Ignorance is Bliss: Academizing Anti-Israel Trends

17.08.23

Editorial Note

The Palestine Chronicle is an American non-profit organization with a mission to educate the general public by providing a forum that strives to highlight issues of relevance to human rights, national struggles, freedom, and democracy in the form of daily news. Its President is the Palestinian journalist Ramzy Baroud who, in reality, recruits academics in order to besmirch Israel.

Prof. Benay Blend, known to be Jewish, is a case in point. She received her doctorate in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. She has taught at the University of Georgia, Memphis State University, and the University of New Mexico. Currently, she is an adjunct professor of Native American, American, and New Mexico history at Central NM Community College in Albuquerque, New Mexico. She has published widely in such fields as Southwest women writers, Native American Studies, and nature writing. Although Middle East studies is clearly not her subject, she was recruited to write anti-Israel articles

In her recent article “‘Ignorance is Bliss’: On the So-Called Contradictions within Israel’s Alleged Democracy,” she quotes two Israeli Arab academics, Prof. Ahmad H. Sa’di, of the Department of Politics and Government at Ben Gurion University, who wrote, “There is little that sets the Zionist venture apart from many other colonial quests… other than its late appearance on the world’s stage.” and that “the legacy of colonialism still pervades all aspects of Western cultures.” (Ahmad H. Sa’di, “Towards a Decolonization of Colonial Studies,” Decolonizing the Study of Palestine: Indigenous Perspectives and Settler Colonialism After Elia Zureik, Ahmad H. Sa’di and Nur Masalha, Eds, 2023, p. 13). 

She then quotes Suheir Abu Oksa Daoud, formerly of the Department of Political Science at the Hebrew University, as saying that Palestinians will still be the “target of discrimination.” In her view, “a state that explicitly defines itself as Jewish, rather than a state for all its citizens… cannot guarantee fundamental democratic rights and equal citizenship to its minority, and their integration into state institutions will be always conditional.”

 Prof. Blend also refers to an article by American-Israeli journalist and historian Gershom Gorenberg, titled “Israel is Best Understood Through Its Contradictions,” published in the New York Times, which covers the protests over proposed judicial reforms. She quotes Gorenberg, who wrote that, “A great many Israelis who ignored the chronic crisis of occupation, or long ago gave up on finding a cure… nevertheless recognize the new and acute threat to the country’s fragile democracy.” For Prof. Blend, without such a cure, “ostensibly the dismantling of the Zionist entity to make way for a secular state with equal rights for all, there is no democracy, fragile or otherwise. But Gorenberg fails to go there. It seems that he might think he lives within a ‘flawed but real democracy,’ but by leaving out the entire Palestinian population, the indigenous people of the land.” She then questions, “is his ignorance really bliss?”

She stresses the importance of confronting uncomfortable truths to achieve liberation. For her, Gorenberg’s case for “Israel’s democracy” is a good example because it is a “contradiction” since “the Zionist state was established by the Nakba (catastrophe), during which military forces expelled at least 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland and murdered 15,000 more in a series of mass attacks, including dozens of massacres.” For Prof. Blend, there “never was a democratic Israel that Gorenberg says is now in danger of being lost, any more than America, founded on the extermination of Native tribes and on the backs of enslaved people, was founded as a democracy in any broad sense of the word.” In Gorenberg’s article, he states that the “size of the protests [have] been possible” because those “who oppose the occupation are intensely involved.” For her, Gronenberg contends that only by preserving this “big tent” can the “democracy movement” defeat the government’s drive towards dictatorship. She asks, “Who frequents this tent that is supposed to save the Zionist state’s democracy? Not ‘48 Palestinians.”  

For her, the “pro-democracy protestors, who refuse to contend with Palestinians, will not come to the aid of fellow Israelis who understand that democracies do not co-exist with occupation.”  

She then borrows from journalist Jacqueline Luqman’s dictum that “Black people will not make common cause with racists and bigots. Racists do not get a pass because they call themselves anti-war” and suggests that this should be a “warning to Israeli activists who oppose the occupation.”

 According to Prof. Blend, “Zionist state repression reaches far beyond its borders.” She writes, “Indeed, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) recently adopted a resolution condemning the attacks on Palestine solidarity and Palestinian community organizing in Europe,” it also encourages institutions and legal organizations to “reject” the so-called “IHRA definition of anti-Semitism” that “seeks to equate anti-Zionism and support for Palestinian liberation with anti-Semitism.”

For Prof. Blend, “Pro-democracy protestors care mostly about democracy for Israelis and are content to leave apartheid as it is.”

Even by the often-shoddy standards of this type of diatribe masquerading as academic research, Prof. Blend’s article is appalling. She gives no explanation as to why she picked up the disjointed roster of authors to quote from, apart from the fact that most bash Israel. This is a common device in the genre of pro-Palestinian activist writings. After decades of delegitimizing Israel, this flourishing cottage industry created its own self-referential universe of activists quoting each other ad nauseam.  

No wonder her articles have a huge gap between reality and fantasy. The message portrayed is that the Palestinians, who run two dictatorships, one in the West Bank and the other in Gaza, give the Israeli democracy a failing grade. The Palestinians can run terrorist organizations, blow up buses, hijack airplanes, massacre civilians, engage in honor killing of women, teach children to become Jihadists, arrest dissenters, persecute gay people and commit suicide attacks, yet, they come through as truly democratic compared to Israel. 

As for Prof. Blend, ignorance is indeed bliss.

References:

‘Ignorance is Bliss’: On the So-Called Contradictions within Israel’s Alleged Democracy’

August 10, 2023

By Benay Blend

Gorenberg’s case for Israel’s “democracy” is a good example, and is itself a contradiction, because the Zionist state was established by the Nakba (catastrophe), during which military forces expelled at least 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland.

This article draws its title from two opposing articles—Gershom Gorenberg’s opinion piece “Israel is Best Understood Through Its Contradictions” in the New York Times and Erica Caines and Geechee Yaws, “’Ignorance is Bliss’ and Other Fallacies of Counterinsurgency,” an article in Hood Communist which stresses the importance of confronting uncomfortable truths in order to achieve liberation.

“The media presentation of Israel’s mass protest as a fight for democracy is misleading, at best,” writes activist/journalist Ramzy Baroud, “as it fails to address the historical, ideological and, ultimately, class divides in Israeli society.”

Gorenberg’s case for Israel’s “democracy” is a good example, and is itself a contradiction, because the Zionist state was established by the Nakba (catastrophe), during which military forces expelled at least 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland and murdered 15,000 more in a series of mass attacks, including dozens of massacres. Hence, as Baroud contends, Israel’s establishment as a settler-colonial state was “made possible by the expulsion of most of the native Palestinian population.”

“There is little that sets the Zionist venture apart from many other colonial quests,” writes Ahmad H. Sa’di, “other than its late appearance on the world’s stage” (Ahmad H. Sa’di, “Towards a Decolonization of Colonial Studies,” Decolonizing the Study of Palestine: Indigenous Perspectives and Settler Colonialism After Elia Zureik, Ahmad H. Sa’di and Nur Masalha, Eds, 2023, p. 13). Sa’di continues that “the legacy of colonialism still pervades all aspects of Western cultures” (p. 13), as it does in Gorenberg’s essay.

Indeed, as Baroud explains: “Israel’s dichotomy is that it was founded by an ideology, Zionism, which purposely conflated between religion and nationality.” In recent years, Israel’s “religious zealots,” once allocated to the margins, have far outflanked their fellow secularists, making possible the Jewish only laws that are the rational outcome of Zionist logic.

“The irony and the source of confusion,” Baroud concludes, “is that all past and current leadership of Israel – liberal, conservative or religious – are proud Zionists who saw Judaism as a centerpiece in the Israeli identity.” There never was a democratic Israel that Gorenberg says is now in danger of being lost, anymore than America, founded on the extermination of Native tribes and on the backs of enslaved people, was founded as a democracy in any broad sense of the word.

In his article covering the protests over proposed judicial reforms, Gorenberg states that the “size of the protests [have] been possible” because those “who oppose the occupation are intensely involved.” He contends that only by preserving this “big tent” can the “democracy movement” defeat the government’s drive towards dictatorship.

Who frequents this tent that is supposed to save the Zionist state’s democracy? Not ‘48 Palestinians, it seems, for, as Suheir Abu Oksa Daoud explains, they understand that whichever way the issue is decided, Palestinians will still be the target of discrimination. “A state that explicitly defines itself as Jewish, rather than a state for all its citizens,” Daoud contends, “cannot guarantee fundamental democratic rights and equal citizenship to its minority, and their integration into state institutions will be always conditional.”

Moreover, as Baroud explains, Yet, there were no protests “when Israel passed its Nation-State Law in 2018, defining Israel as the ‘national home of the Jewish people, in which it fulfills its natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination.’” Indeed, he continues, most Israeli Jews have no problem with laws that seek to further disenfranchise Palestinian Arab citizens of their country.

There does appear to be an anti-occupation bloc within the larger protests. Members post frequently on Facebook regarding where to meet, what signs to carry, etc. For example, Tzvika Markovitz calls on others to join the “parade of the dead,” a demonstration in which protestors carry pictures of Palestinians who are the victims of state-sponsored murder. Like the Madres of the Plaza de Mayo in Argentina (1976-1983), who carried photos of the disappeared, their action is in direct contrast to the majority who see no contradiction between state-sponsored assassination and democracy.

But are they really a part of the broader scene, and if so, are “big tents” a good idea? In a similar vein, organizers of the Rage Against the War Machine rally that was held in D.C. on February 19 proposed a “big tent” venue, a gathering of the left and right, all committed to ending the war.

In “Apologies Not Accepted: Or I Love It When the Universe Proves me Right,” journalist Jacqueline Luqman explained that when she pointed out the “very public bigotry” of the Libertarian party, which took part in the protest, she was accused of being a COINTELPRO agent who was “sowing division” within the ranks.

Luqman’s dictum that “Black people will not make common cause with racists and bigots. Racists do not get a pass because they call themselves anti-war” should be a warning to Israeli activists who oppose the occupation. “Pro-democracy” protestors care mostly about democracy for Israelis and are content to leave apartheid as it is.

“For now,” Gorenberg writes, “everyone trying to save Israel’s democracy is on the same side.” Even if this were so, when the protests are done, whoever wins, pro-democracy protestors, who refuse to contend with Palestinians, will not come to the aid of fellow Israelis who understand that democracies do not co-exist with occupation.

Gorenberg admits that there “is an essential contradiction between liberal democracy and the denial of rights to Palestinians.” As proof, he points out that he can report on the occupation and then return to his home “without fearing government retribution”; in fact, he is denying the existence of Palestinian journalists who have been assassinated for the crime of reporting what they see.

Indeed, The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reports that over the past 20 years, Israel has murdered 22 Palestinian journalists, including Shireen Abu Akleh, a correspondent for Aljazeera, who was killed on May 11, 2022, by Israeli forces. As of this date, no one has been held accountable for these crimes.

Moreover, Zionist state repression reaches far beyond its borders. Indeed, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) recently adopted a resolution condemning the attacks on Palestine solidarity and Palestinian community organizing in Europe. It also encourages institutions and legal organizations to reject the so-called “IHRA definition of anti-Semitism” that seeks to equate anti-Zionism and support for Palestinian liberation with anti-Semitism.

Here is the crux: “A great many Israelis who ignored the chronic crisis of occupation, or long ago gave up on finding a cure,” writes Gorenberg, “nevertheless recognize the new and acute threat to the country’s fragile democracy.” Without a “cure,” ostensibly the dismantling of the Zionist entity to make way for a secular state with equal rights for all, there is no democracy, fragile or otherwise.

But Gorenberg fails to go there. It seems that he might think he lives within a “flawed but real democracy,” but by leaving out the entire Palestinian population, the indigenous people of the land, is his ignorance really bliss?

“In a world full of challenges which desperately requires sharp minds to resolve them,” write Caine and Yaw,  “we should view phrases like these as methods of counterinsurgency that prevent us from pursuing awareness of not only past and present conditions, but of the way things could be in the future as well.”

– Benay Blend earned her doctorate in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. Her scholarly works include Douglas Vakoch and Sam Mickey, Eds. (2017), “’Neither Homeland Nor Exile are Words’: ‘Situated Knowledge’ in the Works of Palestinian and Native American Writers”. She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

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

Eugenics and Ethnic Cleansing: The Values that Unite the US and Israel

September 20, 2020

By Benay Blend

“You’d have a hard time finding a point in history where the US government *wasn’t* running concentration camps and forcibly sterilizing people.” Onyesonwu Chatoyer, organizer for the All African People’s Revolution Party was responding to a recent lawsuit which alleges that a doctor subjected women to unwanted hysterectomies while being detained by Immigration Control and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

As Tina Vasquez writes, several organizations filed the complaint on behalf of immigrants inside the Irwin County Detention Center (ICDC), a facility in Georgia run by private prison company LaSalle Corrections. According to the whistleblower Dawn Wooten, a licensed practical nurse at the center, several women told her that they were transported to an outside facility to see “the uterus collector,” their name for the doctor believed to be responsible for the measures.

“When I met all these women who had had surgeries, I thought this was like an experimental concentration camp,” a detainee said in the complaint.

Indeed, ICE has a long history of targeting pregnant migrant women and other vulnerable people in the detention system. Under Trump’s new “birth tourism” policy, so-called after parents who allegedly travel to the United States to gain citizenship for their unborn child, certain applicants for visas must provide proof that they are not traveling for that reason.

Much of these policies are based on fear of changing demographics, a fear among white Americans that their cultural capital is losing value. Because presidential hopeful Joe Biden claims that a “shared soul that unites our countries [Israel and the United States}, generation upon generation,” it makes sense that both countries fear changing times.

For example, after years of denying it, Israel admitted in 2013 that it ordered doctors to inject Ethiopian Jewish women with a drug that would involuntarily sterilize them. In much the same language used by white supremacists in America, Netanyahu warned that illegal immigrants from Africa “threaten our existence as a Jewish and democratic state.”

Coerced or forced hysterectomies can be contextualized within a broader history of eugenics in both countries. Hitler is perhaps the most infamous proponent of a master race, but as Edwin Black observes, the movement for ethnic cleansing originated in the United States.

A pseudoscience directing at “improving” the human race, its most extreme form aims to exterminate “undesirable” human beings. Facets of this idea are found in strategic plans such as forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as restrictions on marriage between white people and African Americans that lasted well into the 20th century.

Well into the 1970s and 1980s, too, Native American women received tubal ligations when they thought that they were getting appendectomies. Perhaps as many as 25-50 percent of Native American women underwent such procedures between 1970 and 1976. Even more sterilizations are recorded in Puerto Rico where such acts form a dark part of the island’s history.

In a 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind… Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

This rhetoric is reiterated in Israel, where officials such as Ayelet Shaked, of the Jewish Home Party, are known for their racist remarks. For example, in 2015, Shaked openly called for the genocide of Palestinian people by posting a quote from Uri Elitzur, the late right-wing journalist and leader of the Israeli settler movement:

“Behind every terrorist, stand dozens of men and women, without whom [the enemy] could not engage in terrorism. Actors in the war are those who incite in mosques, who write the murderous curricula for schools, who give shelter, who provide vehicles, and all those who honor and give them their moral support. They are all enemy combatants, and their blood shall be on all their heads. Now this also includes the mothers of the martyrs, who send them to hell with flowers and kisses. They should follow their sons, nothing would be more just. They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.”

According to Ben Norton, Shaked’s views are held by others in Netanyahu’s government. During Israel’s 2014 attack on Gaza, named “Operation Protective Edge,” Norton reports that the military carried out in action Shaked’s extreme rhetoric.

At that time, Moshe Feiglin, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, called for the “conquest of the entire Gaza Strip and annihilation of all fighting forces and their supporters.” His statement follows along the lines of ethnic cleansing. “This is our country – our country exclusively,” he said, “including Gaza.”

On September 14, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action tweeted:

“Forced sterilization is genocide. ICE is performing mass hysterectomies on immigrant women. ICE is committing genocide. It is part of a long history of eugenics and assaults on reproductive freedom in the United States — a system that directly inspired the Nazi regime.”

A “progressive” Jewish organization that calls attention to such issues, Bend the Arc fails to make the connection with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, also genocide as defined by the Center for Constitutional Rights.

If common values unite Israel and the United States, as Joe Biden claims, then we should all be worried. We should all be connecting the dots.

When news broke a few days ago of the forced sterilizations in Georgia’s detention center there was shock and outrage, as well there should have been. On the other hand, this treatment of “undesirables” has a long history in both Israel and the United States. Indeed, both countries could easily be charged with genocide, in Israel of Palestinians and in the US of the Indigenous people here.

Moreover, if there is very little difference between Trump and Biden regarding their 100 percent support for Israel, as Ramzy Baroud claims, then it seems that the best action for activists in this country will be education work and grassroots actions in the streets.

Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) once said that in order for non-violence to work your opponent must have a conscience. The US, he concluded, has none.

The same could be said for both candidates, at least regarding Israel. Indeed, Biden’s refusal to reverse many of Trump’s Israel policies, writes Baroud, including his application of the Jerusalem Embassy Act, makes clear the “moral bankruptcy” of the Democratic Party which seems motivated much more by its political, rather than ethical, agenda.

– Benay Blend earned her doctorate in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. Her scholarly works include Douglas Vakoch and Sam Mickey, Eds. (2017), “’Neither Homeland Nor Exile are Words’: ‘Situated Knowledge’ in the Works of Palestinian and Native American Writers”. She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

– Benay Blend earned her doctorate in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. Her scholarly works include Douglas Vakoch and Sam Mickey, Eds. (2017), “’Neither Homeland Nor Exile are Words’: ‘Situated Knowledge’ in the Works of Palestinian and Native American Writers”. She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

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

https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/2003-11-04/ty-article/0000017f-f475-d5bd-a17f-f67fbda50000

שכחו אותן בבית

הן השתתפו בוויכוחים, יצאו בהמוניהן להצביע ועם היוודע התוצאות רקדו ובכו, אבל כשהגברים חזרו לנהל את הרשויות המקומיות, הן נותרו בבית

מאת סוהיר אבו עקסה דאוד
04 בנובמבר 2003

תוצאות הבחירות האחרונות לרשויות המקומיות מאכזבות עוד יותר מאשר במערכות הבחירות הקודמות. בכל פעם גוברות התקוות שהפעם – מכיוון שהנשים הערביות יותר משכילות, יותר פעילות ובעלות נכונות להתחרות בשדה הפוליטי ולצאת נגד המוסכמות – ייצוגן יגדל. רק שתי נשים נבחרו הפעם לכהן כחברות מועצה – אחת בנצרת ואחת בכפר עילבון שבגליל, שתיהן מטעם חד”ש. השמות ששמענו לפני הבחירות התאדו כמו השמות במערכות הבחירות הקודמות.

הייצוג הזעום הזה ממשיך מסורת של יותר מ-50 שנה, שבמהלכן הצליחו רק 12 נשים לכהן כחברות במועצות מקומיות. שבע מהן כיהנו מאז 1998 – ורק שתיים מתוכן נבחרו, שתיהן במועצת נצרת. השאר כיהנו במהלך הקדנציה חודשים ספורים. אשה אחת כיהנה כיו”ר – תופעה שלא חזרה על עצמה כ-30 שנה וכנראה לא תחזור בשנים הקרובות.

לפני הבחירות האחרונות דובר רבות על הצורך בייצוג נשי נאות במגזר הערבי. קורסי מנהיגות נפתחו, מאמרים נכתבו ומרבית הרשימות הציגו נשים ברשימותיהן אך המקומות, ברוב המקרים, לא היו ריאליים. וכשמישהי היתה במקום ריאלי, כמו רבאב אבו-לאשין, שעמדה בראש רשימת תע”ל בנצרת, היא נדחקה למקום ה-13 בשל הסכמים קואליציוניים.

בסך הכל הטעם המר שהותירו התוצאות מעורר את השאלה אם לא עדיף לפעמים להימנע בכלל מהצגת מועמדותן של נשים במקום להשתתף במשחק מכור. הנשים המועמדות בקרקס הזה הן הראשונות שחייבות להפסיק את ההתבזות.

על הסיבות למקום השולי שתופסות הנשים בפוליטיקה נכתב הרבה. במקרה של הערבים הישראלים אפשר להצביע על כמה סיבות השלובות זו בזו – החל בעובדה שהנשים הערביות הן חלק ממיעוט לאומי שולי במדינה שעדיין רואה בו קבוצה בעייתית ולא נאמנה, ועד למצור ששמים על האשה המנהגים הישנים בחברה מסורתית, שמרנית ופטריארכלית שבה משחקת החמולה הגברית תפקיד מרכזי. גם העובדה שהפוליטיקה נתפשת בעיני הנשים כתחום גברי מלוכלך ורווי תכסיסים, מדירה ממנה לא מעט נשים. ובכל זאת, נשאלת השאלה מדוע במקרים רבים כשנשים מאמצות דפוס חיים מודרני, המסורת מוכנה לזוז הצדה – אבל היא ממשיכה להתייצב כחומה בפני נשים השואפות לקריירה פוליטית ייצוגית. מין ופוליטיקה הם שני הטאבואים העיקריים המוצבים בפני האשה הערבייה בחברה הפוסט מודרנית, ואם בענייני מין כבר מוכנים “לוותר” לאשה פעמים רבות – בפוליטיקה לא.

וזה מעורר תהיות: כי רמת ההשכלה, רמת החיים והמודעות עלו, והרבה נשים היום הן בעלות כוח, יכולת פוליטית ורצון להגיע לעמדות פוליטיות ייצוגיות, אך למרות זאת נטרקות בפניהן דלתות הרשימות החמולתיות והמפלגות, שפתאום נעלמים להן הלהט והאידיאולוגיה המוצהרת על השוויון בין המינים.

דווקא העובדה שהפוליטיקה המקומית הערבית – מעוז הגברים המתוסכלים מהשאיפה האובססיוווית לשלוט במשאבים ולצבור כוח – עברה הפעם מהפך, יכלה לסייע לנשים. החמולתיות מתפוררת והאינדיוואליזם חוגג. לא עוד נאמנות למשפחה ולחמולה הגדולה אלא לאינטרסים אישיים גרידא. הדבר היה יכול ליצור יותר מרווח פעולה לנשים. הן לקחו חלק פעיל בוויכוחים לפני הבחירות, התחרו על התבשילים שהכינו לתומכים, יצאו, בהמוניהן, להצביע ועם היוודע התוצאות רקדו ובכו – אבל כשהגברים חזרו לסדר היום הרגיל של ניהול המועצות, הן נותרו בבית.

הכותבת היא סופרת וד”ר למדע המדינה באוניברסיטה העברית

(Google Translate)

Forgot them at home

They participated in debates, went out en masse to vote and when the results were announced they danced and cried, but when the men returned to run the local authorities, they stayed at home

By Suheir Abu Oksa Daoud 

November 04, 2003

The results of the last elections for the local authorities are even more disappointing than in the previous elections. Each time the hopes increase that this time – because the Arab women are more educated, more active and willing to compete in the political field and go against the conventions – their representation will increase. Only two women were elected this time to serve as council members – one in Nazareth and one in Kfar Ilbon in the Galilee, both on behalf of Hadash. The names we heard before the elections evaporated like the names in the previous elections.

This meager representation continues a tradition of more than 50 years, during which only 12 women managed to serve as members of local councils. Seven of them have served since 1998 – and only two of them were elected, both in the Nazareth Council. The rest served during the term for a few months. One woman served as chairman – a phenomenon that has not repeated itself in about 30 years and probably will not repeat itself in the coming years.

Before the last elections, there was a lot of talk about the need for adequate female representation in the Arab sector. Leadership courses were opened, articles were written and most lists featured women on their lists but the places, in most cases, were not realistic. And when someone was in a realistic position, such as Rabab Abu-Lashin, who topped the Ta’al list in Nazareth, she was relegated to 13th place due to coalition agreements.

All in all, the bitter taste left by the results raises the question of whether it is not sometimes better to avoid the presentation of women’s candidacies at all instead of participating in an addictive game. The women candidates in this circus are the first who must stop the humiliation.

Much has been written about the reasons for the marginal place that women occupy in politics. In the case of the Israeli Arabs, several interrelated reasons can be pointed out – starting with the fact that the Arab women are part of a marginal national minority in a country that still sees it as a problematic and disloyal group, to the siege placed on women by the old customs of a traditional, conservative and patriarchal society in which the male clan plays a central role. Also the fact that politics is seen by women as a dirty male field full of tricks, alienates quite a few women from it. Still, the question arises why in many cases when women adopt a modern lifestyle, tradition is ready to move aside – but it continues to stand as a wall in front of women who aspire to a representative political career. Sex and politics are the two main taboos placed before the Arab woman in postmodern society, and if in matters of sex they are already ready to “give up” to a woman many times – not in politics.

And this raises questions: because the level of education, the standard of living, and awareness have risen, and many women today have power, political ability, and the desire to reach representative political positions, but despite this, the doors of clan lists and parties are slammed in their faces, and the zeal and ideology declared for equality between the sexes suddenly disappears.

Precisely the fact that local Arab politics – the stronghold of men frustrated by the obsessive desire to control resources and accumulate power – underwent a transformation this time, could help women. Tribalism crumbles and individualism is celebrated. No longer loyalty to the family and the large clan but to purely personal interests. This could have created more room for action for women. They took an active part in the debates before the elections, competed for the stews they prepared for the supporters, went out, en masse, to vote and when the results were announced they danced and cried – but when the men returned to the normal agenda of running the councils, they stayed at home.

The author is a writer and doctor of political science at the Hebrew University

Anti-Israel Israeli Academics Blame Israel for Palestinian Failures

10.08.23

Editorial Note

A few days ago, anti-Israeli academics circulated a petition titled “The Elephant in the Room.” 

Since 2004, the IAM’s has analyzed scores of similar writings. They are all based on the dominant neo-Marxist, critical paradigm alternatively known as postmodernism. It offers several claims: the traditional positivist school of thought, which emphasized objectivity and facts, is a cover-up for Western dominance; scholars have a duty to expose these “falsehoods” and craft an alternative historical narrative. In the new narrative, the Palestinians are considered the blameless victims of Western colonialism, with Israel being the modern colonial manifestation – an apartheid state.   

With wealthy Arab states pouring money into Western academic institutions, and the new paradigm taking over, Israeli academics who wanted to advance their careers had to fit in. Israeli academics had to produce anti-Israel scholarships to be accepted. For example, Prof. Neve Gordon was invited to UC Berkeley by Prof. Nezar AlSayyad. Prof. Ariella Azoulay was recruited to Brown University by Prof. Beshara Doumani. Prof. Ilan Pappe was recruited to the Exeter University European Center for Palestinian Studies. In 2002, Prof. Oren Yiftachel was forced by the editor to compare Israel to South Africa’s apartheid in an academic journal, among the many other cases IAM exposed in the last twenty years. 

The “Elephant in the Room” takes the activist paradigm to new heights. The group finds a “direct link between Israel’s recent attack on the judiciary and its illegal occupation of millions of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. 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.” They demand “equal rights for all.” The “Palestinians live under a regime of apartheid.” The “ultimate purpose of the judicial overhaul is to tighten restrictions on Gaza, deprive Palestinians of equal rights both beyond the Green Line and within it, annex more land, and ethnically cleanse all territories under Israeli rule of their Palestinian population.” Moreover, “Jewish supremacism has been growing for years and was enshrined in law by the 2018 Nation State Law.” 

According to them, Israel’s “long-standing occupation… has yielded a regime of apartheid. As Israel has grown more right-wing and come under the spell of the current government’s messianic, homophobic, and misogynistic agenda, young American Jews have grown more and more alienated from it.” They call “to embrace equality for Jews and Palestinians within the Green Line and in the OPT. Support human rights organizations which defend Palestinians and provide real-time information on the lived reality of occupation and apartheid.” Moreover, the group demands from the “elected leaders in the United States that they help end the occupation, restrict American military aid from being used in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and end Israeli impunity in the UN and other international organizations.”  

Those who are familiar with history know that the Palestinian narrative is ostensibly fabricated. The Balfour Declaration did not mention the Palestinians because, back then, all natives were Palestinians, including Jews. It stated on November 2nd, 1917: “His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” The League of Nations adopted a resolution to this effect. In return, the Arab World received Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. The Arabs objected to the national home for the Jewish People in Palestine for antisemitic reasons. They rejected the 1947 UN Partition Proposal, a clear indication that the Palestinians made a bad decision.

Even more egregious, the brutal regimes of Hamas in Gaza and the PA in the West Bank are not mentioned in the petition. It is well known that when the Oslo Peace Process established the Palestinian Authority, Yasser Arafat created a dysfunctional and corrupt political system. If anything, his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, has exceeded in mismanagement to the point of running the PA into the ground. The situation in Gaza is even more tragic, as Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have appropriated enormous amounts of international aid to purchase weapons to fight Israel. Several rounds of widespread protests, including the current one, have been put down with extreme brutality.   

There is, of course, little hope that the anti-Israel academics would note the tragic situation of the Palestinians. To acknowledge this would go against the paradigm in which the West, in general, and Israel, in particular, are the perennial “bad guys” of history. 

References:

https://portside.org/2023-08-06/elephant-room

Material of Interest to People on the Left

Maavigatio

The Elephant in the Room

There cannot be democracy for Jews in Israel as long as Palestinians live under a regime of apartheid, as Israeli legal experts have described it.

August 6, 2023  

  

Shoshke

We, academics and other public figures from Israel/Palestine and abroad, call attention to the direct link between Israel’s recent attack on the judiciary and its illegal occupation of millions of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. 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.

Without equal rights for all, whether in one state, two states, or in some other political framework, there is always a danger of dictatorship. There cannot be democracy for Jews in Israel as long as Palestinians live under a regime of apartheid, as Israeli legal experts have described it. Indeed, the ultimate purpose of the judicial overhaul is to tighten restrictions on Gaza, deprive Palestinians of equal rights both beyond the Green Line and within it, annex more land, and ethnically cleanse all territories under Israeli rule of their Palestinian population. The problems did not start with the current radical government: Jewish supremacism has been growing for years and was enshrined in law by the 2018 Nation State Law.

American Jews have long been at the forefront of social justice causes, from racial equality to abortion rights, but have paid insufficient attention to the elephant in the room: Israel’s long-standing occupation that, we repeat, has yielded a regime of apartheid. As Israel has grown more right-wing and come under the spell of the current government’s messianic, homophobic, and misogynistic agenda, young American Jews have grown more and more alienated from it. Meanwhile, American Jewish billionaire funders help support the Israeli far right. 

In this moment of urgency and also possibility for change, we call on leaders of North American Jewry – foundation leaders, scholars, rabbis, educators – to

  1. Support the Israeli protest movement, yet call on it to embrace equality for Jews and Palestinians within the Green Line and in the OPT. 
  2. Support human rights organizations which defend Palestinians and provide real-time information on the lived reality of occupation and apartheid.
  3. Commit to overhaul educational norms and curricula for Jewish children and youth in order to provide a more honest appraisal of Israel’s past and present.
  4. Demand from elected leaders in the United States that they help end the occupation, restrict American military aid from being used in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and end Israeli impunity in the UN and other international organizations.
     

No more silence. The time to act is now.Sign now

List of signatories

1.      Shira Klein, Associate Professor of History, Chapman University

2.      Omer Bartov, Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Brown University

3.      Meir Amor, Associate Professor Concordia University (ret.) 

4.      Lior Sternfeld, Associate Professor of History and Jewish Studies, Penn State University

5.      David N. Myers, Professor of Jewish History, UCLA 

6.      Yair Mintzker, Professor of History, Princeton University

7.      Tamir Sorek, Professor, Penn State University

8.      Nitzan Lebovic, Professor of History, Apter Chair of Holocaust Studies, Lehigh University

9.      Samuel Moyn, Professor, Yale University

10.  Amos Goldberg, Research Institute of Contemporary Jewry, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

11.  Zach Adam, Professor Emeritus, the Hebrew University   

12.  Sarah Stroumsa, Professor Emerita, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

13.  Daniel Blatman, Professor Emeritus, Department of Jewish History, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

14.  Ella Segev, Associate Professor, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

15.  Ben Kiernan, Professor of History, Yale University (ret.) 

16.  Efraim Davidi, lecturer, Tel Aviv University 

17.  Yael Hashiloni Dolev, Professor, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev 

18.  Anat Matar, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Tel Aviv University 

19.  Dr. Noga Wolff, Independent Scholar 

20.  Omri Boehm, Associate Professor of Philosophy, The New School for Social Research 

21.  Oren Yiftachel, Professor of Geography, Ben- Gurion University of the Negev

22.  Naama Meishar, Technion – Israeli Institute of Technology

23.  Yael Sela, Research Associate, Moses Mendelssohn Center, Potsdam University 

24.  Yiftah Elazar, Senior Lecturer in Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

25.  Dudy Tzfati, Associate Professor of Genetics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

26.  Ofer Ashkenazi, Associate Professor of History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

27.  Sara Helman, Associate Professor, Ben Gurion University of the Negev (ret.)

28.  Outi Bat-El Foux, Professor Emerita, Tel Aviv University 

29.  Benny Morris, Professor Emeritus, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev 

30.  Meron Mendel, Professor, Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences 

31.  Yitzhak Hen, Professor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

32.  Ronen Segev, Professor, Ben Gurion University of the Negev 

33.  Uri Mor, Associate Professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

34.  Michael Steinberg, Professor of History, Brown University 

35.  Avraham Sela, Professor Emeritus, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

36.  Atalia Omer, Professor of Religion, Conflict, and Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame 

37.  Jung Cyrulnik Daphna, Social Worker

38.  Alon Confino, Professor of History and Jewish Studies, UMass Amherst 

39.  Isaac Nevo, Associate Professor, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

40.  Raya Morag, Professor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

41.  Katharina Galor, Hirschfeld Senior Lecturer in Judaic Studies, Brown University

42.  Guy Stroumsa, Professor Emeritus, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem & University of Oxford 

43.  Dr. Tammy Razi 

44.  Yosi Avron, Professor Emeritus, Technion – Israeli Institute of Technology

45.  Rachel Burnett, undergraduate student of Psychology & Middle East Studies at UCLA

46.  Liora Halperin, Professor, University of Washington 

47.  Steven J. Zipperstein, Daniel E. Koshland Professor in Jewish Culture and History, Stanford University 

48.  Hanno Loewy, Jewish Museum Hohenems 

49.  Avrum Burg, Associate Professor, former speaker of the knesset, former chairman of the Jewish Agency 

50.  Abigail Jacobson, Associate Professor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

51.  Susan Neiman, Director, Einstein Forum 

52.  David Enoch, Professor of Law and Philosophy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

53.  Assaf Hasson, Associate Professor, Ben Gurion University of the Negev

54.  David De Vries, Professor Emeritus, Department of Labor Studies, Tel Aviv University 

55.  Galit Hasan-Rokem, Professor Emerita, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

56.  Ron Naiweld, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique – CNRS

57.  Edouard Jurkevitch, Professor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

58.  Sidra DeKoven Ezrahi, Professor Emerita, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

59.  David Abraham, Professor of Law, University of Miami 

60.  David Guggenheim, Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins University

61.  Ian Balfour, Professor Emeritus, York University 

62.  David Feldman, Director, Birkbeck Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, University of London

63.  Michael Rothberg, Professor of English, Comparative LIterature, and Holocaust Studies, UCLA

64.  Fareed Mahameed, Assistant Director, Center for Transboundary Water Management, The Arava Institute for Environmental Studies

65.  Paul Mendes-Flohr, Professor, The University of Chicago

66.  Iris Hefets, Psychoanalyst, Berlin

67.  Meir Aridor, Associate Professor of Cell Biology, University of Pittsburgh 

68.  Elazar Barkan, Professor, Columbia University 

69.  Atina Grossmann, Professor of History, Cooper Union, New York 

70.  Dmitry Shumsky, Associate Professor of History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 

71.  Li Wai-yee, Professor of Chinese Literature, Harvard University 

72.  Nina Robins, Masters student of Global Public Health, New York University 

73.  Hannan Hever, Professor of Jewish Studies and Comparative Literature, Yale University 

74.  Haim Bresheeth, Professorial Research Associate, SOAS 

75.  Dr. Adi Avivi

76.  Niv Likwornik, student, Franklin & Marshall College 

77.  Avner Ben-Amos, Professor Emeritus, Tel-Aviv University 

78.  Oded Heilbronner, Professor of History and Cultural Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

79.  Ivy Sichel, Professor of Linguistics, UC Santa Cruz 

80.  Hilla Dayan, Lecturer, activist, Gate48 and Academia for Equality 

81.  Khalefah Alghanim, Graduate Student Researcher at UCLA 

82.  Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Professor Emerita, Ben Gurion University of the Negev

83.  Ayelet Ben-Yishai, Associate Professor of English, Universty of Haifa 

84.  Margaret Olin, Senior Lecturer Emeritus, Yale University 

85.  Jacob Katriel, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, Technion – Israeli Institute of Technology

86.  Yuval Tal, Assistant Professor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

87.  Stefan Rokem, Professor Emeritus, The Hebrew University – Hadassah Medical School

88.  Heather Stone, Adv. 

89.  Uri Horesh, Senior Lecturer in Arabic Linguistics, Achva Academic College

90.  Ariel Chipman, Professor of Evolutionary Biology, The Hebrew University

91.  Lev Grinberg, Professor Emeritus, Ben Gurion University of the Negev

92.  Arie M. Dubnov, Max Ticktin Professor of Israel Studies and History, George Washington University

93.  Sofia Fani Gutman, researcher and activist in Palestine, architecture student, The Cooper Union

94.  Aaron Hahn Tapper, Mae and Benjamin Swig Professor of Jewish Studies, University of San Francisco

95.  Yael Poznanski, Senior Lecturer, Achva Academic College

96.  Oded Bein, Postdoctoral Researcher, Princeton University

97.  Tamar Katriel, Professor Emerita, University of Haifa

98.  Tal Bruttmann, Researcher, Paris Cergy Université 

99.  Marcello Flores, Professor, University of Siena (ret.)

100.                      Nurit Peled Elhanan, Lecturer, David Yellin Academic College of Education

101.                      Cora Galpern, student, University of Michigan 

102.                      Rela Mazali, Writer, Independent Scholar, Activist

103.                      Daniel Lieberman, Professor, Harvard University 

104.                      Froma Zeitlin, Professor Emeritus of Classics and Comparative Literature, Princeton University 

105.                      Adi M. Ophir, Professor Emeritus, Tel Aviv University 

106.                      Hasia Diner, Professor Emeritus of American Jewish History, New York University

107.                      David Zonsheine, Former chairperson of B’Tselem and Courage to Refuse 

108.                      Dr. Sigal Yawetz, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School

109.                      Dr. Dan Eshet, Salem State University

110.                      Yuri Pines, Professor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

111.                      Avigail Arnheim, Musical Director

112.                      Dr. Theodor Bughici

113.                      Robert A. Slayton, Professor Emeritus, Chapman University

114.                      Diana Kormos Buchwald, Professor of History, Caltech

115.                      Ronald Zweig, Taub Professor of Israel Studies (Emeritus), NYU 

116.                      Daria Goren, student, Tel Aviv University

117.                      Itzik Goldberger, Adjunct Professor, Saint Mary’s College

118.                      David M. Mittelman, Assistant Professor of Portuguese, United States Air Force Academy (personal speech, not a statement on behalf of the U.S. Government or any agency) 

119.                      Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Princeton University

120.                      Ze’ev Rosenkranz, Senior Editor, California Institute of Technology

121.                      Eyal Landman, Architect and Masters student, Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design 

122.                      Hannah Safran, Haifa Feminist Research Center

123.                      Bennett Simon, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Emeritus, Harvard University

124.                      Marion Kaplan, Professor Emerita of Modern Jewish History, New York University 

125.                      Dr. Ira Avneri, Tel Aviv University and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

126.                      Renee Poznanski, Professor Emerita, Ben Gurion University of the Negev 

127.                      Mark Roseman, Distinguished Professor, Indiana University Bloomington

128.                      Lawrence Baron, Emeritus Professor, San Diego State University

129.                      Ellanora Lerner, undergraduate student, Clark University 

130.                      Joseph Zernik, Human Rights Alert NGO

131.                      Ran Zwigenberg, Associate Professor of Asian Studies, History, and Jewish Studies, Penn State University

132.                      Phyllis Albert, Local Affiliate, Center for European Studies. Harvard University

133.                      Allon M Klein, Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School 

134.                      Einor Cervone, Associate Curator, Denver Art Museum

135.                      Lane Schnell, student at American University

136.                      Anjuska Weil, former member of parliament, Canton of Zurich 

137.                      Maria Mejia-Botero, student, University of Miami 

138.                      Isabella Childress, student, University of Miami 

139.                      Ranen Omer-Sherman, Endowed Chair of Jewish Studies, University of Louisville 

140.                      Yair Wallach, Reader in Israeli Studies, SOAS, University of London 

141.                      Ron Barkai, Professor, Tel Aviv University

142.                      Rogers Brubaker, Professor of Sociology, UCLA 

143.                      Liron Mor, Associate Professor, UC Irvine 

144.                      Mordechai Feingold, Van Nuys Page Professor of History of Science and the Humanities, Caltech

145.                      Roberta Apfel, Associate Professor, Harvard Medical School 

146.                      Judith Zeitlin, William R. Kenan, Jr Professor, University of Chicago

147.                      Carolyn Dean, Professor, Yale University

148.                      Kenneth B. Moss, Professor, University of Chicago 

149.                      Helaine Blumenthal, Ph.D. 

150.                      Ziva Galili, Emerita Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University 

151.                      Nili Gesser, postdoctoral fellow, Drexel University 

152.                      Ian Barnard, Professor of Rhetoric and Composition, Chapman University 

153.                      Shaul Magid, Professor of Jewish Studies, Dartmouth College 

154.                      Aneil Rallin, former Associate Professor of Rhetoric and Composition

155.                      Hagit Borer, Professor, Queen Mary University of London 

156.                      Tamar Barkay, Lecturer, Tel Hai College 

157.                      Zach Gershon, student, Oberlin College 

158.                      Avner Cohen, Professor, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey 

159.                      Renate Bridenthal, Emerita Professor at The City University of New York 

160.                      Nadav Amir, postdoctoral fellow, Princeton University 

161.                      Eyal Sivan, Filmmaker, Independent scholar, essayist 

162.                      Omer Tamuz, Professor of Economics and Mathematics, Caltech 

163.                      Ruvik Horesh, Professor (retired) 

164.                      Daniel Wittenberg, student, University of Arizona 

165.                      Dr. Liat Tsuman, Psychoanalytic Candidate, New York University 

166.                      Zamir Shatz, artist

167.                      Reshef Agam-Segal, Associate Professor, Virginia Military Institute

168.                      Wu Hung, Professor, University of Chicago 

169.                      Ori Yehudai, Associate Professor of History, The Ohio State University 

170.                      Snait Gissis, Researcher & Teacher, Tel Aviv University 

171.                      Teddy Fassberg, Tel Aviv University 

172.                      Dr Moshe Behar, Herzlia/Manchester 

173.                      Lisa Leitz, Delp-Wilkinson Professor of Peace Studies, Chapman University 

174.                      Sahar Bostock, PhD candidate, Columbia University 

175.                      Nomi Stolzenberg, Professor of Law, University of Southern California 

176.                      Janice Hamer, composer, retired Visiting Associate Professor, Swarthmore College

177.                      Derek Penslar, William Lee Frost Professor of Jewish History, Harvard University 

178.                      Sherry Gorelick, Professor Emerita, Rutgers University 

179.                      Ariela Gross, Distinguished Professor, UCLA School of Law 

180.                      Mira Sucharov, Professor of Political Science, Carleton University 

181.                      Katya Frischer, MD

182.                      Irena Klepfisz, Barnard College, retired 

183.                      J.S.Varsano, Doctor of Veterinary Medicine 

184.                      Ruti Margalit, Visiting Professor, Hadassah Medical School, The Hebrew University

185.                      Amanda Bloom, retired Physician Associate

186.                      Allon Pratt, retired teacher, Jewish Theological Seminary

187.                      Shai Haran, Professor, Technion – Israeli Institute of Technology 

188.                      Orly Benjamin, Professor, Bar Ilan University 

189.                      Aviva Halamish, Professor, The Open University of Israel 

190.                      Yofi Tirosh, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University 

191.                      Rachel Zelnick-Abramovitz, Retired Professor, Tel Aviv University

192.                      Avi Rubin, Associate Professor, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev 

193.                      Daniel DeMalach, Lecturer, Sapir Academic College 

194.                      Gila Svirsky, Former CEO, New Israel Fund in Israel 

195.                      Rivka Nir Grinshtein, Lecturer, The Open University of Israel 

196.                      Haggai Ram, Professor of History, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev 

197.                      Elchanan Reiner, Professor Emeritus, Tel Aviv University 

198.                      Harvey Goldberg, Professor Emeritus, The Hebrew University

199.                      Rotem Tellem MD, Tel Aviv Medical Center, Tel Aviv University

200.                      Frances Tanzer, Rose Professor of Holocaust Studies and Jewish Culture, Clark University 

201.                      Rotem Geva, Lecturer, The Hebrew University

202.                      Avihay Dorfman, Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University 

203.                      Gilad Sharvit, Assistant Professor, Towson University 

204.                      Rachman Chaim, Retired Associate Professor, Technion – Israeli Institute of Technology 

205.                      Celia Wasserstein Fassberg, Professor Emerita, The Hebrew University

206.                      Amal Jamal, Associate Professor of Political Science, Tel Aviv University 

207.                      Shiri Regev-Messalem, Associate Professor, Bar Ilan University 

208.                      Chana Kronfeld, Professor of the Graduate School and Prof. Emerita, University of California, Berkeley 

209.                      Anat Ascher, Lecturer and Course Coordinator in Philosophy, The Open University of Israel

210.                      Roee Kibrik, Researcher, The Hebrew University 

211.                      Anat Keidar, Social Worker

212.                      Natalie Davidson, Senior Lecturer, Buchman Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University 

213.                      Dr. Chemi Shiff, Head of Research, Emek Shaveh 

214.                      Efrat Eizenberg, Associate Professor, Technion – Israeli Institute of Technology

215.                      Maxim Reider, Journalist/Photographer 

216.                      Goren Hilit, Psychologist

217.                      Orr Comay, PhD, Tel Aviv University 

218.                      Claude Stern, Lawyer, former Stanford DCI 2020 cohort member

219.                      Dr. Suzy Ben Dori

220.                      Gina Ben David, Performance Artist

221.                      Dr. Chen Misgav, The Open University, Israel

222.                      Yoav Di-Capua, Professor of History, The University of Texas at Austin 

223.                      Mr. Gilad Melzer, Beit Berl College 

224.                      Maayan Padan, PhD Student, Bar Ilan University, Adjunct Lecturer, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev 

225.                      Jennifer Robertson, Professor Emerita, University of Michigan  

226.                      Yehouda Shenhav-Shahrabani, Professor Emeritus, Tel Aviv University 

227.                      Alma Itzhaky, research fellow, Leibniz Center for Literary and Cultural Research, ZfL Berlin 

228.                      Itamar Haritan, PhD Student at Cornell University

229.                      Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, Professor, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

230.                      Sagit Mor, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Haifa 

231.                      Rachel Kallus, Professor Emerita, Technion – Israeli Institute of Technology

232.                      Ophira Gamliel, Lecturer in South Asian Religions, University of Glasgow

233.                      Alon Marcus, Teaching faculty member, The Open University of Israel 

234.                      Ido Roll, Associate Professor and Deputy Senior Vice President, Technion – Israeli Institute of Technology

235.                      Erica Weitzman, Associate Professor, Northwestern University

236.                      Simon Levis-Sullam, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice

237.                      Raz Chen Morris, Associate Professor, The Hebrew University

238.                      Chen Bram, Research Fellow, Truman Institute, The Hebrew University 

239.                      Matityaho Shemoeloff, Author and poet

240.                      Gideon Freudenthal, Professor Emeritus, Tel Aviv University

241.                      Uri Ram, Professor Emeritus, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev 

242.                      Roii Ball, Historian, University of Münster 

243.                      Edith Lutz, PhD in Jewish Studies

244.                      David Winizki, MD, Zürich 

245.                      Marcelo Svirsky, University of Wollongong, Australia 

246.                      Chamutal Eitam, Humanitarian advisor MSF – Médecins Sans Frontières

247.                      Michal Kaiser-Livne, Psychoanalyst, Berlin

248.                      Na’ama Rokem, Associate Professor, University of Chicago

249.                      Jenna M Gibbs, Associate Professor of History, Florida International University 

250.                      Ruth Luschnat, case worker, Berlin

251.                      Rafi Greenberg, Professor, Archaeology, Tel Aviv University 

252.                      Jeff Peck, Professor and Dean, CUNY (retired) 

253.                      Eran Fisher, Associate Professor, The Open University of Israel 

254.                      Guy Bollag, Student, University of Zurich 

255.                      Ruth Fruchtman, Writer and Journalist, Berlin 

256.                      Leah Gruenpeter Gold, PhD candidate, Tel-Aviv University 

257.                      Jonathan Zeitlin, Distinguished Faculty Professor of Public Policy and Governance Emeritus, University of Amsterdam 

258.                      Dr. David Senesh, senior clinical psychologist

259.                      Tal Shkedi, Student, Ono Academic College

260.                      Betty Amstutz Gerson, retired teacher and writer

261.                      Hadas Shintel, Lecturer in Psychology, College of Law and Business, Ramat Gan

262.                      Yossi Dahan, Associate Professor, College of Law and Business, Ramat Gan 

263.                      Itay Shalit, Student, Tel Aviv University

264.                      Miriam Victory Spiegel, Family Therapist, Zürich

265.                      Yoav Beirach, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology

266.                      Jeffrey B Cooper, Professor Emeritus, Harvard Medical School

267.                      Tamir Swissa, Student, Tel Aviv University

268.                      Hadassah Danit O’Reilly, Independent Scholar of Holocaust and Genocide

269.                      Naomi Tauber, Clinical psychologist

270.                      Patrick Barnard, Journalist

271.                      Chiara Adorisio, Associate Professor of Philosophical Anthropology, La Sapienza University

272.                      Shaul Mitelpunkt, Department of History, University of York

273.                      Nadav Assor, Associate Professor of Art, Connecticut College

274.                      Dorit Peleg, writer

275.                      Hagar Dror Maliniek, Clinical Psychologist

276.                      Naomi Weiner, Professor, David Yellin Academic College

277.                      Amir Locker-Biletzki, Independent Scholar

278.                      Paul Osman, Associate Professor, Harvard University 

279.                      Kobi Peterzil, Professor, University of Haifa

280.                      Roy Hoshen, Student, Tel Aviv University

281.                      Geri Müller, President, Association Swiss Palestine, Baden, Switzerland

282.                      Lily Koliner, PhD student, The Hebrew University

283.                      Sharon Peled, Candidate, The Institute For Psychoanalytic Training And Research, NY

284.                      Dr. Lia Eshet, Family physician

285.                      Jill Hamberg, Retired Assistant Professor, SUNY Empire State University

286.                      Ian Lustick, Bess W. Heyman Professor Emeritus, University of Pennsylvania

287.                      Tahel Gover, Academic Librarian, University of Haifa

288.                      Hadar Ahuvia, Choreographer, Rabbinical Student, Hebrew College

289.                      Robert Cohen, Writer

290.                      Nira Yuval-Davis, Professor Emeritus, University of East London

291.                      Neta Stahl, Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins University

292.                      Sasha Senderovich, Associate Professor of Slavic and Jewish Studies, University of Washington Seattle

293.                      Helena Desivilya Syna, Professor Emerita, Yezreel Valley College

294.                      Aram Ziai, Professor in Political Science, University of Kassel

295.                      Dan W Wasserman, Graduate student, Bar-Ilan University

296.                      Yanay Israeli, Assistant Professor at University of Michigan

297.                      Michael Stanislawski, Nathan J. Miller Professor of History, Columbia University

298.                      Clement Segal, Middle-Eastern Studies, Science Po Grenoble

299.                      Barry Cohen, Associate Dean (retired), Ying Wu College of Computing, New Jersey Institute of Technology

300.                      Tova Benjamin, PhD Candidate, New York University

301.                      Vanessa Tor, Theater Director

302.                      Mikhal Dekel, Distinguished Professor, City College of New York

303.                      John P Pittman, Associate Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY

304.                      Joshua Schreier, Professor of History, Vassar College

305.                      Susan Shapiro, Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Amherst

306.                      Alana M. Vincent, Associate Professor, History of Religion, Umeå University

307.                      Joshua Shanes, Professor, College of Charleston

308.                      Michael G Levine, Professor, Rutgers University

309.                      Allison Mickel, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Lehigh University

310.                      Jonathan Buchsbaum, Professor Emeritus, Media Studies, Queens College, City University of New York

311.                      Dan Simon, Professor of Law and Psychology, University of Southern California

312.                      Rudolf Schär, Alumnus, ETH Zürich

313.                      Avner Baz, Professor, Tufts University

314.                      Mordehai Amihai Bivas, Ambassador (Rt.)

315.                      David Haig, Professor, Harvard University

316.                      Rachel Kapeliuk Azgad, Psychoanalyst

317.                      Avivit Ballas Baranes, Artist and Lecturer

318.                      Clifford Kulwin, Rabbi Emeritus, Temple B’nai Abraham, Livingston, NJ

319.                      Dor Yaccobi, PhD Candidate, Tel Aviv University

320.                      Nathaniel Berman, Professor, Religious Studies, Brown University

321.                      Sam Fleischacker, LAS Distinguished Professor, University of Illinois at Chicago

322.                      Avner Wishnitzer, Professor of Middle Eastern History, Tel Aviv University

323.                      Vardit Rispler-Chaim, Associate Professor, University of Haifa (retired)

324.                      Anita Bardin, Retired Director, Shiluv Family Therapy Institute

325.                      Philip Prinz, Professor Emeritus, San Francisco State University

326.                      Dr. Einat Davidi, Senior Lecturer, University of Haifa

327.                      Rivka Ribak, Associate Professor, Department of Communication, University of Haifa

328.                      Dr. Lian Malki-Schubert

329.                      Joy Ladin, Writer and teacher

330.                      Margaret Schabas, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Professor, University of British Columbia

331.                      Robert Weinberg, Professor of History, Swarthmore College

332.                      Gal Gvili, Associate Professor, McGill University

333.                      Tamar Shochat, Professor, University of Haifa

334.                      Nora North, Retired, NYC Department of Education

335.                      Anat Prior, Associate Professor, Faculty of Education, University of Haifa

336.                      Frances Geteles, Professor Emerita, City College, NY

337.                      Anna Gutgarts, Research Member, University of Haifa

338.                      David Hall, Illustrator

339.                      Edna Gorney, Lecturer, Haifa University (retired)

340.                      Alan Tansman, Professor, University of California, Berkeley

341.                      Paula Varsano, Professor, University of California, Berkeley

342.                      Dr Yohai Hakak, Senior Lecturer, Brunel University London 

343.                      Michael Sfard, Human Rights Lawyer

344.                      Ayla Matalon, Former Lecturer at Technion MBA Program

345.                      Linda Dirtmar, Professor Emerita at the University of Massachusetts

346.                      Pamela Burdman, Executive Director, Just Equations

347.                      Dorit Avnir, Doctor of Arts, Art Therapist

348.                      Ruth Ben-Artzi, Associate Professor of Political Science, Providence College

349.                      Pini Herman, Past Research Associate Professor, University of Southern California 

350.                      Rawia Aburabia, Assistant Professor of Law, Sapir Academic College

351.                      Danny Rubinstein, Journalist and author

352.                      Dorit Barchana-Lorand, Kibbutzim College of Education and the Arts

353.                      Naftali Kaminski, Professor of Medicine, Yale University

354.                      Natasha Gordinsky, Senior lecturer, University of Haifa

355.                      Brigitte Hahn, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology

356.                      Shelley Berlowitz, PhD, Alumna University of Konstanz

357.                      Zur Shalev, Professor, University of Haifa

358.                      Sheer Ganor, Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

359.                      Leon Duveen, Chair Lib Dems (UK) for Peace in the Middle East

360.                      Elisabeth Goldwyn, Professor, Haifa University

361.                      Patrick Macklem, Professor Emeritus of Law, University of Toronto

362.                      Shir Alon, Assistant professor at the University of Minnesota

363.                      Ori Goldbergת Assistanא Professor, Reichman University

364.                      Nadje Al-Ali, Professor of Anthropology and Middle East Studies, Watson Institute for International & Public Affairs

365.                      Marc Caplan, (APL) Professor, Heinrich-Heine University

366.                      Batja P. Guggenheim-Ami, Professor emeritus, FHSG St.Gall Switzerland

367.                      Menachem Elimelech, Professor, Yale University

368.                      Laura Levitt, Professor of Religion, Jewish Studies, and Gender, Temple University

369.                      Moshe Zuckermann, Professor of History and Philosophy, Tel Aviv University

370.                      Alessandro Treves, Professor at SISSA, Trieste

371.                      David Blanc, Professor of Mathematics, University of Haifa

372.                      Jeremiah Riemer, former Associate Professor, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

373.                      Edy Kaufman, Professor, M.A. Peace and Conflict Management, University of Haifa

374.                      Elly Levy, Attorney

375.                      Mark Fichman, Associate Professor Emeritus, Carnegie Mellon University

376.                      Cara Rock-Singer, Assistant Professor at UW Madison

377.                      Iris Kaminski, Environmental Scientist, New Haven

378.                      Michael Hiller, Former board member, Grundrechtekomitee (Committee for Basic Rights)

379.                      Andras Hamori, Professor Emeritus, Princeton University

380.                      Sandro Ventura, Psychiatrist

381.                      A. Kedem, PhD student, Hifa University

382.                      Seth Schwartz, Professor of History and Classics, Columbia University

383.                      Ellen Weiss, Children’s book author

384.                      Nir Friedman, Professor, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

385.                      Steve Fassberg, Professor of Hebrew Language, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

386.                      Amos Laor, Labor union lawyer

387.                      Dennis Jett, Professor, Penn State University

388.                      Benny Miller, Professor of International Relations, Haifa University

389.                      Itamar Shachar, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Hasselt University

390.                      Or Simovitch, Arts Educator

391.                      Ran Shauli, Faculty member, Bar Ilan University

392.                      Marcos Silber, Associate Professor, Department of Jewish History, University of Haifa

393.                      Alice Robinson, Psychotherapist

394.                      Israel Charny, Professor of Psychology Hebrew University (retired)

395.                      Sana Knaneh, LSE Alumni, London

396.                      Uri Amir Koren, PhD student, Rutgers University

397.                      Itamar Kastner, Senior Lecturer, University of Edinburgh

398.                      Rosabel Kurth, Student, Carnegie Mellon University

399.                      Gil Gambash, Professor, University of Haifa

400.                      Mark Siegel, Professor, Yale University

401.                      Ellen Shaler, alum, University of Michigan

402.                      Richard Strier, Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago

403.                      Sigall Horovitz, Faculty of Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

404.                      Candice Breitz, Professor, HBK Braunschweig, Germany

405.                      Mabel Stilman Kolesas, Librarian

406.                      Ram Reshef, Senior lecturer, University of Haifa

407.                      Dr. Barbara Landau, Lawyer, Psychologist, Mediator, Co-founder J-Link International Network & Co-Chair Canadian Association of Jews and Muslims

408.                      Baruch Eitam, Associate Professor, University of Haifa

409.                      Marianne Hirschberg, Professor, Faculty of Human Sciences, University of Kassel, Germany

410.                      Claire Bergen, Rabbinic Student, International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism

411.                      Sandra Meiri, Senior Lecturer Emerita, The Open University of Israel

412.                      Zackary Berger, Associate Professor of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Core Faculty, Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics

413.                      Igal Ezraty, Jaffa Theatre Director

414.                      Michal Kofman, Associate Professor (Term) of sociology, University of Louisville

415.                      Avraham Oz, Professor, University of Haifa

Israeli Researchers Ignore Palestinian Terrorism and Blame Israel

03.08.23

Editorial Note

Pro-Palestinian scholars have opened a new legal front against Israel. This time around, they demand compensation to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, to give them a right to justice by Israel “just as Israeli citizens do… Accountability for civilian harm should not be avoided by classing law enforcement as combat.”

The project is a collaboration between Dr. Haim Abraham (UCL Faculty of Laws), Prof. Gilat Bachar (Temple University Beasley School of Law), and Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, assisted by Mr. Matan Flum (UCL, Bartlett Development Planning Unit). The results were published on July 20, 2023; they include a database that was made possible through the support of the University of Haifa Minerva Center for the Rule of Law Under Extreme Conditions; UCL Laws; UCL Public Policy; UCL’s Private Law Group; and UKRI Research England.

Titled “Mapping civilian harm claims against Israel and the Palestinian Authority before Israeli courts,” it includes an interactive map that presents some 470 Israeli court cases in which civilians sought compensation under tort law for loss of life, bodily injury, and property damage during armed activities. Most claimants are Palestinian civilians injured by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The database also includes claims of other nationals and cases of Israeli civilians who sought compensation against Hamas and the Palestinian Authority for the losses incurred during hostilities.

Reliefweb, a pro-Palestinian information organization provided by the UN OCHA, promotes the project. According to this research, the Israeli justice system is “shielding the Israeli Security Forces from accountability for civilian harm caused in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.” The report was conducted by a group named Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, based in the UK.

This project is orchestrated by the OCHA office dealing with the “Occupied Palestinian Territory.” It claims the “protracted political crisis characterized by more than 55 years of Israeli military occupation, 15 years of the Gaza blockade, internal Palestinian divisions, and recurrent escalations of hostilities between Israeli security forces and Palestinian armed groups. The escalating hostilities, blockades and lack of adherence to international humanitarian and human rights law have left many people without access to life-saving medical services, clean water, education and livelihoods, and exposed them to a constant risk of violence and abuse. The humanitarian community is addressing the needs of people in the blockaded Gaza Strip and in the West Bank, where Palestinian households and communities in Area C, East Jerusalem and the H2 area of Hebron city face a coercive environment. At least 2.1 million Palestinians across oPt require humanitarian assistance, representing 58 per cent of Gaza Strip residents and one quarter of West Bank residents.”

Worth noting that OCHA provides food to the Palestinian population of 5.5 million people; they receive assistance from the World Food Program of 309.4K per month. The top five donors are the Government of Germany, $52.6 million; The Government of Japan, $26.7 million; the European Commission, $11.5 million; the Government of the United States of America, $8.3 million; and the Government of Canada, $8.2 million.

The map of civilian harm cases spans over six decades. It illustrates that the Israeli courts awarded ILS 24.4 million in compensation for death, injury, and property damages in seventy-eight successful claims. Yet, over the last ten years, the report claims that access to justice for Palestinians has been severely constrained. By contrast, it claims that Israeli courts have awarded ILS 438.7 million in compensation and costs in 24 successful claims against the Palestinian Authority in recent years. Freedom of information requests revealed that Israel paid approximately USD 94 million in compensation for losses inflicted by its security forces on the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza between 1988 and 2014. 

According to this project, the “right to a remedy for the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza has been progressively limited, including through a series of procedural obstacles, high court fees and securities, the denial of entry permits to access court, and the designation of Gaza as enemy territory. The greatest impact, however, has been the growing use of an exception in the law of tort covering ‘combatant activities’, rendering the state of Israel immune from liability in such cases. A series of amendments passed by the Knesset between 2000 and 2012 widened the definition of the combatant activities exception to cover not just combat activities in the normal sense but policing activities and actions of the civil administration in support of security goals.”

Dr. Haim Abraham of the University College London, who co-leads the research on the database, was quoted as saying, “The effects of the expansion of the combatant activities exception are clear… The Israeli legislature repeatedly broadened the scope of Israel’s immunity from liability to the extent that it is nearly impossible for claims against it to succeed and courts have rejected about nine out of ten claims. Simultaneously, Israeli courts have been far more lenient towards claims against the Palestinian Authority.” 

Professor Gilat Bachar of Temple University School of Law, who co-leads the research, was quoted as saying, “While Jewish Israeli citizens who are residents of the OPT have a right to claim compensation for losses they sustain from the operations of Israel’s security forces, non-Jewish residents effectively have no corresponding right… That raises serious questions about equality before the law.”

For instance, “The killing of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh” in May 2022 prompted a “rare level of international media interest, but was not an isolated event. Already in 2023, 174 Palestinians and 14 Israelis have been killed according to UN OCHA.”

The report continues, The “UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law confirm that victims have a right to equal and effective access to justice, and to adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered, including in the context of armed conflict or occupation.”

According to this report, “Databases that document the losses suffered by civilians in armed conflict are highly important to the facilitation of reparations and reconciliation. Telling individual stories gives voice to vulnerable populations, and aggregating these accounts in a single resource allows the scope and character of the loss that armed conflict inflicts on a community to become apparent. Having a clear account of the wrongs committed during conflict is key to holding those responsible accountable, and accountability and reparations are cardinal to reconciliation between those who suffered the wrongful loss and those who inflicted it.”

Interestingly, according to the report, “In the context of reparation for losses civilians sustain during armed conflict and occupation, Israel offers a unique perspective. The number of cases in which Israeli courts examine the question of state liability in tort law for losses the Israeli military is alleged to have inflicted exceeds the combined cases of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Israeli cases offer a unique insight into legal institutional approaches to urban warfare and counter-terrorism, as well as to attitudes towards prolonged conflict over time.”

As can be expected, it is one-sided. The report suggests reparations for reconciliation based on the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. This approach has a major legal problem because it ignores the fact that Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and others follow the asymmetrical conflict doctrine. Accordingly, when facing a militarily superior adversary, the terror groups are commanded to embed within the civilian population. In other words, non-combatants become human shields to restrict the IDF’s ability to act. It is well known that Hamas and the PIJ have been embedded in civilian spaces and neighborhoods including mosques, hospitals, and schools.  

The authors of the report would be well advised to consult the literature on the use of human shields in humanitarian law and revise their project. 

References

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israels-justice-system-shields-security-forces-accountability-launch-major-new-database

Informing humanitarians worldwide 24/7 —a service provided by UN OCHA

Israel’s justice system shields security forces from accountability – Launch of major new database

Format News and Press Release Source

Posted20 Jul 2023Originally published20 Jul 2023

20 July 2023

The operation of the Israeli justice system is now effectively shielding Israeli Security Forces (ISF) from accountability for civilian harm caused in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), shows a new map of nearly 500 Israeli court cases published by Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights.

The map of civilian harm cases over six decades illustrates that while Israel’s courts awarded ILS 24.4 million in compensation and costs for death, injury and property damage in 78 successful claims,[1] over the last ten years access to justice for Palestinians has been severely constrained. By contrast, in recent years Israeli courts have awarded ILS 438.7 million in compensation and costs in 24 successful claims against the Palestinian Authority.

The right to a remedy for the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza has been progressively limited, including through a series of procedural obstacles, high court fees and securities, the denial of entry permits to access court, and the designation of Gaza as enemy territory. The greatest impact, however, has been the growing use of an exception in the law of tort covering ‘combatant activities’, rendering the state of Israel immune from liability in such cases. A series of amendments passed by the Knesset between 2000 and 2012 widened the definition of the combatant activities exception to cover not just combat activities in the normal sense but policing activities and actions of the civil administration in support of security goals.

‘The effects of the expansion of the combatant activities exception are clear,’ said Dr Haim Abraham of University College London, co-lead researcher on the database. ‘The Israeli legislature repeatedly broadened the scope of Israel’s immunity from liability to the extent that it is nearly impossible for claims against it to succeed and courts have rejected about nine out of ten claims. Simultaneously, Israeli courts have been far more lenient towards claims against the Palestinian Authority.’

‘While Jewish Israeli citizens who are residents of the OPT have a right to claim compensation for losses they sustain from the operations of Israel’s security forces, non-Jewish residents effectively have no corresponding right,’ said Professor Gilat Bachar of Temple University School of Law, co-lead researcher. ‘That raises serious questions about equality before the law.’

The killing of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in May 2022 prompted a rare level of international media interest, but was not an isolated event. Already in 2023, 174 Palestinians and 14 Israelis have been killed according to UN OCHA.

The UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law confirm that victims have a right to equal and effective access to justice, and to adequate, effective and prompt reparation for harm suffered, including in the context of armed conflict or occupation.

‘When Palestinians in the OPT are killed, maimed or see their houses destroyed they have a right to justice, just as Israeli citizens do,’ said Mark Lattimer, Executive Director of Ceasefire. ‘Accountability for civilian harm should not be avoided by classing law enforcement as combat.’

Notes for editors:

  1. Mapping civilian harm claims against Israel and the Palestinian Authority before Israeli courts, published on 19 July 2023 in English, Hebrew and Arabic, presents over 470 Israeli court cases in which civilians sought compensation under tort law for loss of life, bodily injury and property damage inflicted during armed activities. The vast majority of cases involve Palestinian civilians who were injured by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. However, the database includes claims of other nationals, as well as cases in which Israeli civilians sought compensation against Hamas and the Palestinian Authority for losses incurred during hostilities.

The map is online at: https://civilian-harm-map.ceasefire.org/

  1. The project is a collaboration between Dr Haim Abraham (UCL Faculty of Laws), Prof Gilat Bachar (Temple University Beasley School of Law) and Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights. Map designed by Rectangle.
  2. The database has been made possible through support from UCL Laws, UCL Public Policy, UCL’s Private Law Group, UKRI Research England, and the University of Haifa Minerva Center for the Rule of Law Under Extreme Conditions.

[1] These figures do not include claims settled before trial, or any compensation awarded by military courts. Freedom of information requests have revealed that between 1988 and 2014 Israel paid in total approximately USD 94 million in compensation for losses inflicted by its security forces on the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza.

Report details

Primary country

Source

Format

Theme

Language

  • English
  • ======================================================
    https://civilian-harm-map.ceasefire.org/en/about

    Mapping civilian harm claims against Israel and the Palestinian Authority before Israeli courts

    This interactive map presents over 450 Israeli court cases in which civilians sought compensation under tort law for loss of life, bodily injury, and property damage inflicted during armed activities. The vast majority of cases involve Palestinian civilians who were injured by Israeli security forces in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. However, the database includes claims of other nationals, as well as cases in which Israeli civilians sought compensation against Hamas and the Palestinian Authority for losses incurred during hostilities.Databases that document the losses suffered by civilians in armed conflict are highly important to the facilitation of reparations and reconciliation. Telling individual stories gives voice to vulnerable populations, and aggregating these accounts in a single resource allows the scope and character of the loss that armed conflict inflicts on a community to become apparent. Having a clear account of the wrongs committed during conflict is key to holding those responsible accountable, and accountability and reparations are cardinal to reconciliation between those who suffered the wrongful loss and those who inflicted it.In the context of reparation for losses civilians sustain during armed conflict and occupation, Israel offers a unique perspective. The number of cases in which Israeli courts examine the question of state liability in tort law for losses the Israeli military is alleged to have inflicted exceeds the combined cases of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Israeli cases offer a unique insight into legal institutional approaches to urban warfare and counter-terrorism, as well as to attitudes towards prolonged conflict over time.This project is a collaboration between Dr Haim Abraham (UCL Faculty of Laws), Prof. Gilat Bachar (Temple University Beasley School of Law), and Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights. We were assisted by Mr. Matan Flum (UCL, Bartlett Development Planning Unit).We are grateful for the supported provided by our sponsors:
  • Contact Us:
    Website design and development by Rectangle

The American Anthropological Association Endorses an Academic Boycott Against Israel

27.07.23
Editorial Note

IAM reported in early June that the American Anthropological Association (AAA) was about to vote on a petition to boycott Israeli academic institutions. The electronic ballot took place between June 15 and 14 July 2023, when the association endorsed the boycott.

Interestingly, only thirty-seven percent of AAA’s members voted. Supporting the resolution were 2,016 members, that is, 71% of the votes, and opposing the resolution, 835 members, which is 29% of the votes.

AAA President Ramona Pérez said about the vote, “This was indeed a contentious issue, and our differences may have sparked fierce debate, but we have made a collective decision and it is now our duty to forge ahead, united in our commitment to advancing scholarly knowledge, finding solutions to human and social problems, and serving as a guardian of human rights.”

She said that the “AAA’s referendum policies and procedures have been followed closely and without exception, and the outcome will carry the full weight of authorization by AAA’s membership.” The boycott is “limited to AAA—as an association—refraining from formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions. The resolution pertains only to Israeli academic institutions, and not to individual scholars and students affiliated with these institutions.”

The Executive Board has approved “barring Israeli academic institutions from: being listed in AAA’s published materials, including AAA’s AnthroGuide to Departments advertising in AAA publications, websites, and other communications channels, including the AAA Career Center using AAA conference facilities for job interviews participating in the AAA Graduate School Fair; participating in the AAA Departmental Services Program; participating in joint conferences or events with AAA and its sections, and where within AAA’s control, republishing and reprinting articles from AAA publications in journals and publications owned by Israeli institutions.”

However, the AAA academic institutional boycott does not prevent: “individuals affiliated with Israeli academic institutions from registering for and attending AAA conferences, even if their institutions have paid for their expenses; articles published in AAA journals from being reprinted or republished in journals not owned by Israeli institutions that are edited by individuals affiliated with Israeli academic institutions; individuals affiliated with Israeli academic institutions from serving as journal editors or Section / AAA elected officials, even if their institutions have paid for related expenses (their institution would be identified as being subject to an institutional boycott); individuals affiliated with Israeli academic institutions from publishing in AAA journals, even if their institutions have paid for their expenses, and Israeli university libraries from subscribing to AAA journals, including AnthroSource.”

Lastly, the endorsed resolution “authorizes the Executive Board to come up with an implementation plan, which includes specifying the process by which the Board will consider lifting the boycott. The AAA will lift the institutional boycott when it can be established by a consensus of a group of experts commissioned for this purpose that Israeli academic institutions have substantially ended their complicity in violating Palestinian rights as stipulated in international law. The Executive Board will monitor and evaluate the situation at least every five years, or more frequently as deemed appropriate, and determine whether the boycott should remain in place.”

Perez added, “By means of these actions, AAA will contribute to raising critical awareness of the dynamics of peace and conflict in the region, draw attention to the disproportionate suffering of the Palestinian people as a result of the Occupation and what can be done about it, and expand the space for dialogue on these sensitive and important human rights and academic freedom issues… We believe that these actions can contribute to the enrichment of the health and welfare of all citizens in the region, increase circulation of anthropological scholarship, ease restrictions on scholars’ travel, increase freedom of expression for Palestinian and Israeli anthropologists, and increase dialogue about how archaeology is used in political arguments.”

While the AAA insists it “remains steadfastly committed to the protection of academic freedom and the dissemination of anthropological knowledge,” it boycotts the only democracy in the Middle East and supports the tyrannies in the region.  

According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), singling out Israel while ignoring worse cases of abuse is antisemitic. At no time did the AAA condemn Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), or even the PA for their brutalities committed against their citizens.   Arguably, the most egregious act is the so-called embedding where Hezbollah, Hamas, and PIJ, instruct the militias to position its fighters and equipment among civilians, including private homes and public spaces such as schools, mosques, and hospitals.  The directive is part of an asymmetrical warfare strategy aimed at limiting the IDF’s ability to respond effectively to the terror groups’ missile and rocket attacks.  As a state, Israel is bound by international humanitarian conventions for treating non-combatants, giving the non-state terror organizations an upper hand.  This fact is well known but hardly mentioned by academic activists bent on damning Israel.

The group Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions took credit for the success of the boycott vote.

The Jewish members of the AAA announced their intentions to sue the organization legally. IAM will report on the developments in due course.

References:

https://americananthro.org/news/aaa-membership-endorses-academic-boycott-resolution/

AAA Membership Endorses Academic Boycott Resolution

July 24, 2023

The American Anthropological Association (AAA) membership has voted to endorse a resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions. An all-member referendum took place by electronic ballot between June 15 and July 14. Thirty-seven percent of AAA’s eligible members voted, with 2,016 members (71% of the votes) supporting the resolution, and 835 members (29% of the votes) voting to oppose it.

“This was indeed a contentious issue, and our differences may have sparked fierce debate, but we have made a collective decision and it is now our duty to forge ahead, united in our commitment to advancing scholarly knowledge, finding solutions to human and social problems, and serving as a guardian of human rights,” said AAA President Ramona Pérez. “AAA’s referendum policies and procedures have been followed closely and without exception, and the outcome will carry the full weight of authorization by AAA’s membership.”

AAA’s academic institutional boycott is limited to AAA—as an association—refraining from formal collaborations with Israeli academic institutions. The resolution pertains only to Israeli academic institutions, and not to individual scholars and students affiliated with these institutions. The Association remains steadfastly committed to the protection of academic freedom and the dissemination of anthropological knowledge. With this in mind, the Executive Board has approved the following set of actions aligned with the Association’s core values and mission, barring Israeli academic institutions from:

  • being listed in AAA’s published materials, including AAA’s AnthroGuide to Departments
  • advertising in AAA publications, websites, and other communications channels, including the AAA Career Center
  • using AAA conference facilities for job interviews
  • participating in the AAA Graduate School Fair
  • participating in the AAA Departmental Services Program
  • participating in joint conferences or events with AAA and its sections, and
  • where within AAA’s control, republishing and reprinting articles from AAA publications in journals and publications owned by Israeli institutions.

The AAA academic institutional boycott does not prevent:

  • individuals affiliated with Israeli academic institutions from registering for and attending AAA conferences, even if their institutions have paid for their expenses
  • articles published in AAA journals from being reprinted or republished in journals not owned by Israeli institutions that are edited by individuals affiliated with Israeli academic institutions
  • individuals affiliated with Israeli academic institutions from serving as journal editors or Section / AAA elected officials, even if their institutions have paid for related expenses (their institution would be identified as being subject to an institutional boycott)
  • individuals affiliated with Israeli academic institutions from publishing in AAA journals, even if their institutions have paid for their expenses, and
  • Israeli university libraries from subscribing to AAA journals, including AnthroSource.

The resolution authorizes the Executive Board to come up with an implementation plan, which includes specifying the process by which the Board will consider lifting the boycott. The AAA will lift the institutional boycott when it can be established by a consensus of a group of experts commissioned for this purpose that Israeli academic institutions have substantially ended their complicity in violating Palestinian rights as stipulated in international law. The Executive Board will monitor and evaluate the situation at least every five years, or more frequently as deemed appropriate, and determine whether the boycott should remain in place.

“By means of these actions, AAA will contribute to raising critical awareness of the dynamics of peace and conflict in the region, draw attention to the disproportionate suffering of the Palestinian people as a result of the Occupation and what can be done about it, and expand the space for dialogue on these sensitive and important human rights and academic freedom issues,” Pérez added. “We believe that these actions can contribute to the enrichment of the health and welfare of all citizens in the region, increase circulation of anthropological scholarship, ease restrictions on scholars’ travel, increase freedom of expression for Palestinian and Israeli anthropologists, and increase dialogue about how archaeology is used in political arguments.”

For more information visit our Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).

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

https://www.newarab.com/news/bds-advocates-hail-israeli-boycott-us-academic-group

News  MENA

BDS advocates hail Israeli boycott by American Anthropological Association

Brooke Anderson
Washington, D.C.
25 July, 2023
This move makes AAA the largest US scholarly institution to engage in an academic boycott of Israel, with 71 per cent of the votes supporting the decision.

Palestinian and BDS advocates are hailing the recent resounding decision by the American Anthropological Association to pursue a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

This move makes AAA the largest US scholarly institution to engage in an academic boycott of Israel, with 71 per cent of the votes supporting the decision. Thirty-seven per cent of AAA’s eligible members, or 2,016 members, took part in the vote, which was cast between mid-June to mid-July and was announced on the 24th.

“This was indeed a contentious issue, and our differences may have sparked fierce debate, but we have made a collective decision, and it is now our duty to forge ahead, united in our commitment to advancing scholarly knowledge, finding solutions to human and social problems, and serving as a guardian of human rights,” said AAA President Ramona Pérez in a public statement.

“AAA’s referendum policies and procedures have been followed closely and without exception, and the outcome will carry the full weight of authorization by AAA’s membership.”

The academic group previously narrowly voted against such a resolution in 2016. Last year, the Middle East Studies Association endorsed an academic boycott of Israel.

Not everyone is celebrating the news. Several pro-Israel advocates have denounced the move, with at least one person threatening a lawsuit last month if the resolution went through.

According to AAA’s public statement, this resolution affects their relationships with Israeli institutions, not individual scholars and those affiliated with them.

The resolution bars Israeli institutions from the following: being listed in AAA’s published materials, advertising in AAA publications and websites; using AAA conference facilities for job interviews; participating in the AAA Graduate School Fair; participating in the AAA Departmental Services Program; participating in joint conferences or events with AAA and its sections; and republishing and reprinting articles from AAA publications in Israeli publications.

On the other hand, the AAA boycott does not prevent individuals affiliated with Israeli academic institutions from attending AAA conferences; articles published in AAA journals from being reprinted or republished in journals not owned by Israeli institutions that affiliated individuals edit; affiliated individuals from serving as journal editors; affiliated individuals from publishing in AAA journals; and Israeli university libraries from subscribing to AAA journals, including AnthroSource.

The statement says that AAA will end its boycott of Israeli academic institutions once they have “substantially ended their complicity in violating Palestinian rights as stipulated in international law.” As such, AAA has said it will regularly monitor the situation.

“By means of these actions, AAA will contribute to raising critical awareness of the dynamics of peace and conflict in the region, draw attention to the disproportionate suffering of the Palestinian people as a result of the Occupation and what can be done about it, and expand the space for dialogue on these sensitive and important human rights and academic freedom issues,” Pérez added in the group’s public statement.

AAA’s announcement comes shortly after a group of Republican lawmakers accused US President Joe Biden’s administration of engaging in an Israeli boycott after it reversed a policy from the previous administration that allowed for US funding of Israeli academic research in the occupied territories.

===============================================https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/06/16/suit-threatened-anthropologists-israel-boycott-vote-begins

June 16, 2023

Suit Threatened as Anthropologists’ Israel Boycott Vote Begins

By  Ryan Quinn



Just as American Anthropological Association members have started voting on a resolution “to boycott Israeli academic institutions,” a law firm has threatened to sue.

The association said voting on the resolution began Thursday and will continue through July 14.

On Wednesday, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, legal director for the Deborah Project, which represents people “facing discrimination in educational settings because they are Jewish and/or pro-Israel,” wrote to the association’s executive director. Marcus said the firm has clients who are part of the association and are “deeply concerned about the association’s proposed resolution endorsing Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) against Israel.”

“We will be closely watching the voting process and the [AAA] board’s response to this proposed resolution,” she wrote. “We will be watching to ensure that AAA members who oppose the proposed AAA BDS resolution are treated fairly and equitably during the voting process as well as after the vote is concluded, and that all applicable provisions of Virginia corporation law and any other applicable law, and of the AAA’s bylaws and other applicable provisions, are complied with. In addition, we will review how the AAA leadership implements the resolution should it pass.”

She wrote, “Should you fail to act consistently with AAA’s bylaws and/or with all relevant federal, state and local laws, we will not hesitate to bring a legal action against the AAA and/or the board.”

She continued to say the “resolution’s explicit call for discrimination against Israeli institutions” violates California and New York law and that it “violates at least” three provisions of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s antisemitism definition, which the commonwealth of Virginia adopted. One of these she said it violates is “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

The resolution doesn’t mention Nazis. Marcus said Thursday she was referring to phrases in it such as “the Israeli government enshrined the principle of Jewish supremacy.”

Jessica Winegar, a member of the organizing collective Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions, said, “This legal threat really is totally bogus. It’s not based on any sound legal reasoning, and it’s really a baseless attempt at fearmongering both the AAA and its membership.”

Winegar, a professor of anthropology and Middle East and North African studies at Northwestern University, called it a “misuse of baseless legal threats to silence a democratic process within an academic association.”

Ed Liebow, the AAA’s executive director, said, “We are in receipt of this letter; we have referred it to our attorney and don’t have any comment to offer about it except to say that we are scrupulously adhering to the policies and procedures that we have for putting a ballot measure before our members.”

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

https://www.anthroboycott.org/home
Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions


WE DID IT!

Thousands voted, our voices were heard, and the American Anthropological Association has formally passed the resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions! This makes the AAA the largest academic association to endorse the Palestinian call for an academic boycott!

This breakthrough would not have been possible without the support and hard work of so many of you. 

THANK YOU!

In solidarity,

Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions

American Anthropological Association Endorses Resolution Supporting Palestinian Rights & Boycotting Israeli Apartheid

July 24, 2023 — The American Anthropological Association (AAA), representing thousands of anthropologists and scholars, has passed a historic resolution in support of Palestinian rights and freedom, pledging to boycott Israeli academic institutions that are complicit in maintaining Israel’s oppressive apartheid system. The vote passed with an overwhelming majority following a successful referendum held June 15-July 14, with 71% voting in favor.

Founded in 1902, the 12,000-member AAA is the largest and oldest scholarly body in the United States to endorse a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

“This resolution is a meaningful demonstration of solidarity by thousands of scholars standing alongside their Palestinian colleagues, whose work and lives are impacted on a daily basis by Israel’s racist, discriminatory policies and brutal military rule,” said Jessica Winegar, an anthropology professor and member of the Anthroboycott collective, which campaigned for the boycott. “As scholars with a long history of studying colonialism, anthropologists are all too familiar with the devastating harm of Israel’s oppression and theft of Palestinian land. This vote is an important step in showing that support for Palestinian rights goes hand in hand with the AAA’s values of human rights for all.”

The resolution precludes the AAA from engaging in any formal relationships with Israeli academic institutions. The resolution does not prevent individual Israeli scholars from participating in AAA activities or collaborating with AAA members.

“As a US-based association, the AAA has a responsibility to speak up against the nearly $4 billion in military funding the United States provides to Israel each year, enabling Israel’s brutal military rule, illegal theft of Palestinian land, and oppressive apartheid system against Palestinians,” said Winegar. “Just as scholars throughout the world came together to put pressure on South Africa to end its violent apartheid system, US academic organizations are following in their footsteps and joining the struggle for Palestinian freedom.”

The Palestinian Campaign for the Cultural and Academic Boycott of Israel (PACBI) celebrated this important win for the movement for Palestinian rights: “We thank those who took the time to learn from and listen to Indigenous Palestinian voices. The AAA membership vote to boycott complicit Israeli universities is wholly consistent with the association’s stated commitment to anti-racism, equality, human rights and social justice and furthers the drive to decolonize anthropology and academia in general.”

The Executive Board of the AAA will now proceed with implementing the resolution, joining the ranks of other scholarly associations that have endorsed a boycott of Israeli academic institutions, including the American Studies Association, the Association for Asian American Studies, the Middle East Studies Association, the National Women’s Studies Association, and the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association.

In 2016, a similar boycott resolution narrowly missed adoption by a mere 39 votes – less than 1% of ballots cast.

This breakthrough comes despite attempts to pressure, intimidate, and misinform anthropologists from outside pro-Israel organizations with no apparent link to the discipline. These efforts included unsolicited and harassing emails sent to all AAA members; lobbying university presidents across the country to intervene in the vote; and frivolous threats of litigation.

Anthroboycott extends its deepest congratulations and heartfelt thanks to everyone who voted, as well as the numerous volunteers who dedicated their time and efforts to persuade and mobilize their colleagues. We also thank the sections of the AAA that formally endorsed the boycott: the Association of Black Anthropologists and the Middle East Section. We are grateful to the boards of the Association for Feminist Anthropology, Association of Latina/o and Latinx Anthropologists, and Critical Urban Anthropology Association for encouraging their members to support the boycott. 

Anthroboycott (Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions) is a collective of AAA members, including faculty, contingent labor, and graduate students, working in support of Palestinian human rights.

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

https://www.anthroboycott.org/aboutAbout

Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic institutions works in support of justice and human rights in Israel/Palestine.

Our organizers and supporters are scholars working in all major sub-fields of the discipline, including tenure-track and adjunct faculty, graduate students, post-docs, and practitioners.

The campaign is managed by an organizing collective, whose members include:

Diana Allan, McGill University

Lori Allen, SOAS

Lara Deeb, Scripps College

Chris Dole, Amherst College

Sami Hermez, Northwestern University-Qatar

Darryl Li, University of Chicago

Lisa Rofel, University of California, Santa Cruz

Jonah Rubin, Knox College 

Dan Segal, Pitzer College

Ajantha Subramanian, Harvard University 

Jessica Winegar, Northwestern University

For media and other queries, write to anthroboycott [at] gmail dot com.

* Institutions listed for identification purposes only

The resolution before us today is not the first time that the American Anthropological Association has considered the question of our ethical and political responsibility to our Palestinian colleagues. A three-year process of education and engagement began with panels at the AAA in 2013 and culminated in a vote by the membership in spring 2016. Over the course of several annual meetings, numerous panels and roundtables took up the questions of conditions on the ground in Palestine, the denial of academic freedom to Palestinians by Israel, and the complicity of Israeli academic institutions in this denial of rights and freedoms. 

More than 1,000 anthropologists signed the statement of Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions pledging support for the boycott. 

Seeking to preempt the process of learning and engagement that boycott supporters were engaging in, opponents of the boycott put forth an anti-boycott motion at the 2014 AAA business meeting. The historically well attended meeting (until the next year that is) resoundingly rejected this motion. 

Responding to the boycott petition, and recognizing the deep concern of the membership, the AAA organized discussions on these questions and formed a Task Force on American Anthropological Association (AAA) Engagement on Israel/Palestine. After undertaking rigorous research, including 120 interviews, a trip to Israel/Palestine, significant background reading, the Task Force unanimously concluded that “there is a strong case for the Association to take action on this issue, and that the Association should do so.” 

At the 2015 AAA meeting, more than 1500 people attended the business meeting and voted on two resolutions. One, a countermotion that rejected the boycott of Israeli academic institutions (and any use of boycott as a political tactic) with the claim to offer “dialogue” as an alternative course of action, was overwhelmingly rejected (196-1173). The membership recognized the motion for what it was: a call for inaction and support of the status-quo under the guise of “moderate” action. The resolution calling on the AAA to endorse and implement the boycott of Israeli academic institutions passed by a remarkable margin of 1,040 votes in favor to 136 against.

Nearly half of the AAA membership participated in the final ratification vote, which was defeated by an incredibly narrow 39 vote margin.  

In the ensuing years, the “significant limitations on academic freedom [that] have led to substantial deprivations in the health and welfare of Palestinians in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, as well as within Israel itself” described by the AAA Task Force have only grown more severe.

For information about the previous campaign of 2014-2016, please find our archived website here.

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

Renewing the Call to Boycott 

(March, 2023)

On March 3, 2023, 206 members of the American Anthropological Association submitted a petition to the Executive Board requesting a full-membership vote on a resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions. 

As anthropologists who care about academic freedom and social justice, we must speak out in support of our Palestinian colleagues and oppose the systematic effort to make Palestine an exception to free speech.

A similar resolution was endorsed by a vote of 1040-136 at the AAA business meeting in Denver on November 20, 2015, and narrowly missed adoption in the subsequent full membership vote by a margin of only 39 votes (2,384 in favor and 2,423 opposed; 49.6% – 50.4%). The strong participation in that vote indicates that the matter is one of grave concern to AAA members.

Palestinian human rights and civil society organizations have called for the boycott of institutions complicit in Israeli apartheid and violations of international law. Since the last vote, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as well as Israeli human rights organizations, have found Israel to be committing apartheid, a crime against humanity. Several academic associations, including the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) and the British Society for Middle East Studies (BRISMES), have passed boycott resolutions. Within the AAA, the Middle East Section passed a resolution to boycott Israeli academic institutions in 2021, and a Middle East Section Statement on Palestine was endorsed by twenty additional section boards and AAA subcommittees.

The need for this vote in support of Palestinian civil society’s call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions has only gained in urgency since the last boycott vote. The situation in Palestine has deteriorated, deepening the repression of Palestinians through ongoing and intensifying threats to their rights at every level, including the right to an education and to academic freedom. The recent Israeli elections, which installed the most extreme right-wing coalition government to date, suggest that additional restrictions on Palestinians’ academic and broader freedoms are imminent. In the first month of 2023 alone, Israeli military campaigns have killed 35 Palestinians and injured over 500, while settler attacks on Palestinians and their property have significantly increased, emboldened by the new government. 

The time for action is now.

For inquiries and to sign up to receive our emails: anthroboycott@gmail.com

Logo of AnthroBoycott that says "Boycott equals Justice" in a green circle.

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

https://anthroboycott.wordpress.com/about/
ARCHIVED: Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions, 2014 – 2016 Campaign

About

Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic institutions works in support of justice and human rights in Israel/Palestine.

Our organizers and supporters are scholars working in all major sub-fields of the discipline, including tenure-track and adjunct faculty, graduate students, post-docs, and practitioners.

The campaign is managed by an organizing collective, whose members include:

Nadia Abu El-HajBarnard College and Columbia University
Lara DeebScripps College
Ilana FeldmanGeorge Washington University
Lisa RofelUC Santa Cruz
Ajantha SubramanianHarvard University

For media and other queries, write to anthroboycott [at] gmail dot com.

The campaign acts in consultation with and under the guidance of an advisory group, whose members include:

Lila Abu-Lughod, Columbia University
Talal AsadCUNY Graduate Center
Glenn Bowman, University of Kent
Brian BoydColumbia University
Karen Brodkin, UCLA
Steven CatonHarvard University
Partha ChatterjeeColumbia University
Donald Donham, UC Davis
Abou Farman Farmaian, New School for Social Research
James FergusonStanford University
Les FieldUniversity of New Mexico
Roberto Gonzalez, San Jose State University
Sondra Hale, UCLA
Thomas Blom HansenStanford University
Engseng Ho, Duke University
Rhoda KanaanehColumbia University
Ahmed KannaUniversity of the Pacific
J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, Wesleyan University
Saba Mahmood, UC Berkeley
Joseph Masco, University of Chicago
Sunaina Maira, UC Davis
Nadine Naber, University of Illinois at Chicago
Julie Peteet, University of Louisville
Jemima PierreUCLA
David Price, Saint Martin’s University
Junaid Rana, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Daniel Segal, Pitzer College
Michael TaussigColumbia University
Erica Williams, Spelman College

* Institutions listed for identification purposes only.

The book Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine: Universities, Intellectualism and Liberation, by Nick Riemer

20.07.23

Editorial Note

Dr. Nick Riemer from the English Department at Sydney University recently published a book, Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine: Universities, Intellectualism and Liberation. 

Riemer discusses in length the academic boycott of Israel led by the pro-Palestinian BDS campaign. The book details how academic BDS relates to a range of controversies in progressive politics, such as disruptive protest, silencing, free speech, the real-world consequences of intellectual work, the rise of the far right, and the nature of grassroots campaigning. The book “presents the fullest justification for the academic boycott yet given, considering BDS efforts on campuses around the world.” 

The opening chapters explore the “fundamentals of the academic boycott campaign, detailing the conditions on the ground in Palestinian and Israeli higher education and analyzing debates over the boycott and its adoption or resistance in the west.” The later chapters contextualize the boycott with respect to broader questions about the links between theory and practice in political change. Directly rebutting the arguments of BDS’s opponents,” the book “demonstrates the political and intellectual soundness of a controversial and often misrepresented campaign.” 

Riemer hopes that by “defending an original view of the differences between reflecting on politics and doing it in the specific context of the liberation of Palestine, the book’s arguments will have a resonance for many wider debates beyond the context of either universities or the Middle East.”

According to Riemer, “Palestinians cannot expect strong support from a profession that often cannot bring itself to defend its own members: resistance to the boycott is one especially obvious consequence of academics’ general disengagement from politics. The effect of scholarly political quietism is, of course, wholly political in its reinforcement of the status quo.” 

The book brings “the hope of contributing to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign—one of the most vital global justice movements there currently is—by advancing it in universities.” 

He starts with a “detailed description of the daily reality of university life in occupied Palestine. The effects of Israeli apartheid on Palestinian universities still are not very well known, which is a significant obstacle in the way of international academic solidarity with Palestine.” Riemer explains, “My thought was that if readers can get a detailed account of what Israeli oppression means in a context they are familiar with—universities—then this would be a good way to understand the urgency of justice for Palestine in general. I also give a detailed account of Israeli universities’ responsibility for and involvement in state anti-Palestinianism, which is the justification for boycotting them in the first place.” 

Chapter two in the book addresses the central “academic freedom” argument against the boycott of Israel. “My main idea is that, far from a violation of the ordinary norms of the academy, boycotting is actually a constitutive and deeply embedded feature of academic professionalism, albeit a strongly disavowed one.” 

In chapter three, “I draw out the ideological and material parallels between neoliberal universities as mechanisms for the enclosure of knowledge, and Israeli apartheid as a mechanism for the enclosure of Palestinians, and I suggest ways in which universities can be seen as “little Israels”—in other words fundamentally coercive regimes that put a veneer of liberalism over basically inegalitarian practices. This chapter particularly considers the humanities and social sciences, the areas in which BDS activities are most vigorous.”

In chapter four, “I change gear to look at one of the best-known hallmarks of BDS activism internationally, the active disruption of Zionists invited to speak at universities. I try to give an account of speech, disruption, and silencing that is anchored in a materialist conception of language, predicated on the fact that disruptive protest has regularly been an instrument of social progress.” 

Interestingly, Andrew Riemer, Nick’s father, was a famed author and the son of Holocaust survivors from Hungary.

Riemer promotes an egalitarian society, and in his view, the Palestinians are an egalitarian society. Quite obviously, he projects his own vision of what a social order should be for the Palestinians. He is a veteran academic “social warrior” ensconced in the privileged bubble of Western universities who indulge in fantasies about the superiority of non-Western civilizations. Typical of his “social warrior” cohorts, Riemer totally ignores the breathing corruption and abuse of power in the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat, where regime cronies siphoned millions of dollars in donations from the international community. The governance of the current head of PA, Mahmoud Abbas, is not much better. Even worse, the brutal theocratic rule of Hamas, which has ruled the Gaza Strip since 2007. Monies sent by Arab countries and the international community are diverted to manufacturing weapons and digging tunnels against Israel. In what is a clear violation of international law, Hamas and its partner, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, have embedded their military assets among the civilian population in order to limit Israel’s ability to retaliate. 

Riemer’s animus against Israel equals his dislike of the entire Western civilization. For example, in 2019, he objected to the teaching of Western civilization at the Ramsay Center for Western Civilization. Riemer was named a Useful Idiot by a fellow Australian, who wrote, “His arguments — I’m being charitable when I use such a word — are so risible that I’m doubtful that he has persuaded anyone at all.” 

The same could be said about his recent book.

References:

https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538175866/Boycott-Theory-and-the-Struggle-for-Palestine-Universities-Intellectualism-and-Liberation

Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine

Universities, Intellectualism and Liberation

NICK RIEMER

The academic boycott of Israel, a branch of the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, is one of the richestand most divisivetopics in the politics of knowledge today. In Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine, Nick Riemer addresses the most fundamental questions raised by the call to sever ties with Israeli universities, and offers fresh arguments for doing so. More than a narrow study of the boycott campaign, the book details how academic BDS relates to a range of live controversies in progressive politics on questions such as disruptive protest, silencing and free speech, the real-world consequences of intellectual work, the rise of the far right, and the nature of grassroots campaigning. 

Written for open-minded readers, the book presents the fullest justification for the academic boycott yet given, considering BDS efforts on campuses around the world. The opening chapters explore the fundamentals of the academic boycott campaign, detailing the conditions on the ground in Palestinian and Israeli higher education and analyzing debates over the boycott and its adoption or resistance in the west. The later chapters contextualize the boycott with respect to broader questions about the links between theory and practice in political change. Directly rebutting the arguments of BDS’s opponents, Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine demonstrates the political and intellectual soundness of a controversial and often misrepresented campaign. In defending an original view of the differences between reflecting on politics and doing it in the specific context of the liberation of Palestine, the book’s arguments will have a resonance for many wider debates beyond the context of either universities or the Middle East.

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

 PUBLISHED 29 MAY 2023 · THE UNIVERSITY / PALESTINE

Universities as tools of apartheid

Nick Riemer                                

In his new book Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine: Universities, Intellectualism and Liberation (Rowman and Littlefield, 2023), Nick Riemer mounts a comprehensive argument for the institutional academic boycott of Israel. This edited extract outlines the central rationale for the boycott—Israeli universities’ institutional role in enabling apartheid, occupation and anti-Palestinianism.

In its institutional support for the Zionist project, more than simply being complicit with anti-Palestinianism, Israeli higher education is a central instrument of it. This is a role Israeli universities have played from the outset. Like Palestinian ones, Jewish universities in Palestine were created in an explicit state-building perspective, and the 1948 Zionist takeover of historic Palestine means that university education in Israel takes place in areas from which Palestinians have been expelled, or where they are second-class citizens: Ben Gurion University is located in Beersheba, occupied by Israel on October 21, 1948, with the population of five thousand being driven out at gunpoint to Hebron and many of them shot; the University of Tel Aviv lies on the ground of the destroyed Palestinian village of Al-Shaykh Muwannis, one of whose last remaining houses is now the faculty club; most famously, the Mount Scopus campus of HUJ is on expropriated Palestinian land just beyond the Green Line.

A common narrative today stresses HUJ’s status as ‘a pioneer in establishing contacts with Palestinian scholars’ and a contributor to ‘the political movement towards peace.’ But the very existence of HUJ in Jerusalem, whether beyond or within the Green Line, derives from a project of Palestinian educational dispossession: in 1922, a proposal by the British governor of Jerusalem for an English university intended for a mixed student body of Arabs and Jews alike fell foul of the Zionist movement, which refused to participate on the grounds that it ‘constituted a threat to Hebrew culture in Palestine’ and to the future Hebrew University in particular. Zionists’ preference for exclusivity in education regularly obstructed the creation of mixed Jewish-Arab institutions, creating an obstacle to educational opportunity for Palestinian students by requiring them to go abroad if they wanted to pursue university study. Even today, most Israeli universities lack Arabic signage, and Arabic is largely missing from university websites. Use of Arabic has sometimes even been forbidden on campus, as have displays of the Palestinian flag. Historically, HUJ enacted Palestinian dispossession in other ways, too: after 1948, books plundered from Palestinian households became the core of the Hebrew University’s collection.

Institutional Zionism is matched by intellectual. The scientific and ideological service to the Zionist project provided by disciplines like history, archaeology, sociology and Middle Eastern studies has been documented in detail by many researchers. Archaeology in particular has been identified as central to the ongoing construction of Israel’s origin myth, with pro-settlement organizations regularly funding digs, including in the West Bank, in contravention of international law. The Israeli NGO Emek Shaveh opposes the politicization of Israeli archaeology, campaigning against the use of ‘the ruins of the past … [as] … a political tool in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict’ and the fact that, despite the frequent involvement of Israeli universities, ‘archeology in the West Bank is treated as a military activity and not as academic research.’

Criticisms of the Israeli academy’s silence in the face of attacks on Palestinians are frequent: the Israeli academic Chen Misgav reports that ‘it seems oppression and the egregious violation of the freedom of Palestinian academics produce mainly yawns’ from his colleagues. ‘Faculty members,’ a Haaretz journalist commented in 2017, ‘rarely involve themselves in issues not directly related to their employment conditions and responsibilities.’ When the Committee of University Heads in Israel was asked in 2019 by thirty-three academics at the University of Haifa to protest against Israel’s denial of visas to lecturers wanting to visit West Bank universities, it refused.

Israeli universities play a vital role in the development of the material and intellectual supports of Palestinian oppression. In 1963, the occupation of the West Bank was planned at the Hebrew University’s Givat Ram campus. Following the 1967 invasion of the West Bank, eminent Israeli political scientists, sociologists and anthropologists contributed to a large-scale study of the newly occupied territories, designed to provide accurate information on the characteristics of their population with objectives that were ‘not academic but rather aimed to serve state interests,’ such as suppression of resistance and the departure of Palestinians to neighboring Arab countries. Today, research cooperation between universities and weapons manufacturers binds Israeli higher education tightly into the state’s military-industrial complex: Israeli universities are reliant for much of their income on IDF training and research funding. The Technion, for instance, has close institutional links with Elbit Systems and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, Israel’s biggest arms manufacturers, and developed the remote-controlled bulldozer used to destroy Palestinians’ houses. The university’s aerospace faculty maintains ‘exceptionally close ties’ with these firms, as well as with Ministry of Defense research agencies and army and air force units. During Operation Protective Edge in 2014, the Technion raised half a million dollars for those of its students involved in combat. Ben Gurion University cooperates closely with IDF logistics, cyber-defense, air force technology and computing units, and trains IDF soldiers in engineering and exact sciences. Its robotics lab has the IDF as an important ‘client and stimulus to research.’ The Hebrew University’s technology transfer company, Yissum, takes part in a long-term collaboration with Lockheed Martin, which supplies a very wide range of material, including fighter jets and artillery support, to the IDF. Tel Aviv University facilitates the recruitment of its students by weapons companies, cooperates closely with Elbit Systems and, in 2022, established the Elrom Center, a joint venture with the Israeli Air Force to advance air and space power in Israel. Given that Palestinians are privileged targets of IDF operations – Israel launched full-scale wars against Gaza in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2021 – Israeli universities’ ties with the military translate directly into attacks on Palestinians.

Universities also train students in the rehabilitation of Israel’s tarnished reputation: the University of Haifa’s ‘Ambassadors Online’ course is aimed at the promotion of Israel’s online international image. The program provides students with training in combatting ‘delegitimization’ efforts online, in collaboration with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At the private Reichmann University, students can study for credit in the ‘Public Diplomacy’ program, which provides training in online activism in favor of Israel and against BDS, in collaboration with Act.IL, an aggressive online hasbara organization which the university started. The Technion’s ‘Defense Strategy for International Markets’ course prepares students to sell the weapons systems tested on Palestinians to global buyers. Students at HUJ can get credit for volunteering with the Zionist organization Im Tirzu, which intimidates and discredits pro-Palestinian academics.

The University of Haifa educates ‘senior officials and high ranking officers’ through the National Security Studies Program and the National Security Studies Centre. Tel Aviv University established and hosts the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), which aims to shape Israeli national security policy. As at all such institutes in Israel, INSS staff are principally former senior IDF and other state security officers. The INSS’s 2018 ‘Plan’ sketches a proposal for dealing with the ‘Palestinian threat,’ predicated on a unilateral move to ‘serve Israeli interests.’ It recommends completion of the separation wall, ‘ongoing construction in settlement blocs and their definition as essential to Israel in any future situation,’ refusal of Palestinian refugees’ internationally-established right of return, and retention of IDF freedom of action throughout the West Bank – all presentedas compatible with the aim of a ‘just’ Israeli state. Another senior INSS figure, Gabi Siboni, a former IDF colonel and a senior research fellow at the institute, is a proponent of the ‘Dahiya doctrine’ used to devastating effect in Lebanon and Gaza: the doctrine specifies that ‘with an outbreak of hostilities, the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate to the enemy’s actions and the threat it poses.’ ‘Such a response,’ it continues, ‘aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes.’

The Moshe Dayan Center (MDC) at Tel Aviv University describes itself as ‘founded, in part, to bridge the gap between the Israeli intelligence apparatus and academia, and to provide research solutions to contemporary issues that the intelligence services did not have the time or capability to pursue.’ According to its website, it continues to ‘play a crucial role in safeguarding Israel’s future,’ undertaking activities that ‘are not merely academic in nature. Instead, the MDC attacks real-world problems and helps to achieve real-world solutions.’ Similarly, the BESA Center – the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University – produces policy recommendations for the Israeli political, military and foreign affairs communities, and ‘conducts specialized research on contract to the Israeli foreign affairs and defense establishment.’ Efraim Inbar, the center’s former long-term director, has acknowledged that ‘political neutrality’ is not an option for the center, which is Zionist in orientation. A paper released by the Center in 2018 argued that only ‘a fourth massive round of fighting against Hamas’ would make Hamas realize that ‘that the pain to be suffered is so great, and the chance of eliminating the Jewish state so slim, as to render further violence pointless.’ ‘Now, alas,’ the paper concluded, ‘is the time for war.’ After operation Guardian of the Walls in 2021, one BESA Center paper advocated boycotting Palestinians; another warned against any Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank.

The Israeli army and security apparatus supplies a significant proportion of universities’ senior academic leaders and administrators. IDF soldiers have privileged access to higher education throughout Israel thanks to the ‘Uniform to Studies’ scheme, which provides generous scholarships for discharged combat soldiers, with plans to extend the scheme to anyone who has served in any capacity. Since Palestinian Israelis do not serve in the IDF, they are ineligible for this significant reduction in the cost of university education. Reservists, too, gain automatic academic credit with every eighteen days of annual service. Tel Aviv university offered a year’s free tuition to students who participated in the 2014 Gaza war.

The formal instruction required for positions of responsibility in the IDF is dispensed through the university system, with the University of Haifa responsible for IDF officer-training since 2018. Even before this arrangement started, Haifa offered a Masters program in national security for members of the IDF, the police, Mossad, Shin Bet, and other security and intelligence services. Bar-Ilan University offers a bachelor’s degree for IDF and Shin Bet officers. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem hosts the Talpiot program, which supplies the IDF with elite expertise in technology, as well as the Military Medicine Program, applications for which are assessed by the army, with successful applicants’ tuition fees being waived. During the 2014 war on Gaza, HUJ declared that ‘the university is joining the war effort to support its warrior students, in order to minimize the financial burden’ on them. In 2019, the university took out a full-page newspaper advertisement to stress its commitment to its soldier students. Details of Israeli university graduates have been forwarded by universities to the Shin Bet, allegedly for recruitment purposes. In 2018, HUJ prompted further calls for boycott by hosting a day-long Shin Bet recruitment event for its students.

Israeli universities do not just supply the technical expertise on which the oppression of Palestinians depends, the training for the army that implements it, and the ideological firepower needed to justify it in the battle of world opinion: their own campuses are sites on which Palestinian oppression is enacted. The Hebrew University, for instance, lets its rooftops be used for police surveillance of Palestinians in the adjoining East Jerusalem suburb of Issawiya. Most significantly, this oppression is structural: Palestinian students, already subjected to significant discrimination in their schooling, are significantly under-represented in Israeli higher education, and are marginalized in many ways, including linguistically and in access to dormitories. Israeli Palestinian staff, too, are in a tiny minority: a 2018 appointment of an Arab Christian is thought to be the first Arabic Deanship in Israel ever. Political activity by Arab students on Israeli campuses has often been banned or obstructed, including by Zionist students, as have conferences on topics deemed excessively pro-Palestinian. In 2018, several Israeli universities voluntarily disrupted classes or otherwise supported protests against domestic violence, but nothing anywhere near such levels of institutional support for the Palestinian cause has ever been shown: on the contrary, Israeli universities have blocked prizes being awarded to pro-Palestinian organizations, and regularly suppress pro-Palestine and peace activism. Their heads and other senior officials defend Israeli society against charges of apartheid, discipline or fail to defend pro-Palestinian faculty members, and refuse to protest against violations of Palestinian academic freedom – instead denouncing BDS initiatives and initiating programs to counteract them. Israeli university authorities often criticize and resist government policy on other matters, such as the requirement for gender-segregated programs for ultra-Orthodox students. They have also sometimes asserted the independence of the Israeli faculty, including boycott supporters, against efforts by the state to interfere politically in university business through ethics codes or vetoes on appointments. But they have never officially objected to the overall militarization of Israeli higher education, or asserted the educational rights or academic freedom of Israel’s subject Palestinian population. 

Nick Riemer

Nick Riemer works in the English and linguistics departments at the University of Sydney. He is currently president of the Sydney University branch of the National Tertiary Education Union.More by Nick Riemer

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

https://www.jadaliyya.com/Details/45071

Nick Riemer, Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine. Universities, Intellectualism and Liberation (New Texts Out Now)

Nick Riemer, Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine. Universities, Intellectualism and Liberation (New Texts Out Now)

By : Nick Riemer

Nick Riemer, Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine. Universities, Intellectualism and Liberation (Rowman and Littlefield, 2023).

Jadaliyya (J): What made you write this book?

Nick Riemer (NR): Most importantly, the hope of contributing to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign—one of the most vital global justice movements there currently is—by advancing it in universities. Usually, writing books is not the best way to advance political causes. But the academic boycott is complex and intensely contested, and it seemed to me that there was a potential political benefit in laying out the arguments for it at length, and in analyzing the uptake and resistance to it in the context of the contemporary “neoliberal” university.

A secondary motivation was simply the very high intrinsic interest of the questions the book addresses about the way that intellectual and political progress might relate. What makes the academic boycott so interesting and important is that it is a case where political advances do not arise from the explicit pursuit of intellectual work, but from its outright suspension, at least in the university. When we implement the institutional academic boycott of Israel and refuse to participate in certain kinds of intellectual exchange, just like when we go on strike, we are saying that there is something more important than engaging in the kinds of organized thinking that universities sponsor. It seems to me there is an important lesson there more broadly—about the responsibility to do more than think and talk, and about the risks of what in the book I call “smartwashing,” in other words the mystifying use of intellectualism or complexity to suppress political action.

The effects of Israeli apartheid on Palestinian universities still are not very well known, which is a significant obstacle in the way of international academic solidarity with Palestine.

J: What particular topics, issues, and literatures does the book address?

NR: The book goes from the most particular issues relating to the academic boycott to the most general. It starts with a detailed description of the daily reality of university life in occupied Palestine. The effects of Israeli apartheid on Palestinian universities still are not very well known, which is a significant obstacle in the way of international academic solidarity with Palestine. My thought was that if readers can get a detailed account of what Israeli oppression means in a context they are familiar with—universities—then this would be a good way to understand the urgency of justice for Palestine in general. I also give a detailed account of Israeli universities’ responsibility for and involvement in state anti-Palestinianism, which is the justification for boycotting them in the first place. 

I then go on in chapter two to address the central “academic freedom” argument against the boycott. My main idea is that, far from a violation of the ordinary norms of the academy, boycotting is actually a constitutive and deeply embedded feature of academic professionalism, albeit a strongly disavowed one. In the third chapter I draw out the ideological and material parallels between neoliberal universities as mechanisms for the enclosure of knowledge, and Israeli apartheid as a mechanism for the enclosure of Palestinians, and I suggest ways in which universities can be seen as “little Israels”—in other words fundamentally coercive regimes that put a veneer of liberalism over basically inegalitarian practices. This chapter particularly considers the humanities and social sciences, the areas in which BDS activities are most vigorous.

In chapter four, I change gear to look at one of the best known hallmarks of BDS activism internationally, the active disruption of Zionists invited to speak at universities. I try to give an account of speech, disruption, and silencing that is anchored in a materialist conception of language, predicated on the fact that disruptive protest has regularly been an instrument of social progress. 

The last two chapters take up more general questions that the academic boycott raises about the politics of intellectual activity in universities and outside them. Chapter five looks at a couple of case studies of situations where academic work was not boycotted but should have been, and the last chapter, chapter six, explores the ways in which intellectual activity can be reactionary and therefore deserving of boycott.

J: How does this book connect to and/or depart from your previous work?

NR: Boycott Theory is an outlier compared to most of my academic work, which is in (of all things) the history and philosophy of linguistics. But recently, as a result of my involvement with the BDS campaign, I have started to do scholarly work about the academic boycott too. The book expands on some of the ideas in my chapter in David Landy, Ronit Lentin, and Conor McCarthy’s collected volume Enforcing Silence (Zed Books, 2020), which is often referenced in Boycott Theory. One of the book’s chapters (chapter four) actually does draw on scholarship about language in linguistics and elsewhere, which it puts to work for an analysis of disruptive protest of the kind that Palestine activists often engage in. The book is also related to my teaching: I teach a seminar course called “Text, Action and Ideology” which covers many of the broader issues discussed in Boycott Theory. 

J: Who do you hope will read this book, and what sort of impact would you like it to have? 

NR: The book is polemical as well as scholarly, and I hope it will be a useful resource for the Palestine solidarity movement and will showcase just how solid the arguments for the academic boycott are. Academic research and exchange are prima facie the kind of activities where a boycott is least justifiable, so if a boycott of them does in fact make sense—as it does—that means there is no form of boycott that can be ruled out. So in justifying the academic boycott, the book indirectly justifies the consumer and cultural boycott as well. 

Overall, Boycott Theory is probably intended for two main audiences: people—mainly but not just in universities—who are curious about the academic boycott and want to understand it better; and people already in the campaign who are looking for a repository of arguments and ideas about it. I also hope that Zionists will read it. Our side has all the good arguments, and they really need to let that sink in. I would also hope that the last two chapters, which are on the relation between thought and (in)action, might interest a further set of readers who might not otherwise ever open a book on Palestine solidarity.

J: What other projects are you working on now?

NR: I am working on several projects in linguistics—a second edition of an introduction to the field of semantics that first came out over a decade ago, and a large project on the political history of ideas about Western theories of language from World War I onwards. I am also working with a colleague on an article for a forthcoming issue of Middle East Critique on the Zionist repression of Palestine solidarity work in Australian universities.

J: Tell us more about those last two chapters, where you broaden the focus out from the academic boycott.

NR: Chapter five examines two recent debates about the political stakes of intellectual work conducted by academics—a much-reported German scholarly edition of Hitler’s Mein Kampf published in 2016, and a case of institutional collaboration between researchers and security forces responsible for torture. Both these cases raise parallel questions to those raised by the academic boycott about the political effects of research, and they allow us to see more clearly what is at stake in the boycott’s refusal of intellectual engagement. They are both also extremely interesting in their own right, and sharply raise the question of the conditions in which it can be politically regressive to undertake academic research—something we do not think enough about in universities.

In the last chapter, I look more generally at the connections between thinking and political inaction, and explore ways in which intellectual work can exert a conservatizing political impact. We like to think that the work we do as researchers, scholars, and thinkers is inherently progressive, but I think that—unfortunately!—that is clearly an illusion. What makes the academic boycott so interesting and also such an important example for the Left is that it is a case where political advances do not arise from the explicit pursuit of intellectual work, but from the outright suspension of it, or at least its outright suspension in the university. When we boycott certain kinds of intellectual exchange, just like when we go on strike, we are saying that there is something more important than engaging in the kinds of organized thinking that universities sponsor. It seems to me there is an important lesson there more broadly, about the risks of  “smartwashing” and about the responsibility to do more than think and talk. So the book ends with a defense of a certain kind of progressive anti-intellectualism.

Excerpt from the book (from Chapter 3, pp. 59-63) 

Denying Politics

Academics who encourage their colleagues to implement the institutional boycott of Israel violate one of higher education’s firmest commands: never politicize. In an academy often attacked as in thrall to dangerous “political correctness” – that is, politicized to the point of censorship – and riven by endless “political” disputes, including over Palestine, the claim that politics is regularly taboo will seem ludicrous. It is anything but. Just like any structured, professional activity, academia certainly has its own politics: academics seek power, strategize, form blocs, and make professional choices in ways that they believe further their values or interests, and that sometimes align with political choices they make outside the institution. This is not, however, the kind of politics that is relevant here: university workers are no more or less “political” in this – trivial – sense than are other comparable professionals. It is no more informative to conclude that universities are especially political places because they are the sites of academic or intellectual politics, than it would be to conclude that offices are especially political because they are the sites of office politics. But if academia well and truly has its own politics, that is where politics in universities is supposed to stop. In the imagination of most academics, universities should be undistorted by external political agendas: the objection that supposedly purely academic topics have been “politicized” is one of the right’s main complaints against the academic left.  

That doesn’t mean that politics isn’t regularly discussed in universities. When prominent BDS-opponent Cary Nelson claims that “all teaching and research is fundamentally and deeply political,” especially in the humanities and social sciences, what he means, he tells us, is that it is in “dialogue with cultural values and norms that undergo continual change and that are sites of struggle, linked to assumptions about identity that are socially and politically constructed, engaged with social life and the public sphere and thus with the politics of culture, constrained and encouraged by discourses embedded in politics.” This claim of the distinctly political character of academic work amounts to the observation – an uncontroversial one – that universities abound in discussion of political topics: Nelson’s claim that the humanities and social sciences are “in dialogue” with politically important themes means that academics and students often relate their teaching and research to political issues.

The crucial point, however, is that talking about politics is not the same as participating in it. If we understand politics as the effort “to share power or … to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state,” then, contrary to Nelson and others’ belief, it plays almost no part in most academics’ professional (as opposed to personal) lives, even when its “political” character is trumpeted. “Academics look at the social world as something to be studied, to be researched, to be analyzed, even to be opined – but not to be acted on,” according to Daniel W. Drezner in his study of the “ideas industry.” This is not to say that academics never act politically: “there comes a time,” one US scholar is quoted as saying in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election in 2016, “when you have to take your head out of your books and your computers” and “try to come out, as some people say, on the right side of history.” Most of the time, however, books and computers are where academics’ heads stay firmly planted: the distinguishing feature of many kinds of academic professionalism, especially in much of the humanities, is its aspiration to stand imperiously above, and therefore not immediately affect, worldly political matters. To deal with “the broadly defined ‘humanities’,” Said wrote in 1982, “is to deal with the non-political.” 

The comment captures an important truth: while academics often debate or invoke politics, sometimes heatedly, academic work rarely engages it: even if academics’ choice of problems to teach or research is informed by political considerations, and academics intend their teaching and research to contribute to advocacy for particular political positions, including Palestine justice, these goals are typically understood as derivative of their more essential academic features. Academic work can serve secondary political purposes only if it is, first and foremost, academic: the expression of political positions cannot, in conventional understandings, be allowed to escalate so far as to jeopardize scholarly objectivity, which is what guarantees universities’ imagined status as independent, non-partisan institutions.

It’s therefore no surprise that the assertion of the political nature of academic work, especially in the humanities and social sciences, is rarely meant to suggest that it could bear any strong relevance, let alone constitute any real challenge, to specific political actors. Politics as a concrete practice – and, even more so, the politics of Palestine justice – is for the most part taboo in universities. Cary Nelson concludes as a result of four decades’ observation that “the overwhelming majority of faculty members are reluctant to reveal their political views to their students”; “[d]uring my last six-year stint in the political science department at DePaul University in Chicago,” Norman Finkelstein tells us, “the country passed through two presidential elections, September 11, and two major wars, yet I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of political conversations with my colleagues.” So while academics do from time to time use their professional personas to take a stand on questions of immediate political moment, they do so mostly in heavily qualified ways, and almost always with the reminder that their students or readers must decide for themselves where they stand. Cushioned in that very typical proviso, the divorce between scholarship and politics is consummated. Politics is constitutively insulated from academic authority. It is the domain of opinion, where participants must ultimately be free to make their own choices: scholarship, safely confined within the seminar room or academic article, is politically inert. Speech in universities simply does not usually aim to mobilize opinion in favor of a concrete political outcome. 

Given their general professional aversion to explicit politics, academics’ reluctance to embrace BDS is wholly expected, but it becomes even less surprising when seen in light of the profession’s general unwillingness to seriously defend its own professional milieus from the decades of higher education “reform” that have degraded it in many parts of the west. All around the English-speaking world, and in many places beyond it, neoliberalism in universities has largely won a crushing victory at students’ and academics’ expense. In that light, insistent claims of disciplines’ “political” character stand out in bathetic relief against their inability to accomplish what should be, surely, among their most elementary “political” aims – safeguarding the institutional security of their own practitioners. In relation to an important mechanism of the neoliberalization of higher education, the rise of academic managers, one attentive observer even feels that “the colonization of higher education by management has never been openly discussed.” Another – a London politics academic – says he found his five-year experience as an official of the University and College Union “exhausting and demoralizing, because so few academics seemed willing to participate” in defense of pay, pensions and reforms of higher education governance.

Any number of aspects of the professional culture of higher education support western academics’ unwillingness to acknowledge or confront their own political agency, whether over BDS or over their more immediate self-interest. In The Authoritarian Personality, Adorno identified the tendency of educational systems “to discourage anything supposedly ‘speculative,’ or which cannot be corroborated by surface findings, and stated in terms of ‘facts and figures’.” The analysis is still germane after more than seventy years. As the very agents of the positivistic educational culture Adorno identified, and institutionally immersed in a highly quantified world of enrolment figures, citation counts, grant income, funding formulas and ranking positions, there is nothing surprising in academics’ apparent inability to engage in “speculative” politics by grasping their own potential to act. The investment which academics typically bring to questions of disciplinary, intellectual politics – Which field will a new position be created in? What subjects are to be compulsory for final-year students? – contrasts starkly with their frequent disengagement from the broader issues which set the parameters of their professional life, whether over the Israel boycott or many other macro-questions of institutional politics. There is no lack of precedent for political activity by academics. But it is understood as exceptional, and often viewed with a certain degree of hesitation or embarrassment, even by its participants. 

Palestinians cannot expect strong support from a profession that often cannot bring itself to defend its own members: resistance to the boycott is one especially obvious consequence of academics’ general disengagement from politics. The effect of scholarly political quietism is, of course, wholly political in its reinforcement of the status quo. 

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

https://electronicintifada.net/content/why-are-colleges-civil-israel/38176

THE ELECTRONIC INTIFADA

You are here

Why are colleges “civil” to Israel?

Rod SuchThe Electronic Intifada12 July 2023

Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine: Universities, Intellectualism and Liberation by Nick Riemer, Rowman & Littlefield (2023)

Australian scholar Nick Riemer explains the focus of his new in-depth study of the academic boycott of Israel by saying that “almost everything in the politics and culture of higher education works against academics boycotting Israel.”

Indeed, the obstacles presented by that culture are what’s mainly addressed in Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine: Universities, Intellectualism and Liberation as he delves into the history of the academic boycott.

Academics, especially in the United States, have been denied work or tenure because of their advocacy for Palestine, a story presented in We Will Not Be Silenced: The Academic Repression of Israel’s Critics – an anthology of testimonials from repressed scholars published in 2017 but still relevant today.

Riemer describes the origins and early successes of the academic boycott, predating the 2005 Palestinian civil society call for BDS with the formation of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) a year earlier.

Even earlier, in 2002, Riemer notes, “several hundred European academics and researchers called for a moratorium on European funding of Israeli cultural and research institutions.” By year’s end, the University of Paris 6, now part of the Sorbonne, called for cutting off the European Union’s research agreement with Israel.

Other victories followed, including the University of Johannesburg in South Africa severing ties with Israel’s Ben-Gurion University in 2011. Numerous academic associations adopted pro-BDS resolutions in solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Ideology of the academy

But unlike the BDS movement against apartheid South Africa, which resulted in many US universities actually divesting from companies doing business with the country, nearly all Western universities and colleges have resisted calls from faculty and students to cut ties with Israel.

Riemer locates many of the reasons why, including university links to the military-industrial complex. But he reserves most of his critique for the dominant ideological narrative of “academic freedom” and the “civility” and “collegiality” reasons given for maintaining ties with Israeli academic institutions.

Riemer notes that from its beginning, PACBI called for the boycott of Israeli institutions, not individual Israeli scholars.

This provision, recognizing Israeli academics who oppose the occupation, differed from the academic boycott call issued in 1958 by the African National Congress – a blanket boycott of both institutions and individuals. Objections were rarely raised about the issue of “academic freedom” when it came to boycotting apartheid South Africa.

Riemer documents numerous examples of academic freedom being denied to Palestinian scholars, rarely acknowledged by hypocritical Western academic institutions.

Israeli troops routinely impose checkpoints outside university entrances, raid Palestinian campuses and arrest and imprison students. Movement restrictions prevent many Palestinian students from studying or teaching abroad or even in other parts of Palestine, and international scholars are restricted from teaching in the West Bank and Gaza.

As of 2022, Israel announced that it would vet all applications from foreign academics to teach at West Bank universities after a long history of limiting the number of foreign academics and refusing entry and re-entry. Israel’s numerous bombing campaigns in Gaza have not only disrupted education for long periods but have often targeted university campuses and buildings.

Outside Palestine, examples abound of “academic freedom” being denied to scholars who lost their positions due to their advocacy for Palestinian rights, such as Norman Finkelstein, Steven Salaita and Cornel West, to name only a few.

More recently, the effort by Israel and its proxies to impose the highly flawed IHRA definition of anti-Semitism on campuses – conflating criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Jewish bigotry – has resulted in numerous cancellations of scheduled talks, courses and film screenings in direct contradiction to most notions of academic freedom.

Riemer goes beyond the issue of censorship by asking why academic culture values not just civility and collegiality but actually negates the boycott by elevating thinking above acting. In contrast to the famous quote from Karl Marx, Riemer seems to be saying that for most academics, the point is to just interpret the world, not to change it.

The later chapters of Boycott Theory delve into this and related questions, such as those related to free speech and the right, both morally and politically, to disrupt hate speech aimed at reinforcing “the murderous practices of Israeli apartheid.” Riemer also discusses the role of intellectuals, asking can there be theory without practice, and what are the differences between solitary and collective intelligence.

Riemer couches some of these ideas in provocative phrases, such as the need for “groupthink” and “anti-intellectualism.”

Unfortunately, as intriguing as some of his ideas are, the author fails to convey them in an expository way by explaining the concept in detail, presenting the evidence for it and disrupting contrary claims. As a result, the reader is left unconvinced.

Tactic vs. strategy

Is there a need for a “theory of boycott,” as implied by the book’s title?

There is, but the author’s frequent description of the boycott as a tactic neglects its chief importance as a strategy.

The African National Congress regardedboycott, divestment and sanctions as one of the “four pillars” of South Africa’s liberation struggle, giving it a place of importance equal to its other strategic methods: armed struggle, political mass struggle and clandestine underground struggle.

The BDS movement has become a strategic component of the Palestinian liberation struggle not only because it has united Palestinians (polls show that more than 80 percent of Palestinians support BDS), but also because it has given people around the world a way to support that liberation struggle on a global scale.

It has also been the chief vehicle for changing the once-dominant belief that Israel is a democracy deserving of support, to an insurgent narrative that Israel is an apartheid state and that apartheid must end.

It is an idea that has become a material force. After all, ideas – once they’re grasped by a mass of people – can become a force in their own right.

Rod Such is a former editor for World Book and Encarta encyclopedias. He lives in Portland, Oregon, where he is active in the Demilitarize Portland2Palestine campaign.

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

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2019/04/three-cheers-for-nick-riemer-useful-idiot/

Three Cheers for Nick Riemer, Useful Idiot 

14th April 2019

Timothy Cootes

In the debate over the establishment of the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation, no one has sniped and sneered from the opposing camp with anything quite like the ferocious energy of Dr. Nick Riemer, senior lecturer in English and Linguistics at the University of Sydney. No doubt, his noisy interventions must leave many longing for the days when the musings of academics were only available in the mercifully unreadable journals of the academic Left. Riemer, with his endless tweets, op-eds, essays, and campus protests, has been very difficult to avoid.

Not that I really mind, I have to confess. Surprisingly, whenever I come across Riemer’s latest hissy-fit in the Sydney Morning Herald, I react with wry appreciation rather than annoyance. You see, those of us who support the goals of Ramsay couldn’t have asked for a better enemy. His arguments — I’m being charitable when I use such a word — are so risible that I’m doubtful that he has persuaded anyone at all. If anything, he has powerfully made the case for the Ramsay Centre in a useful albeit unwitting manner.

Although Riemer’s campaign has been running for months, he introduced himself to a wider audience in the aftermath of the massacre in Christchurch. In a much-discussed column, he set out his reflections on that awful event in his characteristically obtuse way:

Many academics have accused Ramsay of being the intellectual face of a Western supremacist politics, and therefore fundamentally incompatible with universities’ obligation to support multiculturalism.

I like the honesty here: indeed, only academics could come up with such a ridiculous notion. The general and far more intelligent public would struggle to find a connection between a fondness for Plato and Aristotle and the horrors of white supremacy. Riemer, though, encouraged his readership to “reflect seriously on how the Ramsay curriculum validates the worldview behind Friday’s massacre.”

How so, exactly?

Well, Riemer seems especially bothered — or “triggered”, as the kids say these days — by the proposed reading list and its suggestion that the Great Books ought to be studied as a whole. That is, one should begin with Homer, stop by Augustine, and follow up with Shakespeare and Nietzsche. For Riemer, this will logically lead students and the Australian society at large to adopt attitudes of European supremacy, and only bloodshed could follow that.

Looking back, it’s obvious Riemer’s case against Ramsay would end up here. He had previously asserted, without any explanation, that the mere existence of Ramsay on campus could be physically harmful and constitute “a threat to students from non-Western backgrounds.”

If all this seems a bit bewildering, then congratulations: you, dear reader, have been spared whatever passes for an education in the humanities at our universities. Riemer apparently sees sinister and bloodthirsty motivations where none exist, and his vision is hard to square with the Ramsay Centre’s humbly stated ambition to “promote an interest in and awareness of Western Civilisation.”

For this reason, his connecting Ramsay with the massacre of innocent Muslims at prayer deserves special condemnation. The thinking here goes something like this: the murderer in Christchurch fretted about the state of the West, and anyone who shares those concerns must similarly share his aims and approve of his methods. This is an inexpensive and asinine trick, and an academic who is allegedly interested in the use of language should know better.

It’s too easy to point out, for example, that Riemer’s rhetorical flaying of the Western world, its heritage, as well as Israel and Zionism (of course) would meet the approval of any hardened jihadist. Let me hasten to add that such a comparison is unfair, of course. Despite some ideological comradeship, Riemer probably wouldn’t make a good recruit for the Islamic State.

No comparison is really necessary, anyway: dealing with Riemer and his shabby arguments is easy enough. Writing for a more ursine audience in Overland, he allowed himself to be even more unpersuasive in a follow-up rant:

In arts faculties themselves, the danger posed by the ‘Western Civilisation’ program has been clear to all but a small group of hold-outs. Driving the opposition to Ramsay has, of course, been the self-evident fact that the whole project is an initiative of the racist right…

One can begin to detect the elements of his strategy here: meet the word count by banging on about xenophobia, chauvinism, and white supremacy without ever saying anything meaningful at all. It’s remarkable, in a way: apparently, you can can easily get a series of non-sequiturs published in national newspapers and magazines. He groped his way towards an argument by drawing attention to the list of speakers for Ramsay’s public lectures, which includes Greg Sheridan of The Australian, the leftie writer and editor of Areo, Helen Pluckrose, and Rod Dreher of The American Conservative, among others.

And? So what? There’s certainly more intellectual diversity here than what you’d find at the typical humanities faculty meeting at, say, Mr Riemer’s Sydney University roost, where I’m sure there are hugely varying levels of commitment to the revolutionary struggle. And that’s the point, after all. Riemer, backed by an army of his colleagues, demonstrates just how corrupt and rotten and censorial the universities have become. The Australian public knows it, too, and Riemer seems to be working hard to convince them further.

That’s why I welcome his efforts. In all his anti-Ramsay whinging, one sees, very clearly, the case for the Ramsay Centre and why it must succeed. I suspect that Riemer may ultimately assist with this project rather than his own. In a small way, the Great Books program will be established not despite his interventions, but because of them.

Nick Riemer and his co-thinkers don’t know it, but their petulance and intolerance of others’ ideas is further proof of the need for the Ramsay Centre. Among the many things they don’t know and can’t understand, he and they are actually helping the right side.

Timothy Cootes has written for QuadrantQuillette, and The Spectator Australia. He lives in Sydney.

The 1948 War and the Iranian and Arab Nazi Propaganda


13.07.23

Editorial Note

IAM notes that Western scholarship has, by and large, avoided topics that could upset Arabs and Iranians. A substantial academic industry decries Islamophobia, the purported Western fear and loathing of Islam and Muslims. In this view, the 9/11 attacks and the war on terror dramatically increased hatred of all things Muslim in Western discourse. To avoid further inflaming Islamophobia, the famously self-censoring academic community has threaded very lightly on topics of Arab and Iranian antisemitism. Iran, in particular, has so far escaped close scrutiny of its long-standing antisemitic record and persistent denial of the Holocaust.     

To provide a more balanced view, IAM has taken the initiative to highlight scholars researching Middle East antisemitism. 

Arguably, Dr. Matthias Küntzel, a German historian and political scientist, should be considered a leading voice in this group. He was a non-resident research associate of the Vidal Sassoon Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Hebrew University between 2004 to 2015. He is currently a member of the German Council on Foreign Relations and the German Historical Association. Kuntzel started his career some thirty years ago by exploring how Auschwitz could happen. He then moved on to investigate the impact of Nazi antisemitism on the Middle East. Küntzel’s earlier books include Germany and IranJihad and Jew HatredBonn & the Bomb, among others. His newest work is Nazis, Islamic Antisemitism and the Middle East: The 1948 Arab War against Israel and the Aftershocks of World War II. 

By researching the Nazi archives, Kuntzel discovered that the Ministry of Propaganda of the Third Reich created an extensive propaganda network aimed at the Near and Middle East. Radio Berlin broadcasted daily programs in Arabic and Farsi, which were very popular among the public. As a young theology student, Ruhollah Khomeini listened to the Persian propaganda from Berlin and embraced it when he came to power in 1979. The leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were also influenced. It became clear in their foundational writings. In those days listening to the radio was a public occasion. People sat in cafes in the town square.

In May 1942, Louis Dreyfus, the American ambassador to Iran, wrote that German propaganda “made a deep impression on the masses. The daily radio broadcasts from Berlin had been particularly effective and a film audience in the poor section of Tehran had cheered wildly for Hitler and at decidedly the wrong places when a British war film was shown. At one point, the British pressured the Iranian police to remove all radios from public places, but they were quickly restored.”

In the Arab world, the first Arabic pamphlet, Islam and Judaism, was published in August 1937 in Cairo by the Director of the Palestinian-Arab Bureau of Information in Egypt, who is believed to have had many contacts with Nazi agents. In 1938 a German version of Islam and Judaism was published in Berlin under the title: “Islam – Judaism. Call of the Grand Mufti to the Islamic world in 1937”. Islam and Judaism derailed plans for a two-state solution for Palestine. 

Islam and Judaism is significant because it is possibly the very first document to construct a continuity between Muhammad’s confrontation with the Jews in Medina and the contemporary conflict in Palestine, thus linking the seventh to the twentieth century. It is the first written evidence of Islamic antisemitism and the forerunner of Sayyid Qutb’s 1950 pamphlet Our Struggle with the JewsIslam and Judaism concludes that “the verses from the Qur’an and hadith prove to you that the Jews have been the bitterest enemies of Islam and continue to try to destroy it. Do not believe them, they only know hypocrisy and cunning. Hold together, fight for the Islamic thought, fight for your religion and your existence! Do not rest until your land is free of the Jews.” 

According to Kuntzel, the Muslim Brotherhood was the largest antisemitic movement in the world, in 1948, with one million members, and it was determined to continue the war started by Hitler, with the help of the Mufti, to prevent a Jewish state. “Its campaign could draw on the lingering echoes of the antisemitic Nazi propaganda in which preventing the emergence of a Jewish state and wiping out the Jews living in Palestine had been constant themes.”

Kuntzel’s work provides insight into a topic that is hardly discussed. 

References:

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/broadcasting-as-a-weapon-the-persian-language-nazi-propaganda-and-its-consequences

Broadcasting as a weapon: The Persian-language Nazi propaganda and its consequences

I delivered this speech on June 4, 2023 on the occasion of the Klangteppich V – Festival for Music of the Iranian Diaspora in Berlin

By Matthias Küntzel

Hamburg, 04.07.2023

As a German who doesn’t even read Farsi, why am I dealing with Iran? It is firstly because Iran is a particularly fascinating country with a particularly fascinating history and population. Secondly, it is because I have always followed the great uprisings of the Iranian people against Ali Khamenei and his regime and supported them in my essays: the Green Movement of 2009, the Movement of 2019, and now, of course, the Woman-Life-Freedom Uprising, which continues today while we are here in Berlin. Third, I am also particularly interested in Iran because one of my research interests is the ideology of Islamism and its connection to antisemitism.

In the beginning of my research, more than 30 years ago, I naturally wanted to know how Auschwitz could happen and why my parents were able to love Adolf Hitler as teenagers. To understand this, I focused on Nazi ideology, and specifically Nazi antisemitism.

Since the 9/11 attack in 2001, I began to study Jew-hatred in Islamic societies and especially the Muslim Brotherhood, that is, Sunni Islam. In 2005, the then Iranian President Ahmadinejad demanded that Israel be erased and disappear from the map. That same year, at the Frankfurt Book Fair, I was able to buy from Iranian booksellers an English written copy of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: the most prominent antisemitic libel and Hitler’s textbook for the Holocaust.

I started to study the reasons and roots of the Iranian regime’s hatred of Israel and its antisemitism. I was especially interested in the influence that Nazi Germany had taken to create and strengthen this hatred also in Iran.

In doing so, I discovered that the Nazis used very well done radio broadcasts to spread their hate propaganda in the Near and Middle East not only in Arabic, but also in Persian language, day after day from 1939 to 1945. After all, Ruhollah Khomeini was one of the regular listeners to the Persian-language propaganda from Berlin. This brings us to our topic – the Persian-language radio propaganda of the Nazis and its after-effects.

German-Iranian cooperation during World War II

Let me start with a few basic facts about the the special relationship between Tehran and Berlin. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, Germany and Persia have made a great team. Persia needed Germany because it distrusted all the other great powers but was dependent on foreign technical assistance. Germany needed Iran because it was the only raw material-rich country as yet unconquered in the nineteenth-century struggle for colonies. These mutual interests produced an unparalleled level of cooperation between a Christian and a Muslim country.

Already in the First World War most Iranians had supported the Germans, who were fighting their common enemies, the British and the Russians. Moreover, the Germans also enjoyed great prestige as technicians and engineers. Since the mid-1920s, Germany had not only laid the foundations of an Iranian industrial infrastructure, but also exported technical education to Iran.

With the start of the Second World War, cooperation became especially close. In 1940 47 percent of all Iranian exports went to Nazi Germany, while Germany’s share of Iranian imports had reached 43 percent. During those years, eighty percent of all machinery in the country came from Germany.

Iran was of strategic importance for the Nazis’ warfare. According to Adolf Hitler’s plan the Wehrmacht would after the assault on the Soviet Union occupy the Caucasus and in so doing, open the way to the Middle East. Then Iran and Iraq would be conquered and the British Empire destroyed from the south. According to the Nazi plan, a pro-German mass-movement in Iran reinforced by a concentrated propaganda effort would prepare for the German invasion of that country. Fortunately, however, the war took a different course. 

The Nazi radio at work

At the beginning of World War II German short-wave transmitters were broadcasting in 15 different foreign languages. However, of all the foreign-language broadcasting units, the “Orient Zone” was given “absolute priority”. It broadcast to Arabs and Persians, but also to Turks and Indians and employed about 80 people, including some 20 presenters and translators.

Editorial control was in the hands of the Foreign Office Radio Policy Department and the program content was determined in cooperation with the Propaganda Ministry and the Wehrmacht High Command’s Foreign Propaganda Department. The broadcasts were recorded in Berlin, Kaiserdamm no. 77 and then transferred by a special telephone line to Zeesen, a small village 40 kms south of Berlin.

The transmitter systems in Zeesen were equipped with state-of-the-art directional antennae. The American radio expert César Searchinger described the “huge” short-wave radio complex in Zeesen as “the biggest and most powerful propaganda machine in the world” and its “supremely cunning technology of mass influence” as “the most formidable institution for the dissemination of a political doctrine that the world has ever seen.”

While exaggerated, the assessment is not wholly false. While all the combatant powers in the Second World War used short-wave transmitters in different languages, the Zeesen radio had some special features.

Firstly, in 1936 the Olympics took place in Berlin. The overhaul of the Zeesen short wave equipment carried out in preparation for this event had greatly improved its long-range sound quality. No other station provided a better listening experience than Radio Zeesen.

Secondly, the Orient Zone editors succeeded in recruiting Bahram Shahrokh as their Persian announcer. He was an outstanding speaker with a good voice and excellent diction. A 1941 survey of German propaganda achievements in Iran boasted that “Sharokh [was] always praised as a brilliant speaker and was more popular than even others, including the enemy ones.”

Let me give you an example how Shahrokh’s antisemitic incitement in Berlin had at times a direct impact on the situation of the Jews in Iran. An Iranian Jewish woman, her name is Parvin, who was 17 years old at the time, remembers in particular a speech by Bahram Shahrokh on Radio Zeesen on the occasion of the Jewish Purim festival. Shahrokh urged the audience to exact revenge for the alleged massacre of Persians by Jews that the biblical Purim story mentions. Parvin recalls:

The next day some Muslim friends of my father came into his pharmacy and demanded an explanation. I was with him that day and heard them belittle and mock the Jews. When my father tried to explain the issue … they attacked him and grabbed his neck, whereupon my father told me to run home. I never asked, nor did I ever find out how he got rid of them.

At the same time Shahrokh presented himself as brave and cheeky. He repeatedly made barbed remarks about Reza Shah, the detested Iranian ruler. Following angry protests from Reza Shah, who was a regular listener of the German radio station, at the end of 1940 the German Foreign Office had to take Shahrokh off air, but only temporarily. In August 1941 Britain and the Soviet Union occupied Iran, ousted Reza Shah Pahlavi from his throne and installed his son, Mohammed Reza Shah, in his stead. Shortly thereafter, Shahrokh was back on air.

Thirdly, the Zeesen broadcasts employed a crude and folksy antisemitism. In 1940 Reader Bullard, the British Ambassador to Iran, complained that, “Even if we [the British] do broadcast in Persian, we cannot hope to rival the Germans in interest, as their more violent, abusive style, with exaggerated claims … appeals to the Persian public.”

And indeed: Radio Zeesen’s programs were rabble-rousing rather than factual. Their aim was not to inform, but to incite antisemitism and to boast of German successes. They were targeted at a mass audience rather than intellectuals. Thus, the United Nations was dubbed the “United Jewish Nations,” and the Jordanian king, Emir Abdullah, was mocked as “Rabbi Abdullah” for wanting to negotiate with the Zionists.

The fourth distinguishing feature of this radio propaganda was its adaptation to Islam.

Already during World War I, many Shi’ite clerics had demonstrated reverence for the German Emperor as a protector and a secret convert to Islam. Hitler, for as long as the Germans were winning, was an even better figure upon which to project such a myth. A report on this matter by the German Ambassador in Tehran, Erwin Ettel, of February 1941 is illuminating:

For months, reports have been reaching the Embassy from the most varied sources that throughout the country clerics are speaking out, telling the faithful about old, enigmatic prophesies and dreams which they interpret to mean that God has sent the Twelfth Imam into the world in the shape of Hitler. Wholly without Embassy involvement, an increasingly influential propaganda theme has come into being, in which the Führer and therefore Germany are seen as the deliverers from all evil.

The German short-wave radio station was happy to exploit these fantasies in its Farsi broadcasts. However, Erwin Ettel was not satisfied. The Imam-belief strengthened the love of Germany, but it contributed little to hatred of the Jews. Here was still work for him to do.

It was understood in Berlin that German-style antisemitism would have little resonance in Iran. “The broad masses lack a feeling for the race idea,” explained the propaganda expert of the German embassy in Tehran. He therefore laid “all the emphasis on the religious motif in our propaganda in the Islamic world. This is the only way to win over the Orientals.” But how exactly could Nazi Germany, of all countries, conduct a religious propaganda campaign? Ambassador Ettel had an idea:

“A way to foster this development would be to highlight Muhammad’s struggle against the Jews in ancient times and that of the Führer in modern times,” Ettel recommended to the Foreign Office. “Additionally, by identifying the British with the Jews, an exceptionally effective anti-English propaganda campaign can be conducted among the Shi’ite people.”

Ettel even picked out the appropriate Koranic passages: firstly, sura 5, verse 82: “Truly you will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans”; and, secondly, the final sentence of chapter 2 of Mein Kampf: “In resisting the Jew, I do the work of the Lord.”

Ettel’s proposal demonstrates that the Nazis sought to use religion to create an implacable hostility to the Jews. Again and again the program makers of the Orient Zone repeated only those verses from the Koran that are suitable for presenting the Jews as “enemies of Islam.” Let me quote the historian David Motadel:

Berlin made explicit use of religious rhetoric, terminology, and imagery and sought to … reinterpret religious doctrine and concepts to manipulate Muslims for political and military purposes. … German propaganda combined Islam with anti-Jewish agitation to an extent that had not hitherto been known in the modern Muslim world.

These, then, were the four special characteristics of Radio Zeesen’s Iranian broadcasts: First, the excellent sound quality, second, its popular speaker, third, the populist agitation, and fourth, the use and abuse of religion.

What do we know about the resonance of this propaganda among the Iranian population?

We must keep in mind that during the 1930s short-wave radios offered a medium with a great power of attraction. In his memoirs, Grand Ayatollah Husain Ali Montazeri recalls the installation of a radio in an Isfahan coffee house at the end of the 1930s: “Thousands of people” had come to see and hear the radio including Montazeri himself, who was wondering, “what is a radio?”

In those days listening to the radio was a public occasion. People did so in coffee houses and bazaars. Sometimes the radio would be placed on a pedestal in the town square around which the information hungry would gather. For example, the population in the center of Tehran was regularly bombarded with German news at the Maidan-I-Sepah Square. What had been heard would immediately then be talked about, further extending the reach of the programs’ message. It has been estimated that by the start of the 1940s, “about a million people were regularly listening to the radio in the Middle East and North Africa.”

Obviously, Germany’s Farsi-language wartime broadcasts enjoyed great popularity. Let me quote Iranian writer Amir Hassan Sheheltan:

In many newspapers and private notes of the time we find reports of how in the late 1930s … during the broadcast of the Farsi-language news from Berlin people would gather together on the steps of the tea houses with a radio set in order to listen to the Germans’ reports of their territorial gains on the various fronts. The reports inspired the fantasy of the crowd on the street that every victory corresponded to a defeat for the colonial powers, the Soviet Union and Britain, which they cheered and applauded.

Moreover, after the deposition of Reza Shah in 1941 by Britain and the Soviet Union, many fervently awaited the German invasion of Iran, hoping that it would put an end to the hated British-Soviet occupation. Now the Nazis’ radio propaganda was more than just commentary on the war: it was an instrument in the service of the “liberation” of Iran by German forces.

“In those days”, according to an American journalist, “swastikas were painted on the walls of many houses in Tehran. Bazaar traders sold pictures of Hitler. The new Shah recalled that, ’… the German … propaganda was very effective. … The propagandists always depicted Hitler as a Muslim and descendant of the Prophet. He was said to have been born with a green band around his body’.”

In May 1942, also Louis Dreyfus, the American ambassador to Iran at the time, was alerted: 

German propaganda … made a deep impression on the masses. The daily radio broadcasts from Berlin had been particularly effective and a film audience in the poor section of Tehran had cheered wildly for Hitler and at decidedly the wrong places when a British war film was shown. At one point, the British pressured the Iranian police to remove all radios from public places, but they were quickly restored, again at British request, when it was found, strangely, that one could not tune in the British broadcasts either, without a radio.

Finally, in June 1942, the BBC reported: “Although action is been taken to make effective the ban on public listening to Axis broadcasts, it seems that listening in private houses is still widely practiced. As a result it appears that many people are still convinced that the Axis powers will win the war; Hitler, moreover, is said to enjoy great personal popularity.”

At the same time, after the fall of Reza Shah, who, despite his admiration for Hitler, did not share the latter’s antisemitism, Jew-hatred began to play a greater role in the Zeesen broadcasts. Among the regular listeners to this material was a man of whom the world was later to hear much more: Ruhollah Khomeini.

“Germany’s Persian service was, during the war, to enjoy the widest possible audience in Iran and Iraq”, writes Amir Taheri in his biography of Khomeini. When, in winter 1938 Khomeini, then aged thirty-six, returned from Iraq to Qum in Iran, he 

had brought with him a radio set made by the British company Pye which he had bought from an Indian Muslim pilgrim. The radio proved a good buy. … It also gave him a certain prestige. Many mullahs and talabehs would gather at his home, often on the terrace, in the evenings to listen to Radio Berlin [= Radio Zeesen] and the BBC.

Even though Khomeini opposed Hitler and National Socialism, it is reasonable to assume that there is a link between the eruption of his Jew-hatred in 1963 and the invective from Berlin that he had imbibed over the radio 20 years previously.

Did Radio Zeesen influence Ayatollah Khomeini?

Research on the impact of the Nazi’s radio propaganda in Iran has just begun and many additional discoveries can be expected. What we can conclude today is that this radio propaganda changed the generell perception of the so-called Jewish danger.

In 1963, the Nazi seeds may have bore fruits when Khomeini enriched his anti-Shah campaign with anti-Jewish slogans. Now his religious warning cry “Attack on Islam” was replaced by the antisemitic battle cry “Jews and foreigners wish to destroy Islam!”

Khomeini’s most important book, The Islamic State, published in 1971, is full of antisemitic invective. Let me quote just one sentence: ”[T]he Jews and their foreign backers are opposed to the very foundations of Islam and wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world. Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that – God Forbid – they may one day achieve their goal.”

Such fantasies about Jewish world domination were never part of the Shiite tradition. Here Khomeini has adopted a key idea of European antisemitism and linked it to his religion-based anti-Judaism. Khomeini had been a regular listener to the Nazis’ wartime Farsi-language broadcasts and, although it cannot in retrospect be proven, it would seem obvious that his fantasy had at least partly been shaped by this six-year-long barrage of antisemitic Nazi propaganda.

In addition, Radio Zeesen propagated exactly the kind of genocidal anti-Zionism which became prevalent after the Islamic revolution.

We have to keep in mind that between 1906 and 1979 no other Muslim country had such an enlightened religious leadership as Iran; a religious leadership that also accepted Iran’s good relationship with Israel.

As early as 1967, however, Khomeini started to preach a genocidal hatred against Israel. It is the “duty” of all Muslims, he told his followers during that year, “to annihilate unbelieving and inhuman Zionism.”

After the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, three things happend: First, Khomeini ordered the execution of Iran’s most prominent Jew, Habib Elghanian, in a sustained effort to intimidate the Iranian Jewish community.

Second: He moderated his tone and promised to spare Iranian Jews, provided they accepted a subordinate status and radically distanced themselves from Israel.

Third: Iran’s new rulers began to concentrate their anti-Jewish hatred on Israel. They began to use the term “Zionist” the way Hitler used the word “Judas”: as a cipher for all evil in the world. “From the beginning,” Khomeini declared in 1981, “one of our main goals was the destruction of Israel.”

The real aim of Khomeini’s struggle with the Jews was, in my opinion, the wish to fight all aspects of modernity that could undermine his conservative concept of Islam. This connection between antisemitism and anti-modernism also explains the popularity of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which is of Russian origin, in the Islamic world. 

This text was conceived as a rallying cry against liberalism: in order to drive forward the struggle against individual freedom the latter is denounced as the main tool of a global Jewish conspiracy. Ideas originally disseminated a hundred years previously by Tsarist agents in order to save Tsarism are today being repeated by key leaders of Islam in order to secure the domination of a conservative Islam.

At the beginning of my talk I mentioned the Woman-Life-Freedom Uprising, which continues today while we are here in Berlin. The courage of the women of Iran and their persistent fight for freedom is for me still a bright beacon of hope for the future. 

But for this hope to be realized, it is – I think – essential to also look back and answer the question – What went wrong? – which I at least partly tried to do today. Thank you for your attention.

(The sources of the quotes can be found in my book Nazis, Islamic Antisemitism and the Middle East: The 1948 Arab War against Israel and the Aftershocks of World War II, to be published by Routledge in August 2023. Please visit the Homepage of Berlin’s Klangteppich V – Festival for Music of the Iranian Diaspora here.)

Bild: Rundfunkempfänger Telefunken Super “Zeesen” T 875 WK. Quelle: Stiftung Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin · Lizenz: CC0 – No rights reserved · Bild wurde beschnitten und farblich angepasst.

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

The 1948 Arab war against Israel: An aftershock of World War II?

In introduction to some discoveries and arguments of my new book: “Nazis, Islamic Antisemitism and the Middle East: The 1948 Arab War against Israel and the Aftershocks of World War II”.

By Matthias Küntzel

FATHOM, JUNE 2023

Is there any connection between the Nazi war of extermination against the Jews that ended in May 1945 and the war of the Arab armies against Israel which started in May 1948? It’s an obvious question, but one that is rarely asked. Why?

The answer is because – at least this is my assumption – the provable existence of threads of continuity between 1945 and 1948 calls into question cherished certainties: for example, the conviction that the Arab movement against Zionism and Israel had nothing to do with the Nazi fantasies of the previous phase and that Israel, i.e. Jews, were mainly responsible for the 1948 war and antisemitism in the region.

My new book Nazism, Islamic Antisemitism and the Middle East(Routledge, August 2023) challenges this conventional wisdom. It offers a new interpretation of the origins of the Arab-Israel war of 1948.

The central role of Nazi antisemitism in the planning and implementation of the Shoah is well known. The impact of that same Nazi antisemitism on the Middle East, on the other hand, remains gravely under-researched.

My book aims to fill this gap to the extent currently possible. It sets forth the methods used by Nazi Germany from 1937 onwards to disseminate its antisemitism in the Middle East in the Arabic language and the role that this antisemitism would play 11 years later, when the Arab armies fell upon the newly founded Jewish state of Israel. This fateful war triggered the Palestinian refugee catastrophe that has marked the Middle East conflict ever since.

The spread of antisemitism in the Middle East did have something to do with the Zionist movement and the building of the Jewish state. There was, however, more than one way to respond to these developments. There were, for example, Egyptians who welcomed the “victory of the Zionist idea [as] the turning point for … the revival of the Orient”. Others, such as the ruler of Transjordan, Emir Abdullah, sought sometimes more, sometimes less cooperation with the Zionists. A third group may have opposed Zionism, but not Judaism, while initially it was only the supporters of the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin El-Husseini, who adopted the antisemitic approach. 

The Nazis exclusively backed this last group. They saw the clashes in Palestine as an opportunity to promote their form of Jew-hatred and to impose an antisemitic interpretation on the local conflict.

Only in recent years has the significance of the Nazis’ Arabic-language propaganda in the Arab world been brought to light, notably through the pioneering work of Jeffrey Herf. In 2009 he introduced us to the content of the manuscripts of the Nazis’ Arabic-language broadcasts in his book Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World. Five years later, David Motadel published further important findings in his study Islam And Nazi Germany’s War.

Building on these studies, the current book presents a series of new facts that have the potential to change our view of the past and present of the Middle East conflict.

1937: Islam and Judaism

Firstly, I set out what is currently known about the origin and dissemination of the pamphlet Islam and Judaism, which was first published in 1937 in Cairo in order to derail plans for a two-state solution for Palestine. It is a shocking text that uses religion for the sole purpose of inciting Jew-hatred.

Islam and Judaism is significant because it is, as far as we know, the very first document to construct a continuity between Muhammad’s confrontation with the Jews in Medina and the contemporary conflict in Palestine, thus linking the seventh to the twentieth century. It is the first written evidence for what I call Islamic antisemitism and the forerunner of Sayyid Qutb’s 1950 pamphlet Our struggle with the Jews.

Islam and Judaism concludes with the following words:

[T]he verses from the Qur’an and hadith prove to you that the Jews have been the bitterest enemies of Islam and continue to try to destroy it. Do not believe them, they only know hypocrisy and cunning. Hold together, fight for the Islamic thought, fight for your religion and your existence! Do not rest until your land is free of the Jews. 

“Free of the Jews” – “Judenfrei” – is a typical Nazi expression which we do not find in early Islamic writing.

The first Arabic version of Islam and Judaism was published in August 1937 in Cairo by the Director of the Palestinian-Arab Bureau of Information in Egypt, who is believed to have had many contacts with Nazi agents. 

In 1938 a German version of Islam and Judaism was published in Berlin under the title: “Islam – Judaism. Call of the Grand Mufti to the Islamic world in 1937”. 

Finally, during the Second World War, this brochure was printed and distributed in large numbers by German forces and translated into several languages. A translation of this document appears as an appendix to my book.

The very date of the pamphlet’s publication and dissemination – 11 years before the foundation of Israel and 30 years before Israel’s assumption of control in Gaza and the West Bank – is important. It contradicts the widespread assumption that Islamic antisemitism developed as a response to alleged Israeli misdeeds.

It was not the behaviour of the Zionists that prompted the publication of this hostile text but rather the very first attempt to implement a two-state solution for Palestine. This fact suggests that Jew-hatred was a cause, not a consequence of the crises in the Middle East conflict.

1938/39: Goebbels and the Muslim Brotherhood

Secondly, I present new archival discoveries relating to the collaboration between German Nazi agents and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Documents from the British National Archive reveal that this collaboration was known about at the highest levels in Germany and that, according to one note, “GOEB. [Goebbels] has spoken about it with much praise.” 

Nazi agents not only transferred money to the Muslim Brotherhood, but also attended conferences of this organization, held common “Palestine meetings” with it and gave lectures to its members on “the Jewish question”. 

After 1945, this Nazi operation paid off when that very same Muslim Brotherhood, now grown into an influential mass movement, pushed the Arab rulers into war against Israel.

1939-1945: Arabic-language radio propaganda

Thirdly, I analyze the six years of antisemitic radio propaganda in Arabic that the Nazis broadcast from the small town of Zeesen near Berlin which – unlike the written text – could reach the Arab masses. Back then, listening to the radio was a public affair: The men listened to it at the bazaar, in marketplaces and in coffee houses. The content of the programs would become the dominant topic of conversation, multiplying their impact.

This is what the British secret service reported on the impact of Radio Zeesen: 

In general it may be said that the middle, lower middle and lower classes listen to the Arabic broadcasts from Berlin with a good deal of enjoyment. They like the racy, ‘juicy’ stuff which is put over. … What the average Palestine Arab does imbibe, however, is the anti-Jew material. This he wants to hear and to believe; and he does both. To that extent German propaganda is definitely effective.

The “anti-Jew material” was effective because the Nazis could build on the patterns of early Islamic anti-Judaism and instrumentalize the local conflict with the Zionists. In addition, the BBC and the other Allied broadcasters gave in to the Nazis by failing directly to challenge their anti-Jewish incitement. None of them wanted to be seen as defenders or even “accomplices” of the Jews – thus confirming aspects of the Nazi propaganda.

My book shows that in retrospect, those six years of daily radio propaganda marked a turning point dividing Middle Eastern history into a before and an after. These years worsened the image of the Jews in the Arab world. They fostered an exclusively anti-Jewish reading of the Qur’an. They popularized the European world-conspiracy myths. They shaped a genocidal rhetoric towards Zionism. A consequence of this propaganda was that by 1948 large swathes of the Arab public viewed a Jewish state as a mortal threat that had to be violently destroyed.

1944: weapons “for the battles to follow”

Fourthly, I describe certain measures taken by the Nazis in 1944/45 to prepare for the forthcoming war against Israel. With their own defeat looming, they wished to preserve their antisemitic legacy by taking steps to prevent the future establishment of a Jewish state. 

Thus, in his memoirs, Amin el-Husseini, the former Mufti of Jerusalem, relates that in October 1944 the Wehrmacht provided aircraft to store ammunition and weapons in Palestine as “preparations for the days after the end of World War II” and “for their preparation for the battles to follow”. 

On 6 October 1944 five Nazi parachutists did indeed fly out from Athens to land in the Jordan valley with the task of hiding crates of weapons that they had previously dropped from the plane. Ten days later they were captured by the British. While this may have been an isolated and ineffective action, it nonetheless provides a direct link between the Nazis’ world war and the “battles to follow” in Palestine.

1947/1948: Arab hesitation, Islamist mobilization

Fifth, my book shows that Arab attitudes toward Zionism were less monolithic than has often been assumed. Thus, already in 1937, there were many Arabs who supported the two-state solution for Palestine. Admittedly, in 1947 the Arab League unanimously opposed the two-state solution for Palestine advocated by the United Nations in November 1947. 

Even so, how to react to this decision was disputed until the last minute: on several occasions the Arab League ruled out the possibility of an attack by regular Arab forces on the Jewish state. Egypt, for example, questioned this war, which began on May 15, 1948, only a few days before it began: “We shall never even contemplate entering an official war”, declared General Muhammad Haidar, Egypt’s Defence Minister, at the beginning of May 1948. “We are not mad”.

Why did an “official war” against Israel nevertheless take place? My book provides evidence that it was primarily pressure from the “Arab street” and the antisemitic campaigns of the Muslim Brotherhood that led the Arab rulers to overcome all their doubts and attack Israel. 

In 1948 the Muslim Brotherhood was the largest antisemitic movement in the world, with one million members. It was determined to continue the war to prevent a Jewish state started by Hitler and the Mufti. Its campaign could draw on the lingering echoes of the antisemitic Nazi propaganda in which preventing the emergence of a Jewish state and wiping out the Jews living in Palestine had been constant themes.

This war was not inevitable. It took place despite many countervailing considerations because the Nazis’ antisemitic Arabic-language propaganda had shaped the postwar political climate. In this feverish atmosphere, no Arab leader felt able to successfully resist the Brotherhood’s warmongering. 

There are, therefore, good grounds for interpreting the Arab war against Israel as a kind of aftershock of the previous Nazi war against the Jews. Amin el-Husseini embodied the continuity of the two events. His religiously packaged antisemitism, which had cost thousands of Jews their lives in 1944, was four years later directed against Israel.

Why the ignorance?

So why then is the role of Nazi propaganda and Nazi policies largely ignored in debates on the roots of antisemitism in the Middle East? A plausible hypothesis is that this pattern of omission reflects a desire to protect a proposition that is accepted as dogma in many academic circles: the idea that Israel, i.e. Jews, bears sole responsibility not only for the war in 1948, but also the antisemitism in the region. Claims such as “The spread of antisemitism in the Arab-Islamic world is the consequence of the Palestine conflict” are widespread.

From this paradigm, numerous Middle East experts derive mitigating circumstances for Arab antisemitism. “Is the fantasy-based hatred of the Jews that was and still is typical of European racists … the equivalent of the hatred felt by Arabs enraged by the occupation and/or destruction of Arab lands?”, is the rhetorical question of the British-Lebanese anti-Zionist Gilbert Achcar. “Arab antisemitism, in contrast to European anti-Semitism, is at least based on a real problem, namely the marginalization of the Palestinians,” insists German Islam researcher Jochen Müller.

This paradigm, which distinguishes between a Nazi-like European antisemitism and an “at least” understandable hatred of Jews in the Middle East, hides the Nazi influence on the image of Jews held by many Muslims in the Middle East. And it has political consequences: The basic assumption that antisemitism in the Arab-Islamic world is merely a response to Israel and can therefore be downplayed as a kind of local custom is one of the foundations of German and European Middle East policy and may be one of the reasons why the latter refuses to decisively combat the Jew-hatred of, for example, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime.

It is, however, necessary to understand how strongly modern Middle East history is shaped by the aftermath of National Socialism. Only then will we be able to properly understand and adequately counter the antisemitism in this region and its echo among Muslims in Europe and address the political realities of the Middle East realistically and effectively.

Please find the original Fathom publication here

Image: The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, greeting Bosnian Muslim Waffen-SS volunteers with a Nazi salute. November 1943. Source: Wikimedia Commons · Author: Mielke · License: CC BY-SA 3.0 DE · Image is cropped and color graded.

The Anti-Israel Panel at the International Sociological Association 

06.07.22

Editorial note

IAM reported in January that Prof. Sari Hanafi, the President of the International Sociological Association (ISA), published a letter to members discussing “the intensification of the settler colonial Israeli project in the Occupied Palestinian territories.” 

IAM noted that Hanafi is a Syrian Palestinian who moved to France to pursue an academic career and returned to Lebanon as a Professor of Sociology at the American University of Beirut. He was elected as President of the ISA in 2018. The office of ISA is based in the Faculty of Political Sciences and Sociology at the University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.

At the time, Hanafi discussed the planned ISA’s 20th conference in June 2023 in Australia. Hanafi explained that the conference would feature two presidential panels with “particular interest in connecting sociology to moral and political philosophy.” 

Indeed, last week, the ISA held its conference (June 25 to July 1, 2023) at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center.

One of the sessions was titled “Whither the Arab-Israel Conflict?” and took place on Thursday, June 29, 2023, from 12:30 – 13:50. This session was described as, “Some read the Arab-Israeli conflict as a continuous settler-colonial project since 1948 that has ended up establishing an apartheid system against the Palestinians, while others read it as conflicting nationalism between Arabs and Israeli Jews.” Still, “a creeping space-cede process in the Occupied Palestinian territories is obvious at all levels… Many among Israeli and Palestinian scholars argue that the two-state solution has collapsed with the failure of the Oslo process and that one should aim for one secular state for all its citizens.” 

The invitation stated clearly “one should aim for one secular state for all its citizens.”

The session organizer was Prof. Rhoda Reddock from the University of the West Indies, who also chaired the session.  

The first speaker was Areej Sabbagh-Khoury, from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, titled “Decolonizing Epistemology: A Sociology of Persisting Crisis in Palestine/Israel.”

The second speaker was Prof. Ian S. Lustick, University of Pennsylvania, USA, titled “The Future of Israel-Palestine: Solutionism and the One-State Reality.”

The third speaker was Prof. Lev Grinberg, Ben Gurion University, Israel, “From Military Occupation to upgraded Apartheid, a path dependent eventful sociology of the Dynamic Zionist Colonizing Project.” 

Prof. Mohammed Bamyeh of the University of Pittsburgh, United States, spoke of “Death to Realism! Toward a Social Psychology of Palestinian Resistance.” 

Clearly, the panel was one-sided and biased against Israel, with the Israeli panelists recruited to serve the Palestinian narrative. Not a single academic presented the complex reality in the Middle East. In different ways, they all advocated “for one secular state for all its citizens.”

The panel was typical of the highly politized academic discourse on the Middle East in general and the Palestinian-Israeli discourse in particular. First, there was the ritualized bashing of Israel, accused of a panoply of sins such as colonialism, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing, to mention a few. The charges are never contextualized; as IAM had repeatedly argued, there is hardly a mention of the poor decisions made by the Palestinians, such as the rejection of the 1947 U.N. Partition Proposal or the rejection of the Peace Agreement during the Camp David II meeting in 2001. Second, the solution to the conflict, a secular one-state for the Jews and the Palestinians – is a typical “pie-in-sky” solution. At the very least, they should have considered the religious ideology of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad that would never settle for a secular state with or without Jews. Considering that the ultra-orthodox Jews are growing exponentially, this would be a hard sale in Israel as well. 

Sadly, this is one more case in which liberal arts scholars use academic platforms to sell solutions that are removed from political reality. 

References:

https://isaconf.confex.com/isaconf/wc2023/meetingapp.cgi/Session/18615

13 – Whither the Arab-Israel Conflict?

ORAL SESSION

Description

Some read the Arab-Israeli conflict as a continuous settler-colonial project since 1948 that has ended up establishing an apartheid system against the Palestinians, while others read it as conflicting nationalism between Arabs and Israeli Jews. No matter how this conflict is read, a creeping space-cede process in the Occupied Palestinian territories is obvious at all levels and the Peace Process (known as the Oslo process) did not stop it. Many among Israeli and Palestinian scholars argue that the two-state solution has collapsed with the failure of the Oslo process and that one should aim for one secular state for all its citizens. Panelists are invited to reflect on this topic.

Presentations
View Related

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

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

Clear FiltersSort by: Last NameTitleFinalNumberRelevanceSchedule: EarliestSchedule: Latest

Clear FiltersSort by: Last NameTitleFinalNumberRelevanceSchedule: EarliestSchedule: Latest

The Head of the Antisemitism Research Institute Tolerates Antisemitism

29.06.23

Editorial Note

Earlier this month, the bookThe Pure Essence of Things”? Contingency, Controversy, and the Struggle to Define Antisemitism and Islamophobia was published by Prof. David Feldman, director of the Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck College, University of London, and Dr. Marc Volovici, lecturer at the Department of Jewish History, University of Haifa, and both co-edited the book. 

The book discusses definitions of antisemitism and Islamophobia, “two relatively recent terms conveying a lengthy history of animosity and violence.” According to the editors, both have been subjected to “controversy” over their meanings and, as a result, “function in political and legal efforts to combat the spread of bigoted prejudice in society.”  

The editors believe that the dynamic nature of the two definitions “stems not only from changing views of the phenomena, but also from the fact that definitions perform a rhetorical function, serving at times to discredit political opponents.” Therefore, the authors “propose three, interrelated, historical trajectories to understand the politics of definition: the long view, which situates the question of definition within a history of political engagements which have aimed to define Jews, Muslims, and the prejudice against them; the short view, focusing on how key events of the twentieth century affected the nature and political role of definitions of racist prejudice in different contexts; and a critical examination of present-day political efforts to advance definition as a purported key to suppress antisemitism and Islamophobia.” 

The editors conclude that capturing the “’essence’ of antisemitism and Islamophobia without reckoning with the concepts’ historical and political load neither promotes understanding of the phenomena nor does it effectively help to combat them.” 

The volume represents the newest round of advocacy writing popular among activist academics such as Feldman. This time around, the fight is against the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of antisemitism. 

 Actually, Feldman is not new to this field. In 2016, in an article in the Guardian, Feldman argued that the term antisemitism was first popularized in Germany, in the late 1870s. “It carries memories of discrimination, violence and genocide.” Yet, Feldman stresses, “now the term also operates in a context created both by the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the consequence of its military victory in 1967. Israeli Palestinians possess citizenship rights within the country’s internationally recognized boundaries. Nevertheless, Israel’s relations with the Palestinians have also been characterized by discrimination and occupation, annexation and expropriation.”  

Feldman is plainly worried about the IHRA Definition: “there is a danger that the overall effect will place the onus on Israel’s critics to demonstrate they are not antisemitic.” 

Feldman moves on to discuss politics and argues that because Amb David Friedman, President Trump’s ambassador to Israel, denounced the “two-state” solution, “The prospect of continued Israeli dominion over disenfranchised Palestinians, supported by a US president whose noisome electoral campaign was sustained by nods and winks to anti-Jewish prejudice, is changing the dynamic of Jewish politics in Israel and across the world. In this new context, the greatest flaw of the IHRA definition is its failure to make any ethical and political connections between the struggle against antisemitism and other sorts of prejudice. On behalf of Jews it dares to spurn solidarity with other groups who are the targets of bigotry and hatred. In the face of resurgent intolerance in the UK, in Europe, the United States and in Israel, this is a luxury none of us can afford.”

For Feldman, antisemitism and Islamophobia are similar, like two branches of the same tree. 

In 2020, Feldman published another article in the Guardian against the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism. “We all know how the path to hell is paved,” he wrote, because in Britain, “the secretary of state for education intends to rid universities in England of antisemitism, but his intervention not only threatens to provoke strife and confusion – it also places academic freedom and free speech on campus at risk.”

Feldman argued that this was “misguided” because “structural racism in universities is profound, and racial harassment on campus is widespread. These are problems that universities must address. The imposed adoption of the IHRA working definition will not meet this challenge.” 

For Feldman, the IHRA Definition “privilege one group over others by giving them additional protections, and in doing so will divide minorities against each other.” 

For Feldman, “universities already have some tools to deal with antisemitism. Universities operate under the Equality Act; they also have internal policies and procedures designed to address discrimination, harassment and victimisation… instead of demanding that universities review and improve their toolkit to address racism in all its dimensions, the secretary of state insists they use a niche widget for antisemitism alone.” 

Feldman’s real concern about the IHRA Definition is revealed at the end of the article, “According to the working definition, one example of behavior that ‘could’ be antisemitic is ‘applying double standards’ to Israel… This is consequential for universities because a portion of students and staff support the boycott movement.” In other words, the extensive BDS movement in British universities would be hampered by IHRA.    

At the time of that writing, Feldman did not know that the British Government is now working on passing legislation against all forms of BDS. 

If Feldman’s strident pro-BDS advocacy is bad enough, the arguments in the co-edited book are worse because they misrepresent the history of antisemitism and Islamophobia. These terms are not “relatively recent,” as the book asserts. The formulation serves Feldman’s goal of producing an epistemic equivalent in the same way that the Nakba and the Holocaust are posited. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the ages, antisemitism was responsible for countless attacks on Jews, their legal and civic marginalization, and, of course, the murder of six million in the Holocaust. The term Islamophobia first appeared following the 9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda and the brutal terrorism of ISIS. Unlike antisemitism, Muslims in the West did not suffer legal and civic disabilities, nor were they murdered en masse. The anti-terror policies enacted aimed to protect the population from terror attacks, not to punish individual Muslims. Ironically, the number of attacks on Jews in the United States far exceeds the number of attacks on Muslims. 

In 2021, the Pears Foundation, which sponsored the Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck, withdrew its name from the Institute because of Feldman’s writings.  

References:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-16266-4_1

“The Pure Essence of Things”? Contingency, Controversy, and the Struggle to Define Antisemitism and Islamophobia

Part of the Palgrave Critical Studies of Antisemitism and Racism book series (PCSAR)

Abstract

This chapter examines the value and limits of definitions in addressing antisemitism and Islamophobia, two relatively recent terms conveying a lengthy history of animosity and violence. Both terms have been subject in recent decades to controversy over their meaning and function in political and legal efforts to combat the spread of bigoted prejudice in society. We trace the various, constantly shifting, meanings of the two terms and point to the contingent political contexts that propelled these shifts over time. The dynamic nature of definitions, we argue, stems not only from changing views of the phenomena, but also from the fact that definitions perform a rhetorical function, serving at times to discredit political opponents. Drawing on the chapters collected in this volume, we propose three, interrelated, historical trajectories to understand the politics of definition: the long view, which situates the question of definition within a history of political engagements which have aimed to define Jews, Muslims, and the prejudice against them; the short view, focusing on how key events of the twentieth century affected the nature and political role of definitions of racist prejudice in different contexts; and a critical examination of present-day political efforts to advance definition as a purported key to suppress antisemitism and Islamophobia. We argue that the wish to capture the “essence” of antisemitism and Islamophobia without reckoning with the concepts’ historical and political load neither promotes understanding of the phenomena nor does it effectively help to combat them.

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

https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/pears-foundation-removes-name-from-antisemitism-institute/Pears Foundation removes name from antisemitism institute

Charitable trust confirmed the move in wake of an article by the Birkbeck institute’s director, Prof. David Feldman, which criticised the ‘confusing and divisive’ IHRA definition

By LEE HARPIN April 7, 2021, 3:34 pm

The Pears Foundation has withdrawn its name from the Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck.

A statement from the charitable trust confirmed that from May 4 the Institute will no longer bear the Foundation’s name – although it will continue to be one of its funders.

The decision follows the publication of article by the director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck, Professor David Feldman in the Guardian which openly criticised what was described as the “confusing and divisive” IHRA definition of antisemitism.

While the Foundation’ statement did not directly refer to December’s article or name the Professor, it did reference “challenging and divisive issues.”

Amongst those to criticise Professor Feldman over the issue was Dave Rich, the Community Security Trust’s director of policy.

Mr Rich attacked the academic’s criticism of IHRA saying it was “the nuances in the definition’s language that make it so useful.”

In a further debate at the Limmud conference at the end of December Lord Mann, the government’s independent adviser on antisemitism, launched an outspoken attack on Professor Feldman.

He said Professor Feldman had repeatedly said that IHRA “chills free speech”, which was “a myth”.

In 2010 Birkbeck, University of London and Pears Foundation had together established the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism.

It was the first academic institute of its kind in the UK.

But a March 23 statement from the Foundation confirmed: “As the Institute increasingly tackles challenging and divisive issues in the public sphere, the Foundation’s Trustees have decided that continuing to be so closely associated with the Institute is no longer in the Foundation’s best interests.

“The Trustees of Pears Foundation and Birkbeck have, therefore, agreed that going forward the Pears name will no longer be directly associated with the Institute. The Foundation will continue to support its work as one of several funders.”

The Goldsmiths academic and campaigner against antisemitism David Hirsh told the Jewish News: “The institute hosts an infinite debate between those who study antisemitism and those who confer academic legitimacy onto antisemitism.

“People who libel the IHRA definition as a dirty trick to silence criticism of Israel cite the institute’s director as an authority. He supports a wrecking declaration which explicitly legitimises what are in the real world the key elements of contemporary antisemitism, calling them ‘not in and of themselves’ antisemitic.

“If Pears wanted to support the scholarly study of antisemitism, they’ve been wasting their money.”

But Yair Wallach, lecturer in Israel studies at SOAS, accused the Foundation of a “sharp departure” from the principle of not intervening in academic decisions.

Mr Wallach added it was “all but obvious that the Foundation was displeased by a specific intervention of the Institute’s director, Prof David Feldman – his recent Guardian op-ed.”

The Jewish News has contacted the Pears Foundation for comment.

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

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/02/the-government-should-not-impose-a-faulty-definition-of-antisemitism-on-universities

The government should not impose a faulty definition of antisemitism on universities

This article is more than 2 years old

David Feldman

The IHRA ‘working definition’ is confusing and divisive. Forcing its adoption will not help protect Jewish students and staff

 David Feldman is director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck, University of London

Wed 2 Dec 2020 06.00 GMT

We all know how the path to hell is paved. But it is a warning worth repeating for Gavin Williamson. The secretary of state for education intends to rid universities in England of antisemitism, but his intervention not only threatens to provoke strife and confusion – it also places academic freedom and free speech on campus at risk.

In October, Williamson wrote to all university vice-chancellors “requesting” they adopt a particular definition of antisemitism: the “working definition” promulgated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. Williamson is not the first minister to write to universities on this matter, but he has been more forceful than his predecessors. His letter demands action by Christmas, and threatens swingeing measures against refusenik institutions that later suffer antisemitic incidents. He threatens to remove funding and the power to award degrees from universities that do not share his faith in the efficacy of the IHRA working definition.

This is misguided, for a number of reasons. First, it misconceives the task universities face. As shown in a report released last week by Universities UK – Tackling Racial Harassment in Higher Education – structural racism in universities is profound, and racial harassment on campus is widespread. These are problems that universities must address. The imposed adoption of the IHRA working definition will not meet this challenge. It will, however, privilege one group over others by giving them additional protections, and in doing so will divide minorities against each other. For this reason alone, Williamson should pause and consider how best to protect students and university staff from racism broadly as well as from antisemitism.

Williamson’s strategically ill-considered letter to vice-chancellors is based on two mistaken assumptions about the fight against antisemitism. First, it asserts the IHRA working definition provides a “straightforward” way for universities to show that they do not tolerate antisemitism. Second, it claims that universities that fail to adopt the definition reveal they are willing to tolerate antisemitism. Neither of these claims is true. The IHRA working definition is anything but straightforward, and universities already have some tools to deal with antisemitism.

Universities operate under the Equality Act; they also have internal policies and procedures designed to address discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The damning verdict of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s recent report on the Labour party provided a clear demonstration that the universalist principles gathered in the Equality Act can be used to hold powerful institutions to account. But instead of demanding that universities review and improve their toolkit to address racism in all its dimensions, the secretary of state insists they use a niche widget for antisemitism alone: one that even its friends concede is not a precision instrument.

It is a puzzling choice, but one that becomes comprehensible once we see that the IHRA working definition acquired symbolic importance in the struggle over antisemitism in the Labour party. Labour’s initial rejection of the definition has led many to regard the working definition as a symbol – a litmus test of whether or not an individual or an organisation really opposes antisemitism or just plays lip service to the goal. Symbols are important, but they are no substitute for carefully constructed measures to combat antisemitism and other racisms.

In fact, the IHRA working definition “was never intended to be a campus hate-speech code”, as one of its original authors has explained. It was drafted as a tool for data collectors, although it has rarely been used in this way. But it is one thing for monitoring agencies to adopt the working definition as a rule of thumb; imposing it on universities, which have a duty under law to uphold academic freedom and free speech within the law, is something altogether different.

The working definition chiefly consists of a woolly core statement – “antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred of Jews” – and a list of examples that “could, taking into account the overall context”, be instances of antisemitism. The examples cover a range of topics, but six of the 11 deal with discourse on Israel. And it is the emphasis on Israel that is the focus of criticism from the definition’s critics and enthusiasm from its advocates.

The pros and cons of the working definition have been debated on many occasions. For some it provides helpful guidelines; for others it inhibits legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies and practices. But in the light of the secretary of state’s letter, the key point is that it is impossible to know which of these interpretations is correct. And in this context, uncertainty brings danger.

According to the working definition, one example of behaviour that “could” be antisemitic is “applying double standards” to Israel. Some prominent advocacy organisations and political figures accuse those who support a boycott against Israel of doing just this. This is consequential for universities because a portion of students and staff support the boycott movement. So, taking this as a case in point, are boycotts of Israel inherently antisemitic, according to the IHRA working definition?

Unfortunately, the working definition itself doesn’t provide us with a definite answer – and if we turn to the leading public bodies for guidance we find confusing and contradictory advice. The Antisemitism Policy Trust is one such organisation. Esteemed internationally and in the UK, among other functions it provides a special adviser to John Mann, the government’s antisemitism tsar. Earlier this year the trust issued a policy briefing in which it declared, “boycotts are not covered by IHRA”. Some will have been reassured by this, others alarmed.

But in its guide to the IHRA working definition, also published in 2020, the trust leans heavily in the opposite direction. Here, in cloudy prose, it suggests that either boycotts against Israel are antisemitic unless they also condemn all other states that commit similar misdeeds, or that boycott movements are under an obligation to “prove” they are not antisemitic – or both.

If the Antisemitism Policy Trust is in a muddle over the IHRA working definition, how can anyone else be certain what it means? Universities, like everyone else, are sorely in need of good and clear guidance on when speech on Israel or Zionism becomes antisemitic. Sadly, this is not what the working definition provides. In these circumstances, its imposition by the secretary of state appears reckless and brings real dangers.

The working definition’s indeterminacy will provide a standing invitation to individuals and organisations to bring allegations of antisemitism against students and lecturers. Not least because some individuals and advocacy groups genuinely and passionately believe that the movement to boycott Israel is inherently antisemitic.

In the absence of further aggravating factors, the individuals who are the subject of these complaints may not run afoul of university policies and procedures. But the chilling impact on students, on academic and professional staff and on institutions dedicated to debate and robust discussion, will be corrosive and long lasting.

Antisemitism does arise in Britain’s universities. On occasion driven by ideology, this largely reflects a reservoir of images and narratives accumulated over centuries and deeply embedded in our culture. Antisemitism on campus comprises one part of a mosaic of harms and harassment suffered by racial and religious minorities. Jewish students and staff deserve protection, but imposing the working definition will add nothing useful to secure it. The secretary of state’s intervention divides Jews from other minorities. In doing so, he helps neither but instead risks splitting the struggle against antisemitism from the liberal values that have provided its most secure home. Let us hope he will think again.

 David Feldman is director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck, University of London

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

https://www.jmberlin.de/en/talk-relationship-between-antisemitism-and-islamophobiaWHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ANTISEMITISM AND ISLAMOPHOBIA?

Lectures by David Feldman and Stefanie Schüler-Springorum (video recording available, in German and English)

For several years now, scientists have been discussing the hypothesis of whether the roles of Antisemitism during the formation of nation states in the 19th century and racism against Muslims during the process of European integration can be compared.

The British historian David Feldman searches in his lecture for parallels past and present between Antisemitism and anti-Muslim racism. Against the backdrop of the current shift to the right in Europe, does it make sense to politically address these two phenomena together? Which opportunities for future Jewish-Muslim alliances does this give rise to? Stefanie Schüler-Springorum from the Center for Research on Antisemitism will comment on the lecture from a German perspective.

Moderation: Yasemin Shooman, Head of the Academy Programs.

recording available

Where

W. M. Blumenthal Academy,
Klaus Mangold Auditorium
Fromet-und-Moses-Mendelssohn-Platz 1, 10969 Berlin (Opposite the Museum)

Where, when, what?

Video recording of the lectures What is the Relationship Between Antisemitism and Islamophobia?; 20 March 2018, in German and Englisch; Jewish Museum Berlin 2018

David Feldman

Prof. David Feldman teaches at the University of London Birkbeck College and is director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism. He researches the history of minorities from 1600 to the present day.

Google translate

May 24, 2018
Lecture by David Feldman and Stefanie Schüler-Springorum (in German and English) on March 20, 2018

For several years, academics have been discussing whether the role of anti-Semitism in the formation of nation states in the 19th century can be compared with the role played by racism towards Muslims in the course of European integration.

In his lecture, the British historian David Feldman asks about historical and current parallels between anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim racism. Against the background of the current shift to the right in Europe, does it make sense to address both phenomena together politically? What opportunities for future Jewish-Muslim alliances arise from this? Stefanie Schüler-Springorum from the Center for Research on Antisemitism comments on the lecture from a German perspective. Moderator: Yasemin Shooman, Head of Academy Programs.

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

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/28/britain-definition-antisemitism-british-jews-jewish-people

Will Britain’s new definition of antisemitism help Jewish people? I’m sceptical

This article is more than 6 years old

David Feldman

While some consensus is needed in this debate, I fear this definition is imprecise, and isolates antisemitism from other forms of bigotry

Wed 28 Dec 2016 11.26 GMT

385

Antisemitism is anathema. From Ken Livingstone to Ephraim Mirvis, the chief rabbi, no one has a good word to say for it. For some there has been a crisis in 2016, for others there has been a witch-hunt. Everyone is against antisemitism: we just can’t agree on how to recognise it.

This year there have been no less than three inquiries and reports on antisemitism: Janet Royall’s presented in May, Shami Chakrabarti’s at the end of June (I served as one of the vice-chairs to this inquiry, although the resulting report was Chakrabarti’s alone) and the home affairs committee report published in October. All dealt exclusively or significantly with the issue of antisemitism in the Labour party.

Now, at year’s end, the prime minister has announced that the government has adopted the definition of antisemitism recommended by an inter-governmental body, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Theresa May heralded a single standard with which we can identify and call out antisemitism. The Labour party quickly fell into line and British Jewish leaders welcomed the initiative. Does this promise a new year in which the politics of antisemitism will be less divisive? Or are the issues bound up in antisemitism too complex to be solved by fiat?

The text carries dangers. It trails a list of eleven examples. Some of the points are sensible, some are not

Much of the rancorous debate around antisemitism this year has circulated around three disputed terms: antisemitism, Zionism and anti-racism.

The term antisemitism was first popularised in Germany in the late 1870s. It is closely bound up with the experiences of Jews as a minority group. It carries memories and knowledge of discrimination, violence and genocide. Yet now the term also operates in a context created both by the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the consequence of its military victory in 1967. Israeli Palestinians possess citizenship rights within the country’s internationally recognised boundaries. Nevertheless, Israel’s relations with the Palestinians have also been characterised by discrimination and occupation, annexation and expropriation. Those who make Israel the target of criticism for these actions are now denounced as antisemitic by Israel’s leaders and by their supporters around the world.

In this way antisemitism is a term that does service both as a defence of minority rights, and in the context of support for a discriminatory and illiberal state power. Little wonder the word provokes so much disagreement.

At times the debate over antisemitism has been a surrogate for another quarrel: whether the Labour party should be a comfortable place for Zionists. In parts of the left the terms “Zionism” and “Zio” have become part of the lexicon of invective. Zionism and anti-Zionism encompass a range of positions, but in debate they get defined by opponents according to their maximalist connotations: religious and ethnic privilege, occupation and settlement are ascribed to one side, refusal to assent to the legitimacy of the state of Israel by the other. The facts provide a different picture. Many people who think of themselves as Zionists are at the forefront of protest against Israel’s policies. Many who conceive of themselves as anti-Zionists accept the state’s right to exist while they oppose its objectionable laws and policies.

Anti-racism too has generated conflict, not least in the Labour party. Chakrabarti provided a cautious assessment of the extent of antisemitism within Labour. But it is not only the proven incidence of antisemitism that should concern us but also the well of support that exists for people who reveal prejudice or callous insensitivity towards Jews. The last year has been punctuated by a handful of headline-grabbing incidents of this sort.

These incidents provoke debate over individuals. However, the problem also lies in political culture. The commonplace idea that racism expresses relations of power too often leads to the belief that it expresses only that. But racism can inform acts of resistance and solidarity as well as domination. If we fail to recognise this we will be poorly equipped to identify racism when it is directed against a group that is relatively affluent, coded as “white”, and most of whose members feel attached to the strongest power in the Middle East. It will increase the chances that we are blind to bigotry and myth when it is directed against British Jews.

So does the IHRA definition that Britain has adopted provide the answer? I am sceptical. Here is the definition’s key passage: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews.” This is bewilderingly imprecise.

The text also carries dangers. It trails a list of 11 examples. Seven deal with criticism of Israel. Some of the points are sensible, some are not. Crucially, there is a danger that the overall effect will place the onus on Israel’s critics to demonstrate they are not antisemitic. The home affairs committee advised that the definition required qualification “to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse on Israel and Palestine”. It was ignored.

The IHRA definition has been circulating for over a decade and has already been buried once. It is almost identical to the European Union monitoring commission’s working definition, formulated in 2005 as part of the global response to the second intifada in the early 2000s. The definition was never accorded any official status by the EUMC and was finally dropped by its successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency.

The definition has been resurrected just as we are moving to new times. David Friedman, who will soon become President Trump’s ambassador to Israel, has denounced the “two-state” solution. The prospect of continued Israeli dominion over disenfranchised Palestinians, supported by a US president whose noisome electoral campaign was sustained by nods and winks to anti-Jewish prejudice, is changing the dynamic of Jewish politics in Israel and across the world.

In this new context, the greatest flaw of the IHRA definition is its failure to make any ethical and political connections between the struggle against antisemitism and other sorts of prejudice. On behalf of Jews it dares to spurn solidarity with other groups who are the targets of bigotry and hatred. In the face of resurgent intolerance in the UK, in Europe, the United States and in Israel, this is a luxury none of us can afford.

Campus Battle Against Zionism by Pro-Palestinian Activists

 22.06.23

Editorial Note

After numerous accusations of antisemitism, some pro-Palestinian campus advocates became vocal in stressing that their critique was merely anti-Zionist. However, according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), the widely-accepted definition of antisemitism, there are clearly antisemitic elements in their activities. In addition to the usual charges of apartheid and colonialism, advocates took to describing those who disagreed with them as “Zionists.”  

In March, George Washington University’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (GW SJP) launched the annual Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) to “combat the university’s ongoing discrimination and suppression of the Palestinian community.” The IAW began with a teach-in, “Confronting Zionism,” that partnered with the Palestinian Youth Movement’s local chapter to help students “resist Zionism on campus.” SJP also set up an apartheid wall, calling for “land back.” Laila, an organizer from GW SJP, said the university “is an incredibly Zionist campus in multiple facets… GW is a very Zionist campus.” The administration is “particularly open about their support for Zionism.” GW also prevented SJP from receiving funds as a student organization. GW SJP believes such actions “make the university complicit in the larger system of Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism.”   

Other protest activities have the same flavor. On Dec 4, 2022, Counterculture Magazine at the University of Richmond (UR) published an article titled “Palestinian Activism on College Campuses.” It detailed how in late 2022, a protest at GWU, led by GW SJP and GW Jewish Voice for Peace, took place outside an event of GW for Israel and GW Hillel groups. The pro-Palestinian students protested a talk by Doron Tenne.” an IDF officer during the First Intifada. The protesters charged that “thousands of Palestinian people were killed during a series of mass protests against the Israeli occupation.”     

In other incidents, for example, in late 2022, the University of Maryland’s (UMD) SJP issued a statement regarding a speaker event for Israel Studies on campus. The speaker was Ambassador Michael Herzog, a former general in the IDF. The UMD SJP stated that the IDF “subjugate and ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their ancestral homelands.” 

In the academic year 2021-2022, students at the UR established their own chapter of SJP. Razan Khalil, one of the leaders of the effort, vigorously rejected any accusations of antisemitism, ”UR’s chapter has been critiqued constantly for antisemitism while in its mission statement, it simply calls for more awareness about the injustices that Palestinian people face in their homeland. Seeing as opposition to Palestinian activism is present on many campuses, it is clear that there is a distinct pattern of discrimination against Palestinian people as a whole in the administration of many higher education institutions. What is quite interesting is that while Palestinian activist organizations call out the actions of other organizations that may promote the ongoing systemic oppression of Palestinian people worldwide, they oftentimes experience more repercussions than the organizations promoting the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in their choices of events and speakers themselves.” 

The pro-Palestinian activists argued that GWU SJP’s protest “elicited a response from the President insinuating that the rhetoric of the protest was discriminatory and therefore needed to be condemned, yet no higher administrative official spoke up about the fact that organizations at the University were hosting speakers that directly contributed to the deaths of innocent Palestinian people. When actions like these add up on a college campus, they promote a subtle message about how little many higher education institutions care about the human rights of Palestinian people, and what lengths they will go to in order to ensure that Palestinian activism is met with vitriol.” 

Moreover, for pro-Palestinian activists on campus, the “conflation of antiZionism and anti-semitism… is most certainly present on college campuses. With that conflation comes the restriction of activists’ rights to speak up about the atrocities committed by the state of Israel. It simply does not make sense to acknowledge freedom of speech and then explicitly deny it to a group of people on the false claim of religious discrimination.” 

Pro-Palestinian activists claim that they are accused of antisemitism falsely. They pointed out the case of Nerdeen Kiswani, a Law student at CUNY who was described as the “Antisemite of the Year” by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). They noted “what happened to student Nerdeen Kiswani, who was labeled as antisemite of the year by stopantisemitism.org. Her college eventually had to step in and issue a statement advocating for the protection of the right to free speech.”     

However, the ADL published in February a report that described Kiswani as an anti-Israel activist and co-founder and leader of Within Our Lifetime-United for Palestine (WOL), a radical New York-based anti-Israel organization that routinely expresses support for violence against Israel. Kiswani’s antisemitism is clearly expressed via her expressions of extreme anti-Zionist rhetoric, including her calls for all ‘Zionists’ to be vilified and expelled from community spaces, as well as her support for indiscriminate violence against Israel aimed at the country’s dissolution.” Kiswani and her organization “explicitly call for the complete eradication of Israel, including for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map,’ and have called for Israeli Jews to leave the country” WOL and Kiswani expressed support for acts of terror perpetrated by terror groups such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). On several occasions, Kiswani and WOL have “promulgated classic antisemitic tropes, including those related to ‘Zionist’ control over media and politics.”

In February 2023: when five Hamas members were killed in an Israeli military operation in Jericho, WOL shared an image declaring them “freedom fighters,” stating that the organization was “in rage and mourning.” In November 2014: Following a PFLP shooting in a Jerusalem synagogue, Kiswani shared PFLP’s statement justifying the act of terror as a “natural response” to Israeli actions. in 2022: Kiswani shared a meme reading: “Little Miss telling everyone Israel is[sic] will be wiped off the map inshallah [God willing].” In 2022: Responding to a news story about free vacations to Israelis who live near the Gaza Strip, Kiswani commented that those Israelis should “leave and never come back.” In November 2022, in an appearance on the Iranian news channel Press TV, Kiswani said, “Resistance is the only way.”  

On numerous occasions, Kiswani and WOL have shared materials venerating PFLP and Leila Khaled, one of the hijackers of two civilian airliners, TWA Flight 840 in 1969 (from Rome to Tel Aviv) and El Al Flight 219 in 1970 (from Amsterdam to New York City). In September 2016, WOL shared an image of Leila Khaled carrying a rifle alongside a quote justifying violence. In 2017 WOL posted a Facebook post, “From occupied Palestine to Hollywood, israel’s dogs of war find lucrative positions upholding imperialism, sexual violence and misogyny.” In July 2015, Kiswani advertised an event on Facebook: “Please be here tomorrow if you can! It’s the same story of zionists using their political clout to get away from being held accountable for hate based crimes while ironically accusing others of what they have done.” Kiswani personally led chants of “Zionism out of CUNY.” Kiswani has expressed happiness that some places have become “toxic and unwelcome” for “Zionists.” She called Zionists “complete scum.” In March 2017, she wrote, “Im so happy feminism and feminist movements have created a toxic and unwelcome environment for Zionists.” In June 2022, WOL tweeted, “Zionism has no place in CUNY. Attempts to silence us only make us stronger! #ZionismOutOfCUNY.” WOL suggested chants, “Say it loud say it clear, we don’t want zionists here.” In July 2014, Kiswani wrote, “Any person who supports Israel in any way shape or form Any person who apologizes on behalf of Israel Any person who identifies as a Zionist in any way shape or form Is complete scum… Israel as a state needs to be dismantled. It needs to go.”

The above incidents represent the conflation of pro-Palestinian activists and antisemitic sentiments on campus per the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism. They negate the Jews’ right to self-determination and aspire to annihilate the Jewish state.

References:

https://www.wrmea.org/north-america/george-washington-university-students-battle-zionist-bullying-on-campus.html

George Washington University Students Battle Zionist Bullying on Campus

PRIYA ARAVINDHAN NORTH AMERICA POSTED ON JUNE 2, 2023

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June/July 2023, pp. 30-31

Special Report

By Priya Aravindhan

IN THE LAST WEEK of March, George Washington University’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (GW SJP) launched Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) to combat the university’s ongoing discrimination and suppression of the Palestinian community.

The week began on March 27 with a teach-in, “Confronting Zionism.” GW SJP partnered with the Palestinian Youth Movement’s local chapter to help students identify and resist Zionism on campus. In the following days, students held various events, such as a dabke workshop and “A Night in Palestine” cultural celebration.

Throughout the week, SJP set up and maintained an apartheid wall with resistance art and calls for “land back.” IAW culminated in a rally on the school’s Kogan Plaza on March 31, in which various students formed a united front against the university’s ongoing oppression of Palestinian and anti-Zionist students and faculty.

This year’s IAW came at a time when Palestinian identity is becoming increasingly targeted by GW’s administration. A month prior to IAW, GW professor Dr. Lara Sheehi was wrongfully accused of discriminating against Jewish students by StandWithUs, a right-wing pro-Israel activist group. The university cleared Sheehi of all charges. In a statement, the Office of the University President said those bringing the charges “advocated for an expansive view of the definition of anti-Semitism, which, if accepted in the university environment, could infringe on free speech principles and academic freedom.” 

Despite this favorable ruling, many feel GW remains a hostile place for Palestinians. Laila, an organizer from GW SJP, said the university “is an incredibly Zionist campus in multiple facets” and that the administration is “particularly open about their support for Zionism.” (The student, like others quoted in this article, wished to remain anonymous due to fears of being slandered by pro-Israel groups, such as Canary Mission, that regularly target those advocating for Palestine on campus.) 

Indeed, in 2021 the university removed counseling services for Palestinian students experiencing trauma as a result of Israeli violence due to complaints from a pro-Israel group. The school was later reprimanded by the District of Columbia’s Office for Human Rights for discriminating against Palestinian students. The academic institution has also prevented SJP from receiving funds as a student organization. 

GW SJP believes such actions make the university complicit in the larger system of Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism. “GW’s administration continually puts obstacles in front of the work we’ve been doing,” Laila said. 

Last year, SJP held a postering event to protest GW Hillel for inviting Doron Tenne, a former senior intelligence officer in the Israeli military, to speak on campus. In response to a poster pasted on GW Hillel’s bench, the university administration claimed vandalism and threatened SJP with censure and its president with disciplinary probation. The charges, however, were false, as neither the president nor the organization was responsible for the poster pasting, as the university ultimately conceded. 

Supporters of Palestine are disinclined to applaud the administration for dismissing accusations in this and other cases. “Our success doesn’t really have to do with the administration,” Laila said. “It is very much a response to the organizing of our community members and the solidarity of our partners.” They pointed to other GW organizations, regional SJP groups and national political groups as being particularly vocal in defending GW SJP from spurious attacks. 

“GW is a very Zionist campus,” George, another SJP organizer said, “but there is a lot of silent support for Palestine.” People are often cautious to publicly mobilize for the Palestinian cause “due to certain risks that come with things like your career being threatened or being doxxed online,” he added.

One important event from IAW was the panel “The Palestine Exception,” which discussed the academic suppression of Palestinian and pro-Palestinian voices. Dr. Sheehi, Palestine Legal attorney Dylan Saba and Palestinian GW professor William Youmans spoke on the work they have been doing around Palestine for decades. “It was amazing to see our place within the larger movement for Palestine by seeing how the student movement has evolved,” George stated.

IAW not only served as a time to build a stronger united front against oppression, but also as a safe space for people to speak out against Israeli apartheid and show unapologetic support for Palestine. “We want to show people that there is a place on campus to demonstrate support for Palestinian liberation,” one student said. “We’re here and we’re not going to back down no matter what.”

“Our goal was to engage with people who have never really engaged with Palestine and to consolidate the Palestinian community on campus and create a week for them to celebrate our culture and our resistance,” one organizer expressed. “IAW is a time when we can be extra visible on campus.” With the apartheid wall and numerous cultural and academic events, GW’s SJP successfully asserted their presence on campus and their ongoing resistance to the systems that work against them and all Palestinians.


Priya Aravindhan is a rising senior studying anthropology and international affairs, with an interest in the Middle East and South Asia, at The George Washington University. She interned for the Washington Report this spring.

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

Issue Two of Counterculture Magazine, the University of Richmond’s first publication to focus exclusively on social justice issues.

https://issuu.com/counterculturemagazineur/docs/counterculture_magazine_issue_two.pptx/s/17769539Palestinian Activism on College Campuses

from Counterculture Magazine Issue Two

On October 11, 2022 at George Washington University, a protest led by GW Students for Justice in Palestine and GW Jewish Voice for Peace organizations occurred outside of an ev ent being hosted by the GW for Israel and GW Hillel groups.

The event was called “A Conversation with Doron Tenne.” Doron Tenne held various positions within the Israeli Defense Force during a period known as the First Intifada, when over 2,000 Palestinian people were when thousands of Palestinian people were killed during a series of mass protests against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza).

In response to the protest, both GW for Israel and GW Hillel issued statements. GW Hillel’s statement read that the protests “[limited] the ability of our Jewish students to freely learn,” calling the behavior of the protesters “aggressive action.” GW Jewish Voice for Peace responded in their statement that the specific wording of GW Hillel’s statement “[asserted] that the protest targeted Jewish students and the Jewish community on campus at large” when in reality, it “perpetuates the conflation of antiZionism and anti-semitism.” The President of George Washington University also released a letter to all students following the protest, but did not specifically address the event itself or the fact that a former IDF official was being hosted.

George Washington University is only one of many universities where Palestinian activism groups have protested hosting speakers that were directly involved in the oppression of Palestinian people. On October 27, 2022, the University of Maryland’s Students for Justice in Palestine issued a statement regarding a speaker event being hosted by the Joseph and Alma Gildenhorn Institute for Israel Studies on campus. The speaker was Ambassador Michael Herzog, a former general in the Israeli Defense Forces. UMD Students for Justice in Palestine stated that the purpose of the Israeli Defense Forces was to “subjugate and ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their ancestral homelands,” which was their purpose for opposing the event.

As Palestinian activism continues to gain traction on college campuses, concerns about the safety of the students openly participating in the cause rise. On George Washington’s campus, members of GW Hillel leadership argued in their statement that the protest regarding the Doron Tenne event crossed a line threatening the safety of Jewish students. This argument is a symptom of a larger debate occurring on many college campuses: are openly anti-Zionist events and protests inherently antisemitic? Many members of Students for Justice in Palestine chapters respond that they are not; in fact, these members point out that mistaking anti-Zionism for antisemitism is the teal problem, as while some definitions of Zionism state that it is the belief in the development and protection of the Jewish state in Israel, antisemitism is the systemic oppression of Jewish individuals.

On some college campuses, such as the campus of the University of New York, students engaging in Palestinian activism have to think about their actions strategically to protect their academic and professional standing. Some students worry about being listed on the website of the Canary Mission, which lists pro-Palestine students and calls them out for supposedly being anti-semitic. Others worry about campaigns being set up to besmirch their name and prevent them from navigating their campus or job safely.

This was exactly what happened to student Nerdeen Kiswani, who was labeled as antisemite of the year by stopantisemitism.org. Her college eventually had to step in and issue a statement advocating for the protection of the right to free speech.

For some pro-Palestine activists, the threats go so far as to alert the FBI, leading to interrogations that are prompted by their names being on the blacklists of some pro-Israel organizations such as the Canary Mission. All evidence points to an undebatable truth: students advocating for the freedom of Palestine are not necessarily safe on their campuses. They often engage in activist efforts at the expense of their own security.

Students at the University of Richmond established their own chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine in the 2021-2022 academic year. Razan Khalil was at the forefront of this effort, and they mentioned several roadblocks that they experienced while trying to get the club approved. Many of these roadblocks reflected those that the Students for Justice in Palestine chapters at George Washington University and the University of Maryland faced. During the year, Razan had to meet with a committee three times and was “‘interrogated’ on whether Students for Justice in Palestine was exclusive toward Jewish students, whether [it] was antisemitic, and whether [it] would directly target Israeli students.”

Reportedly, one of the members of the committee said that they couldn’t believe the University was allowing such an “antisemitic organization” on campus after one of several meetings with Khalil.

One of the recent events hosted by UR’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter was a virtual discussion with Dr. Angela Davis, world-renowned scholar and author of Freedom is a Constant Struggle. In an effort to curate a list of questions that students had for Dr. Davis, a form was released online for submissions prior to the event. In this form, Khalil noted that some questions that were submitted seemed to target Students for Justice in Palestine, which was a complete antithesis of the purpose of the event itself. This was only one of many instances of questioning that Students for Justice in Palestine has experienced on campus since its founding, as noted before. Just as on other campuses, UR’s chapter has been critiqued constantly for antisemitism while in its mission statement, it simply calls for more awareness about the injustices that Palestinian people face in their homeland.

Seeing as opposition to Palestinian activism is present on many campuses, it is clear that there is a distinct pattern of discrimination against Palestinian people as a whole in the administration of many higher education institutions.

What is quite interesting is that while Palestinian activist organizations call out the actions of other organizations that may promote the ongoing systemic oppression of Palestinian people worldwide, they oftentimes experience more repercussions than the organizations promoting the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in their choices of events and speakers themselves.

As seen at George Washington University, Students for Justice in Palestine’s protest elicited a response from the President insinuating that the rhetoric of the protest was discriminatory and therefore needed to be condemned, yet no higher administrative official spoke up about the fact that organizations at the University were hosting speakers that directly contributed to the deaths of innocent Palestinian people. When actions like these add up on a college campus, they promote a subtle message about how little many higher education institutions care about the human rights of Palestinian people, and what lengths they will go to in order to ensure that Palestinian activism is met with vitriol.

Another point is to be made about the freedom of speech argument that some organizations will utilize to target pro-Palestine students.

Many of these organizations insist that while students are entitled to freedom of speech, openly criticizing the Israeli government and military for the death of so many Palestinian people is directly correlated with the targeting of all Jewish students on campus. This line of thinking suggests that the conflation of antiZionism and anti-semitism that GW Jewish Voice for Peace addressed in their statement is most certainly present on college campuses.

With that conflation comes the restriction of activists’ rights to speak up about the atrocities committed by the state of Israel. It simply does not make sense to acknowledge freedom of speech and then explicitly deny it to a group of people on the false claim of religious discrimination.

That being said, members of UR’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter still express hope about the future of their cause. Khalil noted that “with every chapter they have seen, the resistance is met with the support of many,” meaning that an organized collective of students and community members is always ready to defend the organization when accusations of antisemitism begin. However, it is important to note that there are still concerns about the safety of pro-Palestine activists on college campuses such as UR’s, given that GW’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter is now facing disciplinary charges because of their protest against the Doron Tenne event.

George Washington University charged the organization with misconduct, and a Palestine Legal attorney representing Students for Justice in Palestine rightfully responded to the charge with a poignant statement: “SJP followed all the rules around postering and directed their members and allies to do the same. But GW is selectively targeting this group for punishment, when there is zero evidence of any wrongdoing. This looks like racist, anti-Palestinian profiling and the law does not support it.”

When legality enters the conversation, it becomes obvious that the rights of pro-Palestine activists on college campus are actively being challenged at every level. It just goes to show that Palestinian activism on UR’s campus is likely to continue facing criticism and opposition at every turn, meaning that awareness about the cause must be circulated constantly in order to protect those openly engaging with it.

***

Editor’s Note: This article has undergone revision for clarity. (December 2022)

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

https://www.adl.org/resources/blog/nerdeen-kiswani-and-within-our-lifetime-united-palestine-what-you-need-know
Nerdeen Kiswani and Within Our Lifetime-United for Palestine: What You Need to Know

Published: 03.02.2023

From: Center on Extremism

•    Nerdeen Kiswani is an anti-Israel activist and co-founder and leader of Within Our Lifetime-United for Palestine (WOL), a radical New York-based anti-Israel organization that routinely expresses support for violence against Israel.
•    Kiswani’s antisemitism is clearly expressed via her expressions of extreme anti-Zionist rhetoric, including her calls for all “Zionists” to be vilified and expelled from community spaces, as well as her support for indiscriminate violence against Israel aimed at the country’s dissolution.
•    Kiswani and WOL (founded in 2015) organize rallies in New York City that have drawn thousands of attendees, including events outside the Israeli consulate and pro-Israel organizations such as the Jewish National Fund (JNF). 
•    Kiswani and her organization explicitly call for the complete eradication of Israel, including for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and have called for Israeli Jews to leave the country (both from the West Bank and in Israel proper).
•    WOL and Kiswani frequently express support for acts of terror perpetrated by U.S.-designated terror groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).
•    Kiswani habitually asserts that all Zionists, including American Jews who support Israel, are inherently bigoted and should be ostracized.
•    On several occasions, Kiswani and WOL have promulgated classic antisemitic tropes, including those related to “Zionist” control over media and politics.
•    Kiswani has been platformed by leftist outlets, including Haymarket Books. 
•    Kiswani became widely known after she delivered a May 2022 commencement speech for CUNY Law in which she excoriated “Zionists” and condemned “normalizing” trips to Israel.

Promotion of violence, terrorism and removal of Israelis from Israel


Kiswani and WOL express full, unabashed support for all forms of “resistance” against Israel, regardless of the brutality of the violence. On social media, she and WOL make their veneration of violence against Israelis clear:


•    February 2023: After U.S. State Department-designated terror organization Hamas claimed as members all five Palestinians killed in an Israeli military operation in Jericho, WOL shared an image declaring them “freedom fighters” and that WOL was “in rage and mourning.” 

Nerdeen Kiswani and Within Our Lifetime-United for Palestine: What You Need to Know

 •    November 2014: Following a PFLP shooting and meat cleaver attack that killed four worshippers in a Jerusalem synagogue, Kiswani shared PFLP’s statement justifying the act of terror as a “natural response” to Israeli actions.  

Nerdeen Kiswani and Within Our Lifetime-United for Palestine: What You Need to Know

 •    2022: Kiswani shared a meme on her Instagram account reading: “Little Miss telling everyone Israel is[sic] will be wiped off the map inshallah [God willing].” 

Nerdeen Kiswani and Within Our Lifetime-United for Palestine: What You Need to Know

 •    2022: Responding to a news story about an airline offering free vacations to Israelis who live near the Gaza Strip, Kiswani commented that those Israelis should “leave and never come back.”

Nerdeen Kiswani and Within Our Lifetime-United for Palestine: What You Need to Know

•    November 2022: In an appearance on the Iranian government-backed news channel Press TV, Kiswani said, “Resistance is the only way” and that no political process remains that will result in Palestinian liberation.

•    On numerous occasions, Kiswani and WOL have shared materials venerating PFLP and one of its leaders, Leila Khaled, known for her role in the hijacking of two civilian airliners, TWA Flight 840 in 1969 (bound for Tel Aviv from Rome) and El Al flight 219 in 1970 (traveling from Amsterdam to New York City). In September 2016, WOL shared an image of Leila Khaled carrying a rifle alongside a quote justifying violence.

Nerdeen Kiswani and Within Our Lifetime-United for Palestine: What You Need to Know

•    March 2022: For International Women’s Day, WOL posted a collage containing images of at least three women who have engaged in terrorism against Israel, including Leila Khaled and Rasmea Odeh.


Historic/Classic Antisemitic Tropes


On at least four occasions, Kiswani and WOL have used social media to share classic antisemitic tropes related to alleged Israeli and “Zionist” control or nefarious influence over Hollywood, sexual violence against women, politics, media and more.


•    2017: WOL Facebook post: “From occupied Palestine to Hollywood, israel’s[sic] dogs of war find lucrative positions upholding imperialism, sexual violence and misogyny.”
•    2016 WOL Facebook post: “When the vast majority of politicians in the US are bought off by the zionist [sic] lobby, talk is cheap.”
•    July 2015: On Facebook, Kiswani advertised an event: “Please be here tomorrow if you can! It’s the same story of zionists[sic] using their political clout to get away from being held accountable for hate based crimes while ironically accusing others of what they have done…”
•    2013: Kiswani shared a quote on Facebook that included: “Despite the almost total control of the major media conglomerates by Global Zionism, the advocates of pro-Palestine are winning the war on social medias[sic].” 

Calling for Shunning of “Zionists”


Kiswani personally led chants of “Zionism out of CUNY” as she protested outside the university during her time as a student activist. “Zionism out of CUNY” can be viewed as an antisemitic call against the Jewish community at large, as the vast majority of American Jews identify as Zionist or consider a connection to Israel to be integral to their social, cultural or religious identities. Kiswani has also expressed joy that some spaces have become “toxic and unwelcome” for “Zionists.” In other commentary, she has called Zionists “complete scum.”


•    March 2017: “Im[sic] so happy feminism and feminist movements have created a toxic and unwelcome environment for Zionists”

Nerdeen Kiswani and Within Our Lifetime-United for Palestine: What You Need to Know

 •    June 2022: WOL tweet: “Zionism has no place in CUNY. Attempts to silence us only make us stronger! #ZionismOutOfCUNY” 
•    The WOL website lists among its suggested chants for anti-Israel rallies: “Say it loud say it clear, we don’t want zionists here”

Nerdeen Kiswani and Within Our Lifetime-United for Palestine: What You Need to Know

 •    July 2014: “Any person who supports Israel in any way shape or form Any person who apologizes on behalf of Israel Any person who identifies as a Zionist in any way shape or form Is complete scum[sic]… Israel as a state needs to be dismantled. It needs to go.”

Since the 1970s Uri Davis Bashes Israel

15.06.23

Editorial Note

Dr. Uri Davis recently published a book, The JNF/KKL a Charity Complicit with Ethnic Cleansing. On June 8, 2023, Prof. Ilan Pappe held a conversation with Davis in Jerusalem at the Palestinian National Theatre – Hakawati. 

Davis is a veteran dissenter who made a career bashing Israel. His biography states “Uri Davis is an Honorary Research Fellow at the Institute for Middle Eastern & Islamic Studies at University of Durham, and at the Institute of Arab & Islamic Studies at the University of Exeter. In addition, he is Chairman of Al-Beit, the Association for the Defence of Human Rights in Israel; Founder Member of the Movement Against Israeli Apartheid in Palestine (MAIAP); and an Observer-Member of the Palestine National Council. He has published extensively in the field of democracy and human rights in Israel and Palestine.” Davis has also joined Fatah and converted to Islam. 

Davis declared himself a pacifist during his army military service pre-1967, as he wrote in his 1972 article, “Journey out of Zionism: The Radicalization of an Israeli Pacifist.” His new book discusses the JNF. Davis discussed the JNF in many of his works, beginning in 1978.  

 As stated in the invitation, the academic discipline informing this book is critical Applied Anthropology. Critically applied anthropology “focuses on the evaluation of problematic situations to identify the root causes of problems… Essentially, it provides a critical evaluation of situations to advise on the best solution or way programs can improve their approach to problem-solving.”

According to Davis, while the Jewish National Fund (JNF/KKL) was created by a decision of the 5th Zionist Congress convened in Basel in 1901, incorporated in England in 1907 and in Israel in 1954 – “Some +/- 15% of the territory of 1948 apartheid Israel is registered on the name of the JNF/KKL emerging (in stages) as the second largest land owner in 1948 apartheid Israel after the State (+/-75%) leaving just +/-7% as private property rendering (through the 1961 KKL-JNF – Israeli Government Covenant) just over 90% (+/-93%) of the said territory effectively accessible in law and in practice to ‘Jews’ only.” (There is a disclaimer stating that “In former apartheid Republic of South Africa just under 90% (+/-87%) of the territory of the Republics was accessible in law and in practice to ‘Whites’ only.”) The “land tenure in apartheid Israel is dominated by a State-JNF duopoly.” (The disclaimer here states that “The views of Dr Davis and Prof Pappé do not necessarily represent the views of any of the persons and/or institutions involved with the organization of the launch of this book.”) 

For Davis, “the JNF is seen today as a ‘green’ and ecological organization that safeguards Israel’s nature, however, very little known about the role it is playing since the end of 1948 war, when it became a principal divider of the spoils of the lands, villages, towns and houses looted and destroyed by the Israeli army during and after the events of the Nakba.”

Davis’ book “is an incisive exploration of the JNF historical and current work, and a study of the agency complex set-up that eventually, in the 1960s, created the Israel Land Administration (ILA) of which the JNF is a crucial component.”

The JNF/KKL has some 45 offices worldwide registered as tax-exempt charities on the ground inter alia of its “mis-representation” as an environmentally friendly NGO committed to the greening of the environment, that, over 120 years “planted over 240 million trees, creating entire eco-systems in the desert, and Israel has become one of the few countries in the world to grow trees,” For Davis “most of JNF forests and their recreational areas have been planted and developed over the ruins and the lands of 1948 ethnically cleansed Palestinian-Arab villages, thereby rendering the JNF complicit with the crime against humanity of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.”

The book is destined for three audiences “Academic Staff and students specializing in Middle East/Palestine/Israel Studies”; “concerned Jurists and NGOs considering challenging the charitable/tax exempt status of the JNF in the relevant Courts of the respective States of which they are citizens”; and “visitors to apartheid Israel.” 

As many of his fellow activists, including Ilan Pappe, Davis has spent his entire academic career to prove that Israel is an apartheid state like South Africa. He made this point in his book Israel, an apartheid state, Published in 1987. 

His second book on this topic, Apartheid Israel: Possibilities for the Struggle Within, was published by Zed Books in 2003. It described Davis as being at the “forefront of the defense of human rights in Israel since the mid-1960s and at the cutting edge of critical research on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In this book, he provides a critical insight into how it was possible for Jewish people, the victims of Nazi genocide in the Second World War, to subject the Palestinian people, beginning with the 1948-49 war, to such criminal policies as mass deportation, population transfers and ethnic cleansing, prolonged military government (with curfews, roadblocks and the like), and economic, social, cultural, civil and political strangulation, punctuated by Apache helicopters strafing civilians and their homes. Since its establishment in 1948 Israel has acted in blatant violation of most UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, including amassing weapons of mass destruction in violation of international law. How is it then possible for this country, its apartheid legislation notwithstanding, to still maintain its reputation in the West as the only democracy in the Middle East and effectively to veil the apartheid cruelty it has perpetrated against the Palestinian people? In the course of outlining answers to these questions, Uri Davis traces the departure of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from its declared political program; its demise beginning with the Oslo peace process; and the struggle within Israel against Israeli apartheid.”

Davis sees no problem with the apartheid regimes of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, where Jews are not allowed to live.

The new book is published by MEMO Publishers, which trades under Ardi Associates, a UK-based publisher of news, opinion, and other content related to the Middle East and North Africa. Their brands include Middle East Monitor, published in English; Monitor De Oriente, published in Spanish; Monitor Do Oriente, published in Portuguese; Palestine Book Awards, Awards to recognize and honor the best new books in English about any aspect of Palestine. However, the Middle East Monitor has been at the front of anti-Israel attacks. It recruits anti-Israel academics who sing to its tunes. By targeting Israel exclusively, it presents an antisemitic approach. 

References:

Details

85 people responded

Event by THE EDUCATIONAL BOOKSHOP and Mahmoud Muna

‎المسرح الوطني الفلسطيني/ الحكواتي The Palestinian National Theatre‎

Public  · Anyone on or off Facebook

Book Launch & Conversation
Uri Davis | Ilan Pappe
Moderated by Inès Abdel Razek
Please note the new venue.

The Jewish National Fund (JNF) was incorporated in England in 1907 and was the principal tool of the Zionist project to obtain land in Palestine. From the onset of the agency’s activities, it was destined to become, and officially granted with the task of becoming the custodian of the land in Palestine on behalf of the “Jewish people”. For many, the JNF is seen today as a ‘green’ and ecological organization that safeguards Israel’s nature, however, very little known about the role it is playing since the end of 1948 war, when it became a principal divider of the spoils of the lands, villages, towns and houses looted and destroyed by the Israeli army during and after the evetns of the Nakba.

This book is an incisive exploration of the JNF historical and current work, and a study of the agency complex set-up that eventually, in the 1960s, created the Israel Land Administration (ILA) of which the JNF is a crucial component.

6:00 pm – Thurday 8th June
The Palestinian National Theatre – Hakawati

Extra information:
The Jewish National Fund/ Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael (JNF/KKL) was created by a decision of the 5th Zionist Congress convened in Basel in 1901, incorporated in England in 1907 as the Juedischer Nationalfonds (Keren Kajemeth LeJisroel) Limited, (changed to Keren Kajemeth Le Jisroel Limited in July 1921 and to Keren Kayemeth Leisrael, Limited in August 1925); and in Israel in 1954 as Keren Kayemeth Leisrael.

Some +/- 15% of the territory of 1948 apartheid Israel is registered on the name of the JNF/KKL emerging (in stages) as the second largest land owner in 1948 apartheid Israel after the State (+/-75%) leaving just +/-7% as private property rendering (through the 1961 KKL-JNF – Israeli Government Covenant) just over 90% (+/-93%) of the said territory effectively accessible in law and in practice to “Jews” only* Thus land tenure in apartheid Israel is dominated by a State-JNF duopoly**.

The JNF/KKL has some 45 offices world-wide registered as tax-exempt charities on the ground inter alia of its mis-representation as an environmentally friendly NGO committed to the greening of the environment, having [f]or over 120 years … planted over 240 million trees, creating entire eco-systems in the desert, and Israel has become one of the few countries in the world to grow trees for over 100 years (https://www.jnf.co.uk/plant-trees-2) – except that most of JNF forests and their recreational areas have been planted and developed over the ruins and the lands of 1948 ethnically cleansed Palestinian-Arab villages, thereby rendering the JNF complicit with the crime against humanity of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

The academic discipline informing this book is critical Applied Anthropology. As the Title and the Sub-title suggest, the author*** seeks to address correlatively three specific inter-related audiences (additional to the general public). One: Academic Staff and students specializing in Middle East/Palestine/Israel Studies (utilizing specifically the documentation and other essays); One, concerned Jurists and NGOs considering challenging the charitable/tax exempt status of the JNF in the relevant Courts of the respective States of which they are citizens (utilizing specifically the anthology of the Author’s first-hand eye-witness in situ Reports as supporting evidence); and One, visitors to apartheid Israel (utilising the book in toto as a guide-book on their sojourn in JNF forests and recreational areas).

*In former apartheid Republic of South Africa just under 90% (+/-87%) of the territory
of the Republics was accessible in law and in practice to “Whites” only.
**The views of Dr Davis and Prof Pappé do not necessarily represent the views of any of the persons
and/or institutions involved with the organization of the launch of this book.
***It is Educational Bookshop particular pleasure to have the launch of Dr Uri Davis’ seminal book in Jerusalem
coincide with the date of his birth in Jerusalem in 1943 80 years ago. Happy Birthday, Dr Uri & Many Happy Returns !!!

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

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20221229-the-jnf-kkl-a-charity-complicit-with-ethnic-cleansing/
The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit with Ethnic Cleansing

December 29, 2022 at 10:24 am

By Omar Ahmed

Book Author(s) :Uri Davis

Published Date :January 2023

Publisher :MEMO Publishers

Paperback :491 pages pages

ISBN-13 :978-1-901924-015

The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit with Ethnic Cleansing by academic and civil rights activist Dr Uri Davis is the latest offering by MEMO Publishers and brings to light the on-going “greenwashing” policies of the Apartheid State of Israel, which has been facilitated with the collusion of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), an internationally-recognised charity that pre-dates the establishment of the Jewish state. As such, it is argued that the JNF is complicit in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

The “alternative guide-book” to the organisation is a product of Davis’ years of scholarship and field-research and consists of relevant documents and case-studies carried out by the author over the past two decades. An introduction is also provided by esteemed anti-Zionist Israeli historian Ilan Pappé who describes the work as “an exposure of what really lies behind the past, present and future actions of the JNF” and an “exploration of the crimes Israel committed against the Palestinians”, which are continuing to this day.

“The JNF is registered, falsely, with the UN as an NGO, projecting itself abroad as one that is committed to sustainable development,” writes Davis. As a registered charity, the organisation also “benefits from tax exemptions in most member states of the UN.”

The JNF/KKL (Jewish National Fund/Keren Kayemeth Le’Israel) was founded in 1901, projected as a non-profit organisation with the goal of purchasing and developing land in Palestine for Jewish settlement. It was initially registered in Britain as a company limited by guarantee, and following the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, was incorporated as the JNF as it is currently known.

Following the signing of a covenant between the JNF and Israel in 1961, contends Davis, the charity and the state became “partners on an almost equal footing in the administration of 93 percent of the territory” in Israel’s pre-1967 borders. However, the JNF’s activities have extended beyond this, having been implicated in the destruction of several Palestinian Arab villages in the post-67 territories.

BOOK REVIEW: Tolerance Is a Wasteland: Palestine and the Culture of Denial

As part of its role in the development of Israel, the JNF continues to work on land reclamation, afforestation, and conservation projects. Yet the controversial charity has faced accusations of discriminatory land policies and practices, and of participating in the displacement of Palestinian communities.

These include the forced eviction of Palestinian communities from land that it controls, as well as its involvement in the construction of Jewish-only settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. According to Davis, the JNF’s environmental projects are used as a cover for these actions. The JNF “hides the core of Israeli apartheid under the cloak of an environmental charity”.

We learn that many of the afforestation projects overseen by the JNF are named after countries, such as Canada Park, British Park and the South African Forest as a part of a public relations scheme for the “only democracy in the Middle East”.

However, the ominous history behind these projects have been omitted by the JNF. Most of the forests planted by the organisation have been established over the ruins of some 500 Palestinian Arab villages, with photographic evidence of their undeniable existence still very much visible, based on Davis’ field research which is included in the book. This is despite the best efforts of the JNF to cover up these documented war crimes.

For example, Canada Park was planted over the ruins of three destroyed Palestinian Arab villages: ‘Imwas, Yalu and Beit Nabu. In the case of ‘Imwas, which has been completely obliterated, the only surviving structure is the shrine of Abu ‘Ubydah Ibn Al-Jarrah.

“The planting of the British Park over the lands of destroyed Palestinian Arab villages, including ‘Ajjur, and the development of recreational facilities in JNF forests cannot be described as ‘charitable’, and should not be granted tax exempt status under British law. Rather it ought to be classified as an act and as a policy of complicity in war crimes,” Davis explains.

The JNF/KKL… is an eye-opening and detailed expose of Israel’s attempt at greenwashing its past and present crimes against Palestinians. As Davis advocates, the JNF must be held accountable with its status as a charity in UN member states amended in reflection and recognition over its complicity in the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Moreover, the publication sheds light on the complicity of the countries where JNF affiliates are based, whose funding actively contributes to these dubious “environmental” projects.

Get a copy of the book here.

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

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20230110-memo-launches-the-jnf-kkl-a-charity-complicit-with-ethnic-cleansing-by-dr-uri-davis/
MEMO launches ‘The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit With Ethnic Cleansing’ by Dr Uri Davis

Davis highlights how the JNF has used setting up parks and planting trees to erase Palestinian villages and forms part of Israel’s apartheid regime

January Muhammad Hussein January 10, 2023 at 8:11 am

MEMO hosted the book launch of JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit With Ethnic Cleansing, written by Dr Uri Davis, an Israeli academic and independent researcher who is noted to be a defender of Palestinian human rights, in London last night.

Held in London’s P21 Gallery, the event started off with an introduction by MEMO‘s Nasim Ahmed, who highlighted that the book reveals one of the pillars of Israel’s ethnic cleansing, and presented a video produced by Kholoud Al-Ajarma which exposes the Jewish National Fund’s (JNF) key role in that crime.

The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit with Ethnic Cleansing

The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit with Ethnic Cleansing

Dr Davis then shed light on the ongoing apartheid that Israel, its government and its forces are imposing on the Palestinian population. He called on people to show him any other member state of the UN which gives its constitutional rights to only one part of its population. “Show me just one more state. And [so far] there hasn’t been any answer.”

Stating that Israel is a racist endeavour, Davis expressed his belief that Jews do not have a specific right to self-determination. His main argument for that is that “there is no Jewish people other than in the framework of Zionist interpretation”, attempting to tackle mainstream Zionist arguments.

Instead, he said, “Zionism politicises Jewish religion”, and the “right of self-determination is the right of the indigenous people of Palestine.” He also submitted the idea that Israel should be constitutionally like Switzerland, which identifies citizens by their respective languages and does not discriminate.

READ: Jewish National Fund Board to vote on $18m purchase of Palestinian land in Jordan Valley

Praising the book, Professor Nur Masalha recalled his travels throughout Palestine and the evidence of ethnic and cultural cleansing he witnessed. The JNF, he said, told Israel that if it doesn’t bulldoze historic Palestinian houses quickly, then Palestinian refugees would return and try to take them back.

The event ended with a lively question and answer session, in which the audience had the chance to discover more about the JNF and the Palestinian history it has erased.

The audience and visitors also had the chance to buy copies of Uri Davis’ book, which Ilan Pappe – professor with the College of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of Exeter – described as “an exposure of what really lies behind the past, present and future actions of the JNF. But more than anything else, it is an incisive exploration of the crimes Israel committed against the Palestinians and which still today are at best misrepresented and at worst denied outside the state of Israel. This book will be one of the best tools for those wishing to confront these misrepresentation and denial for the sake of peace and justice in the land of Palestine.”

To purchase the book click here.

OPINION: Planting trees in the Negev is not ‘forestation’, it’s about ethnic cleansing

MEMO launches 'The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit With Ethnic Cleansing' by Dr Uri Davis [Middle East Monitor]
MEMO launches 'The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit With Ethnic Cleansing' by Dr Uri Davis [Middle East Monitor]
MEMO launches 'The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit With Ethnic Cleansing' by Dr Uri Davis [Middle East Monitor]
MEMO launches 'The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit With Ethnic Cleansing' by Dr Uri Davis [Middle East Monitor]
MEMO launches 'The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit With Ethnic Cleansing' by Dr Uri Davis [Middle East Monitor]
MEMO launches 'The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit With Ethnic Cleansing' by Dr Uri Davis [Middle East Monitor]
MEMO launches 'The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit With Ethnic Cleansing' by Dr Uri Davis [Middle East Monitor]
MEMO launches 'The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit With Ethnic Cleansing' by Dr Uri Davis [Middle East Monitor]
MEMO launches 'The JNF/KKL: A Charity Complicit With Ethnic Cleansing' by Dr Uri Davis [Middle East Monitor]