under the Palestinian flag, as well as Arab-Jewish partnership and struggle in recent years.”9 Aside from these statements, Palestinian political parties, the HFC, and rights groups have not responded in any serious way to these proposed laws, which represent a fundamental shift in the tools of repression and political persecution against the Palestinian community in Israel.

Conclusion

The legislation described above targets the Palestinian education system and Palestinian students from primary school to university. It aims to wipe out their national identity and remove their national affiliation and political stances from the education sphere. The Israeli political right is making efforts to bring Jewish identity and Zionist values into the Jewish education system, with the blessing of the current government. A minister has even been appointed in the prime minister’s office to work on this issue. The government is also working to stamp out any political or national expression by students of all ages, as well as by Palestinian teachers.

The Israeli political right is making efforts to bring Jewish identity and Zionist values into the Jewish education system.

The bills outlined above fit within a broader legislative program that aims to impose government control and censorship over Palestinians in Israel. They add to a string of laws and measures that the current administration aims to implement in order to control and politically harass Palestinians, restricting their struggle, their protests, and their ability to express their political opinions and their national identity. These bills are also a direct extension of the government’s move to make Zionism the “guiding principle of the government’s activities,” which would “make Zionist values a guiding and decisive principle in all the activities of government ministries,” in the spirit of both the 2018 Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People and the agreement on which the current coalition government was formed.

Moreover, these laws revive Israeli policies from the era of military government, which sought to remake Palestinian identity through the education system, and through the intimidation of teachers and the securitization of Palestinian education. Mada al-Carmel believes that these proposals reflect the general outlook of this government, are an interpretation of the coalition agreement, and represent the government’s efforts to turn the 2018 basic law into government policy, transforming it from a declarative law into a legal reality. Furthermore, the Palestinian community’s reaction to these laws and policies has not been commensurate with their seriousness and the political threat that they represent.

The views expressed in this publication are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Arab Center Washington DC, its staff, or its Board of Directors.

This position paper was first published in Arabic by Mada al-Carmel, Arab Center for Applied Social Research, Haifa, Israel.

******

1 “Projections of the Sixth Netanyahu Government’s Treatment of Arab Citizens” (in Arabic), Mada al-Carmel, December 2022, https://tinyurl.com/3svhxzv4.; “The Justice Minister’s Plan:  Harming the Rights of Palestinians in Israel” (in Arabic), Mada al-Carmel, January 2023, https://tinyurl.com/47tu5vr4.

2 “Approved in Preliminary Reading: Restricting Employment of Education Worker Who Is Linked to Terrorist Activity,” Israeli Knesset, June 1, 2023, https://main.knesset.gov.il/en/news/pressreleases/pages/press1623w.aspx.
3 “Approved in Preliminary Reading: Bill to Remove Students Who Support Terrorism from Universities,” Israeli Knesset, July 20, 2023, https://main.knesset.gov.il/en/news/pressreleases/pages/press20723q.aspx.
4 “Adalah and the Follow-Up Committee on Educational Affairs Comment on the Supervision of Schools Bill: Racist Proposals That We Will Challenge Publicly, Legally and Internationally” (in Arabic), Adalah (the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights In Israel), June 1, 2023, https://www.adalah.org/ar/content/view/10832.
5 “Position Paper regarding the School Inspection Bill” (in Hebrew), ACRI, May 26, 2023, https://01368b10-57e4-4138-acc3-01373134d221.usrfiles.com/ugd/01368b_a2a2196260fa416dab47dfbc2436c175.pdf.
6 “Approved in Preliminary Reading: Bill Targeting Arab Political Activity at Universities on Grounds of ‘Supporting Terrorism’” (in Arabic), Arab48, July 19, 2023, https://tinyurl.com/ye2av462.
7 ACRI, “Position Paper regarding the School Inspection Bill.”
8 Arab48, “Approved in Preliminary Reading.”
9 “Student Front: We Will Continue to Raise the Palestinian Flag at Universities, and Our Students Will Stomp on the Flag-Raising Law” (in Arabic), Alittihad, May 25, 2023, https://tinyurl.com/yff2tuzm.

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

https://mada-research.org/post/15904/Zionism-and-Settler-Colonialism:-Palestinian-approaches-New-book-published-by-Mada-al-Carmel.

By Mada Admin | 20 July 2023

Zionism and Settler Colonialism: Palestinian approaches New book published by Mada al-Carmel.

Mada al-Carmel – The Arab Center for Applied Social Research published an edited volume in Arabic titled “Zionism and Settler Colonialism: Palestinian Approaches”. The volume is edited by Nadim Rouhana, the former Director of Mada al-Carmel and professor of International Affairs and Conflict Studies at the Fletcher School at Tufs University, and Areen Hawari the Director of the Gender Studies Program at Mada al-Carmel.  

This book is the result of an academic workshop at which Mada al-Carmel brought together a group of Palestinian scholars and graduate students in Palestine for four two-day workshops over a year and a half.  The workshops focused on the study of Zionism as a settler-colonial project, examined its practices, and studied its foundational assumptions and its intellectual, religious, and political worldviews. The workshops, while addressing Zionism’s settler colonial underpinnings, also addressed the transformations that the Zionist project has undergone, as a result of its continued failure to subjugate the ongoing Palestinian resistance.

The book contributes to the debate about the position of the settler-colonial studies in understanding the nature of the Israeli State and in developing Palestinian strategies for liberation in light of this understanding. Thus, the book is a contribution to the growing literature on decolonization in the context of Palestine studies.

The contributors to this volume come from different disciplines, live in different geographical areas with different political and legal status within Palestine and work in and study in diverse academic contexts. Some of the writers approached Zionism and its colonial project from a historical perspective, others focused on both its historical and current practices, and some chapters investigated the resistance to the project. The volume also includes chapters that analyzed the colonial structure itself, and the overlap between Zionism’s settler-colonial dimension with the religious and national ones. In addition, the volume addressed the knowledge production around the question of Zionism as a settler colonialism by Israeli academic institutions and by Zionism’s opponents.

Contributors and chapters as they appear in the volume are:

Introduction

Nadim Rouhana and Areen Hawari

The first section: Settler Colonialism:  Theoretical approaches

• The Palestinian Resistance and the Dilemma of Legitimacy of Settler Colonialism in Palestine: Zionism Responds with Religious Narratives.                                                                         

Nadim Rouhana

• The Dialectic of the Colonial and Exploitative Dimension in the Structure of Israeli Colonialism: The Colonized Lands of 1967 as an Example.

Ahmad Iz Addin Asaad

• A Comparative Reading between the Colonial Cases in Palestine and Algeria.

Abaher al-Sakka

Settler Colonialism in the Israeli-Palestinian Context, Decolonization, and the Sociology of Knowledge Production in Israel

Areej Sabbagh Khoury

• Benjamin Netanyahu and the Reproduction of the Zionist Project within the Paradigm of the Clash of Civilizations.

 Mohannad Mustafa

The second section: The Settler-Colonial Policies of the Zionist Project

• The Political Economy Under the Colonial Regime and the Outbreak of the 1936 Revolution.

Mahmoud Yazbek

• In Search for the Biblical Golan: Jewish Imaginaries and Settlement in the 19th-Century 

Aamer Ibraheem

• The Unchilding Politics: Tracing the Israeli Colonialism.

Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian

• The Biopolitics of Palestinian Class Elimination in the Colonial Labor Market.

Sarab Abu Rabia

The third section: On the Agency of the Colonized

• Ms. Keren Kayemet: The Formation of Palestinian Masculine Identities Under Military Regime.

Areen Hawari

• The Normalization within the Structure of Settler Colonialism in Palestine: The Duality of Rejection and Acceptance.

Mai Al-Bazour

• The Concept of Normalization within the Structure of Settler Colonialism in Palestine: Between the Duality of Rejection and Acceptance

Heba Yazbak

• Liberating the Past from the Captivity of a Colonized Present: The Memory as a Site of Resistance.

Amira Silmi

• The presence of the Settler Project in the political folk Songs: A Reading in the Palestinian Revolutionary oral text

Qasam Al-Haj

28.09.23

Editorial Note

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recently formed the J7 Global Task Force Against Antisemitism, responding to increasing numbers of antisemitic incidents worldwide. The Task Force will include the following countries and organizations: The United States – ADL and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; The United Kingdom – Board of Deputies of British Jews; France – Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF); Germany- Central Council of Jews in Germany; Canada – Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA); Argentina – Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas (DAIA); Australia- Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ). According to the ADL, in addition to top-level consultations, the J7 will organize a number of working groups comprised of experts from each community and develop strategies and action plans such as policy and advocacy, tech policy, security, extremism, and education against antisemitism. “The formation of the J7 Global Task Force comes at a time when data from around the world indicates a rise in antisemitic incidents and attitudes, and growing concern within our Jewish communities who are confronting this rise,” the ADL stated.

Some Arab and Iranian media responded with antisemitic rants. These sources accuse the Jews of using the label of antisemitism to silence the legitimate voices of the Palestinians and scuttle their struggle against the “Jewish colonialists.” One example is Al-Mayadeen, a Beirut-based Arab language satellite news channel associated with Iran and Hezbollah.     

Al Mayadeen stated that the Global Task Force, formed by several leading “pro-Israeli, Zionist organizations,” is an alliance “pedaling pro-Israeli sentiment under the guise of fighting antisemitism.” These organizations are “staunch supporters of the Israeli occupation… it is well-known that the organizations would spin the narrative and make the whole thing revolve around defending the Israeli occupation and attacking occupied Palestine.”

According to the Al Mayadeen, the list of members raises questions about the “so-called fight against anti-Semitism,” as it includes “the notorious Anti-Defamation League, a notorious organization known for its Zionist ideals, support for the Israeli occupation, and vilification of Pro-Palestine activists.”  Al Mayadeen reached this conclusion because the ADL holds Zionism as “the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.” For Al Mayadeen, it means, “intentionally ignoring its roots that stem from European colonialism and the pursuit of expansion at the expense of third countries.”

Furthermore, for Al Mayadeen, the claim that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism is “a sort of umbrella phrase that seeks to demonize anyone who opposes the Israeli occupation and the crime it commits against the Palestinian people and Arabs.” 

For Al Mayadeen, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, another prominent J7 member, is “another Zionist organization that supports the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The board also asserts that Zionism is ‘the belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland.’ The board also in May 2018 criticized the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas for its response to Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, without acknowledging that the Israeli occupation forces killed scores of Palestinians and used disproportionate force against them.” 

That Al-Mayadeen is a mouthpiece for Hezbollah and Iran is hardly debatable. The outlet trumpets its dedication to the “Palestinian resistance movement,” echoing Hezbollah’s 1985 foundational charter that mentions the goal of fighting “the Zionist enemy.” The Jewish Chronicle accused Al Mayadeen of antisemitism because of articles like “The Holocaust — that great deception”; “Why do the Jews rejoice at the burning of Notre Dame in Paris?”; “Jews and Freemasons in the Arabs’ revolutions”; and “The Jews of ‘Israel’ — this is why their end is certain.”

The Middle East Monitor (MEMO), the anti-Israel Arab media outlet based in London, is also a case in point. Widely distributed in the Middle East, it is considered a mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood. MEMO published an article presenting the battle against antisemitism negatively, stating that ADL’s “Greenblatt is one of the key proponents of the idea that anti-Zionism and legitimate criticism of the state of Israel equate to anti-Semitism. He is spearheading the initiative.” According to MEMO, “The collaboration comes as Israel faces sharp criticism for its political shift to the far-right. Internally the occupation state is facing the prospect of a ‘civil war’, according to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; internationally, a consensus is emerging about Israel’s practice of apartheid. With the highly controversial IHRA definition of anti-Semitism conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish racism, the increased focus and concern over Israeli policy has reinforced the false narrative with every condemnation of the occupation state and every voice in support of Palestine.” 

Traditional discourse on antisemitism has been largely limited to the West – where both right-wing and left-wing varieties of the phenomenon are to be found. The tremendous growth of antisemitic propaganda of the Islamist regime of Iran propagated through its myriad outlets in the Middle East and Asia, such as Al Mayadeen, should be examined. Iran’s antisemitic propaganda has also taken root in Latin and South America, where Hezbollah is embedded in the large Lebanese diaspora. The modern versions of Arab and Palestinian antisemitism, which peaked during the Nazi era, also need to be scrutinized. 

IAM would report on the progress of the J7 Global Task Force. 

References:

https://www.adl.org/j7-large-communities-task-force-against-antisemitism
J7 – The Large Communities’ Task Force Against Antisemitism

In response to increasing rates of antisemitism around the world, major Jewish organizations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Argentina and Australia formed the J7, the Large Communities’ Task Force Against Antisemitism.

The task force will consist of the following member organizations and nations represented:

• The United States: ADL and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
• The United Kingdom: Board of Deputies of British Jews
• France: Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF)
• Germany: Central Council of Jews in Germany
• Canada: Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA)
• Argentina: Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas (DAIA)
• Australia: Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ)

In addition to top-level consultations, the J7 will organize a number of working groups comprised of subject matter experts from each community to develop strategies and action plans within areas such as policy and advocacy, tech policy, security, extremism and education against antisemitism.

The formation of the J7 Global Task Force comes at a time when data from around the world indicates a rise in antisemitic incidents and attitudes, and growing concern within our Jewish communities who are confronting this rise.

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

https://www.adl.org/j7-large-communities-task-force-against-antisemitism

Published: 07.24.2023

New initiative will bring together leaders of seven large Diaspora Jewish communities to discuss common challenges, develop coordinated strategies and share best practices

New York, NY, July 25, 2023 … In response to increasing rates of antisemitism around the world, major Jewish organizations in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Argentina and Australia announced today the formation of the J7, the Large Communities’ Task Force Against Antisemitism. 

The task force will consist of the following member organizations and nations represented: 

• The United States: ADL (the Anti-Defamation League) and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations 
• The United Kingdom: Board of Deputies of British Jews
• France: Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF)
• Germany: Central Council of Jews in Germany
• Canada: Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA)
• Argentina: Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas (DAIA)
• Australia: Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ)

In addition to top-level consultations, the J7 will organize a number of working groups comprised of subject matter experts from each community to develop strategies and action plans within areas such as policy and advocacy, tech policy, security, extremism, and education against antisemitism.

The formation of the J7 Global Task Force comes at a time when data from around the world indicates a rise in antisemitic incidents and attitudes, and growing concern within our Jewish communities who are confronting this rise.

Leaders of these seven communities shared their perspectives of the importance of this collaboration:

Argentina – Jorge Knoblovits, President, DAIA: “To be part of J7, represents for the DAIA a great responsibility as one of the world’s largest Jewish communities and the only one in Latin America. J7 will allow us to have a greater understanding of the challenges faced by world Jewry in the areas of antisemitism, Holocaust remembrance and other hate-related topics. To be part of J7, led by ADL, ensures that the perspective of Latin American Jews will have a global reach.”   

Australia – Peter Wertheim, Co-CEO, Executive Council of Australian Jewry: “Antisemitism is a disease of the human spirit that eats away at the foundations of civilisation everywhere. It is not limited by geographical borders, ideology or creed.  It is a global phenomenon that requires a global response.  As the elected peak representative body of the Australian Jewish community, we are pleased to join our colleagues from organisations representing other major Jewish communities in the diaspora to co-ordinate our efforts to combat antisemitism and maximise our impact.”

Canada – Shimon Fogel, President and CEO, CIJA: “What starts with the Jews, never ends with the Jews. There is a global imperative to confront antisemitism and drawing on the expertise and strength of the J7 coalition is an important catalyst for universal action.”

France – Robert J. Ejnes, Executive Director, CRIF: “If antisemitism exists everywhere in the world, it is in Europe that it has been brought to its climax. Together with the J7 task force, we will look at the resurgence of antisemitism in all its forms, whether Islamist, conspiratorial, hatred of Israel or Holocaust denial, from wherever it originates. Together, we will monitor the expressions of hate and fight for a better tomorrow.”

Germany – Dr. Josef Schuster, President, Central Council of Jews in Germany: “The internet, as a means of fast and easy communication, increasingly blurs national borders. Similarly, antisemitic networks, tactics and developments don’t stop at national borders either. We endorse this additional opportunity for exchange in the J7 format, which will facilitate interaction between representatives of Jewish communities at this level. Together we will approach globally operating institutions or companies and unite our efforts in combatting antisemitism.”

UK – Marie van der Zyl OBE, President, Board of Deputies of British Jews: “Antisemitism knows no geographic boundaries.  The Board of Deputies looks forward to being part of this international coalition of leading Jewish organisations, each at the forefront of the fight against the challenges posed by the rise of this global hatred. By working together, we strengthen our ability to tackle antisemitism wherever it emerges.”

U.S. – William C. Daroff, CEO, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations: “Antisemitism, which is the world’s oldest hatred, no longer looks or spreads the way it did in the past. The vitriol once felt for individual Jews or Jewish practice, has metastasized into blaming the Jewish people and the Jewish state for the ills of the world. Social media enables antisemitic hate to cross borders, where it spreads faster than ever before. It is therefore imperative for the largest diaspora Jewish communities to engage in regular conversation to develop strategies to combat the pernicious spread of antisemitism. Including our Conference of Presidents member organizations that are engaged in combatting antisemitism will bring great synergies to this effort. What impacts one community, impacts us all. ”

U.S. — Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO: “Antisemitism is rising around the world, especially in countries where there are large Jewish populations. And threats to our communities are not contained by continents and borders. We needed to meet these challenges through coordinated action. This new coalition of major organizations representing seven large Jewish Diaspora communities in liberal democracies will provide a formal framework for coordination, consultation and formulating global responses to antisemitic threats against the Jewish people.”

The J7 leadership will meet periodically virtually and in-person, including at ADL’s 2024 Never is Now Summit on March 4-7, 2024.

================================https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/notorious-zionist-group-adl-forms-task-force-to-address-anti

Notorious Zionist group ADL forms task force to ‘address antisemitism’

By Al Mayadeen English Source: Agencies 25 Jul 2023 14:09 

Several leading pro-Israeli, Zionist organizations have taken to form an alliance of their own in a bid to “address antisemitism” while pedaling pro-Israeli sentiment.

Organizations from seven nations, most of whom are staunch supporters of the Israeli occupation, have come together to form a “global task force” that would try and tackle “anti-Semitism”, though not much was specified regarding this topic, as it is well-known that the organizations would spin the narrative and make the whole thing revolve around defending the Israeli occupation and attacking occupied Palestine.

The initiative will “unite leaders from the world’s most significant Jewish communities to devise coordinated strategies, discuss mutual challenges, and share best practices,” a statement published Tuesday by the J7 Global Task Force Against Antisemitism said.

However, the list of the task force’s members raises many questions about this so-called fight against anti-Semitism, as it includes the notorious Anti-Defamation League, a notorious organization known for its Zionist ideals, support for the Israeli occupation, and vilification of Pro-Palestine activists.

The ADL proclaims Zionism to be “the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel”, intentionally ignoring its roots that stem from European colonialism and the pursuit of expansion at the expense of third countries.

Moreover, ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt claimed in May that anti-Zionism was anti-Semitism, a sort of umbrella phrase that seeks to demonize anyone who opposes the Israeli occupation and the crime it commits against the Palestinian people and Arabs.

Another member is the Board of Deputies of British Jews, another Zionist organization that supports the Israeli occupation of Palestine. 

The board also asserts that Zionism is “the belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in our ancestral homeland.”

The board also in May 2018 criticized the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas for its response to Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, without acknowledging that the Israeli occupation forces killed scores of Palestinians and used disproportionate force against them.

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

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230726-zionist-groups-set-up-taskforce-to-defend-israel-under-guise-of-combatting-anti-semitism/
Zionist groups set up ‘taskforce’ to defend Israel under guise of combatting anti-Semitism

July 26, 2023 at 12:31 pm

Eight major pro-Israel Jewish organisations from seven different countries have united to create a new task force to defend Israel under the guides of combatting anti-Semitism. The groups in the Task Force Against Anti-Semitism have all embraced the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism and placed defending Israel from criticism at the centre of their work.

Calling themselves J7, the anti-Palestinian taskforce comprises prominent Jewish organisations from the US, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, Argentina and Australia: the Anti-Defamation League (ADL); the Conference of Presidents of American Jewish Organisations; the Board of Deputies of British Jews; Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF); the Central Council of Jews in Germany; the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA); Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas (DAIA); and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).

“Anti-Semitism is rising around the world, especially in countries where there are large Jewish populations. We needed to meet these challenges through coordinated action,” ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt told Haaretz. “This new coalition of major organisations representing seven large Jewish Diaspora communities in liberal democracies will provide a formal framework for coordination, consultation and formulating global responses to anti-Semitic threats against the Jewish people.”

Greenblatt is one of the key proponents of the idea that anti-Zionism and legitimate criticism of the state of Israel equate to anti-Semitism. He is spearheading the initiative. “The idea for the J7 came out of conversations I had with partners in France over our shared challenges and concerns. When we reached out to these seven communities, there was instant enthusiasm about the importance of the seven of us consulting, and what we might achieve working together.”

The collaboration comes as Israel faces sharp criticism for its political shift to the far-right. Internally the occupation state is facing the prospect of a “civil war”, according to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert; internationally, a consensus is emerging about Israel’s practice of apartheid. With the highly controversial IHRA definition of anti-Semitism conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish racism, the increased focus and concern over Israeli policy has reinforced the false narrative with every condemnation of the occupation state and every voice in support of Palestine.

In a recent interview, legal expert Giovanni Fassina spoke to MEMO about the IHRA definition’s chilling repercussions. Fassina uncovered shocking examples of its weaponisation against critics of Israel and the suppression of free speech under the guise of combatting anti-Semitism.

The J7 group says that it will monitor and address expressions of hate from all origins. The leadership of J7 will meet regularly, both virtually and in person, with a significant event scheduled for ADL’s Never is Now Summit in March 2024.

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

https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/2023-07-25/ty-article/.premium/international-jewish-establishment-groups-form-landmark-task-force-to-combat-antisemitism/00000189-8c2c-d430-a59b-ad2df3970000International Jewish Establishment Groups Form Landmark Task Force to Combat Antisemitism

The initiative joins UN and White House initiatives to address a worldwide rise in antisemitic incidents

Ben Samuels, Washington
Jul 25, 2023

WASHINGTON — Major Jewish establishment organizations in seven countries announced on Tuesday the formation of a landmark task force to combat rising antisemitism at nearly unprecedented levels, both within their respective countries and on a global level.

Known as the J7, the Large Communities’ Task Force Against Antisemitism, the first-of-its-kind alliance will bring together Jewish organizations from the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Canada, Argentina and Australia to develop strategies and actions plans within areas such as policy and advocacy, tech policy, security, extremism and education.

“Antisemitism is rising around the world, especially in countries where there are large Jewish populations. We needed to meet these challenges through coordinated action,” Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt told Haaretz.

“This new coalition of major organizations representing seven large Jewish Diaspora communities in liberal democracies will provide a formal framework for coordination, consultation and formulating global responses to antisemitic threats against the Jewish people,” he noted.

The member groups, alongside the ADL, include the Conference of Presidents of American Jewish Organizations, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF), the Central Council of Jews in Germany, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), Delegación de Asociaciones Israelitas Argentinas (DAIA) and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).

“The idea for the J7 came out of conversations I had with partners in France over our shared challenges and concerns,” Greenblatt said.

“When we reached out to these seven communities — Argentina, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S. — there was instant enthusiasm about the importance of the seven of us consulting, and what we might achieve working together,” he continued.

“These large Jewish Diaspora communities around the world are all experiencing rising antisemitic incidents, and in many cases, attitudes — on the streets and online. We are confronted with the normalization of antisemitism and anti-Zionism on the left and right,” he added.

Greenblatt’s comments reflect a widely shared position amongst Jewish establishment figures around the world concerning the role of anti-Israel sentiment in fomenting anti-Jewish hatred.

The Biden administration recently unveiled a landmark plan to combat antisemitism, widely hailed despite deep internal infighting about how to properly define antisemitism in relation to criticism of Israel and pro-Palestinian advocacy.

After the Biden administration managed to land the plane and please both sides of the debate, the United Nations is similarly deep in working toward creating its own action plan while wrestling with the same issues and external pressures.

The J7 organizations, it bears mentioning, have all passionately embraced and subsequently advocated for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which progressives caution too easily conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

CRIF Executive Director Robert J. Ejnes, meanwhile, flagged anti-Israel sentiment as one of many forms of anti-Jewish hatred the alliance plans to combat.

“If antisemitism exists everywhere in the world, it is in Europe that it has been brought to its climax. Together with the J7 task force, we will look at the resurgence of antisemitism in all its forms, whether Islamist, conspiratorial, hatred of Israel or Holocaust denial, from wherever it originates. Together, we will monitor the expressions of hate and fight for a better tomorrow,” he said.

The J7 leadership will meet periodically virtually and in-person, including at ADL’s 2024 Never is Now Summit on March 4-7, 2024.

21.09.23

Editorial Note

A new report was published by the British Society for Middle East Studies (BRISMES) together with the Palestinian group, the European Legal Support Center (ELSC). BRISMES and ELSC have rejected the adoption of The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism. In their words, “UK higher education institutions should rescind the adoption of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism.”

BRISMES is holding a conference to promote the report’s findings, on September 28, 2023.

The report is based on an analysis of 40 cases recorded between 2017 and 2022, where university staff and students were accused of antisemitism, based on the IHRA Working Definition. Except in two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism have all been rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated. According to the authors, “The findings demonstrate that the IHRA definition is undermining academic freedom and freedom of expression in relation to discussions of Israel and Palestine and risks being used in a way that discriminates against Palestinians and others on campuses who wish to teach, research, study, discuss, or speak out against the oppression of Palestinians.”

 In a common technique to camouflage their antisemitic agenda and legitimize their findings, the two organizations recruited an anti-Israel Israeli academic to lead the campaign, Prof. Neve Gordon. The journal Times Higher Education published his interview.  Gordon is the chair of BRISMES’ committee on academic freedom and a professor of international human rights and humanitarian law at Queen Mary University of London. Formerly of Ben Gurion University’s Department of Politics and Government who called for the boycott of Israel in 2009. Gordon claims that “BRISMES and the European Legal Support Centre received many requests of support from staff and students who have been accused of antisemitism because they criticized the policies of the Israeli government or just ‘liked’ some tweets about Israel or about the Labor Party… We began noticing a pattern of what appeared to be spurious accusations which are causing considerable stress and reputational damage to individuals in academia and decided to investigate the matter.” Gordon added: “As a Jewish parent, whose children have experienced antisemitism in a London school, it is clear to me that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is diverting our attention from real manifestations of antisemitism in UK higher education and society more generally. Instead of combating antisemitism, the IHRA definition has become a political tool to undermine and punish protected speech voiced by Palestinian and other students and staff who criticize Israeli policies.” 

Gordon also stated: “What has been framed as a tool to classify and assess a particular form of discriminatory violations of protected characteristics, has instead been used as a tool to undermine and punish protected speech and to punish those in academia who voice criticism of the Israeli state’s policies.” 

Contrary to Gordon’s claim, the IHRA Definition states clearly, “However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

The report delves primarily into incidents relating to anti-Zionism, the boycott movement, Israeli Apartheid Week, or comments on former leaders in the Labor Party accused of antisemitism, which many universities are unsure how to handle as these are sometimes considered borderline cases of antisemitism. Clearly, negating the Jewish right to self-determination in the ancestral homeland is antisemitic. 

In January, the Community Security Trust (CST), a charity that protects British Jews from antisemitism, published a report, “Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2020-2022,” that showed a 22% increase in university-related antisemitic hate incidents reported to CST over the past two academic years.

Ironically, the attack on IHRA occurred during a dramatic increase in antisemitism in the West. The Palestinian Authority has contributed its fair share to the denigration of Jews. As widely reported, Mahmoud Abbas, the PA head with a long history of Holocaust distortion and denial, stated that Hitler killed the Jews because of their ‘social functions’ related to money. ” Abbas said, “They say that Hitler killed the Jews for being Jews and that Europe hated the Jews because they were Jews. No. It was clearly explained that they fought them because of their social role and not their religion.” Abbas later clarified that he was referring to “usury, money and so on.”

The official Palestinian news agency recently published an antisemitic item negating Jews’s rights to their religion, stating, “On what is called ‘Yom Kippur,’ the settlers seek to simulate the sacrifice and set a record number of people storming Al-Aqsa Mosque and the day after it… The so-called ‘Feast of the Throne’ begins on September 30 and extends until October 17. It is one of the biblical pilgrimage holidays associated with the ‘alleged Temple,’ during which the settlers attempt to bring plant sacrifices into Al-Aqsa Mosque and raise the number of intruders to more than 1,500 intruders over successive days. Jerusalemite warnings continue about the danger of settlement rituals in the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and the city of Jerusalem, during the Jewish holidays, and calls for the necessity of traveling to Al-Aqsa to thwart the settlers’ plans and the ongoing Judaization efforts against the Blessed Mosque and the occupied city of Jerusalem.” 

WAFA, the official PA news agency, published the following statement on July 27, 2023, “The Islamic organizations in Jerusalem… called on every Palestinian and Muslim who can carry out Ribat (i.e., religious conflict over land claimed to be Islamic) in the alleys, houses of worship, benches, and plazas of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque / the Noble Jerusalem Sanctuary, with its entire territory that stands at 144 dunams, so that it will remain pure of the infidels’ defilement and precious and pure for the Muslims only, as Allah granted them in the holy Quran.” 

In another report, the PA Minister of Religious Affairs, Hatem Al-Bakri, was recorded on PA Television on September 15, 2023, saying, “Allah, purify the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Ibrahimi Mosque from the defilement of the criminal infidels, O Master of the Universe.”

The British Foreign Secretary who spoke at the International Counter-Terrorism Conference in Israel on September 12, 2023, said, “when I meet with the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, and I will make it clear that rather than spreading disgusting, anti-Semitic tropes, and outrageous distortions of history, they should be clear in their denouncement of violence. They should be clear that there is no acceptance for brutality and terrorists. And they should be clear there is no excuse to target Israelis, particularly Israeli civilians.” 

The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism is an essential tool for fighting the growing antisemitic movement. Many countries and institutions have voluntarily accepted the document. The anti-IHRA advocates are fighting a rearguard battle, which hopefully they cannot win. 

References:

https://www.brismes.ac.uk/events/ihra-report-launch

The Effects of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism on Academic Freedom

Date: Thursday, 28 September 2023

Time: 16:00-17:30 (BST)

Location: Online via Zoom (registration required)

Register to Attend

About the Event

As the controversial IHRA Definition of Antisemitism that conflates criticisms of Israel with antisemitism has been adopted by UK universities, a new report conducted by the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), the largest academic association in Europe focused on the study of the Middle East and North Africa, and the European Legal Support Center (ELSC), examines its consequences for academics and students. The report demonstrates that the definition is not fit for purpose and is infringing on academic freedom and freedom of speech, while also harming the mental health, reputation and career prospects of students and staff.

Download the Report

Panellists

Akram Salhab is a PhD student in politics at Queen Mary University of London, focusing on Palestinian history, sovereignty and anticolonialism. He is a longstanding organiser for democratic rights in Palestine, and for freedom of speech on Palestine at UK universities, including working to counter the impact of the Prevent legislation and the IHRA. He presented and helped produce a news item for Channel 4 News on these topics, and the wider Palestinian experience of colonialism: https://www.channel4.com/news/activist-akram-salhab-on-the-palestinian-experience-of-british-colonialism

---

Gabriel Frankel is the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) Legal Officer in the UK. He provides legal assistance to individuals and groups – including academics and students – facing restrictions on their fundamental freedoms due to their speech or activities related to Palestine.

---

Hagit Borer is a Professor of Linguistics at Queen Mary University of London. She is a Fellow of the Linguistic Society of America (2014), and of the British Academy (2018). Originally from Israel, she has lectured extensively on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to community and academic audiences in the US and in the UK. In 2021 she became active in the campaign against the adoption of the IHRA definition of Antisemitism by British HE, and in that context, published an article against that definition in Times of Higher Education.

---

Ben Jamal has been Director of Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), the largest organisation in the UK campaigning for the rights of the Palestinian people, since 2016. He is a British Palestinian and a member of the British Palestinian Committe. 

---

Chair

Paola Rivetti is Associate Professor in Politics in the School of Law and Government, Dublin City University. She is author of Political participation in Iran from Khatami to the Green Movement (2020) and an Associate Editor of the journals Iranian Studies and Partecipazione e Conflitto. She is a member of the Brismes Council and the newly-formed Committee for Academic Freedom of the Italian Society for Middle East Studies SeSaMO.

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

https://www.brismes.ac.uk/news/press-release-new-report-highlights-major-free-speech-issues-in-uk-universities

Press Release | New Report Highlights Major Free Speech Issues in UK Universities

• Posted: 13/09/2023

Report published today reveals breaches of fundamental rights in UK Higher Education through the use of the ‘IHRA definition of antisemitism’

London, 13 September 2023

A controversial definition of antisemitism that conflates criticisms of Israel with antisemitism has been used on campuses, leading to restrictions on the freedom of speech of staff and students, the new report reveals. This is the first study to expose the harmful implications of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism following its adoption in UK universities. It was conducted by the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), the largest academic association in Europe focused on the study of the Middle East and North Africa, and the European Legal Support Center (ELSC). The report demonstrates that the definition is not fit for purpose and is infringing on academic freedom and freedom of speech, while also harming the mental health, reputation and career prospects of students and staff.

---

The report is based on an analysis of 40 cases, recorded between 2017 and 2022, in which university staff and students were accused of antisemitism based on the IHRA definition. In all instances, except in two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism have been rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated. 

The findings demonstrate that the IHRA definition is undermining academic freedom and freedom of expression in relation to discussions of Israel and Palestine and risks being used in a way that discriminates against Palestinians and others on campuses who wish to teach, research, study, discuss, or speak out against the oppression of Palestinians.

The accusations have, in some cases, led to the cancellation of events that discuss the situation in Palestine and/or take a critical stance on Zionism, or the imposition of unreasonable conditions on the format of events. A common feature across several cases is the occurrence of significant and sustained levels of monitoring and surveillance by complainants including recording student speeches and staff lectures; monitoring student or staff social media posts; and reviewing academic publications, course syllabi and reading lists.

Staff and students who were subject to investigations and, in some cases, disciplinary hearings registered varying levels of stress and anxiety caused by these processes, despite being exonerated.

The reflections of one academic who went on leave due to stress are illustrative:

When you are in the process, you don’t understand how stressed you are. My nerves made me hyper vigilant for two years. The impact of the cases, continual media coverage, and constant communication to deal with the case resulted in chronic stress. 

Another targeted academic expressed concerns about their reputation and career:

I feel like I’m on this emotional roller-coaster. I feel like I won’t get a job anywhere else. If I apply for another job, they might not hire me. Not that they would think that I’m antisemitic but because they would want to avoid controversy. That’s the reality for me now. It’s different for the people whose investigations didn’t go public. Reputation is everything for academics. 

One student explained how the accusations interfered with their studies and threatened their future education:

It was really difficult to hear that you might be kicked out of university. It was very hard for me to focus on my studies. I had to do re-sits in the summer, so I didn’t graduate until recently. I nearly didn’t get into Oxford. I missed the deadline by two months. If it wasn’t for Oxford being really flexible, I wouldn’t be sitting here right now.

These cases are creating a chilling effect among staff and students, deterring individuals from speaking about or organising events that discuss Palestine out of fear that they will be subject to complaints, or else will face considerable bureaucratic hurdles and even costly legal action. Academics employed on temporary contracts and students are particularly susceptible to self-censorship out of fear that any sort of accusations, even if not upheld, could jeopardise their future ability to obtain permanent employment or impact their mental health.

The authors of the report recommend that UK higher education institutions should rescind the adoption of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism.

Neve Gordon, the Chair of BRISMES’s Committee on Academic Freedom and a professor of human rights law in the School of Law at Queen Mary University of London said: 

What has been framed as a tool to classify and assess a particular form of discriminatory violations of protected characteristics, has instead been used as a tool to undermine and punish protected speech and to punish those in academia who voice criticism of the Israeli state’s policies.

Giovanni Fassina, Director of the ELSC added: 

Not only does the documented pattern call into question the compliance of UK universities with their legal obligation to protect academic freedom and freedom of expression, but it is leading universities away from their core mission of nurturing critical thought, facilitating unhindered research, and encouraging wide-ranging debate.

Background

In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a working definition of antisemitism (‘the IHRA definition’), to which was appended a list of examples of antisemitism, several of which mention Israel, thereby conflating criticisms of the State of Israel, its policies, practices and political ideology with antisemitism. In practice, these examples have been used in UK higher education institutions to delegitimise points of view critical of Israel by making false accusations of antisemitism. 

As pointed out by one of the main drafters of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, writing in The Guardian in 2019, “It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code”. 

While antisemitism exists within UK society and incidents of anti-Jewish prejudice occur in higher education institutions, just as in other institutional contexts, the findings of this new report provide concrete evidence that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is not fit for purpose. The history and instrumentalisation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism should be understood in a wider context of attacks on advocates for Palestinian rights, as explained in a previous report published by the ELSC. Additional resources produced in the USA and Canada demonstrate similar harmful consequences for the rights of advocates for Palestine, while several human rights organisations, like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have asked the UN to reject the IHRA definition because its use and implementation “chill and sometimes suppress non-violent protest, activism and speech”. Such misuse has also been criticised by the former UN Special Rapporteur on Racism E. Tendayi Achiume.

In the UK, other efforts are being deployed at the institutional level to try and undermine advocacy for Palestine. In June 2023, the government tabled a bill aimed at preventing public bodies from making investment decisions that align with their human rights responsibilities and obligations. The bill was designed to target, in particular, boycotts, divestment and sanctions of Israel and, therefore, the Palestinian-led BDS movement. In response, a coalition of more than 70 civil society organisations in the UK declared that this bill represents a further attack on freedom of expression. Human Rights Watch called the bill “the latest in a growing list of measures which fundamentally undermine free speech and democratic rights in the country.”

The British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES) is the largest academic association in Europe focused on the study of the Middle East and North Africa. Through its Committee on Academic Freedom, it is committed to supporting academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region, both in the UK and globally.

The European Legal Support Center (ELSC) is the only organisation providing free legal support to individuals, groups and organisations advocating for Palestinian rights in Europe, including the UK. ELSC also documents incidents of repression and analyses and challenges the restrictive policies that result in shrinking space.

===========================================https://www.brismes.ac.uk/files/documents/Freedom%20of%20Speech%20and%20Academic%20Freedom%20in%20UK%20Higher%20Education-BRISMES-ELSC.pdf

 SEPTEMBER 2023 

European Legal Support Center 

British Society for Middle Eastern Studies 

Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in UK Higher Education: The Adverse Impact of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism 

The European Legal Support Center is the first organisation of movement lawyers mandated to defend and empower the Palestine solidarity movement in mainland Europe and the UK. ELSC provides free legal advice and assistance to associations, human rights organisations, groups, individuals, students and academics advocating for Palestinian rights. Founded in 1973, the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies is a forum for educators and researchers working to promote Middle Eastern studies, and to raise awareness of the region and its interconnection with the world, and with the UK. It is the publisher of the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies. It advocates on behalf of its members, supporting research and education, disseminating knowledge, deepening public understanding, and defending academic freedom. 

ELSC BRISMES 

https://elsc.support

https://www.brismes.ac.uk

2 Contents 

Executive summary 04 Introduction 07 Section 1: Legal Perspectives on the IHRA Definition of Antisemitsm 10 1.1 Legal Opinions 1.2 Universities’ Duties to Protect Freedom of Speech Section 2: Unfounded Allegations: Targeting Staff, Students, and Events 16 2.1 The Cases 2.2 Consequences for Individual Staff and Students 2.3 The Chilling Effect Section 3: University and Staff Responses 34 Section 4: Conclusions and Recommendations 37 4.1 Summary of Findings 4.2 Recommendations Appendices 42 3 

Executive summary 

We are committed to the struggle against antisemitism and all forms of racism. Antisemitism exists within UK society and incidents of anti-Jewish prejudice occur in higher education institutions, just as in other institutional contexts. Antisemitism must be addressed, and institutions should seek to prevent it. However, universities must do so in a way that does not discriminate directly or indirectly against others or undermine academic freedom and freedom of speech. This report demonstrates that accusations of antisemitism levelled against students and staff in UK universities are often based on a definition of antisemitism that is not fit for purpose and, in practice, is undercutting academic freedom and the rights to lawful speech of students and staff, and causing harm to the reputations and careers of those accused. This report was produced by the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) and the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), Europe’s leading scholarly association concerned with the study of the Middle East and North Africa. The report is based on an analysis of 40 cases that were reported to the ELSC and in which UK university staff and/or students were accused of antisemitism on the basis of the ‘IHRA working definition of antisemitism’ (‘IHRA definition’), between 2017 and 2022. In all instances, except for two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism were rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated. On the basis of these findings, this report recommends against the adoption and use of the IHRA definition in a higher education setting. However it is beyond the remit of the report to suggest alternative definitions while the Human Rights Act of 1998 and the 2010 Equality Act provide the necessary legal tools to combat antisemitism and hate speech more generally. In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a ‘working definition of antisemitism’, to which was appended a list of illustrative examples. Several of the examples conflate criticisms of Israel, its illegal policies, practices and the political ideology on which the state was founded, with antisemitism. These examples contradict the IHRA definition itself and reflect positions advanced by advocates of Israeli policies towards Palestinians.1 4 The definition and illustrative examples have been invoked in many contexts in the UK. This report shows that since its adoption by UK higher education institutions, the IHRA definition has been used in ways that delegitimise points of view critical of Israel and/or in support of Palestinian rights, in violation of academic freedom and freedom of speech. It is noteworthy that the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, E. Tendayi Achiume, has warned against the use of the definition ‘owing to its susceptibility to being politically instrumentalised and the harm done to human rights resulting from such instrumentalization.’ 2 There is widespread agreement among scholars and legal experts (including the lead drafter of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern)3 that the IHRA definition is not appropriate for university settings where critical thought and free debate are paramount. Nevertheless, in 2020, the then Secretary of State for Education threatened university leaders with punitive financial consequences if their institutions did not adopt the IHRA definition.4 As a result, 119 universities (almost 75% of UK universities) have adopted some version of the definition as a basis for campus policies.5 Contrary to what many institutions seem to believe, it is simply not possible to use the IHRA definition to determine whether or not an individual incident or statement is antisemitic, whilst simultaneously protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom and preventing discrimination. To attempt to do so inevitably leads to damaging and iniquitous consequences for staff and students. 5 This report highlights four major consequences of the IHRA definition’s adoption: Key findings 1. Advocates of Palestinian human rights, critics of the Israeli state and its policies and those researching and teaching about the history of and current situation in Israel-Palestine have been targeted with false accusations of antisemitism. 2. University staff and students are being subjected to unreasonable investigations and disciplinary proceedings based on the IHRA definition. These proceedings have harmed the wellbeing of the staff and students subjected to false allegations of antisemitism. Those falsely accused have felt their reputations to have been sullied, and they are anxious about possible damage caused to their education and careers. 3. The complaints have had an adverse effect on academic freedom and freedom of speech on campuses, leading, in some cases, to the cancellation of events or the imposition of spurious conditions on the format of events. 4. From testimonies received, it is clear that these cases are creating a chilling effect among staff and students, deterring individuals from speaking about or organising events that discuss Palestinian human rights and Palestinian self-determination out of fear that they will be subject to complaints, or else will face considerable bureaucratic hurdles and even costly legal action in order to allow events to take place. Academics employed on temporary contracts (who constitute a significant proportion of university teaching staff), as well as students, are particularly susceptible to self-censorship out of fear that any sort of accusations, even if not upheld, could jeopardise their future ability to obtain permanent employment. Hence, overall, we conclude that the adoption and deployment of the IHRA definition in UK universities has already dealt a blow to academic freedom and freedom of speech. This not only threatens the ability of higher education institutions to meet their legal obligations in this regard, but is also preventing students from engaging in nuanced discussions about the Middle East, global politics, and the question of Palestine, which are also necessary as part of efforts to combat antisemitism. 6 Introduction The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is an intergovernmental body whose stated purpose is ‘to strengthen, advance and promote Holocaust education, research and remembrance’. The IHRA definition is intended by its authors to be a practical educational tool that help ‘raise awareness of key issues’. It defines antisemitism as: 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.6 Advocates of the definition argue that its adoption is necessary to combat antisemitism in UK universities and assert that the definition ensures the safety and security of Jewish students and staff.7 Further, they argue that as it is framed as ‘nonlegally binding’ it will not impinge on freedom of speech, academic freedom or anti-discrimination law. Yet, there are repeated concerns raised by academics, activists and legal experts that the IHRA definition is suppressing lawful speech on Palestinian human rights and criticisms of the Israeli state. There are seven references to Israel in the illustrative examples accompanying the definition. Several of these examples effectively conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with racism and discrimination directed at Jews, for example, ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor’. This example not only erroneously essentialises Jewish self-determination as indistinguishable from the State of Israel (a historically-contingent position particular to Zionist ideology) but also delegitimises Palestinian claims to self-determination and opposition to Israel’s discriminatory policies against Palestinians as antisemitism. Most worryingly, it suppresses documented evidence of Israeli crimes against Palestinians. The promotion of the IHRA definition in UK universities and its use in complaints against staff and students is part of a wider context and history of false accusations of antisemitism being levelled against those concerned with Israel’s human rights violations. In 2022, after publishing its report entitled Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity, Amnesty International was accused of deploying ‘antisemitic tropes’.8 In 2019, Tower Hamlets council refused permission for the Big Ride for Palestine, a charity event in aid of Palestinian 7 children, because of fears that it could breach the IHRA definition.9 As such, this reconceptualisation of antisemitism serves to erase Palestinian existence and narratives and shield the rights-abusive policies of the State of Israel – and the structural basis for these actions – from criticism. It further prevents Palestinians from speaking about their oppression and silencing support for Palestinian rights.10 According to a recent report produced by the Taskforce on Antisemitism in Higher Education (established by the UK Government’s Independent Adviser on Antisemitism, Lord Mann), that questioned 56 universities across the UK about their experience of using the IHRA definition: None knew of or could provide a single example in which the IHRA definition had in any ways restricted freedom of speech or academic research, or where its adoption had chilled academic freedom, research or freedom of expression. All these 56 institutions were using the definition and were seen to be listening to the Jewish community about how it experiences antisemitism. 11 Yet, the 40 incidents examined in this study contradict the above claims and raise serious questions about the findings of the Taskforce on Antisemitism in Higher Education. This report confirms the views of recognised experts on antisemitism, Jewish history and related subjects that the IHRA definition is unsuitable for universities.12 Scholars have expressed concern that research and teaching on Israel and Palestine has become increasingly difficult because of the IHRA definition’s widespread adoption.13 The case studies analysed in this report demonstrate that the imposition of the IHRA definition, in its varied forms in UK higher education institutions (regardless of the caveats included in some universities’ policies), stifles free speech within the law in relation to teaching, research and discussion of Israeli government policies, the nature of the formation of the Israeli state, and the nature of Zionism as an ideology and movement. It has served to unfairly damage the reputation and careers of staff and students who speak about the violations of Palestinian human rights and crimes committed by Israel. Most egregiously, it erases the experiences of the Palestinian people, hides from public view documented evidence of the crimes committed against them and thereby prevents universities, staff and students from contributing to informed public debate on the matter. 8 Methodology This report draws on the work of the European Legal Support Center (ELSC), which has advised and represented people in UK higher education who have been affected by the adoption of the IHRA definition. The report has been produced together with experts from the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), Europe’s leading scholarly association concerned with the Middle East. Since 2019, BRISMES has been monitoring the impact of the IHRA definition through its Committee on Academic Freedom.14 The analysis in this report is based on 40 cases involving the use of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. These cases occurred in 14 universities, of which 11 are part of the Russell Group. Of these 40 cases, 24 involved members of university staff, nine involved university students and seven involved student societies/unions. In all instances, except for two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism have been rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated. The cases represent all the incidents recorded by the ELSC occurring between January 2017 and May 2022 and in which university staff and/or students were accused of antisemitism on the basis of the IHRA definition. In some cases, individuals and groups impacted by complaints reached out to the ELSC for support or to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), which then referred them to ELSC.15 In other cases, the ELSC reached out to individuals and groups after becoming aware of the incident either via the media, including social media, and after assessing the relevance of the case to the ELSC mandate. All data related to the incidents were collected by means of Incident Report Forms, which were filled out by affected individuals or groups. Information was fact checked and completed by means of interviews and/or desk research carried out by ELSC staff. The evidence analysed in this report reveals that the adoption of the IHRA definition by UK universities has led to complaints of antisemitism being levelled on the assumption or assertion that criticisms of Israel and/or of Zionism are forms of antisemitism. Our findings demonstrate that the IHRA definition is undermining academic freedom and freedom of expression in relation to discussions of Israel and Palestine and risks being used in a way that discriminates against Palestinians and others on campuses who wish to speak out against the oppression of Palestinians. Section 1 explains why the IHRA definition is inadequate for challenging antisemitism. Section 2 analyses the cases supported by the ELSC. It details the nature of the accusations made against staff and students, the outcome of investigations and disciplinary hearings, and how they have affected the people accused. Section 3 summarises the responses to the IHRA definition by universities and university staff. Section 4 summarises the findings of this research and provides recommendations for the UK government, university leadership and other relevant constituencies. 9 Section 1: Legal Perspectives on the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism 10 1.1 Legal Opinions Lawyers and legal scholars have argued that the IHRA definition, including some of its illustrative examples, threatens legally guaranteed rights of freedom of expression and assembly by conflating anti-Zionism (a political standpoint) with antisemitism (a form of racism against Jews). The legal opinion of Hugh Tomlinson KC stresses that the definition has no legal standing in the UK; that public bodies have statutory duties to respect and ensure the right of freedom of expression and assembly; and that reliance on this definition to ban or restrict events which are accused of being ‘anti-Israel’ but  which express no hatred of Jews would be unlawful.16 Tomlinson concluded that a public authority which sought to apply the definition to prohibit or sanction ‘activities such as describing Israel as a state enacting policies of apartheid, as practising settler colonialism or calling for policies of boycott, divestment or sanctions against Israel… [which cannot] properly be characterised as antisemitic … would be acting unlawfully’.17 11 Similarly, in a letter published in January 2021, distinguished lawyers in the UK, including Sir Stephen Sedley and Sir Anthony Hooper, two retired Lord Justices of Appeal, stated: The legally entrenched right to free expression is being undermined by [the IHRA definition]. Its promotion by public bodies is leading to the curtailment of debate. Universities and others who reject the instruction of the [former] secretary of state for education, Gavin Williamson, to adopt it should be supported in so doing.18 The letter’s authors urged the Government to withdraw its pressure on universities to adopt the IHRA definition. Moreover, some have questioned the effectiveness of the definition itself. The legal opinion of Geoffrey Robertson KC points to the definition’s inadequacy as a mechanism to protect Jews from antisemitism, arguing that ‘The definition does not cover the most insidious forms of hostility to Jewish people and the looseness of the definition is liable to chill legitimate criticisms of the State of Israel and coverage of human rights abuses against Palestinians’.19 Even the principal drafter of the text that became the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, has deplored the misuse of the definition as a tool to target or chill speech on college campuses. He called it not just misuse, but abuse.20 Stern is a US attorney and the Director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate. For 25 years he was a national staff member of the American Jewish Committee, acting as its antisemitism expert. As chief author of the definition, he is on record as criticising the vague wording of the core definition drafted by someone else, noting that it ‘doesn’t really say much’.21 It is also noteworthy that the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, E. Tendayi Achiume, has stated that: Notwithstanding the political endorsement of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition across Europe and in North America, it has become highly controversial and divisive owing to its susceptibility to being politically instrumentalized and the harm done to human rights resulting from such instrumentalization. As a result, the Special Rapporteur cautions against reliance on the working definition as a guiding instrument for and at the United Nations and its constituent entities.22 12 1.2 Universities’ Duties to Protect Freedom of Speech Freedom of speech and expression is generally protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), to which the UK is a party. Article 10(1) of the ECHR provides that: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.23 13 Interference with the rights contained in Article 10(1) are only permitted in the strictly defined circumstances set out under Article 10(2) and must be ‘established convincingly’.24 The protections under the ECHR on the right to freedom of expression and assembly are incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act of 1998, which states that UK courts must interpret primary and secondary legislation in a manner that is compatible with Convention rights (including case law of the European Court of Human Rights) insofar as possible. The Human Rights Act requires that public authorities, including universities, act in compliance with the ECHR. Therefore, generally speaking, universities must refrain from interfering with the right to freedom of expression granted to individuals.25 Moreover, they have duties to actively uphold these rights. Specifically, Section 43(1) of the Education (No.2) Act 1986 places an obligation on universities in England and Wales to ‘take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers’.26 On 11 May 2023, the UK Parliament enacted the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which further requires higher education institutions to ‘take the steps that, having particular regard to the importance of freedom of speech, are reasonably practicable’ to achieve freedom of speech for staff, students and visiting speakers.27 Academic freedom is a specific and reinforced protection of the more general freedom of expression applicable to universities. Specifically, academic staff have freedom within the law ‘(i) to question and test received wisdom, and (ii) to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges 14 they may have at the providers.’28 Political speech also benefits from heightened legal protection under Article 10 of the ECHR given that Article 10(2) has limited application to speech which can be categorised as political or pertaining to matters of public interest.29 The UK High Court has stressed that the right to freedom of expression ‘includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence’ as ‘[f]reedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having’.30 In light of the above, Israel’s history and politics, like the history and politics of any state, are legitimate matters for discussion and debate in universities. No institution has the right to limit or forbid lawful criticism of Israel or anti-Zionist views. Similarly, the history and politics of Palestine, and the conditions of life of Palestinians, are also matters of institutional, national, and international public interest. They are all legitimate matters of public discussion and debate, just as discussions of human rights, international law, and related matters in other contexts. However, as this report demonstrates, the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and in particular its illustrative examples that conflate statements critical of the State of Israel with antisemitism, have been deployed in ways that undermine academic freedom and freedom of speech and expression in UK universities. 15 Section 2: Unfounded Allegations: Targeting Staff, Students, and Events 16 In this section, we present an overview of the 40 cases that the ELSC recorded between 2017 and 2022, which demonstrate how the definition has been used as a basis for claiming that lectures, research, speeches, social media posts and campus activism amount to antisemitism for simply being critical of Israel and/or Zionism. The deployment of the IHRA definition in these ways confirms Geoffrey Robertson KC’s 2018 prediction: it is likely in practice to chill free speech, by raising expectations of pro-Israeli groups that they can successfully object to legitimate criticism of Israel and correspondingly arouse fears in NGOs and student bodies that they will have events banned, or else will have to incur considerable expense to protect them by taking legal action. 31 Accusations of antisemitism that depend upon the IHRA definition have been largely targeted at staff teaching and researching the Middle East, and at Palestinian students and others concerned with advocating Palestinian human rights. In many of the cases, the complainants make reference to the IHRA definition to produce poor faith interpretations or misinterpretations of statements, often taking particular phrases or terms out of context. Another common feature across several cases is the occurrence of significant levels of monitoring and surveillance of any publicly expressed analysis or opinion about Israel or Palestine. This includes recording student speeches, staff lectures, and other presentations; monitoring student or staff social media posts (including the collection of social media posts several years after they were written); reviewing academic publications; and reviewing course syllabi and reading lists. Those responsible for disciplinary processes at universities often do not possess the necessary tools or background to assess independently the merits of such allegations. In most cases, members of staff co-opted into judging whether a student, society or colleague have made statements that are antisemitic have extremely little, or no understanding of the IsraelPalestine question. 17 2.1 The Cases For all 40 cases analysed, except two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism have been rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated. Attempts to restrict academic freedom and freedom of expression on campuses by means of the IHRA definition of antisemitism have directly affected 24 staff members, nine students and seven student groups. The cases occurred in fourteen universities, of which eleven are part of the Russell Group. There were various outcomes for the individuals or groups affected: two have faced threats of legal action; 27 have faced investigations including, for many, long disciplinary processes; in four cases, events have been prevented from taking place on campus and, in seven cases, there was institutional interference in the respective events and/or scholarship.32 There were various outcomes for the individuals or groups affected: two have faced threats of legal action; 27 have faced investigations including, for many, long disciplinary processes; in four cases, events have been prevented from taking place on campus and, in seven cases, there was institutional interference in the respective events and/or scholarship.32 18 MAIN OUTCOMES OF THE INCIDENTS MAIN OUTCOMES OF THE INCIDENTS 19 WHAT DO THE ALLEGATIONS TARGET When looking at the objects of the allegations: in 24 cases, individuals were targeted mainly based on their online political commentary; in nine cases, allegations were made against an individual’s respective scholarship; and in seven cases, the targets were Israeli Apartheid Week events33 or other Palestine-related student activism. 20 Of the nine accusations made against individual students, seven cases were investigated through university inquiries or hearings, and the students were found to have no case to answer or were cleared of allegations. In one case, no investigation or disciplinary process was launched. One case is still ongoing. Of those cases in which investigations or disciplinary hearings occurred, they took several months, resulting in prolonged student stress and anxiety, thereby undermining universities’ duty of care to the students. In seven cases, student societies and student unions were accused of antisemitism and/ or experienced disruptions of events or initiatives in support of Palestinian rights. One of the cases is ongoing, and a complaint has been filed with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, following substantial procedural errors in a lengthy year-long complaints procedure. The underlying allegation of antisemitism has yet to be substantiated. Student Cases 21 In June 2021, a university received an anonymous complaint and opened an investigation into alleged antisemitism against a student who had posted on their social media a Human Rights Watch infographic about Israel’s system of apartheid in the West Bank. They referred to the latter as ‘ethnic cleansing’ and that it was ‘reminiscent of South African apartheid’. According to the complainant, the post was antisemitic because it was in breach of examples of the IHRA definition. Following legal support, the university found that there was no case to answer but it took two months before it decided to drop the investigation. how the IHRA definition is used to misrepresent criticisms of Israel An illustrative case: 22 Of the 24 cases against university staff, 18 led to an investigation or to a formal disciplinary hearing. In the case of investigations, all resulted in findings of ‘no case to answer’. In the case of formal hearings, all staff were ‘exonerated of all charges’. In other words, every allegation of antisemitism was found to be false. In six cases, either a formal complaint was never lodged, the university decided not to open an investigation or the complaint was dismissed. STAFF CASES 23 In December 2020, an academic staff member teaching on the Middle East received a notification from their university management that a recent graduate, whom the academic had never taught, had submitted complaints for antisemitism against them and that an investigation had been opened. The complaints concerned more than 20 social media posts, some of which were posted by the academic, whilst others were merely shared or liked, dating from 2016 to 2020. The posts consisted of criticism of Zionism as a political ideology; a media article about the Nakba, and comments about the allegations of antisemitism made against members of the Labour Party. The complainant argued that the posts breached the IHRA definition. The academic was cleared of all allegations but not before being subjected to a lengthy disciplinary process. This caused a considerable amount of stress and represented a significant burden on the academic, who had to request legal advice. The university referred to the IHRA definition as part of their policies to include in the disciplinary proceedings. An illustrative case: how an anonymous complainant screened an academic’s social media activity from 2016 to place them under a 6-month-long investigation for alleged antisemitism 24 Obstruction and Prevention of Events Among the case studies, 10 events between 2017 and 2022 were targeted with demands for their cancellation. The interference with and curtailment of meetings and events took many forms. Four of these cases involved the actual cancellation of events by universities, including two events that went ahead outside of the university. In one case, the university imposed unreasonable vetting conditions on the speaker, including that he declare in advance his support for the IHRA definition. After he refused, the event was cancelled by the university. However, other organisations agreed to host it. In two other cases, a similar vetting was imposed on academics, who also refused to endorse the IHRA definition. The events still went ahead after an exchange between the respective academics and the universities. In one case, the university asked lecturers to attend several events organised by a Palestine student society to make sure the content would not contravene the IHRA definition, creating a chilling effect on the students and speakers. In two cases, the event was allowed to go ahead but subject to many conditions, which included changing the title of the event, recording it, refusing access to the public and imposing security staff and checks. In another case, the event still went ahead, but speakers and organisers were subjected to smears, causing fear and leading the student society that had organised the event to lose members. 25 Dr. Somdeep Sen, Associate Professor at Roskilde University, was invited to deliver a lecture on his book Decolonizing Palestine: Hamas between the Anticolonial and the Postcolonial (Cornell University Press, 2020) at the University of Glasgow. Following the announcement of the lecture in autumn 2021, the university received a complaint from the university’s Jewish student society, claiming that the lecture’s topic was antisemitic and expressing concerns that the event might lead to negative repercussions for Jewish students. In response, the university asked Dr. Sen to provide information about the talk’s content in advance of the event and to confirm that he would not say anything during the presentation that would contravene the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism. Since the university’s requests were discriminatory and undermined academic freedom, Dr. Sen decided to pull out and the event was cancelled. how a spurious complaint filed by the University of Glasgow Jewish Student Society led to potentially illegal university reaction and the cancellation of an academic event An illustrative case: 26 Five of the cases involved the defamation of external speakers, including, Omar Barghouti, a scholar and founder of the Palestinian campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions; Marika Sherwood, a Jewish historian and Holocaust survivor; Dr. Somdeep Sen, an academic from Roskilde University; and a Local Government Councillor and Liverpool Hope University Professor, Michael Lavalette. One case involved intense smears against a students’ union for promoting Israeli Apartheid Week events on campus. Two other cases involved smears by pro-Israel media or watchdog groups against Palestine student society events that were due to happen during Israeli Apartheid Week but that were cancelled by the universities, citing the IHRA definition. In all these cases, allegations of antisemitism were found to be spurious. They were made by complainants who disagreed with the objectives and/or content of the event or the politics of one or more of the event’s participants or organisers. The IHRA definition, which was explicitly referenced in all of these cases, undermined academic freedom and freedom of expression on UK campuses and in some instances had damaging repercussions for student organisers, student societies and invited speakers. 27 2.2 Consequences for Individual Staff and Students Stress, Anxiety and Personal Distress All of the staff and students who were subject to disciplinary investigations followed by disciplinary hearings, registered varying levels of stress and anxiety caused by these processes. Many of those targeted specifically identified the protracted nature of the investigations or disciplinary processes as an exacerbating factor. Lack of regular communication from those conducting the investigations and lack of support from their respective institutions contributed to their distress. When you are in the process, you don’t understand how stressed you are. My nerves made me hyper vigilant for two years. The impact of the cases, continual media coverage, and constant communication to deal with the case resulted in chronic stress. The reflection of one academic staff who went on leave due to stress is illustrative: 28 While the case was going on, it was really terrible. It was on my mind all the time. Really stressful. I was very angry and anxious. I never really thought I’d lose my job, but I couldn’t rule it out. I felt betrayed by the university. As a tactic of intimidation, these accusations are effective because the university did put me through the [disciplinary] process. It will remain a big problem until the university is willing to put more measures in place to protect us from these accusations. During the first investigation with the media smears, I felt really helpless and powerless at that point as the university was looking out for its own interests. They kept telling me not to say anything to the media. At that point I just kept quiet. I felt really alone. It was just me. Another member of staff explained their loss of confidence in her university as an employer: An academic staff member described their sense of isolation and anxiety about their future career: Of the 16 staff whose cases involved investigations or investigations leading to hearings, a majority cited adverse consequences for their teaching preparation and research. 29 It affected me mentally, it took a lot of time and mental effort. It caused a lot of stress. It served as a distraction from other important things in my life. Still another student reported: A targeted student described the negative effects of accusations on their studies: For many of the students and staff whose cases are analysed here, allegations of antisemitism are experienced as a personal assault on their identity, given that they have been engaged with anti-racist activism over a number of years. In some cases, the scholarship of accused staff focuses on antiracism. Being targeted in this way has had damaging psychological and sometimes physical effects. They make you waste time, sap your energy and make you exhausted. They make you not perform to your ability because you have other things to think about… You learn that [the University] is not there for you. Different interests trump your rights. All of the students whose cases were analysed noted the adverse effects on their studies. Some became concerned about the consequences for their education, academic progress and career plans. One student explained how the accusations interfered with their studies and threatened their further education: It was really difficult to hear that you might be kicked out of university. It was very hard for me to focus on my studies. I had to do resits in the summer, so I didn’t graduate until recently. I nearly didn’t get into my Masters programme. I missed the deadline by two months. If it wasn’t for Oxford University being really flexible, I wouldn’t be sitting here right now. 30 I feel like I’m on this emotional roller-coaster. I feel like I won’t get a job anywhere else. If I apply for another job, they might not hire me. Not that they would think that I’m antisemitic but because they would want to avoid controversy. That’s the reality for me now. It’s different for the people whose investigations didn’t go public. Reputation is everything for academics. It was very stressful. [It required] a lot of time out from my parental leave to go to meetings, look at documents, collect evidence. It was very disruptive [and] contributed to pushing me away from academia. There was also the context of government attacks on higher education, that was another reason, but this on top made me think the university sector is not the best place to stay. It is not possible to assess the precise long-term damage to the reputations and careers of students and staff who have been falsely accused of antisemitism, given the short timeframe of the incidents. What is demonstrable, however, is that those falsely accused of antisemitism are very concerned that the accusations will have an adverse effect on their standing in their universities and communities. This fear is exacerbated when the accusations begin to circulate on social media and the internet. Of the cases in which individuals were represented or advised by the ELSC from 2017 to 2022, over half of those accused expressed concern about their reputations. Slightly fewer than half were equally concerned about their careers. One targeted academic expressed this concern poignantly: Damage to Reputation and Career Another found that the accusations and the subsequent university process deterred them from continuing their academic career: 31 2.3 The ‘Chilling Effect’ The spate of allegations of antisemitism is damaging academic freedom, curtailing freedom of debate and discussion on campuses, leading to self-censorship among those who research and study IsraelPalestine, and, in some cases, harming personal and professional lives and livelihoods. In addition to these harms, it is likely that the IHRA definition and its use has a much wider chilling effect, causing others to avoid discussing issues related to Palestine, thereby acting as a form of self-censorship. The difficulty for academic teaching staff is clear. Academic staff who lecture and write about Palestinian and Israeli history, society and politics believe that the IHRA definition, and specifically the examples that reference Israel, constrain what they can teach and write about to such a degree that it results in self-censorship. One member of staff asks pointedly: Similarly, an academic staff member described the cloud of potential threats that hang over their scholarship: How should I discuss the 1948 colonial, ethnic cleansing that led to the creation of the State of Israel? Wasn’t that—to use the words of one of the examples of ‘antisemitism’ included in the definition—an ‘endeavour’ to create a state based on a racist deployment of violence? And how should I approach the persistence of these practices of violence along racial lines carried out by the State of Israel? How should I discuss the endeavour of Israel’s state courts to expel Palestinians from their homes? Can I raise the question with my students, or with guest speakers, or in my research? Am I even allowed to talk about these things? I rewrote the title of a chapter and the abstract so it is not that easy to find it online. This is the chilling effect, and it is an unacceptable restriction on academic freedom. My book will be online for free … easily accessible, and I’m particularly nervous. … I already thought about arguments in case I’m 32 I do know now that I have support behind me, but the effect of the litigation is that it has had a chilling effect—not wanting to be overly visible, doubting statements, and things like that. What’s also chilling is that it’s all very secret. You have a sense that it’s also happening elsewhere in other universities, but that you cannot say anything. I would still advocate but maybe not on such a big platform [namely, Facebook or Twitter]. Another academic provided details of how the chilling effect silenced them: An external speaker who was pressured by a university to endorse the IHRA also noted a sharp decline of invitations to speak at Palestinerelated events in universities. The chilling effect also serves to intimidate those who may wish to advocate for Palestinian rights. One targeted student described how they have limited their public support for Palestinian rights: After incidents targeting their events, one Palestine student society lost almost the entirety of its membership (from 30 to 2 members) because, as a member testified, ‘everyone was scared’. attacked, and I wrote the book thinking about how I could be attacked. It is an unreasonable situation. I do not even work directly on the Middle East. So, I cannot imagine what it must be like for people who work on Israel-Palestine. It’s a horrible environment to have to try to think how your academic work could be … misused. 33 Section 3: University and Staff Responses to the IHRA definition 34 There is widespread assessment among scholars and legal experts that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is not appropriate for university settings—where critical thought and free debate are paramount and must be safeguarded. Nevertheless, in 2020, the then Secretary of State for Education threatened university leaders with punitive financial consequences if their institutions did not adopt the IHRA definition,34 resulting in 119 universities (almost 75% of UK universities) adopting the definition as a basis for their campus policies.35 Adoption of the IHRA definition has typically been imposed by Senior Management, Council, or another governing body, most often without meaningful staff, student or trade union consultation, despite the disciplinary and other contractual implications of adoption, and contrary to objections raised by university staff, students and other stakeholders. These decisions have also been taken without consultation with academic experts in the relevant fields of law, Jewish and Palestinian studies and Middle East studies in their own institutions, nor with all students who may be affected, specifically, Palestinian students and advocates of Palestinian rights. There has been a failure to conduct risk assessments regarding the impact on Palestinian staff and students as well as on staff and students who study and carry out research on Israel-Palestine. Whilst in many universities, management has consulted with Jewish student societies when considering adoption of the IHRA definition, they have failed to consult with Palestinian student societies or other societies that might be affected by the adoption of the definition (for example, anti-racism societies or societies concerned with decolonising the university). University leaders’ failure to confer with their own academic experts as well as with the vast majority of relevant stakeholders runs contrary to obligations to create an inclusive environment and is anathema to academic freedom and democratic practice. 35 Staff at some universities have demanded that the IHRA definition be withdrawn from university policy, and in some cases, prevented the definition’s adoption. As part of their opposition, in addition to raising concerns about academic freedom and freedom of expression, staff have highlighted the need to address all forms of racism equally in university policy and procedure, and that universities should educate staff and students about racism in its various forms, including antisemitism. Some universities have attempted to safeguard against potential negative impacts of the IHRA definition by introducing caveats to protect academic freedom, such as the clarifications made by the UK Home Affairs Select Committee.36 Some universities have adopted the IHRA definition alongside the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, despite the fact that the latter contradicts some aspects of the IHRA definition.37 Significantly, the authors of the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism developed this document to provide clearer guidance ‘to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free expression’.38 Such caveats and other attempts to mitigate the negative effects of the IHRA definition have not prevented it from being used to target students and staff for their criticisms of Israel, nor prevented it from being used to suppress Palestine-related events. 36 Section 4: Conclusions and recommendations 37 4.1 Summary of Findings Overall, this report finds that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is undermining academic freedom and freedom of expression on campuses through its use in complaints processes against protected speech in relation to Israel-Palestine. In all cases recorded by the ELSC, except for two ongoing cases, the accusations of antisemitism with reference to the IHRA definition have been rejected. The final two have yet to be substantiated. University leaders may conclude that their disciplinary procedures are working properly. Yet, the pursuit of lengthy investigations and disciplinary processes against staff and students is creating a chilling effect, leading to self-censorship when teaching, researching, studying and discussing the question of Israel-Palestine. Moreover, these investigations have negative impacts on the wellbeing of staff and students, whilst unfounded allegations also have the potential to damage the reputations and careers of those who have been wrongfully accused of antisemitism. It is particularly concerning that certain groups of staff and students, who are under-represented and marginalised within UK academia, are targeted with complaints that rely on the IHRA definition. Specifically, Palestinian students and staff who express their respective experiences of oppression and discrimination, and who talk about the history of the oppression of their people are among those targeted, alongside other students and staff–who are frequently Black and Minority Ethnic–who express solidarity with the plight of Palestinians. University management and its leadership bodies have a duty of care to these students and staff as they do to all others. These constituencies, no less than any others, have the right to protections afforded by university non-discrimination and equality policies. 

38 4.2 Recommendations 

To the UK government: We recommend that the UK government should retract its instruction to universities to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, as it is inappropriate for higher education institutions, which have legal obligations to secure academic freedom and freedom of speech. To university management: We recommend that the IHRA definition should not be adopted, implemented or promoted by any higher education institution. Where it has been adopted, the decision should be rescinded. If it is not rescinded, we recommend that it not be applied, formally or informally, in any disciplinary proceedings, due to its vagueness affnd its potential to be used to stigmatise lawful speech and undermine academic freedom concerning Israel and its policies, in violation of legal obligations to ensure academic freedom and freedom of speech. We also call on universities to be mindful of their obligations to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression when considering whether to take forward complaints related to political speech or academic expression. Finally, we remind universities that they have a duty of care to their staff and students, which includes not subjecting them to unnecessary disciplinary processes due to the negative impact they have on an individual’s wellbeing. 39 To student unions and societies: We recommend to student unions not to adopt or endorse the IHRA definition, nor to use it to assess antisemitism in relation to complaints raised. Where it has been adopted, the decision should be rescinded. We recommend that student unions and societies lobby university management to protect the academic freedom and freedom of expression of all members of their campus community. We recommend that academic boards and senates call on university managers to rescind the IHRA definition and to ensure protection of academic freedom and freedom of expression for the entire university community. We also recommend that academic boards and senates consider developing detailed guidance and procedures for the protection of academic freedom and freedom of expression. To academic boards and senates: 40 To the National Union of Students (NUS): We recommend that the NUS should retract its adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and not use the definition as a tool to assess antisemitism in complaints raised. To the Office for Students (OfS): The IHRA definition is not a useful tool for interpreting and tackling antisemitism on campuses and, therefore, we call on the OfS to stop recommending the use of the definition by UK universities. 

APPENDICES 

41 1. A table of all the cases informing this report can be found here: https://bit.ly/evidenceihra 2. A list of all open letters written by the BRISMES Committeeon Academic Freedom since 2019 that raise concerns about academic freedom and freedom of expression in relation to Israel-Palestine in UK universities can be found here: LETTER TO PROFESSOR SIR CHRIS HUSBANDS Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University regarding the investigation of Shahd Abusalama and cancellation of the class she was scheduled to teach 25 January 2022 

LETTER TO PROFESSOR SIR ANTON MUSCATELLI Principal of University of Glasgow, expressing deep concern regarding the university’s treatment of Ms. Jane Jackman 1 November 2022 LETTER TO PROFESSOR DAME NANCY ROTHWELL President and ViceChancellor of University of Manchester, to express our concerns about the University’s treatment of Alistair Hudson, Director of the Whitworth Art Gallery (WAG) 8 March 2022 https://www.brismes.ac.uk/advocacy/committee-on-academic-freedom Specifically (in reverse chronological order): 42 LETTER TO PROFESSOR HUGH BRADY Vice-Chancellor of Bristol University, regarding the University’s decision to fire Professor David Miller following an investigation into comments that he made that were critical of Israeli government policy, Zionism and pro-Israel groups 12 October 2021 LETTER TO UCL PROVOST Regarding the UCL Academic Board Vote on the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism 30 March 2021 LETTER TO PROFESSOR DAME JANET BEER on the IHRA definition of antisemitism 24 January 2019 LETTER TO PROFESSOR SIR ANTON MUSCATELLI Principal of University of Glasgow, regarding the University’s ‘Protocol for Managing Speakers and Events’ and the University’s decision to adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and their implications for Middle East Studies and academic freedom 19 October 2021 LETTER TO UK MINISTER OF STATE FOR UNIVERSITIES regarding the IHRA definition of antisemitism and the autonomy of universities 26 May 2021 43 1 Lerman A. (2022). Whatever Happened to Antisemitism? Redefinition and the Myth of the ‘Collective Jew’. Pluto Press; also see European Legal Support Center, ‘Suppressing Palestinian Rights Advocacy through the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism’, June 2023, online at https://res.cloudinary. com/elsc/images/v1685978238/The-Practice-of-Suppressing-Palestinian-Rights-Advocacy-FINAL-PP/ThePractice-of-Suppressing-Palestinian-Rights-Advocacy-FINAL-PP.pdf?_i=AA 2 The report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, E. Tendayi Achiume, submitted to the 77th Session of the UN General Assembly, 7 October 2022, p. 14, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematicreports/a77549-report-special-rapporteur-contemporary-forms-racism-racial 3 Written Testimony of Kenneth S. Stern, Executive Director, Justus & Karin Rosenberg Foundation, Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on The Judiciary, November 7, 2017 Hearing on Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses, online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20171107/106610/HHRG-115-JU00-Wstate-SternK-20171107.pdf 4 Eleanor Busby, ‘Universities may face cuts if they reject definition of antisemitism, says education minister’, The Independent, 9 October, 2020, online at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/ education-news/antisemitism-universities-gavin-williamson-funding-cuts-b911500.html 5 UJS, ‘IHRA Campaign’, No Date, online at https://www.ujs.org.uk/ihra_campaign; see also Office for Students, ‘OfS reports significant increase in universities signing up to IHRA definition of antisemitism’, 10 November, 2021, online at https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/ press-and-media/ofs-reports-significant-increase-in-universities-signing-up-to-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism 6 For the definition and the list of examples, see The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, ‘What is antisemitism?’, No Date, online at https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definitionantisemitism 7 Campaign Against Antisemitism, ‘UCL Jewish Society, Backed By CAA And Others, Sends Letter To UCL Council Urging Rejection of Alternative Definitions Of Antisemitism’, 23 March 2023, online at https://Antisemitism.Org/Ucl-Jewish-Society-Backed-By-Caa-And-Others-Sends-Letter-To-Ucl-CouncilUrging-Rejection-Of-Alternative-Definitions-Of-Antisemitism/ 8 The Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, ‘ISGAP Fellows Reject Antisemitic Tropes in Amnesty Report’, 23 April 2022, online at https://isgap.org/post/2022/04/isgap-rejectsamnestys-report-on-israel 9 Damien Gayle, ‘UK Council Refused to Host Palestinian Event over Antisemitism Fears’, The Guardian, 3 August 2019, online at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/03/uk-councilrefused-to-host-palestinian-event-over-antisemitism-fears 10 Amongst others, see: Letters, ‘Palestinian rights and the IHRA definition of antisemitism’, The Guardian, 29 November 2020, online at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2020/nov/29/palestinianrights-and-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism 11 Parliamentary Taskforce on Antisemitism in Higher Education, ‘Understanding Jewish Experience in Higher Education’, May 2023, pp. 11-12, online at https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/ uploads/2023/05/Understanding-Jewish-Experience-in-Higher-Education.pdf 12 For example, Peter Ullrich, Brian Klug and Amos Goldberg, “Expert submission in the context of a NOTES 44 public consultation launched by the European Commission for its upcoming ‘Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life in the EU’”, 5 July 2021, online at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/ better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13068-Strategy-oncombating-antisemitism-and-fostering-Jewishlife-in-the-EU/F2661357_en; and Taner Akçam and others, “Call by scholars on global leaders at Malmö Forum on Combating Antisemitism”, 11 October 2021, online at https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/ euobs-media/b7602129dc4791bd47267b593f517caa.pdf 13 For example, see written evidence by the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (FOE0145), submitted on 29 January 2021 to the Human Rights (Joint Committee)’s inquiry, Freedom of Expression, available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/work/778/freedom-of-expression/publications/ written-evidence/?page=1 14 British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, ‘BRISMES Committee on Academic Freedom’, No Date, online at https://www.brismes.ac.uk/advocacy/committee-on-academic-freedom 15 We would like to thank PSC for their inputs and for playing a key role in passing concerns to ELSC for legal analysis and support. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) is the largest organisation in the UK advocating for the rights of Palestinians with over 8000 members and affiliations from 15 national Trade Unions. Many of its members are students or academics. 16 Hugh Tomlinson, ‘In the Matter of the Adoption and Potential Application of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition Of Anti-Semitism’, No Date, online at https:// freespeechonisrael.org.uk/ihra-opinion/#sthash.WDNEXkul.dpbs 17 Ibid. 18 Letters, ‘Antisemitism definition is undermining free speech’, The Guardian, 7 January, 2021, online at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/jan/07/antisemitism-definition-is-undermining-freespeech 19 Geoffrey Robertson, ‘IHRA definition of antisemitism is not fit for purpose’, 13 August 2018, online at https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/news/ihra-definition-antisemitism-not-fit-purpose 20 Written Testimony of Kenneth S. Stern, Executive Director, Justus & Karin Rosenberg Foundation, Before the United States House of Representatives Committee on The Judiciary, November 7, 2017 Hearing on Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses, online at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ JU/JU00/20171107/106610/HHRG-115-JU00-Wstate-SternK-20171107.pdf 21 Ibid. 22 The report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, E. Tendayi Achiume, submitted to the 77th Session of the UN General Assembly, 7 October 2022, p. 14, online at https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ a77549-report-special-rapporteur-contemporary-forms-racism-racial 23 European Convention on Human Rights, online at https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng. pdf 24 Gaunt v United Kingdom (2016) 63 EHRR SE15, §§43-44. 25 According to Article 10 (2) of the ECHR, the right to freedom of expression does not legally extend to speech that is unlawful, or, in other words, that incites violence, hatred or hostility towards a racial or religious group. 26 Education (No. 2) Act 1986, Article 43, ‘Freedom of speech in universities, polytechnics and 45 colleges’, online at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61/section/43 27 Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, online at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ ukpga/2023/16/enacted 28 Section 2(8)(c) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, online at https://www.legislation. gov.uk/ukpga/2017/29/section/2/enacted?view=plain 29 Wingrove v The United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 1, para 58; Vajnai v Hungary (2010) 50 EHRR 44, para 47; Ceylan v Turkey (1999) ECHR 44, para 34. 30 Redmond-Bate v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) EWHC Admin 733, §20, online at https:// www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1999/733.html 31 Geoffrey Robertson, ‘Anti-Semitism: The IHRA Definition and its Consequences for Freedom of Expression’, 31 August 2018, online at https://prc.org.uk/en/post/3992 32 A table of all the cases informing this report can be found online at https://bit.ly/evidenceihra 33 Israeli Apartheid Week is an annual series of events organised globally to raise awareness about Israel’s apartheid regime and to build support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. It is often the opportunity for student movements to demonstrate intersectionality and connect with other struggles for justice in the UK and beyond. 34 Richard Adams, ‘Williamson accuses English universities of ignoring antisemitism’, The Guardian, 9 October 2020, online at https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/09/williamson-accuses-englishuniversities-of-ignoring-antisemitism; Fiona McIntyre, ‘Universities threatened with defunding over antisemitism’, Research Professional News, online at https://www.researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-hegovernment-education-2020-10-universities-threatened-with-defunding-over-antisemitism/ 35 UJS, ‘IHRA Campaign’, No Date, online at https://www.ujs.org.uk/ihra_campaign; see also Office for Students, ‘OfS reports significant increase in universities signing up to IHRA definition of antisemitism’, 10 November 2021 online at https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/news-blog-and-events/ press-and-media/ofs-reports-significant-increase-in-universities-signing-up-to-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism 36 UK Parliament, ‘Defining antisemitism’, Point no. 24, online at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/136/13605.htm 37 The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, March 2021, online at https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/ 38 At UCL, the Academic Board Working Group on Racism and Prejudice found that despite the addition of two caveats in ‘parliamentary riders’, the IHRA definition had led to violations of academic freedom and freedom of expression at the university (December 2020, online at https://www.ucl. ac.uk/ucu/sites/ucu/files/wg-racism-and-prejudice-report.pdf). Warwick University’s Assembly expressed concerns about the definition’s adoption and an Assembly Working Group has been reviewing antisemitism definitions. The University of Brighton’s Race and Faith Commission considered the IHRA and recommend that no definition of any one form of racism should be adopted (2021, online at https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/app/uploads/2021/11/IHRA-road-MAP-of-OPPOSITION.pdf). The University of Kent and the Open University adopted the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism alongside the IHRA definition to highlight the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. The University of Aberdeen Council decided that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism should be adopted instead of the IHRA definition. Sheffield Hallam University’s announcement that it has adopted the IHRA definition clarifies that it ‘will not limit legitimate criticism and debate’ and the University will ‘uphold and protect the rights of students and staff to hold legitimate debates on issues related to Israel, Palestine and the Middle East’ (February 2021, online at https://www.shu.ac.uk/ news/all-articles/latest-news/university-statement-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism. 46 Designed by Giacomo Fausti https://www.giacomofausti.com/  

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

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJ7NNKxkRJYnNbpqSNYut_K5haLWA2wo/edit#gid=625201812

Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech in UK Higher Education: The Adverse Impact of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
APPENDIX 1 – TABLE OF EVIDENCE

This table lists all cases recorded by the ELSC in which UK university staff and students were accused of antisemitism on the basis of the IHRA definition, between 2017 and 2022.
In all cases, freedom of expression and/or academic freedom of students and staff was restricted.

Date	Type of individual or entity affected	Type and description of incident	Outcome	Incident code
Staff
Dec 2021-Oct 2022	Staff	Complaints of alleged antisemitism and a smear campaign following a social media post commenting on a student’s banner and the expression of anti-Zionist views to an online news outlet.	The university dropped the first investigation and rejected the second complaint.	21AS1
Oct-21	Academic (external from the university in which the incident occurred)	Complaint of alleged antisemitism based on a book’s title and topic of a book launch; vetting and attempt to disrupt or cancel the event.	The university did not investigate but sought to vet the speaker’s speech; the speaker withdrew and the event was cancelled and hosted by another organisation.	21AS2
May-July 2021	Staff	Complaint of alleged antisemitism because the staff signed an open letter in 2016 in support of a former elected student union official who faced allegations of antisemitism for their criticisms of Israel and Zionism.	The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held.	21AS3
May-June 2021	Staff	Several complaints of alleged antisemitism for: signing an open letter in 2016 in support of a former elected student union official who faced allegations of antisemitism for their criticisms of Israel/Zionism; liking social media posts by well-known Palestinian rights advocates; liking a social media post from former leader of the Labour Party; liking social media posts commenting on the Labour Party.	The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held.	21AS4
May-June 2021	Staff	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking a social media post in support of former leader of the Labour Party.	The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held.	21AS5
May-July 2021	Staff	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for posting and liking social media posts commenting on the Labour Party.	The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held.	21AS6
May-July 2021	Staff	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for signing a letter opposing unfounded allegations against a former elected student union official.	The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held.	21AS7
May-June 2021	Staff	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for posting a social media post in support of former leader of the Labour Party.	The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held.	21AS8
Feb-21	Staff	Two complaints of alleged antisemitism for participating in Palestinian rights protests and expressing antizionist political positions, and smear campaign by a British NGO combating antisemitism.	The disciplinary process led to a rejection of allegations of antisemitism.	21AS9
Jan-July 2021	Staff	Complaints of alleged antisemitism for: liking and sharing social media posts commenting on the Labour Party or former leader of the Party; commenting on social media about allegations of antisemitism made against a British filmmaker; sharing a social media post referring to Israel’s training of the US police.	The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held.	21AS10
Jan-June 2021	Staff	Complaints of alleged antisemitism for the content of a book published by the staff member more than 15 years ago; and because the staff member signed an open letter in 2016 in support of a former elected student union official who faced allegations of antisemitism for their criticisms of Israel/Zionism.	The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held.	21AS11
Jan-May 2021	Staff	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking a social media post commenting on Donald Trump and antisemitism.	The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held.	21AS12
Jan-May 2021	Staff	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking a social media post commenting on UK politics and the Labour Party.	The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held.	21AS13
Jan-21	Staff	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for criticising Zionism and settler colonialism. The Jewish student society called on the university to sanction the academic for breaching the IHRA definition of antisemitism. A British NGO combating antisemitism wrote to the university calling for the same. The staff member also faced smears in various media, including on social media.	The investigation led to no case to answer; no disciplinary hearing was held.	21AS14
Nov-20	Staff	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for posting and liking social media posts published over the previous four years including: commenting on the Labour Party; criticising Zionism; sharing an article about the Nakba; expressing solidarity with a Labour Party member who was expelled for ‘bringing the party into disrepute’.	The disciplinary process led to a rejection of allegations of antisemitism.	20AS1
Nov-20	Staff	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for posting and liking social media posts commenting on the Labour Party, criticising Zionism and describing pro-Israel actors as a ‘Zionist lobby’.	The disciplinary process led to a rejection of allegations of antisemitism.	20AS2
Nov-20	Staff	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking social media posts commenting on the Labour Party, on pro-Zionist organisations or criticising Zionism; for signing a petition in support of Palestinian rights and criticising Israeli policies.	The disciplinary process led to a rejection of allegations of antisemitism.	20AS3
Nov-20	Staff	Complaint for alleged antisemitism for: liking, sharing and posting social media posts denouncing unfounded allegations of antisemitism (including against Labour Party members); criticising Israeli policies; and for describing increased cooperation between the governments of India and Israel as the collaboration of two extremist governments.	The disciplinary process led to a rejection of allegations of antisemitism.	20AS4
Jan-20	Academic (external from the university in which the incident occurred)	Attempt to disrupt and cancel an event; complaint of alleged antisemitism for being featured as a speaker in an upcoming event entitled ‘Building a United Anti-racism Front’. Calls to cancel the event and allegations of antisemitism were published in media. A former member of the body that complained claimed that the political position of the academic (‘calling for a one-state solution’) was antisemitic according to the IHRA definition.	The university did not open any investigation. The event was heavily monitored, security staff were hired just for the event and the attendees’ identities were checked multiple times.	20AS5
Nov-19	Staff	Complaint for alleged antisemitism for parts of a lecture on Israel-Palestine that included comments on the Labour Party. The complainant sent recordings of the lecture to pro-Israel platforms, where a smear campaign was conducted against the academic, defaming them as antisemitic and supportive of terrorism.	The academic was cleared of allegations of antisemitism after an investigation.	19AS1
Mar-17	Academic (external from the university in which the incident occurred)	Attempt to disrupt and cancel event. The day before a lecture on Israel-Palestine, the university informed the academic that their talk would be vetted. They also faced questioning by the university, which included questions about whether they supported the IHRA definition.	The academic submitted an outline of their talk but did not express support for the IHRA definition. After a lengthy discussion between the academic and the university and only two hours before the event’s start, it was authorised.	17A1
Mar-17	Academic (external from the university in which the incident occurred)	Attempt to disrupt and cancel event. After an Israeli embassy official in the UK alerted the university about the title of a lecture to be given by the academic, the university censored the title.	The event went ahead with another title, and the university imposed conditions: requiring that it be recorded, that the chairs be replaced, and that it be open only to students.	17A2
Feb/March 2017	Academic (external from the university in which the incident occurred)	Attempt to disrupt and cancel event. The afternoon before the academic was due to speak at the university, they were told that the event would go ahead only if they agreed to complete a ‘risk assessment’, which included their written acceptance of the IHRA definition.	The academic refused to confirm their acceptance of the IHRA definition; after an exchange of emails with the university explaining their views, the event went ahead.	17A3
Feb-17	Staff	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for publishing an article about antisemitism in a left-leaning on-line political magazine. A British NGO focused on antisemitism threatened the university and demanded that they take action; national media published smears against the academic, repeating the allegations of antisemitism.	The university declared that it would not discipline the academic because the article was not found to be antisemitic. Nevertheless, the university convened a panel that reviewed the article with reference to examples in the IHRA definition and found areas of concern. A university manager later strongly suggested to the academic that they take down their article and advised them not to write about Palestine in an online format.	17AS4
Students
Jun-21	Student	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for comments on a social media post that compared the actions of the State of Israel and Nazism.	The investigating officer found no case to answer.	21S1
Jun-21	Student	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for posting on social media a Human Rights Watch infographic about Israel’s system of apartheid in the West Bank, with comments referring to ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘reminiscent of South African apartheid’.	The investigating officer found no case to answer.	21S2
May-21	Student	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for posting and liking social media posts criticising Zionism or Israeli policies.	The student was cleared of allegations of antisemitism after an investigation and disciplinary hearing.	21S3
May-21	Student	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking social media posts criticising Zionism or commenting on the Labour Party.	The student was cleared of allegations of antisemitism after an investigation and disciplinary hearing.	21S4
Apr-21	Student	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking a social media post containing a satirical comment about the alliance between Washington DC and Israel.	The student was cleared of allegations of antisemitism after an investigation and disciplinary hearing.	21S5
Apr-21	Student	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for liking a social media post from a Jewish cartoonist and activist, and liking social media posts criticising Zionism or commenting on the Labour Party.	The student was cleared of allegations of antisemitism after an investigation and disciplinary hearing.	21S6
Feb-21	Student	Complaint of alleged antisemitism and smear campaign for attending a Black Lives Matter protest, reposting literature by a prominent Palestinian poet and publishing social media posts critical of the Israeli army.	The student was cleared of allegations of antisemitism after an investigation and disciplinary hearing.	21S7
Dec 2020-Aug 2022	Student	A peer-reviewed article about pro-Israel advocacy in the UK, and its affect on pro-Palestinian sympathy, led to accusations of antisemitism against the author. Complaints about the article followed smears published in a blog.	The university opened an investigation in response to complaints about the article which included the commission of an anonymously authored ‘expert report’. This report was not shown to the author but formed the basis of the preface of the article, which apologised for offending people and insinuated that the article was antisemitic without providing evidence for these claims. Despite receiving a number of complaints about the preface, the university has not removed it.	20S1
Sep-18	Student	Complaint of alleged antisemitism for sharing a social media post mentioning that ’the establishment of Israel was a racist endeavour’.	The university did not investigate the case.	18S1
Student groups
Dec-21	Palestine Student Society	Complaint of alleged antisemitism sent to the student union for a statement—’End the Palestinian Holocaust’—made during a Palestine Student Society event.	The case is ongoing. The decision was not upheld, but a adequate remedy was not provided and a complaint has been filed with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education.	21SOC1
Nov-20	Two members of the Students’ Union	Threat of legal action from a pro-Israel lawfare group against student union trustees for a motion on divestment that referred to Israel as an apartheid state.	The case was left unresolved after the complainant’s barrister did not respond to proposals for a settlement.	20SU1
Feb-19	Palestine Student Society	Disruption and vetting of event; complaint of alleged antisemitism; and smear campaign. During an educational panel about the difference between antizionism and antisemitism, some students recorded the panel and disrupted it through verbal and physical violence and making allegations of antisemitism referring to the IHRA definition. After the event, the complainants cyber-harrassed the organisers and asked the university to take action.	After a meeting with the students, the university did not open an investigation, but the student society lost almost all of its members because this incident intimidated them. Lecturers attended several subsequent events organised by the student society to ensure that content would not breach the IHRA definition.	19SOC1
Feb-18	Student Union	Attempt to disrupt and cancel event with threat of legal action and smear campaign. After a student union promoted Israeli Apartheid Week on campus, the Israel Student Society threatened the union with legal action, claiming that the event was discriminatory and that its slogan was in breach of the IHRA definition. A pro-Israel watchdog amplified the allegations on their platform.	The events went ahead without any investigation opened nor any legal action taken.	18SU1
Feb-17	Palestine Student Society	Attempt to cancel event planned during Israeli Apartheid Week and smear campaigns. The event included a mock Israeli checkpoint to raise awareness about the Israeli occupation.	The university cancelled the event, despite several appeals made by the student society.	17SOC1
Feb-17	Palestine Student Society	Attempt to cancel event with complaint of alleged antisemitism for raising awareness about Israeli occupation during Israeli Apartheid Week.	The university cancelled the event.	17SOC2
Feb-17	Palestine Student Society	Attempt to cancel event planned during Israeli Apartheid Week.	The university cancelled the event, but it took place off campus.	17SOC3

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

https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism

The working definition of antisemitism

In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism. 

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:

“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.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

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

https://palinfo.com/news/2023/09/21/851082/Jerusalem.. Dozens of settlers storm Al-Aqsa and the occupation storms Al-Eizariya Girls School

Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 11:10 am

Occupied Jerusalem – Palestinian Information Center
Dozens of settlers stormed, Thursday morning, the courtyards of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, under heavy protection from the occupation forces.

Groups of settlers carried out provocative tours of the mosque’s courtyards, and performed Talmudic rituals in its courtyards, after storming it from the Mughariba Gate side.

Coinciding with the settlers’ incursions into the mosque, the occupation forces pursued and harassed the stationed men and women, as the Jerusalem station arrested Nafisa Khwais from Omar Bin Al-Khattab Square and took her to the investigation center.

Extremist Temple groups continue to mobilize settlers to carry out more incursions into the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, during three Jewish holidays that began several days ago and extend until mid-October.

Temple groups take advantage of Jewish holidays to practice their Talmudic and Torah rituals in Al-Aqsa Mosque, most notably prayers, supplications, fasting, slaughtering sacrifices, blowing the trumpet, and others, in efforts to Judaize it, impose a new reality in it, and divide it in time and space.

The “Jewish New Year” is followed by the so-called “Days of Repentance,” in which the settlers violate Al-Aqsa wearing biblical white clothing, leading to the second Jewish holiday during this period, which is called the biblical “Feast of Atonement” on September 25.

On what is called “Yom Kippur,” the settlers seek to simulate the sacrifice and set a record number of people storming Al-Aqsa Mosque and the day after it, as well as attempting to blow the trumpet at the “Tanqaziyya” school.

The so-called “Feast of the Throne” begins on September 30 and extends until October 17. It is one of the biblical pilgrimage holidays associated with the “alleged Temple,” during which the settlers attempt to bring plant sacrifices into Al-Aqsa Mosque and raise the number of intruders to more than 1,500 intruders over successive days.

Jerusalemite warnings continue about the danger of settlement rituals in the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque and the city of Jerusalem, during the Jewish holidays, and calls for the necessity of traveling to Al-Aqsa to thwart the settlers’ plans and the ongoing Judaization efforts against the Blessed Mosque and the occupied city of Jerusalem.

In another context, the occupation forces stormed Al-Eizariya Girls Basic School in occupied Jerusalem after blowing up its doors, searched it, seized its surveillance camera recordings, destroyed part of its contents, and caused major material damage.

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

https://palwatch.org/page/34584

PA minister: Jews are “criminal infidels” who “defile” Muslim holy sites

Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik  | Sep 20, 2023

• PA Minister of Religious Affairs asks Allah to “purify” Muslim holy sites “from the defilement of the criminal infidels” – on eve of Jewish New Year
• PA: Jews at the Temple Mount are “infidels” who invade the Al-Aqsa Mosque
• Abbas’ spokesman: The Western Wall and the Temple Mount are “a pure right of the Muslims only”
• PA minister repeats libel: Israel wants to “eliminate the Al-Aqsa Mosque”
• Fatah: Jews are openly planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque

In anticipation of the large number of Jews who would visit the Western Wall to celebrate the Jewish New Year this past weekend, the Palestinian Authority attacked Jews as “infidels” who would “defile” the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

In a televised sermon on the eve of the Jewish New Year, PA Minister of Religious Affairs Hatem Al-Bakri preached that “criminal” Jewish “infidels” would “defile” the Muslim holy sites and prayed that Allah would purify the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Cave of the Patriarchs: 

PA Minister of Religious Affairs Hatem Al-Bakri: “Allah, purify the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Ibrahimi Mosque (i.e., Cave of the Patriarchs) from the defilement of the criminal infidels, O Master of the Universe.”

[Official PA TV, Sept. 15 2023]

A Fatah’s spokesperson stated that the Jews have always “secretly plotted” to harm the Al-Aqsa Mosque and warned that they are now planning to destroy it:

“Fatah Spokesperson in Jerusalem Muhammad Rabia: “[In the past the Jews] secretly plotted and prepared projects and plans, which targeted the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Today this is being carried out openly by bringing the red heifers that they [the Jews] will slaughter and scatter their ashes… to purify themselves and allow them to break into the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. They are dividing [the mosque] according to time and area, and now they are planning to destroy the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque.”

[Official PA TV, Topic of the Day, Sept. 4, 2023]

PA minister Al-Bakri repeated this recently:
 

PA Minister of Religious Affairs Hatem Al-Bakri: “There is a plan by the occupation that has targeted this site [the Al-Aqsa Mosque]. This plan was prepared 50 years before the establishment of the State of Israel [in 1948]. They prepared these plans, and they are carrying them out every day. They are attempting to reach the final point, which iseliminating the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the acts of harm are continuing against all the Christian and Muslim holy sites.”

[Official PA TV News, Aug. 21, 2023]

The Islamic religious leadership in Jerusalem has also exhorted Palestinians to take actions to prevent Jews from “defiling” the Muslim sites, completely ignoring the fact that the Temple Mount is one of Judaism’s holy sites:

“The Islamic organizations in Jerusalem… called on every Palestinian and Muslim who can to carry out Ribat (i.e., religious conflict over land claimed to be Islamic) in the alleys, houses of worship, benches, and plazas of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque / the Noble Jerusalem Sanctuary (i.e., the Temple Mount), with its entire territory that stands at 144 dunams (144,000 sq. meters), so that it will remain pure of the infidels’ defilement and precious and pure for the Muslims only, as Allah granted them in the holy Quran.”

[WAFA, official PA news agency, July 27, 2023]

Spokesperson for PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Nabil Abu Rudeina, has likewise denied Jews any right to pray at the Western Wall or visit the Temple Mount, categorizing the sites as “a pure right of the Muslims only”:

“Official Spokesperson for the [PA] Presidential Office Nabil Abu Rudeina… emphasized that the Israeli attempts to change the historical status quo in Jerusalem are unacceptable and fated to fail. He also emphasized that the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque isa pure right of the Muslims only.”

[WAFA, official PA news agency, July 27, 2023]

Similarly, Abbas’ Fatah condemned Jews at the Western Wall who were part of an anti-judicial reform group, as “invading settlers”:

Posted text: “Settlers invade the Al-Buraq Wall (i.e., the Western Wall of the Temple Mount) and hold Talmudic (i.e., Jewish) prayers this morning in occupied Jerusalem.”

[Fatah Commission of Information and Culture,
Facebook page, July 23, 2023]

Palestinian Media Watch has shown that the PA intentionally mislabels Judaism’s holiest site – the entire Temple Mount and the Western Wall – as “the Al-Aqsa Mosque,” and defines all Jews who visit or come to pray as “invading settlers” who “break in” and “defile” the mosque.

Additionally, it should be noted that Jews who visit the Temple Mount are restricted to specific sections of the open areas and are barred from entering the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock. Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount is prohibited because of threats of terrorism by Palestinians.

To combat the “defilement” of “extremist settlers,” the Palestinian National Council – the legislative body of the PLO – called for violence and terror, using the PA euphemism “resistance,” vowing that “Palestine” will be liberated.

The following are longer excerpts of the statements cited above:

Headline: “The Islamic organizations in Jerusalem condemned the invasion of the Al-Aqsa Mosque by the occupation and its settlers”

“The Islamic organizations in Jerusalem… emphasized their insistence on opposing the unfair Israeli measures against the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, its visitors, its guards, and the worshippers. The organizations called on every Palestinian and Muslim who can to carry out Ribat (i.e., religious conflict over land claimed to be Islamic) in the alleys, houses of worship, benches, and plazas of the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque / the Noble Jerusalem Sanctuary (i.e., the Temple Mount), with its entire territory that stands at 144 dunams (144,000 sq. meters -Ed.), so that it will remain pure of the infidels’ defilement and precious and pure for the Muslims only, as Allah granted them in the holy Quran.”

[WAFA, official PA news agency, July 27, 2023]

The Islamic organizations in Jerusalem are:

The Islamic Waqf Council (Jordanian)

The PA’s Supreme Muslim Council

The Palestinian Dar Al-Ifta (i.e., the official PA body for issuing religious rulings headed PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein)

The Office of the PA Supreme Shari’ah Judge

The PA’s Islamic Waqf and blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs Department

The PA and its leaders misrepresent all of the Temple Mount as an integral part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Therefore, they vilify any presence of Jews on the mount as an “invasion.” It should be noted that Jews who visit the Temple Mount only enter some sections of the open areas, and do not enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock. Israeli police ban Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount because of threats of violence by Palestinians.

“Official Spokesperson for the [PA] Presidential Office Nabil Abu Rudeina… emphasized that the Israeli attempts to change the historical status quo in Jerusalem are unacceptable and fated to fail. He also emphasized that the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque is a pure right of the Muslims only, and Jerusalem and the holy sites are a red line that cannot be allowed to be crossed under any circumstances.”

[WAFA, official PA news agency, July 27, 2023]

Nabil Abu Rudeina also serves as PA Deputy Prime Minister, PA Minister of Information, Fatah Commissioner of Information, Culture, and Ideology, and Fatah Central Committee member.

The PA and its leaders misrepresent all of the Temple Mount as an integral part of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Therefore, they vilify any presence of Jews on the mount as a “break-in.” It should be noted that Jews who visit the Temple Mount only enter some sections of the open areas, and do not enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock. Israeli police ban Jewish prayer at the Temple Mount because of threats of violence by Palestinians.

“Division according to areas and times” refers to a submission of a “private bill” by Israeli MP Uri Ariel in March 2003. The bill suggested ensuring freedom of religious worship by allowing both Jews and Muslims to pray on the Temple Mount – what the Palestinians call the Al-Aqsa Mosque plaza. The bill sought to designate separate prayer times and areas of the site for Muslims and Jews. The bill never progressed past the initial legislatory stage. While there was additional discussion on the subject in 2012, no legislation was ever passed.

In response to the incessant PA claims that the “division according to areas and times” of the Temple Mount is an operative Israeli plan, former Israeli PM Netanyahu stated on many occasions that the Israeli government has no intention of ‎changing the so-called status quo on the Temple Mount, which de facto is interpreted to mean Jews are only allowed to enter the Temple Mount, but not to conduct individual or communal prayers there.

In July 2021, former Israeli PM Naftali Bennett said Muslims and Jews have freedom of worship at the Temple Mount, which was understood by many as a hint to changing the status quo at the site, but the following day his office backtracked and said he misspoke and did not mean Jews would have freedom of worship, but rather would have freedom to visit. “There is no change in the status quo,” a statement from PM Bennett’s office confirmed.

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

https://cst.org.uk/news/blog/2023/01/19/cst-report-shows-22-increase-in-campus-antisemitism

CST REPORT SHOWS 22% INCREASE IN CAMPUS ANTISEMITISM

19 January 2023

Today CST publishes a new report, Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2020-2022, that shows a 22% increase in university-related antisemitic hate incidents reported to CST over the past two academic years. This is the second investigation of its kind by CST looking exclusively at the experiences of Jewish students, as well as staff and campus organisations around the country.

CST’s new report reveals 150 university related antisemitic incidents were reported to CST in the last two academic years across 30 towns and cities in the UK.

Jewish life on campus is vibrant and there are a wealth of opportunities available that contribute to the overwhelmingly positive experiences of Jewish students at university. Most Jewish students will not encounter any antisemitism during their studies, but anti-Jewish hatred can still present a significant challenge for Jewish staff and students.

In 2020/2021, CST recorded 95 university related antisemitic incidents; the highest total recorded for a single academic year. Fifty-five of these incidents took place in a single month, May 2021, when there was a significant escalation of conflict in Israel and Gaza. This was a period when national levels of anti-Jewish hate crimes increased, and university campuses were disproportionally affected. For Jewish staff and students, online spaces were especially hostile during this time with three quarters of the incidents reported in May 2021 occurring on social media platforms or messaging apps. In times of heightened tensions such as this, universities are urged to consider the impact on Jewish staff and students and show an increased level of support.

The 150 incidents reported to CST during the past two academic years included seven threats, three of which were death threats sent to Jewish students, and three physical assaults. The remaining 140 incidents were in the category of Abusive Behaviour, which includes verbal abuse, antisemitic graffiti on non-Jewish property, and online or offline written abuse. Eighty-two incidents took place online, 47 incidents occurred on campus, and 21 took place off campus.

This report shows the challenges faced by students when universities, who have a duty of care to protect all students at university, do not always provide robust support to Jewish students or staff. This is sometimes seen in how some academic institutions handle complaints of antisemitism. In some cases, CST found that  investigations into complaints of antisemitism have been marred by slow responses, a breakdown in communication, a lack of impartiality or objectivity from investigating officers, and a failure to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism in an appropriate way.

CST’s recommendations for universities:

• Maintain a fair, independent and impartial complaints process that consults external advisors with specialist expertise in the type of discrimination or bigotry being alleged
• Offer a timely response to students and update them on any progress made, delays that may be inavoidable and when they can expect an outcome to the investigation
• Allow for anonymity for students in the reporting of a hate crime and the involvement of third party representation
• Ensure that adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is accompanied by training for staff who will be investigating the complaint so that they know how to use the definition, and have a wider understanding of the nature, language and impact of antisemitism on British campuses

CST works alongside the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) and other campus-based organisations to support students, academics and others who experience antisemitism in a higher education setting. CST’s campus team gives advice to Jewish students and Jewish societies on campus regarding how to organise events safely. CST also works with different organisations to teach students about topics relating to antisemitism and extremism on campus. It is hoped, as with all CST’s work, that this will contribute to the building of a safer and more inclusive environment for Jewish students and staff. 

In response to CST’s new report, CST Chief Executive Mark Gardner said:

“Antisemitism at our universities has been a running sore for decades and these new findings show that far too many Jewish students suffer hatred and bias. This study also reinforces last week’s National Union of Students’ own report into antisemitism, including the link between anti-Israel hatred and racist treatment of British Jews. Students’ Unions and university authorities need to better support their Jewish students, taking concerns seriously and acting against antisemitism, whether it comes from students or academics.”

HM Government’s Independent Adviser on Antisemitism, Lord Mann, said:

“Antisemitism on campus has long been a concern for parents and students, and the reported rise in university-related antisemitic incidents over the past few years is both worrying and unacceptable. It is imperative that more is done to protect Jewish students and staff from the scourge of antisemitism and both the Community Security Trust and the Union of Jewish Students are at the forefront of this work.   Together with the leadership of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, I have recently set up a Taskforce to hold hearings and focus groups at a wide and diverse number of universities across the UK, to meet with student unions’ representatives, Jewish students and staff. The taskforce will examine the Jewish experience at Higher Education institutions and provide recommendations about what measures could be implemented to help tackle antisemitism and support the Jewish community within the sector. All Jewish students have a right to be themselves on campus without any negative impact on their university experience.”

Union of Jewish Students President Joel Rosen said:

“Jewish students living away from home for the first time have the right to be who they are and to feel safe where they live and study. These incidents have a detrimental impact on the community, leading some to hide their identity and disengage from parts of university life. Jewish students are resilient and won’t let themselves be defined by the prejudice of others. In spite of the odds, Jewish life on campus continues. Our answer to those who would uproot our thriving student communities is to ensure that they continue to grow and flourish.”

Read the full report on Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2020-2022.

14.09.23

Editorial Note

The newly-founded Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism (ICSZ) is planning a conference in October 2023. It aims to battle “the IHRA definition of antisemitism” and to show how it “amplifies and hides repressive power and state violence.” The meeting invites those researching and confronting the “repressive” use of the IHRA definition, to “foreclose critical discussion and scholarship on Zionism.” The conference is looking for ways to “support resistance” to the IHRA campaign by “mapping the ways IHRA is making incursions internationally.” 

The ICSZ, “aims to support the delinking of the study of Zionism from Jewish Studies, and to reclaim academia and public discourse for the study of Zionism as a political, ideological, and racial and gendered knowledge project, intersecting with Palestine and decolonial studies, critical terrorism studies, settler colonial studies, and related scholarship and activism. The Institute approaches Zionism as a broad set of colonial and repressive work and solidarities, efforts to curate knowledge and identities, and to dismantle movements that resist it. In other words, Zionism’s project extends beyond the borders of Palestine. Many scholars and activists are working to illuminate such ‘other work’ of Zionist institutions and discourses, historically and in the present, to shape the material conditions of life, the movement of capital, the construction of racial identity, and more.”

According to the invitation, the meeting will take place in the intellectual space of UC Santa Cruz (Oct. 13) and NYU (Oct. 14). However, NYU Law and UC Santa Cruz already announced their refusal to host this conference. UC Santa Cruz published a “Statement on conference organized by the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism” on September 05, 2023. It stated that “UC Santa Cruz does not endorse the upcoming conference organized by the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism and no events of the conference are scheduled to take place on the UC Santa Cruz campus. The reference to the ‘intellectual space of UC Santa Cruz,’ and the listing of select individual UC Santa Cruz academic departments and centers purportedly as sponsors, is not, and should not be interpreted as, a university endorsement. At no point in time has UC Santa Cruz endorsed the upcoming conference.” Likewise, New York University (NYU) School of Law has told the Jewish Journal that they will not be hosting the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism’s (ICSZ) upcoming conference on campus.

In a radio program, Arab Talk with Jess and Jamal, Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi from the Department of Ethnic Studies at San Francisco State University, the founder of ICSZ, discussed a recent article she posted on Mondoweiss entitled “Why we created the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism.” Abdulhadi, a leading Palestinian activist, explained (5:30) that they are “part of a founding Collective of the institute for the critical study of Zionism and this was our responsibility to write this article. One of the reasons why we thought that it was really important is because historically, the “legitimate” academic study of Zionism, anti-Semitism, and Israel studies, housed in Departments of Jewish studies, Israeli studies, and at the Israeli Academy, so “anybody who cares about human rights and justice for all who speaks about this, is labeled as antisemitic and there is the attempt by the pro-Israeli lobby industry to label anyone who criticizes Israel, who criticizes Zionism and considers it a settler colonial project as antisemitic, in order to dismantle us, to remove us, erase our presence and delegitimize what we’re doing and label us as a politics of hate.” (6:40). 

For Abdulhadi, the Zionist project, “is a settler colonial project that was built in Palestine, created, realized in Palestine, although there were other options the Zionist movement received from the British colonial powers in Palestine, for example, Argentina or parts of Africa, but the Zionist movement rejected that, they created it in Palestine and the project itself was built on the erasure of the Palestinian people from their land and erasing their very presence as a people, including their embodiment as humans, as well as their culture, their language, their food, the music, that includes everything else, because you need for Zionism to exist and legitimize itself as a legitimate movement, it needed to erase, exactly like the U.S and our other settler colonial states did to indigenous people, you have to eliminate the presence of the indigenous people, in order to justify why is it that there was a land without people for a people without the land which we know is a Zionist myth.” (8:09)

According to Abdulhadi, the conference is “going to focus on battling the IHRA, which is the definition of antisemitism as created by the Holocaust group within Europe. That is very problematic because one of the ways in which it identifies anti-Semitism is by criticizing Israel and criticizing Zionism, and actually, you can understand that one of the people who created this definition himself says this is problematic. He regretted it, unfortunately, at the time when they decided that he didn’t pass it, and it has been legitimate in multiple central European and Western spaces. However, there is a very strong tide against that, that challenges this kind of equation and actually says that criticizing Israel, first of all, Israel is like any other state, then there is no such thing as singling out Israel. You’re actually treating Israel as any state that should be subject to accountability to human rights conventions, to behavior like any other state, so there is no singling out Israel. Secondly, criticizing Zionism as a settler colonial movement and ideology is totally legitimate and actually has preceded the creation of Israel as such that colonial project has been propagated by many Jewish scholars themselves and thinkers and so on, and today there are many and there is also more and more and more broadening spaces within Jewish communities across, including younger generations, who do not want Israel to speak in their name, who do not accept this definition of anti-Semitism.” (13:18)

Abdulhadi stated, “I should say that we are 100 percent committed to the struggle against antisemitism. We are 100 percent committed to speaking about the Holocaust as a huge tragedy of human life. We are very much committed to standing for justice for all and freedom for all and all forms of anti-racism, and we want to make sure that we are not exceptionalizing Zionism and saying that Israel is above the law and Israel is exceptional to any other state.” (13:46)

For Abdulhadi, the purpose of Zionism is to erase the Palestinians. She said, “there has been a Palestinian village and a community that has been erased so we know at least 530 Palestinian communities have been erased in 1948 before and after actually the creation of the state of Israel which argues against the Israeli and Zionist claim that it was needed in order to be able to save themselves from Arab attacks and Palestinians and that it continued to erase Palestinians to realize the Zionist project… one of the main targets and actually objectives of the Zionist movement, realized through the Jewish National Fund, was to erase, uproot trees that are indigenous to the environment and put in their places, plant trees that come from Europe and elsewhere, which is also explains why there are constantly fires that take place because the trees that they planted are foreign, they’re not indigenous to the land and they are meant to hide the presence of Palestinian agriculture, so we are putting this to challenge the Zionist narrative that makes certain claims that are not really based in reality they are not factual and also to uplift [sic] the Palestinian persons in Palestine and Palestinian indigenous relationship to the land, to the environment to the culture around them.” (15:54)

Abdulhadi revealed her antisemitic views by declaring that Zionism aims to erase the Palestinians’ embodiment and that the JNF aims to erase Palestinian agriculture. Both claims are baseless, malicious, and used to demonize the Jews. The name “Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism” is a clue. As IAM has emphasized, the term “critical” is part of the neo-Marxist, critical approach in social sciences, which rejects the positivist, empirical paradigm based on facts. In the eyes of “critical scholars,” facts and statistical data are suspect because they are generated by the “dominant, colonial or imperialist powers.” However, the Ottoman Empire’s colonialism was legitimate for them.

Abdulhadi is not alone. In the past three decades, many American scholars of Arab and Palestinian descent have turned their scholarships into a platform of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, and anti-Zionist propaganda. For example, The Middle East Scholars Association (MESA) passed a BDS resolution last year.   

Mixing ideology and scholarship discredits the field of Middle East studies. Worse, it negates the original goal of the federal government to create objective Middle East programs in various universities. Evidently, the government, which supports many of these programs through Title VI grants, is not getting its money’s worth. 

References:

Battling the ‘IHRA definition’: Theory & Activism

Battling the ‘IHRA definition’: Theory & Activism

***NOW OPEN!***
Use this form to sign up, and read about registering below.

We are thrilled to announce the first convening of the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism in October 2023! This inaugural gathering will bring together ICSZ’s community of scholars and activists to build and share knowledge about how “the IHRA definition of antisemitism” both amplifies and hides repressive power and state violence.

As detailed below, this is a working meeting for scholars and activists of ICSZ’s community, particularly those engaged in researching and confronting the repressive use of “the IHRA definition” to foreclose critical discussion and scholarship on Zionism. A selection of papers and videos of presentations will, however, be published after the event.

We will update this page as details about the convening are finalized. The program will be linked here as soon as it is published.

What it’s about: Sessions will explore the political, historical, and cultural conditions that enable IHRA campaigns, and share theoretical insights and organizing tools to support resistance. This event focuses on North American academia, government, and institutions while additionally mapping the ways IHRA is making incursions internationally. It will highlight victories, successful strategies, and paths of ongoing organizing.

Registering: Please use this form if you’re interested in attending. Due to limitations on attendance, filling out this form does not immediately register you for the convening. You will receive a response as quickly as possible from our volunteer team to confirm the status of your registration. Deadline: October 9.

Who should come: This is an ICSZ organizational convening for academics and activists who are battling the “IHRA definition” — including students, researchers, faculty, organizers, artists, and activists — to build knowledge and develop strategies to advance that work. ICSZ warmly welcomes allied scholars and activists to join our research community. 

Presenting research by activists and academics: The convening is structured by eight panels dedicated to theorizing, mapping, and political education. Presentations draw from the rich, wide-ranging landscape of academic, activist and community work that focuses not only on the “IHRA definition” itself, but also on the cultural, intellectual and political conditions that lend it power, its impacts, and our modes of resistance to it. 

Building our organizing: The convening will include an organizing lunch on both days for local activist groups to connect individuals and organizations, share materials, and focus on building attendees’ support networks to push back on IHRA campaigns.

Starting points: This convening is the inaugural event of the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism. We invite you to read the Institute’s points of unity which are the basis for the Institute’s research community. We anticipate that our discussions will be accompanied by a set of materials that share essential information, definitions, and other knowledge. The purpose is to be able to bring together attendees from a range of backgrounds, without assuming that everyone is well-versed in all areas of the work to battle IHRA. We hope these materials will allow presenters tow bring us in-depth discussion of their topics. (If your activist organization would like to co-sponsor and help curate these materials, please be in touch!)

Updates & deadlines: The call for proposals is now closed. 

Logistics: The convening will take place in the intellectual space of UC Santa Cruz (Oct. 13) and NYU (Oct. 14). Participants at each site will be invited to join the other site remotely.

Online attendance: When you register for in-person attendance in either Santa Cruz or New York, you will be invited (and strongly encouraged) to attend the other day online. The meeting is not organized as an all-remote event — we are trying to build our community and ideas in ways that work much better when we’re together! However, for comrades who are involved in this work but can’t make it, we will have limited slots for all-online attendance.

Organizational co-sponsors: The organizing collective is thrilled to be working with such an incredible, powerful, and varied set of co-sponsors. Below is a current list. If your organization is interested, please reach out at info@criticalzionismstudies.org, and see this co-sponsorship form for some initial information.

Current co-sponsors:

Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism

American Friends Service Committee

Center for Creative Ecologies, UC Santa Cruz

Center for Racial Justice, UC Santa Cruz

Critical Race & Ethnic Studies Department, UC Santa Cruz

DSA Santa Cruz’s BDS and Palestine Solidarity Working Group 

Friends of Sabeel North America (FOSNA)

Jewish Voice for Peace

National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP)

NYU Law Students for Justice in Palestine

ReThinking Foreign Policy

Sparkplug Foundation

Teaching Palestine: Pedagogical Praxis and the Indivisibility of Justice

UC Ethnic Studies Faculty Council

U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI)

2023 “Battling IHRA: Theory & Activism” Planning Collective (partial/in formation):

Rabab Abdulhadi, AMED Studies Program, San Francisco State University/Teaching Palestine

M. Muhannad Ayyash, Mount Royal University

Dov Baum, PhD

Kat Cui, NYU Law

Arlo Fosberg, Feminist Studies, UC Santa Cruz

Emmaia Gelman, Sarah Lawrence College

Yulia Gilich

Terri Ginsberg, USACBI

Christine Hong, Critical Race & Ethnic Studies and Literature, UC Santa Cruz

Jennifer Kelly, Feminist Studies and Critical Race & Ethnic Studies, UC Santa Cruz

Arun Kundnani

Sean L. Malloy, University of California, Merced

Jennifer Mogannam, Critical Race & Ethnic Studies, UC Santa Cruz

Sheryl Nestel, Independent Jewish Voices

Lisa Rofel, National Board, Jewish Voice for Peace; Professor Emerita, University of California, Santa Cruz

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

https://criticalzionismstudies.org/

The Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism aims to support the delinking of the study of Zionism from Jewish Studies, and to reclaim academia and public discourse for the study of Zionism as a political, ideological, and racial and gendered knowledge project, intersecting with Palestine and decolonial studies, critical terrorism studies, settler colonial studies, and related scholarship and activism.

The Institute approaches Zionism as a broad set of colonial and repressive work and solidarities, efforts to curate knowledge and identities, and to dismantle movements that resist it. In other words, Zionism’s project extends beyond the borders of Palestine.

Many scholars and activists are working to illuminate such “other work” of Zionist institutions and discourses, historically and in the present, to shape the material conditions of life, the movement of capital, the construction of racial identity, and more.

The Institute supports this expansive work with fellowships to support academic and activist work, conferences, and publications that expand the reach of scholars’ and activists’ work into political culture.

People

Founding Collective (partial list)

Rabab Abdulhadi, AMED Studies Program, San Francisco State University/Teaching Palestine

Lau Barrios, No Tech for Apartheid

Dov Baum, PhD

Lisa Duggan, NYU

Emmaia Gelman, Sarah Lawrence College

Yulia Gilich

Christine Hong, Critical Race & Ethnic Studies and Literature, UC Santa Cruz

Jennifer Kelly, Feminist Studies and Critical Race & Ethnic Studies, UC Santa Cruz

Arun Kundnani

Sheryl Nestel, Independent Jewish Voices

Jennifer Mogannam, Critical Race & Ethnic Studies, UC Santa Cruz

C. Heike Schotten, University of Massachusetts Boston/USACBI

Advisory Board (list in formation)

Hil Aked

Ariella Aïsha Azoulay, Professor of Modern Culture & Media and Comparative Literature, Brown University

M. Muhannad Ayyash, Professor of Sociology, Mount Royal University

Umayyah Cable, Assistant Professor, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Huma Dar, Adjunct 2 Professor, Critical Studies Program, California College of the Arts

Keith P. Feldman, UC Berkeley

Cynthia Franklin, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa

Terri Ginsberg, USACBI

Robin D G Kelley, Professor of History, UCLA

Marisol LeBrón, Associate Professor of Feminist Studies and Critical Race and Ethnic Studies at UCSC

Donna Nevel, Jewish Voice for Peace-South Florida

Shaista Aziz Patel, UCSD, Assistant Professor of Critical Muslim Studies

Dylan Rodriguez, Professor, Dept. of Black Study, University of California at Riverside

Andrew Ross, NYU and USACBI

Sarah Schulman

Sherene Seikaly, UC Santa Barbara

Lesley Williams, Jewish Voice for Peace

Alissa Wise, Rabbi

2023 Conference Planning Collective

See Battling the ‘IHRA definition’: Theory & Activism

Director

Emmaia Gelman

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

https://news.ucsc.edu/2023/09/statement-on-conference.html

Statement on conference organized by the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism

September 05, 2023

Updated Sept. 8, 2023

UC Santa Cruz does not endorse the upcoming conference organized by the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism and no events of the conference are scheduled to take place on the UC Santa Cruz campus. The reference to the “intellectual space of UC Santa Cruz,” and the listing of select individual UC Santa Cruz academic departments and centers purportedly as sponsors, is not, and should not be interpreted as, a university endorsement. At no point in time has UC Santa Cruz endorsed the upcoming conference.

We note that the conference organizers no longer require individuals to confirm their agreement with the Institute’s “points of unity” before registering. The removal of the points of unity condition is a welcome change, and the University did not and does not endorse in any way its use. Affirmation with those points of unity, as a condition to registering, were on the website and may have been operative throughout the conference registration period, and thus have had the effect of framing the conference in this context. A conference that limits participation based on political ideology is antithetical to UC Santa Cruz values as a public university and constitutes potential viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment along with potentially impinging on the academic freedom of prospective attendees.

We are vigorous proponents of free inquiry and the free exchange of ideas, and believe that more speech is the best approach to countering speech we find troubling. Both by policy and in practice, the university rigorously honors the freedom to present the widest range of viewpoints irrespective of agreement on those viewpoints. The presentation of the conference’s goals and approach is provoking disagreement as to whether the goals and approach are antisemitic or not antisemitic. This disagreement, like many other disagreements, should be discussed and debated freely and openly in a scholarly community. Amid a sharp rise in antisemitism in the United States, we urge our campus community to understand the impact of their individual views and the expressions of those views on others in the community.

07.09.23

Editorial Note

Prof. Avi Shlaim, the Iraqi-born British-Israeli historian, published a book, Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew. Shlaim was a so-called “New Historian” who, together with Ilan Pappe and Benny Morris, provided a revisionist view of the Zionist movement and the circumstances surrounding the birth of Israel. As expected, the Arab anti-Israel media outlet Middle East Monitor (MEMO) praised the book in a review. MEMO is considered pro-Palestinian in an orientation that strongly promotes pro-Hamas content. Also, MEMO supports various Islamist causes and is regarded as an outlet for the Muslim Brotherhood. 

According to the MEMO review, Shlaim highlights a period in modern history before the establishment of Israel, when “indigenous Jews residing in Muslim-majority lands—known as Mizrahim—lived harmoniously alongside their Muslim and Christian neighbors. They played a significant role in the diverse societies.”

For Shlaim, Baghdad was often referred to as the metropolitan “Abode of Peace.” Shlaim delves into his formative years across three distinct countries. He vividly portrays his privileged upbringing within an affluent, well-connected Iraqi Jewish family. However, their lives were dramatically altered when they and other Jews “faced the difficult decision to migrate to the newly established state of Israel. This decision was influenced, not only by the profound implications of the 1948 Palestinian Nakba, or ‘catastrophe’ which saw the displacement of some 700,000 Palestinians from their land but also by the combined pressures of rising Arab and Jewish nationalism with Arab-Jews caught in the middle. In Israel, Shlaim struggled to assimilate “the Ashkenazi-dominated society of the Zionist settler-colonial state.”

Shlaim argues that the “majority of Israel’s Iraqi Jewish community, including himself, were not willing ideologues of Zionism” because this ideology “spawned a state whose cultural and geopolitical orientation identified it almost exclusively with the West.” 

For Shlaim, the departure of Iraq’s ancient Jewish community was “conscripted into the Zionist project,” to bolster a “demographic majority in Occupied Palestine.” While “Initially, the movement turned to the European Ashkenazi Jews, who occupied a higher social status within the nascent community, and arguably still do to this day.” 

For Shlaim, “while the primary victims of Zionism are the Palestinians, the Jews of the Arab lands are the second category of victims… Aside from rising tensions and ‘one infamous pogrom.'” 

For Shlaim, “By endowing Judaism with a territorial dimension that it did not have previously, it accentuated the difference between Jews and Muslims in Arab spaces. [It] not only turned the Palestinians into refugees; it turned Jews of the East into strangers in their own land.”

Again, like many other anti-Israel activists, Shlaim claims he possesses “undeniable proof of Zionist involvement in terrorist attacks” against Jewish sites in Baghdad, orchestrated by the Zionist underground, to pressure the hesitant Jewish community to immigrate to Israel. These allegations have been denied to this day. 

According to MEMO, the book is a “captivating and enlightening read that highlights the complex intersection of identities within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In doing so, it offers a poignant exploration of the victimization and discrimination experienced by Arab-Jews, who, like the Palestinians, were compelled to leave their homelands, albeit with significant nuanced differences.”

To describe the Farhud as a “one infamous pogrom” is to falsify history.

Contrary to Shlaim, Prof. Esther Meir-Glitzenstein, an expert on Iraqi Jews, has written an article about the Farhud. She wrote that the outbreak of mob violence against Baghdad Jewry on June 1, 1941, was a turning point in the history of the Jews in Iraq. In the 1940s, about 135,000 Jews lived in Iraq. The Jews shared the Arab culture with their Muslim and Christian neighbors but lived in separate communities. Jewish assimilation into Muslim society was rare. With the establishment of the Iraqi state under the British Mandate in 1921, Jews became full-fledged citizens and enjoyed the right to vote and hold elected office. Its elite included high-ranking officials, prominent attorneys, dignitaries, and wealthy merchants. In the spring of 1941, Britain was enduring one of its worst periods in World War II. Most of Europe had fallen to the Axis forces. British chances of winning the war appeared slim. Rashid ‘Ali al-Kailani, an anti-British nationalist politician from one of the leading families in Baghdad, carried out a military coup against the pro-British government in Iraq on April 2, 1941. He was supported by the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husayni. Since his arrival in Baghdad in October 1939 as a refugee from the failed Palestinian revolt (1936-1939), al-Husayni had been at the forefront of anti-British activity. Rashid ‘Ali al-Kailani formed a pro-German government, winning the support of the Iraqi Army and administration. He hoped the Axis victory in the war would facilitate complete independence for Iraq. The rise of this pro-German government threatened the Jews in Iraq. Nazi influence and antisemitism were already widespread in Iraq with Arabic-language radio broadcasts from Berlin. Mein Kampf had been translated into Arabic and was published in local newspapers. A pre-military youth movement influenced by the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) started operating. 

However, after occupying Basra in the middle of May, the British refused to enter the city. Consequently, there was a widespread looting of goods in the shops in the bazaars, many of which were owned by Jews. Arab notables sent night guards to protect Jewish possessions, and many gave asylum in their homes to Jews. 

In Baghdad, on the afternoon of June 1, 1941, when the Regent and his entourage returned to Baghdad and British troops surrounded the city, the Jews believed that the danger from the pro-Nazi regime had passed. They ventured out to celebrate the traditional Jewish holiday of Shavuot. Riots broke out, targeting the Jews of Baghdad. These riots, known as the Farhud, lasted two days, ending on June 2, 1941. Iraqi soldiers and police officers who supported Rashid Ali al-Gailani’s coup d’etat in April and Futtuwa youths sympathetic to the Axis incited and led the riots. Unlike in previous incidents, rioters focused on killing. Many civilians in Baghdad and Bedouins from the city’s outskirts joined the rioters, participating in the violence and helping themselves to a share in the booty. During the two days of violence, rioters murdered 150 or 180 Jews, injured 600 others, and raped an undetermined number of women. They also looted some 1,500 stores and homes. The community leaders estimated that about 2,500 families—15 percent of the Jewish community in Baghdad—suffered directly from the pogrom. 

Meir-Glitzenstein ends her article by stating, “By 1951, ten years after the Farhud, most of the Iraqi Jewish community (about 124,000 Jews out of 135,000) had immigrated to the State of Israel.”

As can be seen, Iraq’s collaboration with the Nazis is what caused the Jews to leave Iraq.

MEMO is hosting Shlaim for a book launch in October to spread more falsities. According to the invitation, “Shlaim will discuss his experiences of living in Iraq, Israel and Britain with Prof. Jacqueline Rose. This is a ‘penetrating reflection on the misfortune of the ‘other victims’ of Zionism: Jews exiled from their old Arab homelands where they were well integrated, and transplanted to Israel, to serve as a subaltern class of the Hebrew settler nation,’ explains Israeli philosopher Moshé Machover.”

Shlaim was a rather unremarkable senior lecturer at Reading University when he realized that bashing Israel would improve his status and bring him to Oxford University. Unfortunately, some British Universities promote the falsification of history. 

References:

Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew

REVIEWS

Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew

July 3, 2023 at 9:01 pm

• Book Author(s):Avi Shlaim 
• Published Date:June 2023
• Publisher:Oneworld Publications
• Hardback:336 pages
• ISBN-13:978-0861544639

• by Omar Ahmed

The term “Arab-Jew” is often considered contradictory, as it seemingly represents conflicting identities within the geopolitics of the Middle East. However, Avi Shlaim, an Iraqi-born British-Israeli historian, challenges this notion in his personal story, Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew. Shlaim argues that this designation should not be viewed as a dichotomy. Instead, he highlights a period in modern history, prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, when indigenous Jews residing in Muslim-majority lands—known as Mizrahim—lived harmoniously alongside their Muslim and Christian neighbours. They played a significant role in the diverse societies, as was the case for Shlaim, growing up in Baghdad, often referred to as the metropolitan “Abode of Peace”.

The title Three Worlds aptly captures the essence of Shlaim’s memoir, as it delves into his formative years across three distinct countries, “from the vantage point of a scholar of the Arab-Israeli conflict.” He vividly portrays his privileged upbringing within an affluent and well-connected Iraqi Jewish family. However, their lives were dramatically altered when they, along with other fellow Jews in Iraq and the region, faced the difficult decision to migrate to the newly established state of Israel.

This decision was influenced, not only by the profound implications of the 1948 Palestinian Nakba, or “catastrophe” which saw the displacement of some 700,000 Palestinians from their land, but also by the combined pressures of rising Arab and Jewish nationalism with Arab-Jews caught in the middle. Shlaim’s adolescence was then shaped by his experiences studying in London, a world apart from both his native Iraq and the struggles of assimilating into the Ashkenazi-dominated society of the Zionist settler-colonial state.

However, Shlaim highlights that the majority of Israel’s Iraqi Jewish community, including himself, were not willing ideologues of Zionism – an ideology, which “spawned a state whose cultural and geopolitical orientation identified it almost exclusively with the West.” According to Shlaim, the exodus of Iraq’s ancient Jewish community, which had long-standing ties to the land dating back to the Babylonian times and even earlier through their connection to the Patriarch and Prophet Abraham, was not simply a migration.

He suggests they were “conscripted into the Zionist project”, as the Eurocentric movement sought to bolster the numbers of Jewish immigrants in order to establish and maintain a demographic majority in Occupied Palestine. Initially, the movement turned to the European Ashkenazi Jews, who occupied a higher social status within the nascent community, and arguably still do to this day.

The author goes as far as to assert that, while the primary victims of Zionism are the Palestinians, the Jews of the Arab lands are “the second category of victims”, who are seldom thought of as such. Aside from rising tensions and “one infamous pogrom”, Iraq, much like the rest of the modern Middle East and unlike Europe, never had a “Jewish Question”.

For Shlaim, Zionism changed this, “By endowing Judaism with a territorial dimension that it did not have previously, it accentuated the difference between Jews and Muslims in Arab spaces.” This ideology “not only turned the Palestinians into refugees; it turned Jews of the East into strangers in their own land.”

BOOK REVIEW: Among the Almond Trees, a Palestinian Memoir

A significant portion of the book sheds light on the author’s early life in Baghdad and portrays his family’s seemingly idyllic existence in 1940s Iraq, prior to the establishment of Israel. The reader gains insight into the author’s familial roots and extended relatives, some of whom are mentioned repeatedly throughout the book. In fact, the narrative delves so deeply into these family connections that the inclusion of a family tree before the prologue would have been beneficial. This aspect of the book provides valuable insights into the dynamics of the once-vibrant Iraqi Jewish community, albeit one that belonged to the upper middle class. However, as the narrative unfolds, the frequent references to social gatherings, including activities like playing cards, may become repetitive and potentially tiresome for some readers.

Nevertheless, one particularly striking and controversial aspect of the book, which has already garnered attention and discussion on social media, is Avi Shlaim’s claim to possess “undeniable proof of Zionist involvement in terrorist attacks” targeting Jewish sites in Baghdad. Shlaim argues that these attacks were orchestrated by the Zionist underground within the country, with the aim of pressuring the hesitant Jewish community to participate in the Aliyah (Jewish immigration) to Israel. The coverage of these events, although not entirely new, has been deemed a “bombshell” in both literal and metaphorical senses. Without the arrival of Iraqi Jews (who formed the majority of Mizrahim “refugees”), Israel “would have ended up in poorer shape, demographically, economically, and in terms of security.”

Such accusations, are hardly surprising in light of similar controversies such as the Lavon Affair and the actions of certain Jewish extremist groups, notably the Irgun and the Stern Gang that carried out attacks against British authorities and Palestinian civilians during the pre-state period.

As a valuable addition to the budding literature on the experience of Arab-Jews, such as the 2019 memoir When We Were Arabs: A Jewish Family’s Forgotten History by Massoud Hayoun, Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew is a captivating and enlightening read that highlights the complex intersection of identities within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In doing so, it offers a poignant exploration of the victimization and discrimination experienced by Arab-Jews, who, like the Palestinians, were compelled to leave their homelands, albeit with significant nuanced differences.

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

Friday, 13 October

The wrong kind of Israeli: Avi Shlaim on life as an Iraqi Jew

Join MEMO as we launch Prof Avi Shlaim’s memoir Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew.

By Middle East Monitor

388followers

Date and time

Fri, 13 Oct 2023 18:30 – 20:00 BST

Location

Central London (To be announced)TBC London WC2N 5DU United KingdomShow map

About this event

• 1 hour 30 minutes
• Mobile eTicket

Shlaim will discuss his experiences of living in Iraq, Israel and Britain with Prof. Jacqueline Rose.

This is an “penetrating reflection on the misfortune of the “other victims” of Zionism: Jews exiled from their old Arab homelands where they were well integrated, and transplanted to Israel, to serve as a subaltern class of the Hebrew settler nation,” explains Israeli philosopher Moshé Machover.

About the panel:

Prof Avi Shlaim is an Emeritus Professor of International Relations at Oxford University and the author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World (2014) and Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations (2009).

Prof. Jacqueline Rose is internationally known for her writing on feminism, psychoanalysis, literature, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and is currently Professor of Humanities at the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities.

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

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-farhud
The Farhud

The outbreak of mob violence against Baghdad Jewry known as the Farhud (Farhud is an Arabic term best translated as “pogrom” or “violent dispossession”) erupted on June 1, 1941. It was a turning point in the history of the Jews in Iraq.

In the 1940s about 135,000 Jews lived in Iraq (nearly 3 percent of the total population), with about 90,000 in Baghdad, 10,000 in Basra, and the remainder scattered throughout many small towns and villages. Jewish communities had existed in this region since the 6th century BCE, hundreds of years before Muslim communities established a presence in Iraq during the 7th century. The Jews shared the Arab culture with their Muslim and Christian neighbors, but they lived in separate communities. Jewish assimilation into Muslim society was rare.

With the establishment of the Iraqi state under the British Mandate in 1921, Jews became full-fledged citizens and enjoyed the right to vote and hold elected office. The Jewish community had between four and six representatives in the Parliament and one member in the Senate. The community was headed by a president, Rabbi Sasson Khedhuri (1933-1949; 1954-1971), an elected council of 60 members, and two executive committees—the spiritual committee for religious issues and the secular committee for managing the secular affairs of the community organizations. Its elite included also high-ranking officials, prominent attorneys and dignitaries, and wealthy merchants. This status of the Jews did not change in 1932, when Iraq gained independence under British informal rule.

In the spring of 1941, Britain was enduring one of its worst periods in World War II. Most of Europe had fallen to the Axis forces, German planes were bombing British cities in the Blitz, and German submarines were exacting a tremendous toll on British shipping. Having driven the British out of Libya, the Afrika Korps under General Erwin Rommel was camped along the Egyptian border and poised to thrust eastward to the Suez Canal. The German Wehrmacht (armed forces) had driven the British out of Greece and Crete, eliminating their last beachhead on continental Europe. British chances of winning the war appeared slim.

Such catastrophic setbacks severely impacted Britain’s presence in the Middle East. Since June 1940, the Vichy government had controlled Syria and Lebanon, and pro-Axis sentiment was prevalent among Egypt’s indigenous government bureaucracy.

In this context, Rashid ‘Ali al-Kailani, an anti-British nationalist politician from one of the leading families in Baghdad, carried out a military coup against the pro-British government in Iraq on April 2, 1941. He was supported by four high-ranking army officers nicknamed the “Golden Square,” and by the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al-Husayni. Since his arrival in Baghdad in October 1939 as a refugee from the failed Palestinian revolt (1936-1939), al-Husayni had been at the forefront of anti-British activity. Following the coup, the supporters of the deposed pro-British rule, headed by the Regent, Abd al-Ilah, and foreign minister, Nuri al-Said, fled to Transjordan. In Iraq, Rashid ‘Ali al-Kailani formed a pro-German government, winning the support of the Iraqi Army and administration. He hoped an Axis victory in the war would facilitate full independence for Iraq.

The rise of this pro-German government threatened the Jews in Iraq. Nazi influence and antisemitism already were widespread in Iraq, due in large part to the German legation’s presence in Baghdad as well as influential Nazi propaganda, which took the form of Arabic-language radio broadcasts from Berlin. Mein Kampf had been translated into Arabic by Yunis al-Sab’awi, and was published in a local newspaper, Al Alam al Arabi (The Arab World), in Baghdad during 1933-1934. Yunis al-Sab’awi also headed the Futtuwa, a pre-military youth movement influenced by the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) in Germany. After the coup d’etat, al-Sab’awi became a minister in the new Iraqi government.

Concerned that Iraq, as a pro-Axis bridgehead in the Middle East, would inspire other Arab nations, and increasingly worried that their access to oil supplies as well as their communications and transportation routes to India were now seriously threatened, the British decided to occupy the country. On April 19, British Army units from India landed in Basra while the British-led Arab Legion troops (Habforce) moved east into Iraq from Transjordan. By the end of May, the Iraqi regime collapsed and its leaders fled first to Iran and from there to German-occupied Europe.

Because the British did not wish to appear to be intervening in Iraq’s internal affairs, they preferred Iraqi troops, who were loyal to Regent Abd al-Ilah, to be the first to enter Iraq’s cities. British authorities also hoped to transfer control of Iraq directly to the Regent and his government. After occupying Basra in the middle of May, the British refused to enter the city and, as a consequence, there occurred widespread looting of goods in the shops in the bazaars, many of which were owned by Jews. Arab notables sent night watchmen to protect Jewish possessions and many gave asylum in their homes to Jews.

In Baghdad the results of this policy were much more severe. On the afternoon of June 1, 1941, when the Regent and his entourage returned to Baghdad and British troops surrounded the city, the Jews believed that the danger from the pro-Nazi regime had passed. They ventured out to celebrate the traditional Jewish harvest festival holiday of Shavuot. Riots broke out, targeting the Jews of Baghdad. These riots, known as the Farhud, lasted for two days, ending on June 2, 1941.

Iraqi soldiers and policemen who had supported Rashid Ali al-Gailani’s coup d’etat in April and Futtuwa youths who were sympathetic to the Axis incited and led the riots. Unlike in previous incidents, rioters focused on killing. Many civilians in Baghdad and Bedouins from the city’s outskirts joined the rioters, taking part in the violence and helping themselves to a share in the booty. During the two days of violence, rioters murdered between 150 and 180 Jews, injured 600 others, and raped an undetermined number of women. They also looted some 1,500 stores and homes. The community leaders estimated that about 2,500 families—15 percent of the Jewish community in Baghdad—suffered directly from the pogrom. View This Term in the Glossary According to the official report of the commission investigating the incident, 128 Jews were killed, 210 were injured, and over 1,500 businesses and homes were damaged. Rioting ended at midday on Monday, June 2, 1941, when Iraqi troops entered Baghdad, killed some hundreds of the mob in the streets and reestablished order in Baghdad.

The causes of the Farhud were political and ideological. On the one hand, the leaders of this pogrom identified the Jews as collaborators with the British authorities and justified violence against Jewish civilians by linking it to the struggle of the Iraqi national movement against British colonialism. Other Arab nationalists also perceived the Baghdad Jews as Zionists or Zionist sympathizers and justified the attacks as a response to Arab-Jewish conflict in Palestine. Nevertheless, killing helpless Jews, including women and children, was an unprecedented phenomenon that contradicted Muslim law. In this situation, antisemitic ideology, derived in part from Nazi propaganda, helped to legitimize murdering Jews in Iraq.

The consequences of this pogrom View This Term in the Glossary stunned the Jewish community in Baghdad. Generally unarmed and lacking military training and self-defense skills, Baghdad Jews felt vulnerable and helpless. Many decided to leave Iraq. Hundreds fled to Iran, others went to Beirut, Lebanon, and some even obtained temporary visas for India. A few hundred Jews tried to reach Palestine, but most of them were forced to stop at some point on the way, either by the Iraqi police, which did not allow Jews to immigrate to Palestine, or by Palestinian police, enforcing strict immigration quotas (the White Paper of 1939). Most of the refugees, however, returned to Baghdad after the political situation had stabilized and the Iraqi economy had begun to prosper again.

The Jewish community in Baghdad experienced a rapid return to economic prosperity under British occupation during the remainder of the war years. Wealthy Baghdad Jews and the remittances of Iraqi Jewish émigrés contributed significantly to the reestablishment of commerce and restoration of property. As a further incentive to returning refugees, the Iraqi government paid compensation to the victims of the community in the sum of 20,000 dinars. The emotional and psychological wounds following the Farhud, however, were not so easily healed. Many members of the community remained in a state of profound shock that undermined their sense of security and stability, eventually prompting them to question their place within Baghdad’s society.

Following the Farhud, Jewish leaders also faced a difficult political dilemma. The Farhud had demonstrated that Jews were perceived by many in the Arab nationalist movement and the religious and conservative right as collaborators with and beneficiaries of British colonialism and its alleged Iraqi puppets. On the other hand, Jewish leaders were in fact well-integrated in urban society in Baghdad. Some held public office, others were prominent in economic life, and many had friendly relations with politicians and leaders. Moreover, the hostility of the Arab nationalists toward the Jews only increased their dependence on the pro-British regime. Jewish leaders therefore chose to downplay the potential for danger and tended to dissuade community activists from steps that might have incited an Arab nationalist response. Jewish leaders preferred quiet, personal, indirect diplomacy to overt political activism. The Jews in Parliament adopted the same policy: they never voted against the Iraqi government and never publicly defended the rights of the Jewish minority.

The middle-class intelligentsia in the Jewish community also faced a profound political and cultural crisis. Educated, generally well-to-do, and active as journalists, authors, and poets, Jewish intellectuals in Baghdad had perceived themselves as partners in creating Iraqi culture; they now felt rejected and betrayed. Their faith in the prospect of Jewish integration in Iraqi society had suffered a severe shock. More profound still was the sense of disillusionment among the youth. The bloodshed prompted many of them to reject the cautious policies of the traditional leadership and to respond in a radical fashion. The nationalists among them were attracted to the Zionist movement; young Jewish socialists sought meaning in the Communist party. While the former envisioned the future in Palestine, the latter imagined a just and socialist order for all people with the triumph of socialism in Iraq. Young people who did not identify with either camp sought to emigrate to the United States, England, France, Canada, and elsewhere in the West. In Iraq itself, a few groups of young people formed self-defense organizations and sought to arm themselves. These organizations had been the basis of the ‘Haganah’ (defense) Organization in Iraq, which functioned until 1951.

The Farhud ultimately intensified anxiety among Baghdad’s Jews, who now worried about Axis victories in the war, escalating violence in Palestine, growing Iraqi nationalist opposition, and the departure of the British from Iraq. The Farhud also marked a new era of Muslim-Jewish relations in Iraq, when discrimination and humiliation became further compounded by concerns about a direct physical threat to Jews’ survival.

Among Arabs the whole event was repressed and nearly forgotten. Arab writers of the time mentioned the Farhud only vaguely, and explained it as a consequence of Zionist activity in the Middle East. In contrast, Iraq’s Jews now perceived that threats to Jewish lives existed not only in Europe but also in the Middle East. In 1943, because of both the ongoing murder of European Jewry as well as antisemitism in Arab countries, Iraq’s Jewish communities were included in Zionist plans for immigration and establishing the Jewish state.

By 1951, ten years after the Farhud, most of the Iraqi Jewish community (about 124,000 Jews out of 135,000) had immigrated to the State of Israel.

Author(s): Esther Meir-Glitzenstein

31.08.23

Editorial Note

Articles in the Palestinian media in Arabic reveal that the PLO, which established an anti-apartheid department last year, as IAM reported in December 2022, is sending delegations to meet European officials to escalate the fight against Israel. 

The delegation included Ramzi Rabah, a member of the Executive Committee of the PLO, the Head of the Anti-Apartheid Department, and Dr. Maher Amer, the Director General of the Department. The Department’s delegation concluded its visits to several European countries in June. It is part of a plan to form a “global front against apartheid and Israeli settler colonialism” in preparation for holding an international conference against apartheid. 

The Department had organized several visits to countries such as Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France to meet with the German Left Party, the German and Belgian Ministries of Foreign Affairs, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, the German “Kobe” Foundation, representatives of the Labor and Green parties, the Belgian Socialist Party, the ECCP Foundation and solidarity institutions with the Palestinian cause, representatives of the “Sinn Féin” party, the official of the Left Bloc in the European Parliament, the Center for Human Rights Support in the Netherlands, and the European Center for Legal Support.  

During these visits, the delegation discussed the “most important developments” in the Palestinian arena, notably the “policies of the extreme right-wing occupation government, which are based on displacement and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people, and control over the Palestinian land according to a systematic policy, based on the annexation of more than 60% of the occupied West Bank, and the intensification of settlement within the framework of a project to undermine the possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state, and liquidating the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people.” 

During its visits, the delegation touched on the need to hold European forums at all levels to convene an international legal conference to “combat the system of apartheid and Israeli colonialism.” During its visits, the delegation explained the Anti-Apartheid action plan and the Department’s international movements to combat the “system of apartheid and settler colonialism.” During this series of visits, the delegation delivered a “detailed document on settlement operations and the annexation of Palestinian lands, and a list of the names of ministers and Knesset members residing in settlements established on occupied Palestinian lands in flagrant violation of international law, in addition to the appeal issued by the first national conference against the apartheid system and Israeli settler colonialism.” 

The Department’s delegation has met with Dr. George Rishmawi, Hamdan Al Damiri, and Dieter Lewin Bergker of the European Palestinian Initiative against Apartheid, representatives of the Palestinian embassies in Germany and Belgium, and the Palestinian ambassador to the European Parliament. At the end of the meetings, the Palestinian community in Germany and the Palestinian and Arab Youth Gathering in Belgium organized several political gatherings with members of the community and its frameworks, on the developments of the Palestinian cause in Berlin, Cologne, and Bonn in Germany, and Brussels in Belgium. During this visit, Ramzi Rabah, spoke on the current Palestinian situation, and the dangerous developments of the Palestinian cause, as a “result of the Israeli occupation policy through displacement, annexation and settlement expansion, adding that the Palestinian people will remain steadfast in the face of the racist plans of the occupation, through popular resistance in all its forms.” During the meetings, Rabah saluted the Palestinian community in Germany and Belgium for their distinguished role in supporting the Palestinian cause, calling for coordinating their efforts and developing their work through integration and influence with European frameworks and parties. He praised the support for the Palestinian cause and the historical role of the Palestinian community in Europe in general and in Germany in particular.

Ramzi Rabah has met with Hubert Corman, the Middle East Department official of the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to discuss “forming a global front against apartheid and Israeli settler colonialism.” The meeting was attended by Frederick, responsible for the Palestine file at the Belgian Foreign Ministry, Counselor Hassan Balawi, the Consul of the Palestinian Embassy in Belgium, Dr. Maher Amer, and Dr. George Rishmawi, a member of the European Palestinian Initiative Against Apartheid. Ramzi Rabah presented the situation “under the extremist Israeli ‘troika’ government, which pursues a policy of annexation, ethnic cleansing and settlement strengthening in the West Bank, calling for besieging this government, and the need to expose its brutal and racist policy and practices, and link the Palestinian struggle in the face of apartheid with other means of struggle, until the occupation is defeated and its demise, and its independent state is established with Jerusalem as its capital. Escalation of killings, arrests and land confiscation,” Ramzi Rabah explained, “The racist, far-right occupation government, led by Netanyahu, continues its aggressive policy against the Palestinian people, noting that the years 2022 and 2023 were among the bloodiest years against the Palestinian people, according to the testimony of international human rights and humanitarian organizations, as killings, arrests, and land confiscation escalated, and the expansion of settlements, in addition to the demolitions and destruction of homes, the enactment of a number of racist laws in the Israeli Knesset and the Israeli courts, and the demand of this racist government to impose the death penalty on Palestinian prisoners, and other racist laws that violate international humanitarian law and human rights law.” 

Ramzi Rabah, referred to “the important European role in confronting the apartheid system, by unifying the efforts of all European human rights and humanitarian institutions, in order to achieve accountability for the Israeli apartheid state.” Ramzi Rabah explained, “The anti-apartheid department’s work strategy is represented by building a global front to end apartheid and settler colonialism, and to work with everyone who advocates international human rights law and Palestinian national rights.” 

As IAM noted before, Settler Colonialism is a construct originally adopted by academic circles in the 1970s, while recently, Palestinian officials adopted the term.

However, some Israeli academics are still promoting the delegitimization of Israel in Europe and backing the baseless Palestinian accusations of apartheid.

One such example comes from a recent article titled “Apartheid is real in Israel,” published by the German paper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and authored by Professor Amos Goldberg of the Hebrew University’s Holocaust Studies. He wrote that “Blaming Israel apartheid is not anti-Semitic. It describes the reality. The Israeli government fights human rights, democracy, equality and promotes the opposite: authoritarianism, discrimination, racism and apartheid.” Iranian Press TV and Al-Jazeera celebrated Goldberg. 

According to the Palestinian press, Hubert Corman, the official of the Middle East Department at the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, affirmed his government’s “continuous support for the Palestinian cause, to preserve the option of a two-state solution.” Corman pointed to “the importance of holding the Palestinian general elections, and improving and strengthening democratic performance in the internal issues of the Palestinian people, as they are a key to self-determination and state building for the Palestinian people.”

Corman’s short statement explains the essence of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute. In a recently declassified report from a meeting of the Israeli cabinet in August 1993, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin expressed serious doubts about the ability of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to conduct a democratic election as the Oslo Peace Agreement stipulated or stop terrorism. Despite such misgivings, the Israelis signed the agreement in September 1993. Soon after, under the tutelage of Iran, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) started a wave of suicide bombings that killed scores of Israelis and undermined the faith of Israelis in the peace process. As is well known, after the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the Strip became a terrorist citadel. Lately, Hamas and the PIJ have tried to set up a terror infrastructure in the West Bank, again with support from Iran and its proxy Hezbollah. Hezbollah is also involved in drug trafficking across the border and mobilizes Israeli Arabs to smuggle both weapons and drugs. There has been a sharp increase in terror attacks associated with the West Bank and a dramatic increase in gang violence in the Arab sector.  

Goldberg, like other Israeli academic activists, has never acknowledged what Rabin feared: the Palestinians, led by the Islamists beholden to Iran and Hezbollah, have zero interest in democracy or a two-state solution. Their only interest is to dismantle Israel.

References:

https://www.alwatanvoice.com/arabic/news/2023/06/26/1526408.html

(Google Translate)

The Organization’s Anti-Apartheid Department ends its visit to Europe

2023-06-26

The delegation of the Department against Apartheid in the Palestine Liberation Organization concluded its visits to several European countries, within the framework of the department’s work to form a global front against apartheid and Israeli settler colonialism, and in preparation for holding an international conference against apartheid.

The department had organized several visits to the countries of Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and France, to meet with the German Left Party, the German and Belgian Ministries of Foreign Affairs, the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, the German “Kobe” Foundation, representatives of the Labor and Green parties, the Belgian Socialist Party, the ECCP Foundation and solidarity institutions with The Palestinian cause, representatives of the “Sinn Féin” party, the official of the Left Bloc in the European Parliament, the Center for Human Rights Support in the Netherlands, and the European Center for Legal Support.

The delegation included a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, Head of the Anti-Apartheid Department, Ramzi Rabah, and Director General of the Department, Maher Amer.

During his visit, the delegation discussed the most prominent developments in the Palestinian cause, and the policies of the extreme right-wing occupation government, which are based on displacement and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinian people, and control over the Palestinian land according to a systematic policy, based on the annexation of more than 60% of the occupied West Bank, and the intensification of settlement within the framework of a project to undermine The possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian state, and liquidating the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people.

During the meetings, the department’s delegation discussed the conditions of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), and the US-Israeli policy, which aims to liquidate UNRWA’s work, by drying up its funding sources, in order to end its tasks and services to the Palestinian people in all refugee camps, where the delegation demanded The necessity of continuing stable and sustainable funding for the Agency.

During its visits, the delegation touched on the need to hold European forums at all levels, in order to convene an international legal conference, to combat the system of apartheid and Israeli colonialism.

During its visits, the delegation explained the action plan of the Anti-Apartheid Department, in addition to the department’s movements at the international level in order to combat the system of apartheid and settler colonialism.

During his series of visits, the delegation of the department delivered; A detailed document on settlement operations and the annexation of Palestinian lands, and a list of the names of ministers and Knesset members residing in settlements established on occupied Palestinian lands in flagrant violation of international law, in addition to the appeal issued by the first national conference against the apartheid system and Israeli settler colonialism.

The department’s delegation participated during its series of visits; Dr. George Rishmawi, Hamdan Al Damiri and Dieter Lewin Bergker of the European Palestinian Initiative against Apartheid, representatives of the Palestinian embassies in Germany and Belgium, and the Palestinian ambassador to the European Parliament.

At the end of the meetings, the Palestinian community in Germany and the Palestinian and Arab Youth Gathering in Belgium organized several political meetings with members of the community and its frameworks, on the developments of the Palestinian cause in Berlin, Cologne and Bonn in Germany, and Brussels in Belgium, during which a member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization spoke. Ramzi Rabah on the current Palestinian situation, and the dangerous developments of the Palestinian cause, as a result of the Israeli occupation policy through displacement, annexation and settlement expansion, adding that the Palestinian people will remain steadfast in the face of the racist plans of the occupation, through popular resistance in all its forms.

During the meetings, Rabah saluted the Palestinian community in Germany and Belgium for their distinguished role in supporting the Palestinian cause, calling for coordinating their efforts and developing their work, through integration and influence with European frameworks and parties. Support for the Palestinian cause, praising the historical role of the Palestinian community in Europe in general and in Germany in particular.

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

https://panet.com/index.php/story/3788237

(Google Translate)

A delegation from the Anti-Apartheid Department of the PLO meets the Belgian Foreign Ministry

Panet website and Panorama newspaper
17-06-2023 09:54:26 Last update: 17-06-2023 23:02:00

Ramzi Rabah, member of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization, head of the Anti-Apartheid Department, recently met with the Middle East Department official.

In the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Herbert Corman”, as part of the department’s delegation’s visit to several European countries, to discuss “forming a global front against apartheid and Israeli settler colonialism.”
The meeting was attended by Frederick, responsible for the Palestine file at the Belgian Foreign Ministry, Counselor Hassan Balawi, the Consul of the Palestinian Embassy in Belgium, Director General of the Department Dr. Maher Amer, and a member of the European Palestinian Initiative Against Apartheid Dr. George Rishmawi.
A member of the Executive Committee of the PLO presented the situation in the Palestinian territories under the extremist Israeli “troika” government, which pursues a policy of annexation, ethnic cleansing and settlement strengthening in the West Bank, calling for besieging this government, and the need to expose its brutal and racist policy and practices, and link the Palestinian struggle in the face of apartheid With other means of struggle, until the occupation is defeated and its demise, and its independent state is established with Jerusalem as its capital.

Escalation of killings, arrests and land confiscation
Ramzi Rabah explained, “The racist, far-right occupation government, led by Netanyahu, continues its aggressive policy against the Palestinian people, noting that the years 2022 and 2023 were among the bloodiest years against the Palestinian people, according to the testimony of international human rights and humanitarian organizations, as killings, arrests, and land confiscation escalated, And the expansion of settlements, in addition to the demolitions and destruction of homes, the enactment of a number of racist laws in the Israeli Knesset and the Israeli courts, and the demand of this racist government to impose the death penalty on Palestinian prisoners, and other racist laws that violate international humanitarian law and human rights law.

The head of the Anti-Apartheid Department referred to “the important European role in confronting the apartheid system, by unifying the efforts of all European human rights and humanitarian institutions, in order to achieve accountability for the Israeli apartheid state.”
A member of the Executive Committee of the PLO explained, “The anti-apartheid department’s work strategy is represented by building a global front to end apartheid and settler colonialism, and to work with everyone who advocates international human rights law and Palestinian national rights.”

Problems faced by UNRWA
The head of the Anti-Apartheid Department addressed “the problems faced by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), and the pressures it is exposed to from some parties to reduce its budget and reduce its services related to the needs and rights of Palestinian refugees, noting the need for European support to maintain the continuity of its provision.” Health, education and relief services.

In turn, the official of the Middle East Department at the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tarbit Kormana, affirmed his government’s “continuous support for the Palestinian cause, to preserve the option of a two-state solution.” The official in the Middle East department pointed to “the importance of holding the Palestinian general elections, and improving and strengthening democratic performance in the internal issues of the Palestinian people, as they are a key to self-determination and state building for the Palestinian people.”

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

https://m.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/israel-muss-den-vorwurf-aushalten-ein-apartheid-regime-zu-sein-19120442.html

Jüdische Stimme für gerechten Frieden in Nahost

23 August at 15:09  · 

FAZ 23.8. 2023

Conflict in Middle East

Apartheid is real in Israel

Israel has been protected for a long time from the accusation of apartheid. In light of recent events in my hometown, this cannot be maintained. Therefore, the formula that anyone who talks about apartheid is anti-Semitic doesn’t apply anymore.

By Amos Goldberg

Felix Klein, the anti-Semitism representative of the federal government, recently, on the occasion of an insightful interview with German Middle East expert Muriel Asseburg, made the claim that whoever supports Israel apartheid delegates the Jewish state. Because that is an anti semitic narrative. The thesis is questionable. Because Felix Klein was right, some of the most well-known Holocaust and Antisemitism researchers from Israel, America, Europe and around the world would be Antisemites.

In a recently published petition co-initiated by Omer Bartov, one of the most respected holocaust and genocide researchers, it says “there can be no democracy for Jews in Israel as long as Palestinians live under an apartheid regime that Israeli jurists have characterized.” The petition has been signed by more than 1900 scientists, mostly Jews and Israelis, including Saul Friedländer, Shulamit Volkov, Eva Illouz, Dan Diner and Christopher Browning. They are all well-known in Germany. Many signatories consider themselves Zionists – such as Benny Morris, who has repeated in the past that the term apartheid cannot be applied to Israel.

The petition and its international appeal are extraordinary. But in the light of recent developments in Israel, many people in Israel and around the world, Jews and non-Jews, are changing their minds. This is how Benjamin Pogrund, a Jewish Israeli from South Africa and a sharp critic of all those who call Israel an apartheid state, wrote in a guest article for the Israeli newspaper “Haaretz”: “For decades I have protected Israel from the accusation of apartheid.” I can’t do this anymore. “

A comparison with South Africa

Pogrund backs his argument with facts, including a detailed comparison between Israel and South Africa. Former Major General Amiram Levin, former high commander of the Israeli army, called Israel’s sovereignty over West Bank “fifty-seven years of absolute apartheid,” and Barak Medina, renowned law professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and former Supreme Court candidate, wrote that the false statements of finance and second ministers at the ministry of security Bezalel Smotrich served to justify an apartheid regime in occupied East Jerusalem. Israel is changing before our very eyes, and many people are responding. So how is Felix Klein’s illiteracy to understand? Hannah Arendt might be able to help. As described in “elements and origins of totalitarian rule”, “ideological thinking” is characterized by the fact that it functions “regardless of any experience”, so to say “emancipated from reality”. In Arendt’s opinion, Felix Klein is an ideologist who closes his eyes to reality and doesn’t make it a secret.

In his criticism of Muriel Asseburg formulated in the newspaper “Die Welt”, he is not only trying to refute the argument that Israel practices apartheid. He simply explains that apartheid contradicts the ideological understanding of a “Jewish state” and therefore the corresponding accusations are anti-Semitic. What would he say if Israel can be shown as an apartheid state? That the political reality in the occupied territories and even within Israel corresponds to the criteria, as defined in international law, i.e. in the Roman Statute of the International Criminal Court, which was ratified by Germany in 2000? It would probably be irrelevant for the little one. Israel cannot be accused of apartheid a priori, regardless of the facts, because Israel is a Jewish state.

Contradictory statements

And since the anti-Semitism envoy with a view of Israel refuses to talk about apartheid because it would ignore the Jewish character of the state of Israel, he basically recognizes that a Jewish state can, maybe even should be, an apartheid state. From his point of view, this is not a problem, but a preference, as a “Jewish state”, and if it is an apartheid state that upholds Jewish supremacy, is an even higher value that we are morally obligated to defend and to criticize is anti-Semitic. In other words: Klein recognizes that Israel, as a Jewish state, could be an apartheid state, but finds it anti-Semitic to talk about apartheid in relation to Israel. With this attitude, he is no longer far away from those far-right politicians who belong to the current Israeli coalition government and openly demand that the Jewish character of the state should be above its democratic character.

Even if Israel, according to this logic, again carried out ethnic cleansing as during the Nakba 1948 and would deport countless Palestinians from the State of Israel or West Bank – as the journalist Amira Hass and many experienced observers warn and as threatened by some ministers of the Likud Party and ministers Smotrich is more or less explicitly formulated in his “decisive plan” -, even then Felix Klein would probably say that it is anti-Semitic to call this action an ethnic cleansing, because it helps to strengthen Israel’s character as a “Jewish state”. Perhaps he would agree that you could criticize such a crime without being anti-Semitic, well-known provided Israel’s legitimate security interests are taken into account, as he recently explained with regard to criticism of the illegal barrier wall.

Not surprisingly, that recent developments in Israel have not caused even a trace of irritation at Klein since the formation of the openly racist and anti-democratic government that practices its apartheid policies on a daily basis. And that, while the government continues to push the actual annexation of the occupied territories and deprives the millions of Palestinians living there of their rights, while the Israeli inhabitants of those territories, the settlers, enjoy full civil rights. Although the parallel legal systems are being expanded in West Bank – civil rights for Jews, war rights for Palestinians. Although the government is converting Israel into an authoritarian, anti-democratic state to enable the annexation of the West Bank without being legally challenged.

Although Itamar Ben-Gvir is the Minister of National Security, a man convicted of racism and supporting a terrorist organization in 2008 and an admirer of Jewish terrorist Baruch Goldstein who massacred 29 Palestinians in the Patriarch’s Cave in Hebron 1994. Although terrorist attacks on Palestinians — such as the pogrom in the Palestinian village of Huwara or the murder of a Palestinian in the village of Burqa — occur almost daily. Although Minister Smotrich publicly declares that the Palestinian village of Huwara should be wiped out, and Minister Ben-Gvir justifies the murder in Burqa. And yet minister Smotrich Gelder is cancelling Arab students in East Jerusalem and Arab communities, just like that. Klein can’t shake all that. Reality has no effect on your positions. Therefore, he is probably interested neither in the arguments of the Israeli human rights lawyer Michael Sfard, who pointed out in a detailed 2020 report that apartheid is practiced in West Bank, nor the reports of the Human Rights Watch from 2021, which also find that apartheid was practiced in the occupied territories. He is also not interested in the legal case analyses of the human rights organization B’Tselem (2021) and Amnesty International (2022), which yield the same result.

Felix Klein dismisses the allegations as anti-Semitic because they question Israel’s Jewish character. How slanted. Like a stranger to reality. How ideological. Small may not be receptive to reality, but reality is stronger, and more and more people in the world and in Israel are beginning to see it. Blaming Israel apartheid is not anti-Semitic. It describes the reality. The Israeli government fights human rights, democracy, equality and promotes the opposite: authoritarianism, discrimination, racism and apartheid. Felix Klein and all decent people need to decide on which side of history they want to stand in the fight against antisemitism.

Amos Goldberg is a professor of Holocaust History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. As a co-editor, he last published “The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History” (Columbia University)

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

https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2023/08/26/709643/Calling-Israel-apartheid-not-anti-Semitic

Hebrew University professor: Calling Israel apartheid is ‘describing reality’ 

Saturday, 26 August 2023 8:04 AM  [ Last Update: Saturday, 26 August 2023 8:16 AM ]

Calling Israel an apartheid regime has nothing to do with anti-Semitism but is the description of what is happening in reality, according to an Israeli university professor.

Amos Goldberg, a leading professor of the Holocaust at Hebrew University in the occupied al-Quds, made the comment in response to an earlier statement by Germany’s anti-Semitism commissioner Felix Klein, who said applying the framework of apartheid to discuss Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is “an anti-Semitic narrative.”

In an interview with the German daily newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), Goldberg rejected Klein’s remarks and said, “Accusing Israel of apartheid is not anti-Semitic—it’s describing reality.”

In a veiled reference to Klein, Goldberg added, “All decent people must decide which side of history they want to be on.”

The Israeli university professor also warned against the conflation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism, describing the issue as a “disturbing” phenomenon as he argued that some of the harshest opponents of Zionism were Jews.

“These identifications are serious because they are derived from alleged lessons of the Holocaust,” he added. “And so it appears that any substantial criticism of Israel and Zionism is perceived in public opinion, and especially among national and international political and cultural institutions, as an ideological continuation of the Holocaust.”

“From the moment Zionism appeared on the stage of history at the end of the 19th century, opposition to it was born within the Jewish world.”

In an open letter earlier in the month, hundreds of academics and public figures from across occupied Palestine and other nations equated the Israeli regime’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian territories with apartheid.

The signatories complained that the Palestinian people “lack almost all basic rights, including the right to vote and protest. They face constant violence: this year alone, Israeli forces have killed over 190 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and demolished over 590 structures. Settler vigilantes burn, loot, and kill with impunity.”

The Israeli oppression of Palestinians has witnessed a sharp rise under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremist coalition cabinet, which is composed of far-right Zionist parties that oppose Palestinian statehood and support the expansion of illegal settlements in the occupied lands.

Over the past months, the usurping regime has intensified attacks against Palestinian towns. As a result of these attacks, dozens of Palestinians have lost their lives and many others have been arrested.

According to the United Nations, 2023 is already the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank since it began recording fatalities in 2005. The previous year, 2022, had been the most lethal year with 150 Palestinians killed, of whom 33 were minors, as reported by the United Nations.

---

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

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

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/27/accusing-israel-of-apartheid-is-not-anti-semitic-holocaust-historian

‘Accusing Israel of apartheid is not anti-Semitic’: Holocaust historian

A growing number of Jewish academics are using the term apartheid to describe Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

Published On 27 Aug 202327 Aug 2023

Amos Goldberg, a leading professor of the Holocaust at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has published a scathing retort saying that describing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as “apartheid” is not anti-Semitic, in a guest post in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ).

Felix Klein, Germany’s commissioner for Jewish Life and the Fight Against Anti-Semitism, said using “apartheid” in such scenarios is “an anti-Semitic narrative” in an interview with Die Welt, one of Germany’s most-read newspapers.

The Israeli government, Goldberg stated, fights against human rights, democracy and equality and propagates the opposite: “authoritarianism, discrimination, racism and apartheid”.

“Accusing Israel of apartheid is not anti-Semitic. It describes reality,” he said.

‘The elephant in the room’

Goldberg’s standpoint was not an outlier, he urged Klein to understand. Rather, it represented a growing chorus of voices, including leading Israeli academics propagating the term apartheid to describe the treatment of Palestinians by the current regime.

In fact, if Klein were right, Goldberg wrote, then some of the best-known Holocaust and anti-Semitism researchers from Israel, the United States, Europe and worldwide would be anti-Semites.

He referenced a petition co-initiated by Omer Bartov, the Israeli-born historian and professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University, titled The Elephant in the Room, which states: “There can be no democracy for Jews in Israel while Palestinians live under an apartheid regime”.

The petition has been signed by more than 2,000 academics, clergy, and other public figures at the time of writing and is emblazoned with an illustration that includes a large elephant with the words “Israeli occupation” alongside a speech bubble that reads “Let’s just ignore it”, and surrounded by dozens of people freely waving placards for various social justice movements.

“Palestinian people lack almost all basic rights, including the right to vote and protest,” the petition reads, “Settler vigilantes burn, loot, and kill with impunity.”

A rhetorical shift in Israeli academia

This represents a significant shift in rhetoric among many Jewish and non-Jewish academics, Goldberg wrote in FAZ.

The recent judicial changes proposal that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently pushed through has forced many people to change their perception of the Israeli regime, including Zionists, he states.

Goldberg referenced Benjamin Pogrund, a South African-born Israeli author who was once quoted as saying anyone who labelled Israel an apartheid regime “is at best ignorant and naive and at worst cynical and manipulative”.

Pogrund recently wrote an op-ed for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz in which he described his new position: “I have argued with all my might against the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state: in lectures, newspaper articles, on TV and in a book. However, the accusation is becoming fact.”

“We deny Palestinians any hope of freedom and normal lives. We believe our own propaganda that a few million people will meekly accept perpetual inferiority and oppression,” he wrote.

Goldberg also cited Barak Medina, a law professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a former Supreme Court nominee, who wrote that the untrue statements of Finance Minister and Second Minister of Security Bezalel Smotrich served to justify an apartheid regime in occupied East Jerusalem.

‘Accusing Israel of apartheid is not anti-Semitic’

Klein’s statement that accusing Israel of apartheid is anti-Semitic is not far removed from the position of the right-wing extremist politicians in the Israeli coalition government who demand that the Jewish character of the state take precedence over its democratic character, Goldberg argues.

It is a position shared by Bartov, who recently told the Washington Post: “You can call me a self-hating Jew, call me an antisemite … People use those terms to cover up the reality, either to deceive themselves or to deceive others. You have to look at what’s happening on the ground.”

Klein may not be “receptive to reality”, Goldberg concludes in his FAZ article, “but reality is stronger and more and more people around the world and in Israel are beginning to see it”.

 24.08.23

Editorial Note

After years of neglect, the subject of Left-wing antisemitism has finally attracted serious academic attention. The book Mapping the New Left Antisemitism: The Fathom Essays was edited by British Professor Alan Johnson and should become a must-read for those concerned about the alarming rise of antisemitism. 

The book provides a comprehensive critical guide to contemporary Left antisemitism. As one reviewer notes, “Written by many of this generation’s leading scholars, Mapping Antisemitism is a valuable compilation of learned, deeply insightful analysis of contemporary anti-Jewish hostility prevalent in significant strains of Western political thought…the pernicious link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism within the political left.” 

The book makes a clear distinction between the legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism, for which the very existence of the Jewish state is a red flag galvanizing various strands of old and new antisemitic voices. The volume also makes clear that Leftist antisemitism is much more corrosive than right-wing antisemitism because Western society’s “progressive” segments are considered legitimate purveyors of such ideas. 

 The topics which the book contributors cover include: antisemitic anti-Zionism and its underappreciated Soviet roots; the impact of analogies with the Nazis; the rise of antisemitism on the European continent, exploring the hybrid forms emerging from cross-fertilization between the new left, Christian, and Islamist antisemitism; the impact of anti-Zionist activism on higher education; and the bitter debates over the adoption of the often misrepresented International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism; among other. 

 Israel Academia Monitor welcomes especially the book’s emphasis on academic antisemitism, the product of generations of scholars both in Israel and the West who abandoned the positivist and objective paradigm of the social sciences. Instead, they embrace the neo-Marxist, critical school of thought in which Israel is viewed as a colonial, neocolonial, apartheid state that subjugates the Palestinians and worse. Over the years, IAM has brought countless examples of Israeli academic activists whose portrayal of Israel is highly antisemitic. As the book notes, many Western academic activists have incorporated antisemitic themes. Ironically, the ongoing case of Jasbir Puar, whose book is taught at Princeton University, alleges that the IDF harvests the organs of Palestinians. Puar, a professor at Rutgers University, has a long history of extreme anti-Israel activism. 

Another interesting point in the book that fits the IAM analysis is the confluence of Western and Islamic antisemitism. Of course, this idea is not new, going back to the time of the Muslim Brotherhood, which adopted much of the Nazi propaganda during WWII. Later, Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamist Republic of Iran, incorporated Nazi-like themes to create a vitriolic antisemitic narrative of Israel and Jews. Interestingly, the regime was eager to use radical Israeli scholars to legitimize its antisemitic ideology. For instance, a translation of the books by Ilan Pappe, arguably the most radical Israeli historian (profiled by IAM numerous times), was published in both Farsi and Arabic. Shlomo Sand, another radical historian from Tel Aviv University, was interviewed several times on the Iranian Press TV. As IAM pointed out, Sand, who claimed that Jewish people were an invention of nineteenth-century Zionists, was particularly useful to the Islamists who denied that Jews had any right to Israel.

 The book, which is scheduled to come out in October 2023, is expected to make a real impact on the debate on current antisemitism.

 A recent example of new Left antisemitism comes in an article published by two Israeli authors, Prof. Ariel Hendel, and Prof. Hagar Kotef, titled “Settler Colonialism and Home.”

 The article discusses forms of settler colonialism, such as the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Algeria, and Israel. “Let us look at Israeli homes as an example. These reminders of the constitutive violence are integrated into so much of the Israeli landscape – which is inlaid with ruins of Palestinian past lives: piles of stones that used to be walls of Palestinian houses, collapsing arches, terraces, fig trees, olive groves, hedges of prickly cactuses… All these serve as a ghostly and yet very material reminder of the violence at the foundation of Israeli homes.”

 According to the authors, “It was in the 1948 war and its aftermath that Zionism as a housing regime (see Allweil 2016) became a project of direct replacement, depriving the Palestinian population from their own homes and lands, and not only a project of providing homes for Jewish immigrants as part of building a Jewish homeland. Approximately 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled during the war. Their return was fully restricted, while their homes and properties were taken by the new regime and given to Jewish immigrants, bulldozed to dust, or left to slow ruination.”

The authors then move on to discuss the Arab inhabitants who build houses without obtaining building permits and cases of house demolitions. 

The authors claim Israel is attempting to replace the Palestinians. “Thus, the symbolic replacement of the Arab with the Western was itself replaced with a different form of replacement: the replacement of living Palestinians with living Israeli-Jews who come to inhibit the former’s home; be it as part of the more national resettlement after 1948… not only physically replace the natives but also to take their place as the legitimate dwellers of the single home and the homeland.” The authors also claim that “most social struggles in Israel revolve around the question of how the material and social benefits of the massive dispossession of 1948 (the real-estate loot) should be distributed among Jews, while not touching at all on the injustice of acquiring these possessions to begin with.”

 The text is full of antisemitic verbiage, blaming the Jews for the misfortune that befallen the Palestinians which they themselves caused; by waging the riots in 1936-9 against the Jews, then their rejection of the Partition Plan, and soon after, waging war against the nascent Jewish State, a war which the Palestinians have lost. Moreover, under the occupation of Egypt in Gaza and Jordan in the West Bank between 1948 and 1967, the Palestinians’ Arab allies did not find the Palestinians righteous for an independent state. But the authors blame Israel and the Jews.

The authors should note that the Balfour Declaration, which the League of Nations adopted, stated that non-Jews should not be harmed while living in the national home of the Jews and also that Jews living in other countries should not be harmed. Yet the Palestinians and their Arab allies breached this arrangement and slaughtered numerous Jews in Palestine and in the Arab world, and as a result, Jews were expelled and absorbed into the Jewish state. 

Clearly, the authors reject the Jews’ right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland by calling Jews settler colonialists. The authors deliberately hide facts to appease their Palestinian camaraderie by taking upon themselves antisemitic diatribes. This is precisely what the book on the New Left Antisemitism discusses in length. 

References:

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781003322320/mapping-new-left-antisemitism-alan-johnson

Book

Mapping the New Left Antisemitism

The Fathom Essays

Edited ByAlan Johnson

Edition1st Edition

First Published2023

eBook Published6 October 2023

Pub. LocationLondon

ImprintRoutledge

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.4324/9781003322320

Pages352

eBook ISBN9781003322320

SubjectsArea Studies, Humanities, Politics & International Relations

ABSTRACT

Mapping the New Left Antisemitism: The Fathom Essays provides a comprehensive guide to contemporary Left antisemitism.

The rise of a new and largely left-wing form of antisemitism in the era of the Jewish state and the distinction between it and legitimate criticism of Israel are now roiling progressive politics in the West and causing alarming spikes in antisemitic incitement and incidents. Fathom journal has examined these questions relentlessly in the first decade of its existence, earning a reputation for careful textual analysis and cogent advocacy. In this book, the Fathom essays are contextualised by three new contributions: Lesley Klaff provides a map of contemporary antisemitic forms of antizionism, Dave Rich writes on the oft-neglected lived experience of the Jewish victims of contemporary antisemitism and David Hirsh assesses the intellectual history of the left from which both Fathom and his own London Centre for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism, as well as this book series, have emerged. Topics covered by the contributors include antisemitic antizionism and its underappreciated Soviet roots; the impact of analogies with the Nazis; the rise of antisemitism on the European continent, exploring the hybrid forms emerging from a cross-fertilisation between new left, Christian and Islamist antisemitism; the impact of antizionist activism on higher education; and the bitter debates over the adoption of the oft-misrepresented International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

This work will be of considerable appeal to scholars and activists with an interest in antisemitism, Jewish studies and the politics of Israel.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part 1|46 pages

Introduction and Contexts

Chapter 1|10 pages

Introduction to Mapping Left Antisemitism

The Fathom Essays

ByAlan JohnsonAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 2|15 pages

A New Form of the Oldest Hatred

Mapping Antisemitism Today

ByLesley KlaffAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 3|12 pages

The Jewish Experience of Antisemitism

ByDave RichAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 4|7 pages

The Left and the Jews

Time for a Rethink

ByAlan JohnsonAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Part 2|60 pages

Contemporary Left Antisemitism

Chapter 5|8 pages

What Is Left Antisemitism?

BySean MatgamnaAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 6|8 pages

Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism

ByMichael WalzerAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 7|7 pages

Alibi Antisemitism

ByNorman GerasAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 8|7 pages

Like a Cloud Contains a Storm

Jean Améry’s Critique of Anti-Zionism

ByMarlene GallnerAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 9|6 pages

What Corbyn’s Favourite Sociologists Greg Philo and Mike Berry Get Wrong About Contemporary Antisemitism

ByMatthew BoltonAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 10|7 pages

Antisemitism and the Left

A Memoir

ByKathleen HayesAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 11|8 pages

Denial

Norman Finkelstein and the New Antisemitism

ByAlan JohnsonAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 12|7 pages

‘Toxic Gifts’

Israel and the Anti-Zionist Left. An Interview With Susie Linfield

BySusie LinfieldAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Part 3|32 pages

The Soviet Roots of Contemporary Left Antisemitism

Chapter 13|13 pages

Soviet Anti-Zionism and Contemporary Left Antisemitism

ByIzabella TabarovskyAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 14|9 pages

Communists Against Jews

The Anti-Zionist Campaign in Poland in 1968

BySimon GansingerAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 15|8 pages

The German Left’s Undeclared Wars on Israel

An Interview With Jeffrey Herf

ByJeffrey HerfAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Part 4|26 pages

Left Antisemitism and the Holocaust

Chapter 16|4 pages

Holocaust Inversion and Contemporary Antisemitism

ByLesley KlaffAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 17|3 pages

Hitler and the Nazis’ Anti-Zionism

ByJeffrey HerfAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 18|17 pages

Holocaust Falsifiers

Blaming ‘Zionists’ for the Crimes of the Nazis

ByPaul BogdanorAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Part 5|41 pages

Left Antisemitism in Europe and the United States

Chapter 19|13 pages

Reflections on Contemporary Antisemitism in Europe

ByKenneth WaltzerAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 20|4 pages

The Unwelcome Arrival of the Quenelle

ByDave RichAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 21|9 pages

A Modern Orthodox-Christian Ritual Murder Libel

St. Philoumenos of Jacob’s Well

ByDavid GurevichAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 22|13 pages

We Shall Be as a City on a Hill

Trump, ‘Progressive’ Anti-Semitism, and the Loss of American Jewish Exceptionalism

ByShalom LappinAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Part 6|32 pages

Left Antisemitism and Academia

Chapter 23|14 pages

The Meaning of David Miller

ByDavid HirshAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 24|9 pages

From Scholarship to Polemic? A Case Study of the Emerging Crisis in Academic Publishing on Israel

ByCary NelsonAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 25|7 pages

Pathologising ‘Jewish Being and Thinking’

Oren Ben-Dor and Academic Antisemitism

BySarah Annes BrownAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Part 7|17 pages

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

Chapter 26|7 pages

On Misrepresentations of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism

ByDave RichAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 27|8 pages

Political Antisemitism

A Defence of the IHRA Definition

ByBernard Harrison, Lesley KlaffAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Part 8|63 pages

Theory and Left Antisemitism

Chapter 28|15 pages

Misreading Hannah Arendt

Judith Butler’s Anti-Zionism and the Eichmann Trial

ByRussell A. BermanAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 29|8 pages

The Pleasures of Antisemitism

ByEve GarrardAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 30|11 pages

Intersectionality and Antisemitism

A New Approach

ByKarin StögnerAbstract 

GET ACCESS

Chapter 31|27 pages

Left Alternatives to Left Antisemitism

A Conversation Between Alan Johnson and Philip Spencer

ByAlan Johnson, Philip SpencerAbstract

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

https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/39771/

SOAS Research Online

A Free Database of the Latest Research by SOAS Academics and PhD Students

• Instructions for SOAS Researchers
• Statistics

Advanced Search

• Submit an item (Staff Only)

Kotef, Hagar and Handel, Ariel (2023) ‘Settler colonialism and home.’ In: Boccagni, Paolo, (ed.), Handbook on Home and Migration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 158-169.

Text – Accepted Version  Restricted to Repository staff only until 1 December 2023.  Request a copy

Abstract

Settler colonialism is a specific configuration of the complex relationship between home and immigration. As an organized migration movement, settler colonialism is a political movement whose main aim is the construction of senses of home and belonging in new territories. Furthermore, as such a movement, settler colonialism is also a massive movement for the construction of physical homes for the colonizing population coupled with the destruction of local homes. Either concretely or more metaphorically, settler colonialism is thus an act of living inside depopulated homes. As a result, legitimacy regimes, legal means and land-use regulations render the homes of the colonized temporary and unstable. But precisely therefore, merely being at home becomes an act of resistance for the colonized. This chapter works through this dialectic of destruction and belonging, presenting the home in the colony as a political site, both of control and of resistance, exploring the political, cultural, economic, symbolic, and affective dimensions of the home in settler-colonial settings.

Item Type:	Book Chapters
Keywords:	Settler colonialism; Indigeneity; Israel/Palestine; Home demolitions; State violence; Resistance
SOAS Departments & Centres:	Departments and Subunits > Department of Politics & International Studies
ISBN:	9781800882768
DOI (Digital Object Identifier):	https://doi.org/10.4337/9781800882775.00022
Date Deposited:	08 Jul 2023 09:08
URI:	https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/id/eprint/39771
Funders:	Leverhulme Trust

Altmetric Data

Statistics