On February 22, 2021, the European Research Council officially announced Horizon Europe, the new European Framework Program for Research and Innovation for 2021-2027. Countries such as Israel, UK, Switzerland, Norway, and others, associated with the previous Framework Program Horizon 2020, will become associated with Horizon Europe by the end of this year.
According to the EU publication, Israeli participation in Horizon 2020 in signed grants was 1255 recipients. In comparison, Palestine had eight recipients.
On March 23, 2021, the Palestinian Ministry of Education, along with other Palestinian bodies, published a call against Ariel University receiving grants, titled “Ariel University and Horizon 2020: The EU is legitimizing Israel’s illegal settlements.” The Palestinian Ministry of Education’s call garnered 522 signatories of international academics, among them Israelis. Professor Goldreich from Weizmann Institute, a candidate for the prestigious Israel Prize, as IAM reported last week, is among the signatories.
The Palestinian call states that “Research projects should not be used to legitimize or otherwise sustain illegal Israeli settlements. The EU cannot resile from its own obligations in this respect without further empowering Israel’s unlawful military occupation and its oppression of millions of Palestinians, and without further undermining the Palestinian people’s inalienable and universally-recognized rights under international law…. Ariel University is falsely indicated on project material as located in Israel. The far-right-supporting, now defunct Trump administration made its support for illegal Israeli settlement institutions official, including by ending long-standing restrictions on research funding. The EU must and can do better. Authoritative Palestinian higher-education bodies, supported by prominent academics, are calling on international institutions not to recognize Ariel University and to abstain from giving effect to its pretentions of institutional legitimacy… we urge the EU Commission, Parliament and Council to devise, fund and implement the effective monitoring of participating research projects and hold transgressors accountable.”
Among the 522 signatories, some names stand out: Gilbert Achcar, SOAS, University of London, UK. Mona Baker, University of Manchester, UK. Joel Beinin, Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History, Emeritus, Stanford University, US. Richard Falk, Princeton University, US. Nicola Perugini, University of Edinburgh, UK. Jonathan Rosenhead, London School of Economics, UK. Ofer Aharony, Weizmann Institute, Israel. Aviad Albert, University of Cologne, Germany. Yonathan (Jon) Anson, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel. Outi Bat-El Foux, Tel-Aviv University, Israel. Jerome Bourdon, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Haim Bresheeth, SOAS, London, UK. Raz Chen-Morris, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Ben-Gurion University, Israel. Snait Gissis, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Amos Goldberg, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Amiram Goldblum, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Oded Goldreich, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel. Neve Gordon, School of Law, Queen Mary University of London, UK. Nir Gov, Weizmann Institute, Israel. Erella Grassiani, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Raphael Greenberg, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Ilana Hairston, Tel Hai Academic College, Israel. Shir Hever, Jewish Voice for Just Peace in the Middle East, Germany. Itamar Kastner, University of Edinburgh, Scotland. Hagar Kotef, SOAS, University of London, UK. Ronit Lentin, Trinity College Dublin (ret), Ireland. Yosefa Loshitzky, SOAS University of London, UK. Ruchama Marton, PHR-ISRAEL, Israel. Anat Matar, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Adi Ophir, Tel Aviv University, Brown University, US. Yoav Peled, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Hebrew University, Israel. Shakhar Rahav, University of Haifa, Israel. Hannah Safran, The Haifa Feminist Research Center, Israel. Itamar Shachar, Ghent University, Belgium. Dmitry Shumsky, Professor of modern Jewish history, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Kobi Snitz, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel. Roy Wagner, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Dror Warschawski, Sorbonne Université, France. Haim Yacobi, University College London, UK.
The Palestinian Ministry of Education inaugurated the campaign “No Academic Business as usual with Ariel University,” also known as No Ariel Ties (NoArielTies.org) in November 2018. It joined with the Council of Palestinian Universities’ Presidents; Palestinian Federation of University Unions of University Professors and Employees; and, Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council. The campaign aims to prevent the recognition of Israeli academic institutions in “illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land.” It calls for “Obligations for institutions: Respecting international law, as a peaceful and universal means of conflict resolution.” The campaign also requires “denying recognition to, and severing institutional relations with Ariel University as an illegal settlement institution.” The campaign demands “Complicity in international law violations,” as the Israeli settlement activity “constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” According to them, “Ariel University is deeply and directly complicit in Israel’s system of oppression that denies Palestinians their basic rights guaranteed by international law.” They also state that “Ariel University is an illegal institution and is deeply and directly complicit in Israel’s system of oppression that has denied Palestinians their basic rights guaranteed by international law, including the right to education and academic freedom.”
In September 2020, IAM reported that No Ariel Ties waged a campaign against Dr. Mindy Levine from the department of Chemical Sciences at Ariel University, who was announced as a Special Issue Editor of the scientific journal Molecules. The campaigners wrote the Molecules editors and urged the journal to change Levine’s affiliation to “Ariel University, illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel, Occupied Palestinian Territory.”
Molecules pressed the editor to change her affiliation, but she refused, and, as a result, the journal withdrew the Special Issue and removed it from its website. But, for a short time, until it reinstated it back on the website, with Ariel University, Israel, as Levine’s home institute. The Special Issue is due to be published later this year.
Worth noting that Goldreich and other Israeli academics who call for the boycott of Ariel University have breached the Israeli 2011 anti-Boycott Law.
The recurring phenomenon of Israeli academics breaking the law by advocating for BDS is troubling. IAM has argued that the root of the problem is that Israel has a highly expansive view of academic freedom, which would not have been tolerated in a public university in any other Western country. Academic authorities have been hesitant to challenge their own faculty because they fear the orchestrated outrage by the pro-Palestinian community on Western campuses.
Mobilizing Israeli scholars supported by the Israeli taxpayers is considered a shrewd move on the part of the pro-Palestinian activists who try to shield themselves from charges of anti-Semitism.
Despite the blatant abuses of human rights in the Palestinian Territories and other countries, only Israel is censured by the academic community. This selective view should delegitimize the BDS movement and its supporters.
Over 500 academics call on EU to keep Israel’s Ariel University out of research projects
Ariel University, located in a settlement on the West Bank, should have no involvement in EU-funded projects researchers say, as the university denies one of its professors received EU fundingBy Éanna Kelly
Over 500 academics from more than 20 European countries and Israel on Wednesday published an open letter condemning any involvement of Israel’s Ariel University in EU-funded research projects.
The university is located in the West Bank, an area Palestinians seek for their future state. The EU and most of the international community views permanent settlements on this land as illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.
The letter notes “with grave concern the ongoing failure of the European Union to ensure that its taxpayer-funded research programmes are not used to legitimise or otherwise sustain the establishment and the activities of Israeli academic institutions in illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT).”
According to participation rules for Horizon 2020, the EU’s most recent science programme, Israeli entities may only receive grants from EU programmes if the projects concerned do not take place in settlements occupied by Israel since 1967. The Commission says “all its projects are closely monitored” and undergo a “rigorous ethical evaluation”.
The letter says that Ariel University hosted a dissemination event for the BOUNCE project in June 2020. In addition, a professor from Ariel University is listed as a co-researcher on the project, “raising serious questions as to whether research activities were carried out in the OPT,” the letter says.
Ariel University is also listed as involved in the Horizon 2020 earth observation project GEO-CRADLE, the letter notes.
The academics allege that, “multiple cases demonstrate failures of the Commission to properly instruct against, monitor for, and rectify project management transgressions against these EU positions.”
“The EU must and can do better,” the letter states. “At a time when the EU is finalising Horizon 2020’s successor, the €100 billion Horizon Europe programme, we urge the EU Commission, Parliament and Council to devise, fund and implement the effective monitoring of participating research projects and hold transgressors accountable.”
In response to the letter, Nicole Greenspan, head of international research and public relations at Ariel University said, “The inconsequential issue raised is that of the participation of a single Ariel University professor in an online event. The researcher is not funded by the EU.”
Sampling soil in the Occupied Territories
In January 2020, Green MEP Gina Dowding asked the Commission to account for Ariel University’s participation in GEO-CRADLE.
EU research commissioner Mariya Gabriel responded by saying Horizon 2020 projects are being closely monitored by the Commission services and that this includes a rigorous ethical evaluation.
“In the GEO-CRADLE proposal there was no indication that the Tel Aviv University, one of the partners, intended to take soil samples in occupied territories or cooperate with stakeholders in these areas. Once the violation was detected, the Commission immediately took action, recalling the rules to the coordinator, who instructed Tel Aviv University to stop cooperation with Ariel University and Golan Heights Winery.”
Soil samples collected from the settlements were excluded from the research, Gabriel said, adding, “Costs claimed for these activities and the subsequent rectification were considered not eligible and therefore not covered by EU funding.”
The European Commission has been contacted for additional comment.
‘Political letter’
According to Greenspan, “Ariel University is an institution recognised by the Israeli Council for Higher Education. Its students and researchers hail from all segments of the population with no regard to nationality or religion. The university is actively involved in research to better the entire region including both Israeli and Palestinian communities around it.”
“Ariel University holds the mixing of research with politics to be abhorrent as do all serious researchers. The use of academic titles and affiliations should not be used to legitimise people’s personal political opinions. This letter, despite being undersigned by people from academia, is not an academic letter. It is a purely political one,” Greenspan said.
Since it was established in 2012, Ariel University’s presence in the West Bank has repeatedly stirred controversy, with some Israeli academics and the Palestinians coming out against the institution over the years.
Last year, the Trump administration lifted a decades-old ban that had prohibited US taxpayer funding of Israeli scientific research conducted in settlements in the West Bank territory, drawing Palestinian condemnation. Ariel was chosen as the venue for a ceremony marking a new scientific and technology cooperation accord with the US.
Signatories speak
Science|Business spoke to four Israeli scientists who signed the letter.
Amiram Goldblum, professor emeritus of molecular modeling and drug design at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, complained that Ariel University is not recognised by international law.
Outi Bat-El Foux, professor of linguistics at Tel Aviv University said, “As a person who was born and raised in Israel, and cares about its future, the existence of the city of Ariel and its academic institution undermine the foundation of Israel and its people.”
Ofer Aharony, a theoretical physicist at the Weizmann Institute of Science, said he is “strongly opposed to Israel’s policy of establishing settlements in the West Bank. I view such settlements as illegal under international law and I am not willing to do anything to assist them.”
Aharony added that his opinion was “a minority view in Israel; most Israelis support the settlement at least to some extent, though there is probably also a small majority that would support dismantling some settlements if and when a peace agreement with the Palestinians is signed.”
Raphael Greenberg, an archaeologist at Tel Aviv University, said, “Many of our colleagues in Israel and Europe appear to accept the normalisation of the Ariel institution as an Israeli research university. By insisting that the EU stand by its own principles, we wish to protect our institutions and remind our colleagues that legitimacy is hard to attain and easy to lose.”========================================================
Ariel University and Horizon 2020: The EU is legitimizing Israel’s illegal settlementsDate: March 23, 2021
We, the undersigned academics and researchers in countries participating in European research programmes, note with grave concern the ongoing failure of the European Union to ensure that its taxpayer-funded research programmes are not used to legitimize or otherwise sustain the establishment and the activities of Israeli academic institutions in illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT).
As the EU Commission recently reiterated, “Article 19 of the Horizon 2020 Framework Regulation provides that all the research and innovation activities carried out under Horizon 2020 must comply with ethical principles and relevant national, Union and international legislation…” The necessary provisions have been made in EU legislation and its implementing rules to “ensure the respect of positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the EU of Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967.”
The criteria applied by the EU Commission to determine the eligibility of projects and participants for EU funded support, the terms of its contracts with participants, and its monitoring of the activities and the beneficiaries of the projects must comport with these requirements and their purposes.
For these same purposes, the Commission must also ensure that the management of activities conducted under EU-funded research projects both respects and comports with the EU’s non-recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the OPT; the EU’s consequent non-recognition of Israeli settlement entities as lawfully established; and the EU’s consequent non-recognition of settlement-based activities as lawfully conducted.
However, multiple cases demonstrate failures of the Commission to properly instruct against, monitor for, and rectify project management transgressions against these EU positions.
Ariel University, which is located in the illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel, hosted a dissemination event for the BOUNCE project in June 2020 and is included as a “Stakeholder in Israel” for the project. In addition, a professor from Ariel University is listed as a co-researcher on the project, as “a member of the Israel BOUNCE TEAM,” and as one of the “Researchers Involved in Data Collection” on a project deliverable, raising serious questions as to whether research activities were carried out in the OPT.
Ariel University was also listed as a stakeholder in the Horizon 2020 project GEO-CRADLE. It was initially removed from the stakeholder list following a request to the Commission by the project coordinator, though its stakeholder profile has since been restored, and signs of its involvement remain on the project website to this day.
In addition, in all cases Ariel University is falsely indicated on project material as located in Israel.
The far-right-supporting, now defunct Trump administration made its support for illegal Israeli settlement institutions official, including by ending long-standing restrictions on research funding. The EU must and can do better.
Authoritative Palestinian higher-education bodies, supported by prominent academics, are calling on international institutions not to recognize Ariel University and to abstain from giving effect to its pretentions of institutional legitimacy.
At a time when the EU is finalising Horizon 2020’s successor, the €100 billion Horizon Europe programme, we urge the EU Commission, Parliament and Council to devise, fund and implement the effective monitoring of participating research projects and hold transgressors accountable.
Horizon Europe’s stated goal is to “provide new knowledge and innovative solutions to overcome our societal, ecological and economic challenges.” Research projects should not be used to legitimize or otherwise sustain illegal Israeli settlements. The EU cannot resile from its own obligations in this respect without further empowering Israel’s unlawful military occupation and its oppression of millions of Palestinians, and without further undermining the Palestinian people’s inalienable and universally-recognized rights under international law.
Signed: Paul Aarts, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Airnel Abarra, University of Physical Education, Hungary. Ahmed Abbes, Directeur de recherche au CNRS, France. Samer Abdelnour, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Majed Abusalama, Tampere Uni/Palestine Research Group, Germany. Giuseppe Acconcia, University of Padova, Italy. Gilbert Achcar, SOAS, University of London, United Kingdom. Jonas Adriaensens, Ghent University, Belgium. Ofer Aharony, Weizmann Institute, Israel. Sylvia Akar, University of Helsinki, Finland. Aviad Albert, University of Cologne, Germany. Alessandra Algostino, Università di Torino, Italy. Nour Ali, Brunel University London, United Kingdom. Kieran Allen, University College Dublin, Ireland. Lori Allen, SOAS University of London, United Kingdom. Carlos Almeida, Centre for History of the University of Lisbon, Portugal. Teresa Alpuim, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. Àdel Alsalti, Technical University of Catalonia, Spain. Roberta Aluffi, Università di Torino, Italy. Lorenzo Alunni, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France. João Alves, Instituto Politécnico de Portalegre, Portugal. Marco Ammar, Università di Genova, Italy. Yonathan (Jon) Anson, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel. Arjun Appadurai, Professor and Writer, Germany. Karin Arts, Professor of international law and development, International Institute of Social Studies (of Erasmus University Rotterdam), Netherlands. Dr. Valentina Azarova, Research Fellow, Manchester International Law Center, University of Manchester , Germany. Manlio Bacco, CNR, Italy. Abdallah Badra, Université Clermont Auvergne, France. Claude Baesens, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. Mona Baker, University of Manchester, UK, United Kingdom. Viviane Baladi, CNRS, France. Cristiana Baldazzi, University of Trieste, Italy. Vania Baldi, Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal. Andrea Balduzzi, Università di Genova (retired), Italy. Angelo Baracca, University of Florence, Italy. Isaías Barreñada, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. Rémi Barrère, University Bourgogne – Franche Comté, France. Enrico Bartolomei, Independent researcher, Italy. Outi Bat-El Foux, Tel-Aviv University, Israel. Arnaud Beauville, Université Côte d’Azur, France. Johannes Maria Becker, PD Dr., Arbeitskreis Marburger WissenschaftlerInnen für Friedens- und Abrüstungsforschung, Germany. Adriaan Bedner, Leiden University, Netherlands. Joel Beinin, Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History, Emeritus, Stanford University, United States. Desmond Bell, National College of Art and Design, Dublin, Ireland. Alex Bellem, Durham University, United Kingdom. Tarak Ben Zineb, Université de Lorraine, France. Roberto Beneduce, University of Turin, Italy. Alexis Benos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece Hourya Bentouhami, Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès, France. Chiara Bertone, University of Eastern Piedmont, Italy. Niko Besnier, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Francesca Biancani, University of Bologna, Italy. Jess Bier, Erasmus University, Netherlands. Alain Bihr, Université de Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, France. Julie Billaud, Graduate Institute in Geneva, Switzerland. Susan Blackwell, Universiteit Utrecht, Netherlands., Netherlands. Camillo Boano, University College London, United Kingdom. Hannah Boast, University College Dublin, Ireland. Riccardo Bocco, The Graduate Institute, Switzerland. Arnaud Bondon, CNRS , France. Rick Bonnie, University of Helsinki, Finland. Simona Borioni, ENEA Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy, Environment, Italy. Fabrizio Boscaglia, Universidade Lusófona, Portugal. Michiel Bot, Tilburg University, Netherlands. Irena Botwinik, Open University, Israel. Jean-Pierre Bouché, CNRS-France. (retired), France. Jerome Bourdon, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Glenn Bowman, University of Kent at Canterbury (Emeritus Professor), United Kingdom. Robert Boyce, London School of Economics, United Kingdom. Patrick J Boyd, Surgical Tutor Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, United Kingdom. Manuel Branco, University of Évora, Portugal. Martin Breidert, Dr. theology, Germany. Jan Breman, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Eva Brems, Ghent University, Belgium. Haim Bresheeth, SOAS, London, United Kingdom. Roger Bromley, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. Kristiina Brunila, University of Helsinki, Finland. Michelle Burgis-Kasthala, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Enrico Caiani, Politecnico di Milano, Italy. Bernard Caillaud, Paris School of Economics, France. Silvia Calatroni, Università Statale Milano, Italy. Marina Calculli, Leiden University, Netherlands. José Caldas, CoLABOR, Portugal. Pinuccia Caracchi, University of Turin, Italy. Miguel Cardina, Centre for Social Studies – University of Coimbra, Portugal. António Cardoso, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo (Portugal.), Portugal. André Carmo, ECT-UÉ, Portugal. Mário Carvalho, ISEP , Portugal. Chiara Anna Cascino, University of Naples “L’Orientale” , Italy. Elena Casetta, Department of Philosophy and Education – University of Turin, Italy. Liselot Casteleyn, Ghent University, Belgium. Daude Cécile, MaÎtre de conférences de Grec, Université de Franche-Comté, France. John Chalcraft, LSE, United Kingdom. Iain Chalmers, Palestinian History Tapestry, United Kingdom. Iain Chambers, Università degli studi di Napoli Orientale , Italy. Gérard Chaouat, Inserm u 976, France. Lucie Chateau, Tilburg University, Netherlands. Frédéric Chaubet, University Sorbonne Paris Nord, France. Raz Chen-Morris, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Marco Chiani, University of Bologna, Italy. Yves Chilliard, INRAE, France., France. France.sco Chiodelli, University of Turin, Italy. James Chiriyankandath, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, United Kingdom. Tanzil Chowdhury, QMUL, United Kingdom. Allan Christensen, John Cabot University, Rome, Italy. Anna Ciannameo, Università di Bologna, Italy. David Clinch, Royal College of Physicians, Ireland. Maurice Coakley, Griffith College Dublin, Ireland. David Cobham, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland, UK James Cohen, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris 3), France. Ester Cois, University of Cagliari, Italy. Alfredo Colosimo, Independent scientist, Italy. Eddie Conlon, Technological University Dublin, Ireland. Philippe Corcuff, Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Lyon, France. Giselle Corradi, Ghent University, Belgium. France.sco Correale, CNRS – UMR 7324 CITERES, France. Cristiana Corsi, University of Bologna, Italy. Ciaran Cosgrove, Professor Emeritus in Latin-American Studies, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Amedeo Cottino, University of Turin, Italy. Dr Laurence Cox, Maynooth University, Ireland. Stef Craps, Ghent University, Belgium. José Cravino, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Portugal. Luca Cristofolini, Alma Mater Studiorum – University of Bologna, Italy. Mariateresa Crosta, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Italy. Catherine Ann Cullen, Independent researcher, Ireland. MIke Cushman, LSE (retired), United Kingdom. Maria D’Erme, Sapienza University, Italy. Frans Daems, University of Antwerp, Belgium. Bucker Dangor, Imperial College London, United Kingdom. Giulia Daniele, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Portugal. Dr. Laurence Davis, Department of Government and Politics, University College Cork, Ireland. Sonia Dayan-Herzbrun, Université de Paris, France. Chiara De Cesari, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Anne de Jong, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Maja de Langen, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Herman De Ley, Emeritus Ghent University, Belgium. Treasa De Loughry, University College Dublin, Ireland. María de Paz, Universidad de Sevilla, Spain. Marina de Regt, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands. Mandy de Wilde, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Pietro Deandrea, Università di Torino, Italy. Seamus Deane, Emeritus Professor, Ireland. Sharae Deckard, University College Dublin, Ireland. Tom Decorte, Ghent University, Belgium. Martijn Dekker, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Dominique Delande, CNRS, France. France.sco Della Puppa, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy. Federico Della Valle, Università di Siena, Italy. Olga Demetriou, Durham University, United Kingdom. Tine Destrooper, Ghent University, Belgium. Alessia Di Eugenio, Università di Bologna, Italy. Silvia Di Marco, Center for Philosophy of Science – University of Lisbon, Portugal. Rosita Di Peri, University of Turin, Italy. Emilio Distretti, University of Basel, Switzerland. Gerard Domènech, Universitat de Barcelona, Spain. Elisabetta Donini, Women in Black, Italy. Michiel Doorman, Utrecht University, Netherlands. Fiona Dove, TNI, Netherlands. Koshka Duff, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom. Francoise Dufour, Independent researcher, France. John Dugard, University of Leiden, Netherlands. Dominique Durand, The Institute for Integrative Biology of the Cell, CNRS-CEA-Paris-Saclay, France. Sergio Durante, Università di Padova, Italy. Evelyne Duval, MCFretraitée Université de Paris, France. James Eastwood, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom. Ivar Ekeland, Université Paris-Dauphine, France. Adam Elliott-Cooper, University of Greenwich, United Kingdom. Ziad Elmarsafy, King’s College London, United Kingdom. Ingunn Elstad, UiT Norges arktiske universitet, Norway Philippe Enclos, Université de Lille, France. Sai Englert, Leiden University, Netherlands. Mario Enrietti, Università di Torino, Italy. Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Ben-Gurion University, Israel. Maria J. Esteban, CNRS, France., France. Chris Evans, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom. Ricardo Falcão, Cei-Iscte, Portugal. Richard Falk, Princeton University, United States. Fiorenzo Fantaccini, Università di Firenze , Italy. Gerard Farrell, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Kevin Farrell, Technological University Dublin, Ireland. Guillem Farrés, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Belgium. Cristina Fasolato, University of Padua, Italy. Matilde Fdez.-Caballero Díaz- Meco, 06265112G, Spain. Alain Fenet, Université de Nantes, Professeur émérite, France. Mikael Fernström, University of Limerick, Ireland. Cristiana Fiamingo, State University Milan, Italy. Pedro Figueiredo Neto, ICS-University of Lisbon, Portugal. Barry Finnegan, Griffith College, Media Faculty, Ireland. Annerienke Fioole, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Jacques Fontaine, Université de Franche-Comté, Besançon, France. Lia Forti, University of Insubria, Italy. Murray Fraser, University College London, United Kingdom. Frederico Gama-Carvalho, Senior Researcher (retired) Center of Nuclear Science and Technology (C2TN), Instituto Superior Técnico, Portugal. Marco Andrea Garuti, Università di Padova, Italy. Catarina Gaspar, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. Franck Gaudichaud, Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès, France. Conor Gearty, London School of Economics, United Kingdom. Gennaro Gervasio, Università Roma Tre, Italy. Peter Geschiere, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. France.sca Giangrande, Università degli Studi del Molise, Italy. John Gilbert, Università di Firenze, Italy. Vinçon Gilles, UPS Toulouse and ENSIMAG Grenoble, France. Fârès Gillon, The Institute of Ismaili Studies, United Kingdom. Andre Gingrich, Founding Member, European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA), Austria Snait Gissis, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Elisa Giunchi, Università degli studi di Milano, Italy. Amos Goldberg, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem , Israel. Amiram Goldblum, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Oded Goldreich, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel. Catherine Goldstein, CNRS, France. Raymond Goldstein, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. Luz Gomez, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain. Maria E Gonçalves, ISCTE-IUL , Portugal. Neve Gordon, School of Law, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom. Rebecca Ruth Gould, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. Nir Gov, Weizmann Institute, Israel. Gustavo Gozzi, Università di Bologna, Italy. Hector Grad, Social Anthropology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain. Erella Grassiani, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Giacomo Graziani, INFN, Italy. Raphael Greenberg, Tel Aviv University, Israel. António Grilo, Instituto Superior Técnico – Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. Jan-Erik Gustafsson, Associate prof KTH Sweden, Sweden Luca Guzzetti, University of Genoa, Italy. Ilana Hairston, Tel Hai Academic College, Israel. Pierre Halen, Université de Lorraine, France. David Halpin, Retired surgeon FRCS, United Kingdom. Imogen Hamilton-Jones, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Jeff Handmaker, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands. Mark Hann, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Christopher Harker, University College London, United Kingdom. Laia Haurie Ibarra, Associate Professor, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Spain. Kamel Hawwash, Univeristy of Birmingham, UK, United Kingdom. Christian Henderson, Leiden University , Netherlands. Kirsti Henriksen, The Arctic University of Norway, Norway Shir Hever, Jewish Voice for Just Peace in the Middle East, Germany. Helen Hintjens, ISS, UK/Netherlands. Willemijn Hirzalla – Leenhouts, University of Applied Sciences Leiden, Netherlands. Marian Hobson, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom. Manuel Hohmann, University of Tartu, Estonia David Hughes, University College Dublin, Ireland. Pere-Lluís Huguet Cabot, La Sapienza, Italy. Ahmad Ighbariah, Tel Aviv university, Israel. David Ingleby, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Ferran Izquierdo-Brichs, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain. Richard Jacquemond, Aix-Marseille Université, France. Tariq Jazeel, University College London, United Kingdom. Robert Jennings, University of Milano, National Academy of Italy., Italy. Boghos Joulakian, University of Lorraine , France. François Jourdan, theologian and islamologist, France. Luca Jourdan, Università di Bologna, Italy. Nisha Kapoor, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. Zeynep Kasli, International Institute of Social Studies, Netherlands. Itamar Kastner, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Gerry Kearns, Maynooth University, Ireland. Laleh Khalili, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom. Victoria Khraiche, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. Zeynep Kivilcim, Humboldt University, Germany. Alessio Kolioulis, The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, United Kingdom. Hagar Kotef, SOAS, University of London, United Kingdom. Aymon Kreil, Ghent University, Belgium. Antti Kupiainen, University of Helsinki, Finland. Seán L’Estrange, University College Dublin, Ireland. Paolo La Spisa, University of Florence, Italy. Tuomas Lähdeoja, Helsinki University, Finland. Nicola Lampitelli, Université de Tours, France. Inger Pauline Landsem, UIT the Arctic University of Norway, Norway David Landy, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Danielle Laporte, UFC Besançon, France. André Larceneux, Université de Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, France. Stéphanie Latte, Ceri-SciencesPo, France. Christian Lavault, LIPN, Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris-Cité, France. Zoe Lawlor, University of Limerick, Ireland. Olivier Le Cour Grandmaison, Universitaire, France. Patrick Le Galès, CNRS, France. Michelle Lecolle, Université de Lorraine, France. Ronit Lentin, Trinity College Dublin (ret), Ireland. France.sco Saverio Leopardi, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy. Jean-Marc Leveratto, Université de Lorraine, France. André Levy, ISPA.IU, Portugal. Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, Université Côte d’Azur (Emeritus Professor), France. Vincent Lhuillier, Université de Lorraine, France. Maria Lichrou, University of Limerick, Ireland. Barbara Lipietz, University College London, United Kingdom. François Loeser, Sorbonne University, France. Manuel Loff, Universidade do Porto, Portugal. Roland Lombard, IJCLAB, France. Yosefa Loshitzky, SOAS University of London, United Kingdom. Laura Luciani, Ghent University, Belgium. Erica Luciano, Università degli Studi di Cagliari , Italy. Madeline Lutjeharms, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. Thomas MacManus, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom. Luis Mah, ISEG-Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. Karim Maiche, Tampere University, Finland. Samir Makdisi, American Universiy of Beirut (Emeritus Professor), Lebanon Diala Makki, Researcher with RELIEF Centre at UCL, United Kingdom. Jorge Malheiros, IGOT – University of Lisbon, Portugal. Matteo Mandarini, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom. Paola Manduca, University of Genoa (retired), Italy. António Maneira, Universidade Europeia – IADE, Portugal. José Maneira, Laboratório de Instrumentação e Física Experimental de Partículas, Portugal. Samar Maqusi, University College London, United Kingdom. Valentina Marcella, L’Orientale University of Naples, Italy. Fabio Marcelli, ISGI CNR, Italy. Luisa Martin Rojo, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain. Ruchama Marton, PHR-ISRAEL., Israel. Dr. Eva Renate Marx-Mollière, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War , Germany. Davide Masoero, Lisbon University, Portugal. Mazen Masri, City, University of London, United Kingdom. Cyril Masselot, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, France. Anat Matar, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Denise Margaret Matias, Institute for Social-Ecological Research, Germany. Francine Mazière, université, France. Cahal McLaughlin, Queen’s University Belfast, United Kingdom. Tijan Mede, IMT, Slovenia Nicola Melis, University of Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy. Chantal Meloni, University of Milan , Italy. Giulia Mensitieri, IDHES, France. Monica Mereu, University of Cagliari , Italy. Leander Meuris, Ghent University, Belgium. Michel Mietton, Professeur émérite Université Lyon 3 J. Moulin, France. Radmila Mileusnic, The Open University, retired Reader in Neurobiology, United Kingdom. Alain Mille, Université Lyon1, France. Peter Miller, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Anne-Marie Mollet, Université Clermont-Auvergne, France. Arturo Monaco, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. David Mond, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. Maria Grazia Montella, Integrim LAB, Belgium. José-Luis Moragues, Université Paul Valéry France., France. Tiziana Morosetti, Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom. Giuseppe Mosconi, University of Padua, Italy. Clement Mouhot, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. Catherine Moury, FCSH-UNL, Portugal. Dr. Pertti Multanen, University of Tampere, Finland. Pamela Murgia, Università di Urbino, Italy. Thomas Murray, Independent Researcher, Ireland. Maurizio Mussoni, University of Bologna, Italy. Anna Nasser, Scuola Superiore Meridionale – Università degli studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy. Yoga Nathan, Senior Lecturer in Medical Education; School of Medicine; University Limerick, Ireland. Carlotta Nonnis Marzano, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy. Daithí Ó Madáin, NUI Galway, Ireland. Maureen O’Connor, University College Cork, Ireland. Tom O’Connor, Technological University Dublin (retired), Ireland. Jacqui O’Riordan, University College Cork, Ireland. Brendan ÓCaoláin, Griffith College, Dublin, Ireland. Elana Ochse, University of Torino (retired), Italy. Joseph Oesterlé, Sorbonne University, France. Jukka Oksa, UEF, Karelian Institute, emeritus Senior Researcher, Finland. Josiane Olff-Nathan, Université de Strasbourg (retired), France. Françoise Olivier-Utard, University of Strasbourg, France. Michèle Olivieri, Université Côte d’Azur, France. Hussein Omar, University College Dublin, Ireland. Adi Ophir, Tel Aviv University, Brown University , United States. Leonardo Orazi, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Italy. Claudia Ortu, Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Italy. Kari Paasonen, Tampere University, Finland. Michelle Pace, Roskilde University, Denmark Antonio Pacifico, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3, France. Norman Paech, Prof. Dr. emer. Universität Hamburg, Germany. Samuela Pagani, Università del Salento, Italy. Phillip Paiement, Tilburg Law School, Netherlands. Mauro Pala, Università di Cagliari, Italy. France.sco Pallante, Università di Torino, Italy. Valentina Pazé, Università di Torino, Italy. Esther Peeren, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Yoav Peled, Tel Aviv University, Israel. Nurit Peled-Elhanan, Hebrew University, Israel. Sinead Pembroke, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Nuno Pereira, Instituto Politécnico de Beja, Portugal. Manuel Pereira dos Santos, Dept. Physics – ECT – University of Évora, Portugal. Guy Perrier, Université de Lorraine, France. Nicola Perugini, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Ruud Peters, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Jean-Baptiste Petit, Université Lyon 1, France. David Peyton, TU Dublin, Ireland. Vincenzo Pezzino, University of Catania Medical School, Italy. Roland Pfefferkorn, université de Strasbourg, France. Solomon Picciotto, Lancaster University, United Kingdom. Alessandro Piccolo, University of Napoli Federico II, Italy. Antonello Piombo, Università di Bologna, Italy. Daniela Pioppi, University of Naples ‘L’Orientale’, Italy. Ema Pires, University of Evora, Portugal. Raphaël Plante, Université d’Aix-Marseille2 France. , France. Sharri Plonski, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom. Panagiotis Politis, University of Thessaly, Greece Christopher Pollmann, Professor of public law, Université de Lorraine, France. Raphael Porteilla, Université of Burgondy, France. Dragan Potočnik, Univerza Maribor, Slovenia Professor Megan Povey, University of Leeds, United Kingdom. Lesley Powell, Nelson Mandela University, South Africa Pierre Prades, Lab Sophiapol Université Paris Nanterre, France. Thierry Prangé, Université Paris Descartes, France. Jonathan Preminger, Cardiff Business School, United Kingdom. Mark Price, UCD School of Architecture Dublin Ireland., Ireland. Wendy Pullan, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. Raija-Leena Punamäki-Gitai, Tampere University, Finland. Shakhar Rahav, University of Haifa, Israel. Dr Shadaab Rahemtulla, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Paolo Ramazzotti, Università di Macerata, Italy. Syksy Räsänen, University of Helsinki, Finland. Marwan Rashed, Sorbonne University, France. Roshdi Rashed, CNRS Paris Sorbonne, France. CarloAlberto Redi, Dip. Biologia e Biotecnologie – Università di Pavia, Italy. Diana Reis, FCUL, Portugal. Rogério Reis, Universidade do Porto, Portugal. Christian Renoux, University of Orléans, France. Valeria Ribeiro Corossacz, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Italy. Eimear Rice, Dundalk Institute of Technology, Ireland. Nick Riemer, University of Sydney and History of Linguistic Theories Laboratory, University of Paris, France. Piergiorgio Righetti, Politecnico di Milano, Italy. James Ritter, Sorbpnne Université, France. Paola Rivetti, Dublin City University, Ireland. Jim Roche, Academics for Palestine AfP, Ireland. James Rock, Teachers Union of Ireland., Ireland. Steven Rose, Open University, United Kingdom. Lorenzo Roselli, Università di Roma, Italy. Jonathan Rosenhead, London School of Economics, United Kingdom. Werner Ruf, Université de Kassel, Germany. Giovanni Russo Spena, Università Federico II di Napoli, Italy. Ana Lúcia Sá, Centre for International Studies – Iscte , Portugal. Farian Sabahi, Insubria University (Como and Varese), Italy. Paola Sacchi, University of Turin, Italy. Hannah Safran, The Haifa Feminist Research Center, Israel. Patrick Sagory, Université de Bordeaux, France. Gabriela Saldanha, Birmingham, United Kingdom. Paloma Salvador, University of the Balearic Islands, Spain. Catherine Samary, University Paris Dauphine (retired), France. Johsua Samuel , Aix Marseille Université , France. Tomas Sanz-Perela, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Adham Saouli, University of St Andrews, United Kingdom. Tewfik Sari, INRAE, France. Alessandro Sarti, CNRS, France. Sandra Saúde, Polytechnic Institute of Beja, Portugal. Lorenzo Savioli, Retiree former WHO staff, Switzerland. Samer Sawalha, Royal Institute of Technology-KTH, Sweden Andrea Sbarbaro, University of Genova, Italy. Marta Scaglioni, Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca, Italy. Philippe Schepens, Université de Franche-Comté, France. Laura Sciacca, University of Catania, Medical School, Italy. Iain Scobbie, University of Manchester School of Law, United Kingdom. Richard Seaford, University of Exeter, United Kingdom. Nora Semmoud, Tours University, France. Stefano Severi, University of Bologna, Italy. Itamar Shachar, Ghent University, Belgium. Geniene Sharrock, Nelson Mandela University , South Africa Nahda Shehada, Erasmus University, Netherlands. Yonatan Shemmer, University of Sheffield, United Kingdom. Maha Shuayb, Centre for lebanese studies, United Kingdom. Dmitry Shumsky, Professor of modern Jewish history, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Simone Sibilio, Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia , Italy. Aude Signoles, Sciences Po Aix, France. Nadia Silhi-Chahin, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Manuel Carlos Silva, Centro Interdisciplinar de Ciências Sociais – Universidade do Minho, Portugal. Aysegul Sirakaya, Ghent Universitu, Belgium. Ailbhe Smyth, University College Dublin (retired), Ireland. Robbie Smyth, Griffith College, Ireland. Kobi Snitz, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel. Barbara Sorgoni, University of Turin, Italy. Sylvain Sorin, Sorbonne Université, France. Federica Sossi, Università di Bergamo, Italy. Alessandra Spano, University of Catania, Italy. Rachel Spronk, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Pierre Stambul, Institut de formation des maîtres, France. Angelo Stefanini, University of Bologna (retired), Italy. Janneke Stegeman, Utrecht University College, Netherlands. Mikki Stelder, University of British Columbia/University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Mette Edith Stendevad, University of Leicester, Denmark Primoz Sterbenc, University Assistant Professor, Slovenia Stephen Stewart, DCU, Ireland. Amber Steyaert, University of Ghent, Belgium. Alan Stoleroff, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), Portugal. Antonio Stopani, Università di Torino, Italy. Derek Summerfield, King’s College, University of London, United Kingdom. Saana Svärd, University of Helsinki, Finland. Erik Swyngedouw, The University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Benoît Tadié, université Rennes 2, France. Nozomi Takahashi, VIB-Ghent University, Belgium. Simona Taliani, University of Turin, Italy. Adam Talib, Durham University, United Kingdom. Tamara Tamimi, Independent Consultant, Palestine Peter Tansey, UCD, Ireland. Richard Tapper, SOAS University of London, United Kingdom. Sibel Taylor, Oxford Brookes University, UK, United Kingdom. Laurence Thieux, Complutense University, Spain. Karen Till, Maynooth University, Ireland. Agathe Torti Alcayaga, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, France. Alberto Toscano, Reader in Critical Theory, Goldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom. Patrizio Tressoldi, Padova University, Italy. Emanuela Trevisan, Ca Foscari University, Italy. Laurie Tuller, Université de Tours, France. Mathias Urban, Dublin City University, Ireland. Raffaele Urselli, International Labour Organization, Italy. Gabriele Usberti, Università di Siena, Italy. France.sco Vacchiano, University Ca’ Foscari, Venice, Italy. Jean Vallade, professeur honoraire univ. Bourgogne, France. Willie Van Peer, Ludwig Maximilian University, Belgium. Michel Vanhoorne, Ghent University (Belgium.), Belgium. Patrick Vassallo, IUT Saint-Denis Paris Nord, France. Agustin Velloso, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia , Spain. Eric Verdeil, Sciences Po Paris, France. Jojada Verrips, Prof. Em. University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Pedro Vianna, Universitat de Valencia, France. Luca Vignoli, University of Bologna, Italy. Claude Viterbo, Ecole normale supérieure (Paris), France. Else Vogel, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Lior Volinz, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. Shahd Wadi, University of Coimbra, Portugal. Roy Wagner, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Michael Walls, DPU, UCL, United Kingdom. Dror Warschawski, Sorbonne Université, France. Janet Constance Watson, University of Leeds, United Kingdom. Annick Weiner, University Paris-Saclay, France. Elian Weizman, London South Bank University, United Kingdom. Siobhan Wills, Ulster University, Ireland. Eric Windgassen, MRCPsych, United Kingdom. Ruben Wissing, Ghent University, Department of European, Public and International Law, Belgium. Haim Yacobi, University College London, United Kingdom. Federico Zanettin, Università di Perugia, Italy. Marco Zannetti, Università di Salerno, Italy. Racha Zebib, University of Tours, France. Alberto Ziparo, Università di Firenze, Italy. Monica Zoppè, CNR, Italy.
We, the undersigned academics and researchers in countries participating in European research programmes, note with grave concern the ongoing failure of the European Union to ensure that its taxpayer-funded research programmes are not used to legitimise or otherwise sustain the establishment and the activities of Israeli academic institutions in illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT).
As the EU Commission recently reiterated: “Article 19 of the Horizon 2020 Framework Regulation provides that all the research and innovation activities carried out under Horizon 2020 must comply with ethical principles and relevant national, Union and international legislation…” The necessary provisions have been made in EU legislation and its implementing rules to “ensure the respect of positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the EU of Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967”.
The criteria applied by the EU Commission to determine the eligibility of projects and participants for EU-funded support, the terms of its contracts with participants and its monitoring of the activities and the beneficiaries of the projects must comport with these requirements and their purposes.
For these same purposes, the Commission must also ensure that the management of activities conducted under EU-funded research projects both respects and comports with the EU’s non-recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the OPT, the EU’s consequent non-recognition of Israeli settlement entities as lawfully established and the EU’s consequent non-recognition of settlement-based activities as lawfully conducted.
However, multiple cases demonstrate failures of the Commission to properly instruct against, monitor for and rectify project management transgressions against these EU positions.
Ariel University, which is located in the illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel, hosted a dissemination event for the Bounce project in June 2020 and is included as a “stakeholder in Israel” for the project. In addition, a professor from Ariel University is listed as a co-researcher on the project, as “a member of the Israel Bounce Team”, and as one of the “researchers involved in data collection” on a project deliverable, raising serious questions as to whether research activities were carried out in the OPT.
Ariel University was also listed as a stakeholder in the Horizon 2020 project Geo-Cradle. It was initially removed from the stakeholder list following a request to the Commission by the project coordinator, though its stakeholder profile has since been restored, and signs of its involvement remain on the project website to this day.
In addition, in all cases Ariel University is falsely indicated on project material as located in Israel.
The far-right-supporting, now defunct Trump administration made its support for illegal Israeli settlement institutions official, including by ending long-standing restrictions on research funding. The EU must and can do better.
Authoritative Palestinian higher-education bodies, supported by prominent academics, are calling on international institutions not to recognise Ariel University and to abstain from giving effect to its pretensions of institutional legitimacy.
At a time when the EU is finalising Horizon 2020’s successor, the €100 billion [£86 billion] Horizon Europe programme, we urge the EU Commission, Parliament and Council to devise, fund and implement the effective monitoring of participating research projects and hold transgressors accountable.
Horizon Europe’s stated goal is to “provide new knowledge and innovative solutions to overcome our societal, ecological and economic challenges”. Research projects should not be used to legitimise or otherwise sustain illegal Israeli settlements. The EU cannot resile from its own obligations in this respect without further empowering Israel’s unlawful military occupation and its oppression of millions of Palestinians, and without further undermining the Palestinian people’s inalienable and universally recognised rights under international law.
No Academic Business as Usual with Ariel University and all other Israeli Academic Institutions Illegally Built on Occupied Palestinian Land
A Call from Palestine 29 November 2018
On the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, we call on states, academic institutions and multilateral research bodies to withdraw any existing recognition of and end all institutional relations with Ariel University and other Israeli academic institutions illegally built on occupied Palestinian land.
The obligation of non-recognition and non-assistance of unlawful situations ” is a fundamental precept of international law, particularly as they relate to Israeli settlements, condemned by the United Nations Security Council as a “flagrant violation of international law.” Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israeli settlements and the transfer of Israeli settlers to occupied territory constitute a war crime.
Ariel University is located in the illegal Israeli settlement of the same name that was built on land stolen from surrounding Palestinian villages and on land Palestinian families have cultivated for generations. Israel’s wall, which was designed in such a way as to annex settlements, including Ariel, to Israel, was declared illegal in 2004 by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It severs Palestinian villages from each other and restricts freedom of movement. Palestinians have to live with the stench of wastewater dumped by Ariel on their agricultural land, destroying their crops, polluting their water sources and harming their health.
The settlements, which rob the Palestinian people of our land and natural resources and deny us our inalienable right to self-determination, are an integral part of Israel’s system of military occupation and colonial oppression dominating all aspects of Palestinian life, in particular education.
Israel’s military checkpoints and wall restrict travel to and from schools and colleges for Palestinian students, researchers and professors. The Israeli occupation authorities prevent Palestinian students in besieged Gaza, where nearly two million people live on four hours of electricity per day on average, from studying at Palestinian universities in the West Bank or from leaving Gaza for universities abroad.
Since the start of the current academic year, Israel has denied entry or refused to renew visas for scores of faculty members of Palestinian universities holding foreign passports.
Ariel University contributes significantly to Israel’s denial of the fundamental right of academic freedom for Palestinians.
In a near-unanimous vote (830-21), the European Association of Social Anthropologists membership pledged non-cooperation with Israeli academic institutions in the occupied Palestinian territory.
Earlier this year, Kasetsart University in Bangkok ended its partnership with Ariel University for a Women’s Study Conference.
In 2012, the Technical University of Denmark ended a joint research project with Ariel University.
These measures were taken in recognition of the fact that collaborating with Ariel University necessarily means normalizing Israel’s illegal policies that deny Palestinian rights. We therefore call specifically on:
Governments and the European Union to condition agreements with the Israeli Council for Higher Education on non-recognition and non-accreditation of Ariel University.
Ministries of education worldwide not to accredit Ariel University’s diplomas.
International academic institutions and research centers to end all institutional links to Ariel University, including joint research, recognition of diplomas, invitations, visits and conferences.
International academics to refrain from participating in any activity/project fully or partially sponsored/organized by Ariel University or in which its representatives are participating.
Academic journals not to recognize Ariel University and to insist that submissions from academics affiliated to Ariel University must include the fact that it is located in an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied Palestinian territory.
Background information:
Founded in 1982 as a branch of Bar-Ilan University, Ariel University Center of Samaria became an independent college in 2004. In 2012, it was granted accreditation by the so-called “Council for Higher Education in Judea and Samaria,” i.e. the occupied West Bank.
Ariel University is built on occupied Palestinian territory and is therefore built in violation of international law. In February 2018, the Israeli parliament passed a law placing Ariel University — along with two other colony-colleges, Herzog College, and Orot Israel College — under the auspices of Israel’s Council for Higher Education.
Ze’ev Elkin, Jerusalem Affairs Minister in Netanyahu’s far-right government, celebrated the Knesset vote on the matter tweeting that after “applying Israeli sovereignty on Ariel University, let’s begin to apply Israeli sovereignty on Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.”
According to B’Tselem, Israel’s leading human rights organization, Ariel, the illegal colony where the current university is based, was established in 1978 on Palestinian land that was seized “under the false pretext of imperative military needs and on land that was declared state land.” Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israeli settlements built on occupied Palestinian or Syrian territory constitute war crimes.
Ariel University is expected to double in size over the next 5 years, thanks to a 20-million-dollar donation from US billionaire and Israeli settlement supporter Sheldon Adelson and a solid commitment by the far-right Israeli education minister Naftali Bennett. Signatories: – the Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education, – the Council of Palestinian Universities’ Presidents, – the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE), and – the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC). || التصنيف: التعليم العالي والبحث العلمي ||
NO ACADEMIC BUSINESS AS USUAL WITH ARIEL UNIVERSITY
A campaign for non recognition of Israeli academic institutions in illegal settlements on occupied Palestinian land
Obligations for institutions Respecting international law, as a peaceful and universal means of conflict resolution, requires denying recognition to, and severing institutional relations with Ariel University as an illegal settlement institution.
Complicity in international law violations Ariel University is the most prominent of several Israeli institutions of higher education built in illegal Israeli colony settlements on Palestinian land in the West Bank. The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip were occupied by Israel in 1967 and are internationally considered as Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court considers such settlement of occupied territory a war crime. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 reconfirmed in 2016 that Israel’s settlement activity has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.” Moreover, Ariel University is deeply and directly complicit in Israel’s system of oppression that denies Palestinians their basic rights guaranteed by international law.
Authoritative Palestinian academic bodies are calling on states, academic institutions, multilateral research bodies and international academics not to recognize Ariel University and to refrain from any institutional relations with it. Ariel University is an illegal institution and is deeply and directly complicit in Israel’s system of oppression that has denied Palestinians their basic rights guaranteed by international law, including the right to education and academic freedom.
Who’s behind the call? ▪ Palestinian Ministry of Education ▪ Council of Palestinian Universities’ Presidents ▪ Palestinian Federation of University Unions of University Professors and Employees (PFUUPE) ▪ Palestinian Human Rights Organizations Council (PHROC)
Support for non–recognition of Ariel University inside and outside Israel
The original decision to upgrade Ariel college to a university was opposed by the Council of Presidents of Israeli Universities and by over 1,000 Israeli academics on the grounds that “involving Israeli academia in the ideology of conquest … threatens the ability of the Israeli academia to function.”
In August 2018, the European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA) voted overwhelmingly (164–0, with 17 abstentions) to support the Israeli Anthropological in its refusal to cooperate with the illegal institutions of higher education (located in Israel’s illegal settlements in the OPT) and to “pledge its own non–cooperation with these institutions.”
What you can do: Urge international institutions and governments to avoid being complicit in illegality, by: (1) Refraining from accrediting or recognising any diplomas or qualifications conferred by Ariel University; (2) Conditioning agreements with the Israeli Council for Higher Education on non–recognition and non–accreditation of Ariel University.
International academics are called upon to: (3) Decline to write or referee for journals published by Ariel or based in it; (4) Refuse to participate in projects or attend conferences fully or partially sponsored by Ariel University or which include its representatives (dean, head of department or spokesperson) as participants; (5) Urge universities, conferences and workshops not to host individual academics from Ariel University unleunless their affiliation is properly indicated as: “Ariel University, illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel, Occupied Palestinian Territory” in conference material; (6) Urge academic journals not to publish material identified with Ariel University unless it is properly indicated as: “Ariel University, illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel, Occupied Palestinian Territory;” (7) Advocate for academic societies to approve motions supporting the call from Palestinian academic bodies not to recognise/sever existing links with Ariel University; (8) Reject any collaboration with Ariel University as an institution or with any of its bodies.
Join us! Join the campaign to support the Palestinian right to education and academic freedom. Take action to hold Ariel University accountable for violations of international law.
Prof. Oded Goldreich from the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science at Weizmann Institute was a candidate for the prestigious
Israel Prize. However, Yoav Galant, the Minister of Education, has requested the nomination committee to reconsider his nomination due to BDS support. Goldreich, an expert on cryptography and computational complexity theory, was awarded the prestigious Knuth Prize in 2017 for the outstanding contribution to the foundations of computer science.
Goldreich is a long-time member of Hadash and the Communist Party of Israel, and has been active for years against the “occupation of the Palestinian territories.” In June 2017, Goldreich was among 240 Israeli scholars who signed an appeal to the German Bundestag urging it not to adopt the working definition of anti-Semitism and not to equate BDS with anti-Semitism.
Goldreich told Channel 12, which broke out with this story, that he knew nothing of being a candidate for the Israel Prize.
A few days later, Goldreich has said in an interview that, “Many of my friends and colleagues have expressed concerns about the grief involved in a handshake with Netanyahu and Galant.” When asked about the petition he signed in 2017, he said: “The document does not call for a boycott of Israel but explains that the harsh criticism of various organizations – including the BDS – on Israel’s policy in the Occupied Territories and the call for sanctions against it for this policy is not anti-Semitic, but legitimate criticism and legitimate political action. I stand behind my signature on this document.” As for not receiving the Israel prize, he said: “Many of my friends and colleagues have expressed concerns about the grief involved in the handshake of two villains – the prime minister and his spokesman, the Minister of Education. This grief is negligible in relations to the grief I feel every day from the government policy, without mentioning the more severe suffering of many who are direct victims of that criminal and stupid policy,” he added.
Last week Goldreich was among a group of Israeli political activist-academics, who wrote a letter of support to two Italian mayors who withdrew from a conference on anti-Semitism, published by the Palestinian BDS movement. They wrote: “We are writing to you as Israeli nationals affiliated with academia in the UK and elsewhere, to thank you for choosing not to participate in the ‘Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism’ conference, set to take place on March 16, 2021. Like you, we believe that fighting all forms of racism, including antisemitism, is of utmost importance. At the same time, we are very troubled by attempts, including, but not limited to this Mayors’ conference, to instrumentalize the fight against antisemitism to suppress freedom of expression on Israel and Zionism, to stifle advocacy for Palestinian rights, and to exclude legitimate criticism of Israel’s ongoing oppression of Palestinians.”
Goldreich has a long history of flirting with BDS. In 2008, specifically, he was among a group of Israelis who supported the Methodist Church’ BDS resolution. They wrote, “we Israeli seekers of peace and justice express our sincere gratitude to the Methodist Church for its stand on the occupation, and support the proposals before the General Conference this April on divestment. Boycott and divestment are non-violent means of pressuring governments to change their policies–means now sorely needed to compel the Israeli government to end its occupation of Palestinians and their lands and thereby to better the lives of Israelis as well as of Palestinians.”
Also in 2008, both the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and the Boycott Israeli Goods (BIG), endorsed a petition by a group of Israeli academics, including Goldreich, questioning “Academic Freedom to Whom?” presenting it as a call to boycott Israel by Israeli academics. None of the signatories corrected the wrong message. By so doing, they lent their names to the boycott movement.
In 2010, Goldreich helped Dr. Anat Matar to define her BDS advocacy. Matar and Goldreich wrote, “The call to boycott draws its inspiration from the apartheid struggle in South-Africa. Of course, the historical circumstances were different, and different forms of struggle, but there are similarities in the form of regime behavior, as well as in relations to the international community… I will note, only, that many people, known for their struggle against South-Africa’s apartheid, are finding such similarities as supportive of the moves for a boycott against Israel because of this.”
Already in 2003, Goldreich wrote on his website at Weizmann Institute, “My political views,” stating that, “On top of this massive violation of human rights, Israel’s rule of the occupied territories is marked by an increasing number of war crimes ranging from murder (i.e., intentional killing of people without due process and/or sound justification), to causing death and severe injury of civilians in hundreds of cases (by criminal negligence), massive intentional destruction of private and public property (i.e., houses, plants, vehicles, equipment, etc), and the emprisonment and starvation of the entire population. Typically, the justification offered for these violations and crimes is self-defense.”
Evidently, Goldreich felt very strongly about these alleged abuses and, by extension, the State of Israel. An honorable way to protest would be to resign his position from the Weizmann Institute, which pro-Palestinian activists consider, along with other institutions of higher learning, a tool of oppression. His position is even more hypocritical since academics, intellectuals, journalists, and activists in the West Bank have been thrown to jail for as much as criticizing Mahmoud Abbas and his corrupt and lawless political system. Needless to say, under the brutal dictatorship of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, freedom of expression is an alien concept as it is in North Korea.
IAM has repeatedly emphasized that academics like Goldreich do the Palestinians no favor. By constantly focusing on Israel, they conveniently omit the problems that Palestinians face at the hands of their leadership.
The prestigious Israel Prize is given for contributions to society and cannot be divorced from the recipient’s moral character. By any measure, Goldreich’s hypocritical behavior should disqualify him.
Pro-BDS professor rumored frontrunner for Israel’s most prestigious prize
March 11, 2021
Education Minister has no say but demands that the nominating committee rescind its decision, which has yet to be announced.
By Batya Jerenberg, World Israel News
Education Minister Yoav Galant has demanded that the Israel Prize nominating committee rescind its alleged decision to award the country’s highest honor to a professor who has defended the boycott effort against Israel, Channel 12 reported Wednesday.
Unofficially hearing that the recipient of the award in the category of Mathematics and Computer Science would be Weizmann Institute Prof. Oded Goldreich, Galant blew a gasket upon discovering that the academic had signed an appeal to the German parliament calling to cancel the recognition of the BDS movement as being anti-Semitic.
“The state of affairs in which the professor will receive the most prestigious award from the state with one hand, and with the other hand promotes the affairs of a movement that undermines the existence of Israel – is absurd and unacceptable,” he said, according to the report.
In May 2019, the Bundestag passed an advisory resolution calling on Germany’s regional and local governments to deny public funding or space to any person or institution that supports or identifies with the BDS movement or questions Israel’s right to exist.
In June, some 240 mostly Jewish and Israeli scholars, including Goldreich, condemned the legally non-binding motion and called on the government not to adopt it. They denied that BDS was anti-Semitic and expressed the concern that the resolution curtailed the right of freedom of speech.
BDS was founded by Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti, who has stated, “We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.” The movement falsely compares Israel to apartheid-era South Africa and demands the “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel, which would effectively destroy the Jewish state.
Making his opposition known may be the only thing Galant can do, as he has no authority to intervene in the granting of the Israel Prize.
According to website Political Campus, which seeks freedom of speech for conservative academics equal to that of liberals in Israeli institutions, Goldreich has signed other anti-Israel petitions as well. During 2014’s Operation Protective Edge to stop Hamas terrorism, he joined a call against an Israeli “slaughter of innocents” that also decried the “endless oppression of the Palestinian people.” He has supported lecturers and students who refuse to serve in the IDF, asked the Spanish parliament to recognize “Palestine,” and signed a petition backing the extreme left-wing Breaking the Silence organization.
The 64-year-old professor told Channel 12 that he knew nothing about the award.
“I have not been updated on the win,” Goldreich said. “I am not willing to comment on what I don’t know. I don’t know what it’s about and therefore I don’t know how to respond.”
Goldreich, who has done extensive research on cryptography and computational complexity theory, won the Knuth Prize in 2017 for outstanding contributions to the foundations of computer science.
The far-right Minister of Education in Benjamin Netanyahu’s caretaker government, MK Yoav Galant, has demanded that the Israel Prize nominating committee rescind its rumored decision to award the country’s highest honor to Professor Oded Goldreich, a leading computer scientist, Al–Ittihad and Zo Haderech have reported in recent days. Goldreich, who has been active for years against the occupation of the Palestinian territories, is a long-time member of Hadash and the Communist Party of Israel (CPI).Minister Galant, a former general in the Israeli army, was head of the Southern Command during Israel’s excessively brutal and devastatingly destructive, 3-week military campaign “Operation Cast Lead” against Hamas in the Gaza Strip (December 27, 2008-January 18, 2009) which resulted in some 1,400 Palestinian deaths, more than a thousand of which were minors, women or adult male non-combatants, according to B’Tselem. In 2010, Galant’s, nomination as the next Chief of Staff of Israel’s military was withdrawn following allegations of various improprieties on his part, including the seizure of public lands near his home at Moshav Amikam, near Zikhron Ya’akov along the Carmel region of Israel’s Coastal plain.
Galant, a member of the Likud since 2018, reportedly exploded when he unofficially learned last week that the recipient of this year’s Israel Prize for the fields of Mathematics and Computer Science would be Goldreich, a professor at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot. In June 2017, Goldreich was among some 240 Israeli scholars who signed an appeal to the German Bundestag calling on it not to adopt a legally non-binding motion then being debated by the lawmakers which categorized the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel as “anti-Semitic.” The Israeli signatories to the petition categorically refuted any such aspersions towards BDS, and expressed their concern that, if passed, the German resolution would curtail freedom of speech.
The 64-year-old professor of computer science told Channel 12 that he knew nothing about the talk of his being designated to receive the Israel Prize. “I have not been updated on the win,” he told the television station. Goldreich, who has done extensive research on cryptography and computational complexity theory, was awarded the prestigious Knuth Prize in 2017 for outstanding contributions to the foundations of computer science.March 13, 2021 i
Israeli Academics Thank Italian Mayors for Withdrawing From Conference Aimed at Shielding Israel From AccountabilityMarch 16, 2021 / By Israeli academics Israeli academics commend the mayors of Bologna and Palermo for helping to “move us along the path of struggle against all forms of racism, including antisemitism, and set an example for others to follow”.
Below is a letter signed by Israeli academics sent to Virginio Merola, Mayor of Bologna, and Leoluca Orlando, Mayor of Palermo. The academics thank the two mayors for having withdrawn from an international conference of mayors aimed at shieldng Israel from accountability over its violations of Palestinian human rights.
Dear Mayors,
We are writing to you as Israeli nationals affiliated with academia in the UK and elsewhere, to thank you for choosing not to participate in the ‘Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism’ conference, set to take place on March 16, 2021.
Like you, we believe that fighting all forms of racism, including antisemitism, is of utmost importance. At the same time, we are very troubled by attempts, including, but not limited to this Mayors’ conference, to instrumentalize the fight against antisemitism to suppress freedom of expression on Israel and Zionism, to stifle advocacy for Palestinian rights, and to exclude legitimate criticism of Israel’s ongoing oppression of Palestinians.
The first panel of the conference is dedicated to the inherently flawed IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which has been widely criticised. We are among nearly 200 Israeli scholars worldwide who expressed publically a strong opposition to its adoption by UK universities, pointing out not only its inadequacies in combatting antisemitism on campuses, but also the ways in which it has been deployed to shield Israel from criticism. Numerous others have warned against the dangers of adopting the IHRA definition, for precisely these reasons, including the director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at the University of London, the University College London Academic Board, the British Society of Middle Eastern Studies, a coalition of Jewish organizations in North America and Canada, and even the lead author of the definition.
We thank you for your willingness to consider the call from international Jewish organisations to withdraw from this conference, for taking the time to familiarize yourself with the accurate nature of the conference’s agenda, and for your decision not to be a part of it. You have shown great courage and integrity. Actions such as yours help move us along the path of struggle against all forms of racism, including antisemitism, and set an example for others to follow.
Sincerely,
Prof. Hagit Borer FBA, Queen Mary University of London
Dr. Moshe Behar, University of Manchester
Prof. Neve Gordon, Queen Mary University of London
Prof. Emerita Nira Yuval-Davis, University of East London,
Dr. Judit Druks, University College London
Dr. Moriel Ram, Newcastle University
Dr. Yohai Hakak, Brunel University London
PhD Candidate Daphna Baram, Lancaster University
Dr. Yael Friedman, University of Portsmouth
Dr. Catherine Rottenberg, University of Nottingham
Dr. Noam Leshem, Durham University
Dr. Itamar Kastner, University of Edinburgh
Prof. (emeritus) Moshé Machover, Kings College, University of London
גלנט בפניה לוועדת פרס ישראל: אל תעניקו את הפרס למדען שתומך ב-BDS
בחדשות 12 דווח כי שר החינוך טוען כי פרופ’ עודד גולדרייך, שנבחר על ידי הוועדה לקבל את הפרס בתחום חקר המתמטיקה ומדעי המחשב, חתום על פנייה לבטל את ההכרה בתנועת החרם על ישראל כתנועה אנטישמית
מעריב אונליין 10/03/2021 20:53 1 דק’ קריאה
ההודעה שפרסם משרד החינוך, לפיה טרם התקבלה החלטה סופית לגבי הענקת פרס ישראל בתחום חקר המתמטיקה ומדעי המחשב, ניסתה להתעלם מהמתרחש בחדרים סגורים ומהחלטת הוועדה להעניק את הפרס לפרופ’ עודד גולדרייך – זאת בעקבות בקשתו של שר החינוך יואב גלנט לבחון מחדש את הבחירה, כך פורסם הערב (רביעי) ב”חדשות 12″. הוועדה החליטה להעניק את הפרס לפרופ’ ממכון ויצמן על פועלו בנושא סיבוכיות חישובית. השר גלנט גילה כי גולדרייך חתום על פנייה לפרלמנט הגרמני לבטל את ההכרה בתנועת החרם על ישראל, ה-BDS, כתנועה אנטישמית. בנוסף גילה גלנט, כי הפרופ’ גם הגדיר את חיילי צה”ל כפושעי מלחמה. יצוין כי בג”ץ קבע בעבר כי לשר החינוך אין כל סמכות להתערב בהענקת הפרס, או לקשור בין התבטאויות כגון אלו לבין מתן הפרס.
“מצב הדברים שבו הפרופ’ יקבל בידו האחת מהמדינה את הפרס היוקרתי ביותר, ובידו האחרת מקדם את ענייניה של תנועה החותרת תחת קיומה של ישראל – הוא אבסורדי ובלתי מתקבל על הדעת”, כתב גלנט בפנייתו לוועדה, בה דרש כי בחירתו של הפרופ’ תישקל מחדש.
“עוגמת הנפש בקבלת פרס ישראל – לחיצת ידיים לשני המנוולים הראשיים גלנט ונתניהו”
הפרופ’ ממכון וייצמן שהוועדה החליטה להעניק לו את הפרס הנחשב מייצר עוד סערות, זאת לאחר הפרסום בחדשות 12 על הכוונה לבטל את זכייתו: “לא מתחרט על התמיכה ב-BDS”
מעריב אונליין 15/03/2021 18:58 2 דק’ קריאה
הסערה סביב פרס ישראל נמשכת: לאחר פרסומים שונים בתקשורת אודות ניסיונתיו של שר החינוך יואב גלנט לשלול מוועדת פרס ישראל את הסמכות להעניק את המענק הנחשב בתחום חקר המתמטיקה ומדעי המחשב לפרופ’ עודד גולדרייך ממכון וייצמן, המדען ממשיך להסתבך בדבריו. בראיון שהתפרסם היום (שני) אמר כי: “רבים מידידיי וחבריי הביעו חששות מעוגמת הנפש הכרוכה בלחיצת ידם של נתניהו וגלנט”.בקשר למחלוקת סביב קבלת הפרס, ותמיכתו לכאורה במטרותיה של התנועה לחרם על ישראל, ה-BDS, אמר המדען: “שוב ושוב – המסמך אינו קורא להחרים את ישראל אלא מסביר שהביקורת החריפה של ארגונים שונים – ובכללם ה-BDS – על מדיניות ישראל בשטחים הכבושים והקריאה לסנקציות כלפיה בשל מדיניות זו אינה אנטישמיות, אלא ביקורת לגיטימית ופעולה פוליטית לגיטימית. אני עומד מאחורי חתימתי על מסמך זה”.
“רבים מידידיי וחברי הביעו חששות מעוגמת נפש הכרוכה בלחיצת ידם של שני מנוולים ראשיים – ראש הממשלה ועושה דברו, שר החינוך”, התייחס בזלזול המדען לבנימין נתניהו ויואב גלנט. “עוגמת נפש זאת הינה זניחה ביחס לעוגמת הנפש שיש לי כל יום ממדיניות הממשלה, וזאת מבלי לציין את הסבל הממשי החמור יותר של רבים שהם קורבנות ישירים של אותה מדיניות נפשעת ומטומטמת”, הוסיף. כזכור, ההודעה שפרסם משרד החינוך, לפיה טרם התקבלה החלטה סופית לגבי הענקת פרס ישראל בתחום חקר המתמטיקה ומדעי המחשב, ניסתה להתעלם משהתרחש בחדרים סגורים ומהחלטת הוועדה להעניק את הפרס לפרופ’ גולדרייך – זאת בעקבות בקשתו של גלנט לבחון מחדש את הבחירה, כך על פי פרסום של חדשות 12.טרם הסערה, החליטה הוועדה להעניק את הפרס לגולדריין על פועלו המחקרי בנושא סיבוכיות חישובית. השר גלנט גילה כי גולדרייך חתום על פנייה לפרלמנט הגרמני לבטל את ההכרה בתנועת החרם על ישראל, ה-BDS, כתנועה אנטישמית. בנוסף גילה גלנט, כי הפרופ’ גם הגדיר את חיילי צה”ל כפושעי מלחמה. יצוין כי בג”ץ קבע בעבר כי לשר החינוך אין כל סמכות להתערב בהענקת הפרס, או לקשור בין התבטאויות כגון אלו לבין מתן הפרס.
240 Jewish and Israeli scholars to German government: boycotts are a legitimate and non-violent tool of resistanceJune 12, 2019 / By 240 Jewish and Israeli scholars / Germany, Palestine “We reject this motion, which is based on the false allegation that BDS as such equals anti-Semitism. We call on the German government not to endorse this motion and to fight anti-Semitism, while respecting and protecting freedom of speech and of association, which are undeniably under attack.”
June 3, 2019 – Mid-May, Jewish and Israeli scholars, many of whom specialized in anti-Semitism, Jewish history and history of the Holocaust, sounded alarm about the growing tendency to label supporters of Palestinian human rights as anti-Semitic. They did so in a call addressed to the German Bundestag in relation to several motions that were being tabled against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS). Many of us signed this call.
On May 17, one of these motions, sponsored by CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, was adopted. We reject this motion, which is based on the false allegation that BDS as such equals anti-Semitism. We call on the German government not to endorse this motion and to fight anti-Semitism, while respecting and protecting freedom of speech and of association, which are undeniably under attack.
As expressed in the earlier statement, we view anti-Semitism and all forms of racism and bigotry as a threat that must be fought, and we encourage the German government and parliament to do so. However, the adopted motion does not assist this fight. On the contrary, it undermines it.
The opinions about BDS among the signatories of this call differ significantly: some may support BDS, while others reject it for different reasons. Yet, we all reject the deceitful allegation that BDS as such is anti-Semitic and maintain that boycotts are a legitimate and non-violent tool of resistance. We, leading researchers of anti-Semitism included, assert that one should be considered an anti-Semite according to the content and the context of one’s words and deeds – whether they come from BDS supporters or not.
Regrettably, the adopted motion ignores the explicit opposition of the BDS movement to “all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism”. The BDS movement seeks to influence the policies of the government of a state that is responsible for the ongoing occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people. Such policies cannot be immune to criticism. In this context, it should also be noted that many Jewish and Israeli individuals and groups either support BDS explicitly, or defend the right to support it. We consider it inappropriate and offensive when German governmental and parliamentary institutions label them anti-Semitic.
Moreover, the three main goals of BDS – ending the occupation, full equality to the Arab citizens of Israel and the right of return of Palestinian refugees – adhere to international law, even if the third goal is undoubtedly debatable. We are shocked that demands for equality and compliance with international law are considered anti-Semitic.
We conclude that the rise in anti-Semitism is clearly not the concern which inspired the motion adopted by the Bundestag. On the contrary, this motion is driven by political interests and policies of Israel’s most right-wing government in history.
For years, the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been labelling any opposition to its illegal and peace-undermining policies as anti-Semitic. No one can be surprised that Netanyahu warmly welcomed the motion by the Bundestag. This embrace illustrates how the fight against anti-Semitism is being instrumentalized to shield policies of the Israeli government that cause severe violations of human rights and that destroy the chances for peace. We find it unacceptable and utterly counterproductive when supporting “the right of the Jewish and democratic state of Israel to exist” and fighting anti-Semitism in fact encourages these policies.
To make things worse, the adopted motion does not distinguish between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It categorically condemns all boycotts of Israeli businesses and goods – including of businesses in and goods from Israel’s illegal settlements. As a result, it would label a campaign to boycott of products of a settlement company complicit in human rights violations, as anti-Semitic. This constitutes a deplorable withdrawal from the unequivocal and consistent opposition of the German government and the EU to Israel’s settlement policy.
Furthermore, the motion ignores that statements in the context of BDS are protected by freedom of expression, as also confirmed by the EU, which “stands firm in protecting freedom of expression and freedom of association in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is applicable on EU Member States’ territory, including with regard to BDS actions carried out on this territory”. Precisely because of its history, Germany should be very cautious about any retreat from these basic democratic norms.
Finally, the conflation of BDS with anti-Semitism does not advance the urgent fight against anti-Semitism. The threat of anti-Semitism does not originate from Palestinian rights activists, but mainly from the extreme right and from Jihadist groups. Denying that could alienate Muslims and Arabs from the vital struggle against anti-Semitism and hamper the possibility of building true solidarity between Jews, Israelis, Muslims and Arabs in fighting anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. It also sends a wrong message to those who choose to oppose the oppression of the Palestinian people by non-violent means.
For all those reasons, we, Jewish and Israeli scholars, reject the motion by CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. Now that it has been adopted, we call on the German government not to endorse this motion and to refrain from equating BDS with anti-Semitism. Instead, the German government must act upon its positive responsibility to promote and protect the freedom of expression and of association.
In addition, we call on the German government to maintain its direct and indirect funding of Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organisations that peacefully challenge the Israeli occupation, expose severe violations of international law and strengthen civil society. These organizations defend the principles and values at the heart of liberal democracy and rule of law in Germany and elsewhere. More than ever, they need financial support and political backing.
Signed by 240 Jewish and Israeli scholars (institutional affiliations mentioned for identification purposes only):
Prof. Aaron J. Hahn Tapper, Mae and Benjamin Swig Professor of Jewish Studies, Director of the Swig Program in Jewish Studies and Social Justice, Department of Theology & Religious Studies University of San Francisco Adam Hochschild, Author and journalist, Lecturer at the Graduate School of Journalism. University of California at Berkeley, winner of the Theodore Roosevelt-Woodrow Wilson Award (2008) Dr. Adam Kossoff, Reader at the School of Art, University of Wolverhampton, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Prof. Adam Sutcliffe, Department of History, King’s College London, specializes in Jewish History Prof. (emerita) Alice Shalvi, English Departments, Hebrew University Jerusalem and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, former Rector Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, winner of the Israel Prize (2007), co-winner of the Leibowitz Prize (2009), winner of the Bonei Zion Prize (2017) Prof. Alon Confino, Pen Tishkach Chair of Holocaust Studies, Director of The Institute for Holocaust, Genocide, and Memory Studies, Department of History, University of Massachusetts Dr. Alon Liel, International MA in Security and Diplomacy, Tel Aviv University, former Ambassador to South Africa, Consul General in the south-east of the USA and Head of Diplomatic Mission in Turkey, former Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Economy and Planning and of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dr. Amir Minsky, Assistant Teaching Professor of History, New York University, Abu Dhabi Prof. (emeritus) Amiram Goldblum, School of Pharmacy- Institute for Drug Research, the Faculty of Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, one of the founders of the Israeli NGP “Peace Now” and its former spokesperson Prof. Amos Goldberg, Former Chair of the Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, specializes in Holocaust History Dr. Anat Matar, Philosophy Department, Tel Aviv University Dr. Andre Levy, Senior Lecturer, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, specializes in the concepts of diaspora and ethnicity Prof. Andrew Stuart Bergerson, History Department, University of Missouri-Kansas City, specializes in history of modern Germany Prof. Aner Preminger, Filmmaker and professor at the Department of Communication, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem and Sapir Academic College Dr. Annie Pfingst, Independent Scholar, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Dr. Anya Topolski, Associate Professor of Ethics and Political Philosophy, Radboud University Nijmegen, specializes in racism in Europe Dr. Ariel Salzmann, Associate Professor, Islamic and World History, Department of History, Queen’s University Assaf Gavron, Writer, winner of the Israeli Prime Minister Award for authors (2011) and the Bernstein Prize (2013) Prof. Audrey Macklin, Director of the Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, Professor of Law and Chair in Human Rights, University of Toronto Prof. (emeritus) Avi Shlaim, The Department of Politics and International Relations, St Antony’s College and The University of Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy, specializes in Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Prof. Avner Ben-Amos, Department of History, Tel Aviv University, specializes in nationalism and collective memory in Israel Avraham Burg, Former Member of the Israeli Knesset, Speaker of the Knesset and Chairman of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization Dr. Ayelet Ben-Yishai, Department of English Language, University of Haifa Prof. b.h. Yael, Filmmaker, Professor and former chair of Integrated Media at the Ontario College of Art and Design, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Dr. Barak Kalir, Assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Amsterdam, specializes in migration in the Jewish-Israeli context Prof. Barry Trachtenberg, Michael R. and Deborah K. Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History, Department of History, Wake Forest University Dr. Ben Silverstein, School of History, Australian National University, specializes in indigenous histories and settler colonialism Prof. (emerita) Benita Parry, English and Comparative Literary Studies, Warwick University Prof. (emeritus) Ben-Tzion Munitz, Department of Theatre Arts, Tel Aviv University Prof. (emerita) Bilha Mannheim, Professor of Sociology, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, winner of the Israel Prize (2003) Dr. Brian Klug, Senior Research Fellow & Tutor in Philosophy, University of Oxford, honorary fellow of the Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/non-Jewish Relations, University of Southampton Alex Levac, Photographer, winner of the Israel Prize (2005) Prof. Bruce Rosenstock, Department of Religion College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Prof. Catherine Rottenberg, Foreign Literature and Linguistics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Prof. (emeritus) Chaim Gans, The Buchmann Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, specializes in political and legal theory of nationalism and Zionism Prof. Noy Chaim, School of Communication, Bar-Ilan University, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Prof. Chana Kronfeld, Hebrew, Yiddish and Comparative Literature, UC Berkeley Prof. (emeritus) Christiane Schomblond, Department of Mathematics, Université Libre de Bruxelles Prof. Colin Dayan, Robert Penn Warren Professor in the Humanities, English Department and Professor at the Law School, Vanderbilt University Dr. Cynthia Franklin, Department of English, University of Hawai’I, specializes in race and ethnicity Prof. (emeritus) Dan Jacobson, the Department of Labor Studies, Tel Aviv University Dr. Dana Kaplan, Department of Sociology, Political Science and Communication, The Open University of Israel Dr. Dana Mills, Department of History, Philosophy and Religion, Oxford Brookes University Prof. Dana Ron, Computer Science, Tel Aviv University Prof. Daniel D. Blatman, Head of the Avraham Harman Research Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Max and Rita Haber Chair in Contemporary Jewry and Holocaust Studies at the Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry, The Hebrew of University Jerusalem Prof. Daniel Boyarin, Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture, Departments of Near Eastern Studies and Rhetoric, University of California at Berkeley Prof. Daryl Glaser, Department of Political Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, specializes in the South African context Prof. David Blanc, Department of Mathematics, University of Haifa Prof. David Enoch, The Faculty of Law and The Department of Philosophy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Prof. David Harel, Computer Science, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Vice President of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, winner of the Israel Prize (2004) and of EMET prize (2010) Dr. David Ranan, Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, Birkbeck University of London Prof. David Comedi, Director of the Physics Institute of Northwestern Argentina, INFINOA, National University of Tucumán and CONICET Prof. David Shulman, Department of Asian Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, winner of the EMET Prize (2010) and of the Israel Prize (2016) Prof. Debórah Dwork, Inaugural Rose Professor of Holocaust History, Founding Director of the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Distinguished Research Scholar, Clark University Dr. (emeritus) Dennis Kortheuer, Department of History at California State University, Long Beach Prof. Diane L. Wolf, Department of Sociology and former Director of Jewish Studies Program, University of California, Davis Dr. Dimitry Shevchenko, Post-doctoral fellow, Department of Asian Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Dr. Dmitry Shumsky, Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry, Director of the Cherrick Center for the study of Zionism, the Yishuv and the State of Israel, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Prof. (emeritus) Donald Sassoon, Comparative European History, Queen Mary, University of London Dr. Dorit Naaman, Alliance Atlantis Professor of Film and Media, Queen’s University, Canada, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Dr. E. Natalie Rothman, Department of Historical and Cultural Studies, University of Toronto Scarborough Dr. Elizabeth Freund (emerita), Department of English Literature, Hebrew University Jerusalem Prof. Elizabeth Heineman, Department of History, The University of Iowa, specializes in gender, war, and memory in Germany and in the Holocaust Dr. Erella Grassiani, Department of Anthropology, University of Amsterdam, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Prof. (emerita) Elsa Auerbach, English Department, University of Massachusetts Boston, daughter of German Holocaust refugees Prof. (emeritus) Emmanuel Farjoun, Einstein Institute of Mathematics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Dr. Eric Kligerman, Associate Professor of German and Jewish Studies, Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures University of Florida Prof. (emerita) Esther Dischereit, Writer, poet and Professor of Language Arts, University for Applied Arts Vienna, winner of the Erich Fried Prize (2009) Prof. Eva Illouz, The Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Hebrew University Jerusalem, The European Centre for Sociology and Political Science , Paris, winner of the EMET Prize (2018) Prof. Eva Jablonka, Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University Dr. Eyal Clyne, Department of History, Politics & Philosophy, The University of Manchester, specializes in Israel-Palestine and in Jewish and Zionist thought Dr. (emerita) Florence Lederer, Laboratory of Physical Chemistry, Université Paris-Sud Prof. (emeritus) Francis Lowenthal, Cognitive Sciences, University of Mons Prof. Gabriele Bergers, Department of Oncology, University of Leuven Prof. Gadi Algazi, Professor of Medieval History, The Department of History, Tel Aviv University, and associate fellow at Re:Work: International Research Center Work and Human Lifecycle in Global History at Humboldt University in Berlin Dr. Gal Levy, Department of Political Science, Sociology & Communication, The Open University of Israel, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Prof. (emerita) Galia Golan, Darwin Professor, The Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Dr. Gayle Levy, Associate Professor, Foreign Languages Department and director of UMKC Honors College, University of Missouri-Kansas City, specializes in Nazi-Germany and the Holocaust Prof. (emeritus) Gideon Freudenthal, The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University Prof. (emeritus) Graeme Segal, Mathematics, All Souls College Dr. Hadas Leonov, Software Developer, Bruker BioSpin GmbH, Rheinstetten, Germany Hadas Pe’ery, Composer, sound artist, educator and activist, teaching fellow at The Buchmann-Mehta School of Music, Tel Aviv University Prof. Hagit Borer, FBA Chair in Linguistics, SLLF Queen Mary, University of London Prof. Haim Bresheeth, Centre for Media and Film Studies, SOAS University of London and Director of Camera Obscura Films Dr. Halleli Pinson, The Department Of Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Prof. (emerita) Hanan J. Kisch, Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Dr. Hannah Safran, Feminist Research Center, Haifa, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Dr. Heidi Grunebaum, Associate Professor at the Centre for Humanities Research University of the Western Cape, specializes in memory and reconciliation in Germany, South Africa and Israel-Palestine Dr. Hila Amit, Independent scholar of Queer Theory and Migration and Diaspora Studies Dr. Hilla Dayan, Sociology, Amsterdam University College, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Dr. Idan Landau, Department of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Dr. Ilan Saban, Faculty of Law, University of Haifa, specializes in minority rights, international law, and Nationalism Dr. Ilana Hammerman, Writer, editor, translator and activist, winner of the Yeshayahu Leibowitz Prize (2015) Dr. Inna Michaeli, Independent scholar and activist Dr. Irit Dekel, Research Associate, Jena Center for Reconciliation Studies Friedrich Schiller University, specializes in memory politics in Germany and Israel Prof. Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Head of the Talmud and Late Antiquity section in the department of Jewish Philosophy, Tel Aviv University Prof. Isaac (Yanni) Nevo, The Department of Philosophy, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Dr. Itamar Kastner, Humboldt University, Berlin Dr. Itamar Shachar, Marie Curie Post-doctoral fellow, Department of Anthropology, University of Amsterdam Dr. Itay Snir, Political Philosophy, Tel Aviv University, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, The Open University of Israel Prof. (emeritus) Jacob Katriel, Chemistry Department, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology Prof. James Cohen, Anglophone World Department, Université de Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle Dr. Jared Margulies, Post-doctoral fellow, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield Prof. Jason Stanley, Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy, Yale University Dr. (emeritus) Jeanne Fagnani, Senior researcher at The French National Centre for Scientific Research, associate researcher at the Institute of Economic and Social Research, member of the scientific committee of the Nicolas Hulot Foundation for Nature and Mankind Dr. Jeffrey Melnick, American Studies Department, University of Massachusetts Prof. (emeritus) Joel Beinin, Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History and Professor of Middle East History, Stanford University Prof. Joel Gordon, The Department of History, University of Arkansas Fayetteville Prof. Judith Butler, Maxine Elliot Professor of Comparative Literature and Critical Theory, University of California, Berkeley Prof. Judith Norman, Department of Philosophy, Trinity University San Antonio, Texas USA Prof. (emeritus) Jules Chametzky, Department of English, University of Massachusetts Dr. Karel Arnaut, Associate Professor and Research Coordinator of the Interculturalism, Migration and Minorities Research Centre (IMMRC), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Prof. (emerita) Karen Brodkin, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, specializes in anti-Semitism and racism Dr. Katharina Galor, Hirschfeld Visiting Associate Professor of Judaic Studies, Brown University Kathy Wazana, Documentary filmmaker, Master’s student at the Department of Cinema and Media Arts, York University Dr. Katy Fox-Hodess, Lecturer in Employment Relations, Accreditations Management School, University of Sheffield Prof. Kobi Peterzil, Department of Mathematics, University of Haifa Dr. Kobi Snitz, Mathematics Department, Weizmann Institute of Science Prof. (emeritus) Laurence Dreyfus, Faculty of Music, University of Oxford Prof. (emeritus) Lawrence Blum, Professor of Philosophy, and Distinguished Professor of Liberal Arts and Education University of Massachusetts Boston, specializes in anti-Semitism and the Holocaust Dr. Les Levidow, Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, Open University, UK Dr. Lin Chalozin-Dovrat, The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas and Minerva Humanities Center, Tel Aviv University Prof. (emerita) Linda Dittmar, The English Department, University of Massachusetts, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Prof. Linda Gordon, Florence Kelley Professor of History, New York University, specializes in right-wing populism Dr. Lior Volinz, Post-doctoral researcher at the Crime and Society (CRiS) research group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel Prof. Lisa Baraitser, Department of Psychosocial Studies, Birkbeck Institute, University of London Dr. Lisa Stampnitzky, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, specializes in political violence Prof. (emeritus) Louis Kampf, Literature and Women’s & Gender Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Prof. Louise Bethlehem, English and Cultural Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, specializes in South African apartheid Prof. Lynne Segal, Psychosocial Studies, Birkbeck Institute, University of London Prof. (emeritus) Marc David, Department of Mathematics – Computer Science, Universiteit Antwerpen Prof. (emeritus) Marc Steinling, School of Medicine, University of Lille Nord de France Prof. Marianne Hirsch, William Peterfield Trent Professor of English, Department of English and Comparative Literature, co-director of the Institute for Research on Women, Gender and Sexuality, Columbia University, specializes in politics of memory, the Holocaust and Jewish memory Prof. (emerita) Marianne Lederer, Former director of the School of Interpreters and Translators (ESIT), Université Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle Dr. Marie-José Durand-Richard, Associated researcher at Laboratoire SPHERE, Université Paris Diderot and honorary lecturer of Mathematics and History of Science, Université Paris 8 Dr. Mark Levene, Parkes Centre for Jewish/non-Jewish Relations, University of Southampton Prof. (emeritus) Mateo Alaluf, Institute of Sociology, Université Libre de Bruxelles Prof. (emeritus), Maurice Pasternak, Artist and Professor at L’École nationale supérieure des arts visuels de La Cambre Prof. Menachem Klein, Department of Political Studies, Bar-Ilan University, former advisor for Israeli officials regarding negotiations with Palestinian counterparts and participant in several Israeli-Palestinian peace talks Prof. Michael Chanan, Department of Media, Culture and Language, University of Roehampton Prof. Michael Keren, Department of Economics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Prof. (cmeritus) Micah Leshem, The Department of Psychology, University of Haifa Prof. Michael Rothberg, 1939 Society Samuel Goetz Chair in Holocaust Studies, Department of Comparative Literature, University of California, specializes in Holocaust studies DipEd. Michel Staszewski, Visiting Researcher Department of Education Free University of Brussels Dr. Mir Yarfitz, Associate Professor of History, Jewish Studies, Latin American and Latino Studies, Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Wake Forest University Dr. Miriam Ticktin, Associate Professor of Anthropology, The New School for Social Research Prof. (emeritus) Mordechai Shechter, The Department of Economics and The Department of Natural Resource & Environmental Management, University of Haifa, former Rector of the University of Haifa, former President of Tel-Hai Academic College, former head of Israel’s National Parks and Nature Reserves Authority Council Prof. (emeritus) Moshe Zimmermann, Former director of the Richard Koebner Minerva Center for German History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, specializes in the German Jewry during the Second World War and anti-Semitism Prof. (emeritus) Moshe Zuckermann, The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University, son of Holocaust survivors, specializes in Zionism and anti-Semitism Prof. (emeritus) Moshé Machover, Professor of Philosophy, University of London Dr. Na’ama Rokem, Associate Professor of Modern Hebrew Literature & Comparative Literature, University of Chicago, specializes in Zionist and Israeli literature, and German-Jewish relations Dr. Nadia Valman, Reader in English Literature Co-director, of the Raphael Samuel History Centre, Queen Mary, University of London, specializes in Jewish History Dr. Naor Ben-Yehoyada, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University Prof. Neve Gordon, Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, specializes in human rights and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Prof. Nicholas Stargardt, History Department, Magdalen College, specializes in the history of Nazi Germany Dr. Nina Caputo, Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Florida Prof. Nir Gov, Department of Chemical and Biological Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science Prof. (emeritus) Nira Yuval-Davis, Honorary Director Centre for Migration, Refugees & Belonging, The University of East London Dr. Noa Roei, Literary and Cultural Analysis, University of Amsterdam, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Prof. (emeritus) Noam Chomsky, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Laureate Professor, The Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona Prof. (emerita), Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Department of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Prof. Nurit Peled-Elhanan, The School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and The David Yellin Academic College of Education, co-winner of the Sakharov Prize (2001) Prof. Oded Goldreich, Computer Science, Weizmann Institute of Science Dr. Oded Na’aman, Martin Buber Society of Fellows in the Humanities and Social Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Prof. Ofer Aharony, Faculty of Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science Dr. Ofri Ilany, Post-doctoral fellow, The Polonsky Academy The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, specializes in German history and in German-Jewish relations D.Arch Olivier Tric, Honorary teacher at School of Architecture of Nantes Prof. Oren Yiftachel, Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Dr. Orian Zakai, The Department of Classical and Near Eastern Languages, The George Washington University Prof. Pascal Lederer, Honorary research director at The French National Centre for Scientific Research Dr. Patricia Schor, Department of Social Sciences, Amsterdam University College, specializes in nationalism, race and racism Prof. (emeritus) Paul Mendes-Flohr, Dorothy Grant Maclear Professor Emeritus of Modern Jewish History and Thought, Associate Faculty in the Department of History, The University of Chicago Divinity School Dr. Peter Cosyns, Post-doctoral researcher, Art History and Archeology, Free University Brussels Pierre Getzler, Artist, “Pupille de la Nation”, his father died in July 1940 fighting with the French Foreign Legion against Nazi Germany and received The Cross of War decoration, his mother was deported to Auschwitz where she died in 1943 Dr. R. Ruth Linden, UCSF School of Medicine, founder of the Holocaust Media Project Prof. Rachel Giora, Department of Linguistics, Tel Aviv University Dr. Ran Greenstein, Associate professor, Department of Sociology, University of the Witwatersrand, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Dr. Ran HaCohen, Department of Literature, Tel Aviv University, specializes in German-Jewish literature Dr. Raya Cohen, Department of History, Tel Aviv University and The University of Naples Federico II, specializes in the history of the Holocaust and in the context of Israel-Palestine Rela Mazali, Independent scholar, writer and peace activist Revital Madar, PhD candidate, The Cultural Studies Program, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Prof. (emeritus) Richard Falk, Milbank Professor of International Law, Princeton University and former UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Occupied Palestine (2008-14) Prof. Robert C. Rosen, Department of English, William Paterson University Dr. Roi Livne, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan Prof. (emeritus) Rolf Verleger, Psychologist, Member of the Central Council of Jews in Germany 2005-2009 M.D. Rony Brauman, Director of Studies at the Fondation Médecins Sans Frontières, associate professor at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris, and director of the Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom. Prof. Roy Wagner, Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences, ETH Zürich Dr. Sagi Schaefer, History Department, Tel Aviv University, specializes in the history of modern Germany Dr. Sara Roy, Senior Research Scholar, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Prof. Sergio Tenenbaum, Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto Dr. Seth Anziska, Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, University College London, specializes Jewish-Muslim relations and in the context of Israel-Palestine Prof. Seth L. Sanders, Professor of Religious Studies, Director of the Graduate Group for the Study of Religion Member, Jewish Studies Program University of California, Davis Prof. Dr. Shani Tzoref, School of Jewish Theology, Hebrew Bible and Biblical Exegesis, University of Potsdam Prof. (emerita) Sherna Gluck, Director of the Oral History Program, Department of History, California State University Long Beach, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Dr. Sheryl Nestel, Independent Scholar, Toronto, specializes in race and racism Dr. Shir Hever, Political Science, Free University of Berlin, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Shira Havkin, PhD candidate in Political Sociology, Centre d’Études et de Recherches Internationales, Sciences-Po Paris Prof. (emerita) Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, English Department and the Department of General and Comparative Literature, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Prof. (emeritus) Shlomo Moran, Computer Science Department, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology Prof. (emeritus) Shlomo Sand, History Department, Tel Aviv University Prof. Sidney Corbett, composer and teacher at the Mannheim University of Music and Performing Arts Prof. Simona Sharoni, Director of the Women’s & Gender Studies Department, Interdisciplinary Institute, Merrimack College Smadar Ben Natan, PhD candidate, Zvi Meitar Center for Advanced Legal studies, Buchmann Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University Dr. Snait B. Gissis, Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas Tel Aviv University, specializes in racism Prof. (emerita) Sonia Dayan-Herzbrun, Social Sciences, University Paris Diderot-Paris 7 Prof. Stephen Clingman, Department of English, University of Massachusetts Prof. Stephen Deutsch, Professor of Post-Production, Department of Media Production, Bournemouth University Prof. Stephen R. Shalom, Political Science Department, William Paterson University, member of the executive board of the Gandhian Forum for Peace & Justice Prof. (emeritus) Steve Golin, History Department, Bloomfield College Dr. Steven Levine, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Massachusetts Prof. (emeritus) Steven Rose, Neuroscience, The Open University, UK Prof. Susan Slyomovics, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, specializes in human rights, German Reparations and Israel-Palestine Dr. Sven-Erik Rose, Associate Professor of German and Comparative Literature, chair of the Department of German and Russian, University of California, Davis, specializes in German and German-Jewish literature and thought and Holocaust Studies Dr. Tal Shuval, Department of History, Philosophy and Judaic studies, The Open University of Israel, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Dr. Tamar Blickstein, Post-doctoral researcher, Affective Societies, The Free University of Berlin Prof. Tamar Rapoport, The Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Prof. Tamir Sorek, Sociology and Jewish Studies, University of Florida, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Dr. Terri Ginsberg, Assistant Professor, Department of the Arts, The American University in Cairo Dr. Tom Pessah, Independent scholar and activist Prof. (emeritus) Tommy Dreyfus, Mathematics Education, School of Education, Tel Aviv University Udi Aloni, Writer and filmmaker, specializes in Jewish and Zionist thought and in the context of Israel-Palestine Prof. Uri Hadar, Head of Gerontological Clinical Psychology department, Ruppin Academic Center Prof. (emerita) Vered Kraus, Department of Sociology, University of Haifa Prof. Victor Ginsburgh, The European Center for Advanced Research in Economics and Statistics, Université Libre de Bruxelles Prof. Willie van Peer, Intercultural Hermeneutics, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich Yaara Benger Alaluf, Post-doctoral fellow at The Center for The History of Emotions, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin Dr. Yael Politi, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Potsdam Dr. Yair Wallach, Head of the Centre for Jewish Studies, Department of the Languages and Cultures of the Near and Middle East, SOAS, University of London, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine Prof. Yakov Rabkin, The Montreal Centre for International Studies and the Department of History, Université de Montréal, specializes in history of Jewish and Zionist thought Dr. Yali Hashash, Haifa Feminist Research Center, Women and Gender Studies Program and The Oral History Laboratory: Life-stories under oppression at The Zvi Yavetz School of Historical Studies, Tel Aviv University Dr. Yann Guillaud, Lecturer at The Paris School of International Affairs (PSIA), Sciences Po Prof. (emeritus) Yehoshua Kolodny, Institute of Earth Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, winner of the Israel Prize (2010) Prof. Yinon Cohen, Yosef H. Yerushalmi Professor of Israel & Jewish Studies, Department of Sociology, Columbia University Prof. (emeritus) Yonathan (Jon) Anson, Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Prof. Yosef Grodzinsky, The Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Prof. Yosefa Loshitzky, Centre for Media Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London Prof. Yuri Pines, Director, The Louis Frieberg Center for East Asian Studies Department of Asian Studies The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Dr. Yuval Eylon, The Department of History, Philosophy and Judaic Studies, The Open University of Israel Dr. Yuval Yonay, Department of Sociology, University of Haifa Dr. Zvi Bekerman, The Seymour Fox School of Education, The Melton Centre for Jewish Education and research fellow at The Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, specializes in intercultural encounters and minority education================================================== Israeli academics sign a petition encouraging the United Methodist Church to divest from “companies that enable the occupation to continue” e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.comMon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:46 PM http://www.petitiononline.com/Israelis/petition.html
Israeli academics, listed below, signed a petition encouraging the United Methodist Church “to divest from companies that enable the occupation to continue, we the undersigned shall applaud your courageous initiative, and fervently hope that it will set an example for many others to follow…”: Ofer Neiman, Dalit Baum, Roman Vater, kobi snitz, Anat Matar, Yael Korin, Udi Adiv, Prof. Kobi Peterzil, Hannah Safran, Haim Bresheeth, Ur Shlonsky, Moshe Machover, Dana Ron, Yael Ronen and others.
We endorse the Letter of Support from Israelis to the United Methodist Church Petition to James E. Winkler, General Secretary of the United Methodist Church.
To: James E. Winkler, General Secretary of the United Methodist Church Letter of support from Israelis to the 2008 General Conference of the United Methodist Church January 22, 2008
We, as Israelis, express our support of the 2004 resolution adopted by the General Conference of the Methodist Church that states “The United Methodist Church opposes continued military occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, the confiscation of Palestinian land and water resources, the destruction of Palestinian homes, the continued building of illegal Jewish settlements and any vision of a ‘Greater Israel’ that includes the occupied territories and the whole of Jerusalem and its surroundings [Book of Resolutions, 2004, #12].” Should the Methodist Church in the wake of the above resolution elect to divest from companies that enable the occupation to continue, we the undersigned shall applaud your courageous initiative, and fervently hope that it will set an example for many others to follow.
We assure the Methodist Church that it is no more anti-Semitic to criticize and oppose Israeli government policies than it was anti-American to oppose the Vietnam war or is anti-American to oppose the present war in Iraq. It is never anti-Semitic to oppose injustice, destruction, gross inequity, and inequality. We also assure the Church that Israel, having the fourth most powerful military in the world, is in no existential danger.
As citizens devoted to the promotion of peace and democracy in the region, we denounce the international community’s continued economic investments in our country which directly and indirectly support Israel’s daily violations of international law and colonization of the occupied territories. We fear the potentially irreversible damage created by Israeli occupation, by Israel’s unilateral plans, and by the international community’s impotence in ending Israel’s occupation. We realize that Israel’s occupation of Palestinians and their lands will probably not end without international sanctions.
Moreover, Israelis, as well as Palestinians, will benefit from ending the occupation Symmetry never exists between occupier and occupied, oppressor and oppressed. Yet Israelis suffer from loss of life, increase in militarism, and a steady devaluation of human life. This latter is particularly evident in the socio-economic sphere and the affliction of post-traumatic distress.
Successive Israeli governments have spent enormous amounts of money on expansion, to the detriment of social benefits for the Israeli population. While it is true that had there been no occupation, Israeli governments might not have spent the money on social benefits, the fact that expansion continues apace alongside continued endeavors of ethnic cleansing reveals Israel’s intention to rid the West Bank of as many Palestinians as possible and to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state.
To this end, money is spent on maintaining a large military presence in the occupied Palestinian Territories, on erecting the apartheid wall at 4 million dollars a mile, with 400 miles planned (twice as long as if it had been built on the ‘green line’), and constructing more housing units in highly subsidized settlements. In December 2007, for instance, the Israeli Housing Ministry announced that it was building 300 more units on Har Homa (Jabal Abu Ghnaim to Palestinians), with another 1000 intended, and more recently has begun construction of 60 homes in the Ras Al-Amud section of East Jerusalem. Israel claims Har Homa to be a part of Jerusalem, but the international community regards Israel’s construction on it and in East Jerusalem to be further illegal colonization of Palestinian land. Given the subsidies and other perks with which Israel lures Israelis to colonize the West Bank, it is small wonder that population increase in the occupied Palestinian territory is five to six percent, by contrast to the two to three percent maximum growth in Israeli communities within Israel proper. Israel additionally spends much on constructing super-highways for Israelis-only in the occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as for lookout towers (that can double as sniper towers), and checkpoints galore. Furthermore, the majority of the more than 500 checkpoints separate Palestinian communities from one another.
While all this is taking place at considerable economic cost, poverty in Israel has increased sharply. Israel in 2006 gained the dubious notoriety of having the worst poverty level in the Western world, and has retained this position through 2007. Over one quarter of Israelis now live under the poverty line. One of every three children goes to bed hungry. And every fourth elderly person is poor. No wonder, then, that many of Israel’s elderly are “suicidal.” The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronot revealed in a report that over 50 percent of suicides in Israel every year are committed by people aged 65 and over. And there are additional worrying trends. Not only are the few rich getting richer and the numerous poor getting poorer, but also many in the middle class who have jobs are sliding into poverty due to low wages. The Adva Center report of December 2007 showed that a fifth of Israeli wage earners are now living under the poverty line.
One result of the increased poverty is that 25% of Israelis forego medical care because they cannot afford it. 75% of the poor cannot afford medication. But of all the sad statistics, one of the more shocking is that over 80,000 Holocaust survivors—now mostly aged individuals–live in desperate straits. It is shameful that of all places in the world, in Israel, Holocaust survivors live in dire poverty and misery.
The worsening economic conditions contribute, in turn, to escalation of violence. Thus, for instance, one of every five elderly Israelis is subject to abuse, mainly by spouses or children. And the Israeli police recorded a 24% increase in violence among youth the first months of 2006.
A direct cost of occupation and a threat to Israel’s welfare is post-traumatic stress, which can result in addiction to drugs and alcohol, and can also contribute to violence. A counselor at a rehabilitation center terms the malady “a ticking bomb,” Help, he relates, is unavailable for many soldiers who have gone “into terrible distress of drugs, beatings, violence, impatience, … soldiers who clashed with a civilian population, and when they were discharged understood that they had been wrong.” Hundreds, he reveals, “are roaming about with the feeling that there is no point to living, and the path to suicide and drugs is very easy. We are afraid that former soldiers will commit criminal acts as a result of their distress.”
On the Palestinian end of the occupation, the situation is far worse both economically and in terms of security. For Palestinians, occupation means a loudspeaker in the middle of the night ordering residents out of their homes, regardless of whether it’s winter or summer, hot or cold, wet or dry. Occupation means long waits at checkpoints, even in emergencies. Occupation means that one needs permits to go to one’s fields, permits that are often not given. Even when permits are given, the Palestinian farmer often finds that the military gates that control accessing his fields are closed and fail to open, and, for that matter, fail to open also for children on their way to school. Occupation means land theft and uprooting of olive trees, some of which are 100s of years old, all of which are means of sustenance for the Palestinian people, some now the only means.
Occupation means curfews, during which sick people can and do die. Occupation means that one’s home can turn into rubble in minutes, as bulldozers or explosives demolish it, along with its furnishings, toys, family photograph albums, computers, and all else. Occupation means imprisonment. Approximately 11,000 Palestinians are now incarcerated in Israeli facilities.
Israeli Occupation means apartheid. The separation wall is one instance; four additional ones are water, roads, home construction, and checkpoints. Of 960 million cubic meters of water that is generated in the West Bank, Palestinians are allowed to use only one-tenth of it. The rest goes to Israelis. On average, a Palestinian citizen in the West Bank is allowed to use no more than 36 cubic meters of water per year, while Israeli settlers in the West Bank can use up to 2,400 cubic meters. Palestinians are not permitted to drive on ‘settler’ roads, which are highly superior to other roads in the occupied Palestinian territories. Palestinians are not allowed to build houses or even to add rooms, while Jewish settlement building continues uninhibited. Checkpoints also discriminate. Israelis, tourists, and Jews from abroad can go from the Territories to Israel via many checkpoints, but Palestinians having permits are allowed to enter Israel only through 11 of them, forcing Palestinians fortunate enough to have a permit to travel far out of the way on their way to work or for medical care in Israel.
For the above reasons, we Israeli seekers of peace and justice express our sincere gratitude to the Methodist Church for its stand on the occupation, and support the proposals before the General Conference this April on divestment. Boycott and divestment are non-violent means of pressuring governments to change their policies–means now sorely needed to compel the Israeli government to end its occupation of Palestinians and their lands and thereby to better the lives of Israelis as well as of Palestinians. ——————
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Name address 97. Creighton Lacy WNC Annual Conference 96. William Greene 95. Emily Schaeffer Tel Aviv, Israel 94. Rosamine Hayeem London, UK 93. Udi Adiv Detrech Tzarfat 32, Haifa 92. Prof. Kobi Peterzil Haifa 91. ruth victor Jerusalem 90. Yali Amit 89. Hannah Safran Haifa 88. Haim Bresheeth 87. hava halevi 21 shimshom st. jerusalem 93501
86. Areej Sabbagh-Khoury 85. Lily Traubmann Kibutz Megiddo 84. Dr. Sara Fischman 83. galit hess 82. Ruth Tenne 81. ginzburg shaul 80. yifat doron 79. Janet Green 78. Ur Shlonsky 77. Alissa Ben-Ari 76. Noa Shaindlinger 75. Jaye N. White Fayetteville, NC 74. Eli Hamo 73. Yael Oren Kahn UK 72. racheli bar-or 71. Yisrael Puterman tel aviv 70. yasmin sivan 69. eytan lerner 68. Matan Cohen 67. Moshe Machover 66. Yotam Pappo 65. Itamar Shachar 64. Rela Mazali Herzlia 63. David Nir Tel Aviv, Israel 62. Amit Ron 61. yoav barak Tel Aviv 60. aharon Shabtai 27 gruzenberg st. Tel Aviv, 65811 59. Adi Dagan Tel Aviv, Israel 58. Yael Ronen Beer Sheva 57. Elchounon Esterovitz 56. Amit Perelson Haifa 55. Jonathan Pollak 54. Angela Godfrey-Goldstein Jerusalem 53. Oded Goldreich Tel Aviv 52. Yossi Bartal 51. Dana Ron Tel Aviv 50. Haggai Matar Tel Aviv – Jaffa 49. Benjamin Rosendahl 48. Ellen Naor 3403 NE 80th St, Seattle, WA 98112 USA 47. Jacob Naor, Ph.D. 3403 NE 80th St, Seattle, WA 98112 USA 46. Linda L Golden 13827 Sandy Oak Rd, Chester, VA 23831 45. Dorit Naaman 44. Teddy Katz Magal, Israel 43. Mary Alice Nesbitt 42. Kfir Cohen 41. Gideon Spiro גדעון ספירו Israel (Within the Green Line) 40. Amos Gvirtz Shefayim, Israel 39. Yael Lerer Tel Aviv 38. jake javanshir 37. Yvonne Deutsch Jerusalem
36. annelien kisch-kroon ramat hasharon , Israel 35. Ofra Ben- Artzi Jerusalem 34. Sandra Ruch Israeli in Toronto 33. noa schwartz tel aviv, israel 32. michal schwartz tel aviv, israel 31. Judy Blanc 30. Beatrice Eichten 29. Bilha Golan 28. tsilli goldenberg israel 27. ofer neiman Israel 26. Galit Kadan Toronto, Canada 25. Dalit Baum Tel Aviv 24. Susanne Moses 23. Roman Vater 22. DINA GOOR 21. Hanna Braun London; UK 20. Merav Amir Tel Aviv 19. Alla Nikonov š 18. kobi snitz haifa 17. Hillel Barak Haifa, Israel 16. ruchama marton Tel Aviv 15. Reuven Kaminer Jerusalem 14. Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta 13. Avishai Chelouche Pardes-Hana, Israel 12. Anat Matar 11. Jeannette Herzberg Israel 10. PNINA Feiler KIBBUTZ YAD-HANNA 9. Tamar Yaron Kibbutz Hazorea 8. Yael Korin 7. eileen fleming http://www.wearewideawake.org/USA 6. Paul H. Verduin Silver Spring, Maryland 5. Eldad Benary A Israeli in NY 4. Smadar Carmon 3. Eldad Benary A Israeli in NY 2. Israel Naor Herzliah, Israel 1. Dorothy Naor Herzliah, Israel
The Letter of Support from Israelis to the United Methodist Church Petition to James E. Winkler, General Secretary of the United Methodist Church was created by and written by Dorothy Naor (dor_naor@netvision.net.il).
[מתוך תשובת ענת מטר לדיונים ברשת אוניברסיטאית על עניין החרם האקדמי על ישראל.]
[עריכה (ובפרט הדגשות) על ידי עודד גולדרייך]
בשנת 2005 יצאה קריאה מטעם החברה האזרחית הפלסטינית לחרם, משיכת השקעות וסנקציות על מדינת ישראל ומוסדותיה. על הקריאה הזו חתומים גופים רבים, איגודי עובדים, ארגונים חוץ-ממשלתיים ומפלגות, המבקשים לקדם מאבק לא מזוין בכיבוש המתמשך ובמדיניות האפרטהייד של ישראל. המהלך הזה הוא חלק ממכלול, אשר צד אחר שלו הוא, למשל, ההפגנות השבועיות נגד גדר ההפרדה וגזל האדמות. מי שהצטרפו למאבק הזה דוחים, מצד אחד, את שיתוף הפעולה המתמשך של הרשות הפלסטינית עם הפארסה המכונה “תהליך השלום”, ומצד שני את דרך ההתנגדות המזוינת.
הקריאה לחרם שואבת את השראתה מן המאבק באפרטהייד בדרום-אפריקה. מובן שהנסיבות ההיסטוריות אינן זהות, וגם צורות המאבק השונות אינן זהות, אבל ישנם קווי דמיון בצורת המשטר והתנהגותו, וכן ביחס הקהילה הבינלאומית (אני מתכוונת בראש וראשונה לתמיכה המסיבית של ארה”ב ואנגליה, בצד שאט-הנפש של קהילות בינלאומיות, איגודים מקצועיים וכו’). לא אעמיק כאן בניתוח ההשוואות; אציין רק כי אישים רבים, שנודעו במאבקם בדרום-אפריקה של האפרטהייד, מוצאים קווי דמיון כאלה ותומכים במהלכי ההחרמות נגד ישראל בשל כך.
החרם הוא המכשיר הפוליטי של הקהילה האזרחית – הפלסטינית, הבינלאומית, וגם הקהילה הישראלית הזעירה המבקשת להפגין סולידריות עם המאבק הזה, כמיטב יכולתה. הוא איננו תכלית לעצמה וגם לא צעד “מוסרי” גרידא; דהיינו, אין הוא צעד המצדיק את עצמו ומנותק מאפשרויות ההצלחה שלו. הוא כלי. ככזה, הוא כפוף לנסיבות, ואם יתברר, למשל, שהוא מזיק יותר משהוא מועיל – גם בטווח הארוך הנראה לעין – יהיה נכון לסלקו. כרגע, ניתוח המצב מצביע – בעיני תומכי החרם, כמובן – על היותו אחד הכלים הבודדים שעשויים להוליך את ישראל לשינוי מדיניותה הנפשעת (אולי ישירות, ואולי דרך שינוי מדיניותן של מדינות אירופה, ואפילו ארה”ב – מה שקשה להאמין – ביחס אליה). יתר על כן, נראה שדרכים אחרות חסומות לגמרי. התמיכה האמריקאית המסיבית, שטיפת-המוח הלאומנית, תמיכתה הכמעט-טוטלית של האוכלוסייה היהודית בישראל במהלכי ממשלותיה (93% תמכו במבצע “עופרת יצוקה”, למשל), וכן, גם שיתוף פעולה, שלא לומר התגייסות, של האליטה הכלכלית, התקשורתית והאקדמית – כל אלה מצביעים על כך שללא לחץ חיצוני לא יחול שיפור. אין פירושו של דבר שיש לוותר על דרכים אחרות של מאבק לא מזוין. נהפוך הוא. עבודה בתוך הקהילה הישראלית-יהודית נחוצה, ובמקביל, כמובן, נחוצה גם עבודה פנימית בתוך הקהילה הכבושה.
האינטרס הגדול של ממשלות ישראל הוא שמירת מראית-עין של נורמליות. ישראל מבקשת להציג את עצמה כלפי העולם המערבי כחלק אינטגרלי ממנו, כמדינה דמוקרטית, פתוחה, מתקדמת, ליברלית. ככל שמדיניותה הופכת לאלימה יותר, ככל שאופייה מתרחק יותר מן הדימוי הזה, כך מתגברים מאמציה לשמר את הדימוי. הקמפיין של “מיתוג מחודש של ישראל” – אותו ביקר עמיתנו קרלו שטרנגר ב”הארץ” לפני ימים אחדים – הוא חוד החנית של המאמץ הזה. לקהילה התרבותית והאקדמית מייחדים אנשי הקמפיין, במשרדי החוץ וההסברה, תפקיד חשוב. הן אמורות להציג את פניה היפות של ישראל ובכך לטשטש את שאין לראות.
ההתנגדות לנורמליזציה היא אחת מהסיבות העיקריות לתמיכה במדיניות ההחרמות בכלל, וכאלה המופנות כלפי הקהילה התרבותית והאקדמית של ישראל בפרט. כך, למשל, מתארגנות מחאות נגד אירועי תרבות ישראליים הממומנים על ידי משרד החוץ ומכוונים ל”מיתוג המחודש” – כפי שקרה בפסטיבל טורונטו לקולנוע בשנה שעברה; אמנים מתבקשים על-ידי תומכי החרם שלא להופיע בישראל, מרצים מתבקשים שלא להשתתף בכנסים בארץ, וכדומה.
אולם תפקידה של האקדמיה אינו מסתכם בהיותה ה”פנים הנאורות” שיש להציג בפני העולם כמסכה. העולם האקדמי מחובר בטבורו לממסד המדינתי ומשרת אותו, באינספור פרויקטים צבאיים, מדיניים והסברתיים. במקביל, ביקורת על מדיניות הכיבוש והאפרטהייד של ישראל כמעט ואיננה מושמעת בו – למרות ניסיונות גורמים שונים לצייר את התמונה אחרת. כל אלה הובילו את מנסחי הקמפיין הפלסטיני להכללה, באפיון החרם, גם של קריאה למשיכת השקעות במוסדות האקדמיים ולהימנעות ממימון פרויקטים אקדמיים – בפרט, כמובן, פרויקטים המשרתים ישירות את הממשלה. הרעיון הכולל הוא, שוב, הרצון להקשות על ישראל להתמיד בכיבוש, הן על-ידי הפיכת הכיבוש ל”לא משתלם” והן על-ידי חשיפת המקום אליו הידרדרה החברה הישראלית בפני חבריה עצמה, בדרך של הצבת מראה. לכן, אין לדבר על חרם על האקדמיה באופן מופשט ומנותק מן ההיבטים האחרים של המאבק הלא-מזוין לסיום הכיבוש.
עד כאן הצגה בסיסית של הרקע ההכרחי לדיון. אני מבקשת להתייחס עתה, בקיצור ככל שאוכל, לכמה עניינים שעלו בהתכתבויות שונות.
שאלת החרם האינדיווידואלי מול זה המוסדי
כאמור, החל משנת 2005 נתנה החברה האזרחית הפלסטינית צורה ממוסדת לחרם. בצד הפנייה לקהילה הבינלאומית להחרמה, משיכת השקעות וסנקציות כלפי ישראל, ישנו גם פירוט של אופני ההחרמה הרצויים, וגם הסברים על אופני החרמה לא רצויים. על פי הפירוט הזה, החרם על האקדמיה הישראלית אינו כולל הימנעות מהזמנת אקדמאים ישראליים להרצאות וכנסים בחו”ל, שיתופם במחקרים, שיפוט ופרסום מאמרים וספרים שלהם, וכדומה. עד כמה שידוע לי, החל מאותה שנה, 2005, לא רבים המקרים בהם בחרו אקדמאים ברחבי העולם בדרכי החרמה כאלה.
שתי שאלות נוספות עלו בהקשר זה. ראשית, האם האקדמאים האירופיים מאמצים את הנוסח המוסדי-בלבד עליו דיברתי. לפי מיטב התרשמותי, הקריאה הפלסטינית יצרה מין “רגולציה” של החרם, ולכן פחתו המקרים שבהם קיבלו ההחרמות צורה אינדיווידואלית מן הסוגים האמורים. מקרים כאלה היו ועוד יהיו בוודאי, אבל לא התמיכה בקריאה הפלסטינית לחרם היא המקדמת אותם, אלא להיפך. בכל מקרה, הקריאה הפלסטינית מצביעה על קיומם של “אזורים אפורים”, ולי, כמו לאחרים – פלסטינים, ישראלים וזרים – יש לעתים הסתייגויות מפעולת חרם כזו או אחרת. אחרי הכל, פועל כל אדם לפי טעמו הפוליטי ומזגו האישי.
שנית, האם תמיכה בחרם מוסדי אינה, למעשה, גם תמיכה בחרם אינדיווידואלי. ובכן, כאן התשובה היא כן ולא. מובן שאקדמאים ייפגעו מכך שעמיתיהם יסרבו להגיע לכאן לכנסים שהם מבקשים לארגן. אבל (אם נסלק יוזמות אישיות מן הסוג האמור לעיל), לא תהיה פגיעה בהזמנת אקדמאים ישראליים לשבתונים והרצאות, בפרסומים וכו’. לעומת זאת ברור שקרנות מחקר תדולדלנה, השקעות באוניברסיטה תצטמצמנה, וכו’. כן, זה מחיר שלדעתי הקהילה האקדמית רבת-הפריבילגיות צריכה לשלם – מן הנימוקים שהבאתי לעיל.
תמיכה במהלך מסוים (כמו תמיכה בחרם) מאפשרת – תמיד – ניצול שלו או פרשנות מוטעית שלו
(למשל שימוש בחרם על-ידי גורמים אנטישמיים, או אחרים, שאינם מונעים מרצון לסיום הכיבוש ומדיניות האפרטהייד בלבד). אפשרות זו קיימת, ולדעתי, כל שאפשר לעשות נגדה הוא הבהרה חד-משמעית של הרציונל של החרם, מטרותיו, מסגרתו, וכו’. מצד שני, לא רק מעשים, אלא גם מחדלים, מפורשים ומנוצלים על ידי גורמים שונים ומשונים, ודי לחכימא ברמיזא.
מדוע דווקא ישראל?
אחת מן השאלות הקשות יותר בה נתקלים תומכי החרם היא השאלה, הסבירה לגמרי, בעניין ייחודה של ישראל. האם פשעיה של ארה”ב קטנים יותר? ואלו של אנגליה? כידוע, חומסקי נמנע מהחרמה משום שהוא טוען שהיא מפלה את ישראל לרעה ביחס לארצו. מן הצד השני, נהג הפיסיקאי, פרופ’ דניאל עמית המנוח, להחרים גם את האקדמיה האמריקאית. אבל אני לא שם. למה? משום שהחרם הוא כלי פוליטי ולא מטרה לעצמה ומשום שיש כמה הבדלים בין ישראל לארה”ב. ציינתי שהחרם איננו מצדיק את עצמו כשלעצמו, במנותק מאפשרויות ההצלחה שלו, מהנסיבות. כדי לקבל הנמקה כזו צריך לאמץ גישה מסוימת ליחסים בין מוסר ומחשבה פוליטית. זו סוגיה פילוסופית חשובה, שלא זה הפורום המתאים לבירורה, אך דנתי בה ובכוונתי לדון בה בהקשרים המתאימים. על כל פנים, כמו במקרה של דרום-אפריקה, מסתמן סיכוי שהחרם על ישראל יישא פירות (ואולי משום כך הוא מבהיל כל כך ישראלים רבים). אין צל של אפשרות אפילו לדמיין חרם על כלכלתה, תרבותה והאקדמיה של ארה”ב, ומובן שאין שום סיכויי הצלחה לחרם כזה.
זה המקום בו שואל אדם את עצמו: האם תמכתי, או הייתי תומך, בחרם על דרום-אפריקה? מי שמשיב בחיוב, צריך לדעתי לשאול את עצמו מדוע לא כאן ועכשיו. [עודד: יתכנו תשובות סבירות לשאלה מדוע לא “כאן ועכשיו”, אבל תשובות סבירות צריכות להיות מנוסחות במונחים יחסיים (ולא מוחלטים) ולהתייחס לנסיבות הפוליטיות של “כאן ועכשיו” – הן מבחינת הצורך להחריף את המאבק במדיניות הישראלית והן מבחינת האפקטיביות הצפויה של צעדים מסוימים.]
שאלה מקבילה, מן הצד השני, נוגעת לפשעיהן של ארצות כמו סין או איראן. מדוע לא להחרים גם אותן? ובכן, ישראל מתיימרת להיות מדינה דמוקרטית יותר מסין או איראן, ולדעתי ליומרה הזו יש מחיר. יתר על כן, ישראל זוכה להטבות מפליגות ממדינות המערב בשל ה”דמוקרטיה” בה היא מתפארת לשווא. קיצוץ בפריבילגיות הללו, לנוכח מדיניותה, נראה לי מעשה ראוי וחשוב.
מדוע אינני מתפטרת?
השאלה הזו מניחה תשובה לשאלה אחרת: האם אני, כלשון העצומה, מבקשת לפגוע בעמיתיי ובתלמידיי, באוניברסיטת תל-אביב וביתר האוניברסיטאות בארץ? תשובתי (הצפויה) היא לא ולא. המוסד האקדמי היחיד בסביבה שהייתי רוצה באמת לפגוע בו הוא מכללת אריאל, ולכך, נדמה לי, שותפים גם אחרים. (אגב: אלה צריכים לשאול את עצמם אם אינם מייחלים לחרם על המרכז האוניברסיטאי באריאל; אם יסרבו להרצות שם ולהשתתף בכנסיו; אם יתמכו בהסבת השקעות ממנו. אם ישיבו בהן על השאלות הללו, ברי שאף הם שמים סייגים לאותו “חופש אקדמי” בו מרבים לנפנף כאן לשווא לאחרונה – ובצדק יעשו כן. אינני מבקשת חלילה לגזור גזירה שווה בין מכללת אריאל לבין האוניברסיטאות הישראליות, אולם את הנקודה הזו חשוב להבהיר.)
איך זה שאני תומכת בחרם ובכל זאת רוצה בטובת האוניברסיטה? ממש כשם שאני רוצה בטובת ישראל ומצדדת בחרם עליה. תביעה להתפטרותי מן האוניברסיטה גוררת גם תביעה להסתלקותי מן הארץ. אין לי צל של ספק שסיום הכיבוש ומדיניות האפרטהייד נחוצים למען עתיד טוב יותר, לכולנו, במקום הזה; וכאמור, אני מאמינה שלחץ בינלאומי, כפי שתיארתי לעיל, הוא כלי חשוב לקידום המטרה הזו. כולנו חברים בקהילות שונות, והפגנת סולידריות עם קהילה אחת עשויה להתנגש עם הסולידריות שאנחנו מפגינים כלפי האחרת. הסולידריות הראשונית שלי עתה היא עם חבריי למאבק הבלתי מזוין נגד הכיבוש. עם זאת, אני רואה את עצמי בשר מבשרה של הקהילה האקדמית בישראל. היא חשובה לי, היא מהווה חלק משמעותי מחיי, תלמידיי חשובים לי מאד וכך גם עבודתי האקדמית. בוודאי שהתנגשות כזו יוצרת מתיחות – אולי אפילו סתירה. מי שמאמין שאפשר לחיות ללא סתירות ומתחים פנימיים, יבושם לו. בלי שום קשר לנושא הנוכחי, אני לא מאמינה באפשרות כזו. רצוי, כמובן, למוסס את המתח, ואת זאת אני עושה יום יום, בתפקודי באוניברסיטה ובשמאל.
לעניין הפגיעה באוניברסיטה יש להוסיף עוד שני היבטים לפחות. הראשון הוא שגם אמצעי השביתה (אף הוא אמצעי פוליטי, לא מנותק מהקשר ולא בר-הכללה באופן פורמלי), שכולנו או לפחות רובינו תומכים בו, עשוי להזיק בטווח הקצר. השביתה הגדולה של הסגל אכן הזיקה לכיסי האוניברסיטה. סטודנטים עזבו לטובת המכללות, בטענה ש”שם לא שובתים”. (למרבה השמחה הם התבדו – ראו את מכללת ספיר.) דרישות שאנחנו מעלים, בצדק רב, לגבי העסקתם של עובדי הקבלן, או המורים-מן-החוץ, אף הן מרעות לכאורה את מצבה הכלכלי של האוניברסיטה – ובכל זאת אנחנו מאמינים שהן מוצדקות, ואף מצדיקות שביתות וסנקציות שונות.
ההיבט השני נוגע למה שאפשר לקרוא לו בהכללה “המיליטריזם של האוניברסיטה”. שיתוף הפעולה הסמוי והגלוי עם הצבא, תוכניות הלימוד המיוחדות, מינוי מרצים שמוצנחים היישר מן הפיקוד הבכיר – כל אלה, שהאוניברסיטה נוטה להתגאות בהם, מזיקים לה, לטעמי, לא פחות מן התמיכה בחרם. הרבה יותר. אינני מתכוונת רק ליחסי-החוץ, לעובדה שהמיליטריזם הזה מקל על תומכי החרם. אני מתכוונת קודם כל לפרצופה של האוניברסיטה עצמה, לסדר היום של מחקריה, למחויבותה האזרחית.
עד כאן. חשבתי לכתוב לכם מסמך קצר המכיל תשובות לשאלות, אך משהתיישבתי לכתוב אותו הבנתי עד כמה ניסיון כזה הוא מופרך. ברור לי לגמרי עד כמה קשה סוגיית החרם (הכולל, וזה על האקדמיה בפרט). אינני מצפה לשכנע איש, אלא לסלק אי הבנות ולהציע לכם לראות את הדברים מפרספקטיבה אחרת. ברור לי גם שלשם ראייה כזו דרושה הסכמה מינימלית בעניינים הפוליטיים. יתר על כן, אני סבורה, וכתבתי על כך בהרחבה בהקשר האקדמי, כי דרוש לה גם שינוי בהוויה, באורח החיים. אבל, כאמור, עד כאן.
This important petition (below) issued by Israeli academics provides further support for PACBI’s consistent denunciation of the Israeli academy for its complicity in the system of oppression against Palestinians and its silence about the long-standing violation of the basic freedoms–including the academic freedom–of Palestinians. The petition also vindicates PACBI in its campaign for the institutional boycott of the Israeli academy.
As the background to the petition makes clear, the Israeli academy is not the bastion of dissent it is purported to be by those seeking to defend it and thus delegitimize the call for the academic boycott of Israel. The vast majority of the Israeli academic community are oblivious to the oppression of the Palestinian people–both inside Israel and in the occupied territory–and have never fought to oppose the practices and policies of their state. In fact, they duly serve in the reserve forces of the occupation army and as such are either perpetrators of or silent witnesses to the daily brutality of the occupation. They also do not hesitate to partner in their academic research with the security-military establishment that is the chief architect and executor of the occupation and other forms of oppression of the Palestinian people.
This initiative also shows that sadly, even those who wish to rouse their colleagues from their slumber seem to be the victims of amnesia or else are willfully ignoring the basic political context within which the academic freedom of Palestinian academics and students is being violated. That context is no other than the illegal, four-decades-old military occupation of Palestinian land, an occupation that has striven consistently to destroy Palestinian society and its institutions, including universities. That a petition issued by academics ignores this basic fact and is unwilling to condemn the occupation regime is very telling.
******************************************* Text of the Petition Issued by Israeli Academics:
Academic freedom for whom?
The meaning of “academic freedom” is fairly obvious. It is something that is associated with democratic societies, and it is universally held in high esteem, even though its boundaries and limits are often unclear. Basically, where there is freedom to teach, study and carry out research in academic institutions, and to publish research-related books and articles, then academic freedom exists.
It is clear that there can be no real academic freedom in higher education unless it is possible to reach the institutions where one studies, teaches, and carries out research. Academics within the State of Israel are able to do this, but those working in the higher education institutions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not. There, checkpoints, blockades, walls and fences prevent thousands of students and teachers from leading a normal academic life, and lecturers with non-Palestinian passports, who wish to teach in those institutions, are prevented from staying for long enough to carry out meaningful continuous teaching.
The academic community of the State of Israel, which rightly demands academic freedom for its members both inside Israel and within the international academic community, has generally disregarded the demand for a similar freedom for Palestinian academics in the Occupied Territories for which the State of Israel is responsible. Because of this, and in view of the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Territories during the last couple of years, we approached all the senior faculty members in the major higher education and scientific research institutions in Israel: Bar Ilan University, Ben Gurion University, Haifa University, The Hebrew University, The Open University, the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), Tel Aviv University, and the Weizmann Institute for Science. We sent them the following letter and petition:
Dear colleagues:
As academics and citizens of the State of Israel, whatever our political opinions may be, we see ourselves as having a duty to fight for the academic freedom of our Palestinian colleagues. We call upon the Government of Israel to honour and implement the right of freedom of movement, academic study and instruction in the State of Israel and the territories controlled by it. Academic freedom is not divisible and cannot be selective. The State of Israel and we its citizens are directly responsible for upholding that freedom.
We call upon you to actively accept that responsibility and to add your support to the attached petition, which is being distributed among all senior staff members in all institutions of higher education in Israel. After the signatures have been gathered, we intend to seek the support of the Committee of University Presidents and members of the Israeli Academy of Science, and to submit the petition to the following government ministries: Defence, Education, Science, Foreign Affairs, and the Interior.
Sincerely,
The initiators of the petition:
Prof. Menachem Fisch, Tel-Aviv University
Prof. Raphael Falk, The Hebrew University
Prof. Eva Jablonka, Tel-Aviv University
Dr. Snait Gissis, Tel-Aviv University
Text of the petition
We, past and present members of academic staff of Israeli universities, express great concern regarding the ongoing deterioration of the system of higher education in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We protest against the policy of our government which is causing restrictions of freedom of movement, study and instruction, and we call upon the government to allow students and lecturers free access to all the campuses in the Territories, and to allow lecturers and students who hold foreign passports to teach and study without being threatened with withdrawal of residence visas. To leave the situation as it is will cause serious harm to freedom of movement, study and instruction – harm to the foundation of academic freedom, to which we are committed.
We sent about 9000 emails, of which around 5000 were to senior faculty and the rest to emeriti and junior faculty at some of the institutions. These numbers should be reduced by about 5% to allow for the emails that were returned. In order not to misuse the internal all-university lists, all email addresses were manually downloaded from the open-to-the-public sites of university departments. A total of 407 people, 403 of whom are mostly active senior faculty, (but also include emeriti and junior staff) from the above institutions, as well as 4 signatures from senior faculty of Colleges who became aware of our petition, responded to our call and signed the petition. It is our intention to publicize the list of signatories on the web.
The number of signatories from each university is as follows:
Bar Ilan University 10
Ben Gurion University 77
Haifa University 20
Hebrew University 110
Open University 7
Technion 14
Tel Aviv University 155
Weizmann Institute of Science 10
Sapir College 2
Oranim 1
Bezalel 1
We received a number of letters objecting to our call: some of the authors sent reasoned responses, arguing their case against our petition; others chose to send insulting hate mail.
At the Weitzman Institute of Science, one of the heads of the departments sent a letter via the Academic Affairs Office to all the senior faculty of that institute. In it, he warned the faculty of the danger lurking in our call, basing his argument on very inaccurate rumours about the political stance of the initiators of the petition.
In March 2008 we wrote to the Committee of University Presidents and to the Directorial Board of the Israeli Academy of Science asking them to support our petition. So far, the only answer received has been that our request would be considered.
We are well aware that only rarely do petitions cause a change in a political state of affairs. However, we do not doubt that when there are enough people in the Israeli academic community who are prepared to voice their objection to the conditions under which their colleagues in Palestinian higher education institutions have to work, and do all they can to ensure that their Palestinian counterparts have the same academic freedom that they enjoy, we shall all benefit – Israeli and Palestinian academics alike.
Prof. Menachem Fisch, Tel-Aviv University
Prof. Raphael Falk, The Hebrew University
Prof. Eva Jablonka, Tel-Aviv University
Dr. Snait Gissis, Tel-Aviv University
List of Signatories Dr. Aref Abu-Rabia BGU Dr. Tabat Abu Ras BGU Prof. Zach Adam HUJI Prof. Hanna Adoni HUJI Dr. Riad Agrabia BGU Prof. Ron Aharoni Technion Dr. Iris Agmon BGU Prof. Joseph Agassi TAU Prof. Amotz Agnin HUJI Prof. Ofer Aharoni Weizmann Prof. Niv Ahituv TAU Prof. Gadi Algazi TAU Dr. Karen Alkalay Gut TAU Dr. Yoav Alon TAU Prof. Ehud Altman Weizmann Dr. Tammy Amiel – Hauser TAU Dr. Eleanor Amit TAU Prof. Gannit Ankori HU Prof. Yonathan Anson BGU Dr. Ruth Arav OPU Prof. Mira Ariel TAU Dr. Amos Arieli Weizmann Prof. Boaz Arpaly TAU Dr. Ruth Ashery-Padan TAU Dr. Nurit Ashkenasy BGU Dr. Daniel Attas HUJ Prof. Judy Auerbach BGU Dr. Michal Aviad TAU Dr. Yoram Ayal BGU Dr. Prof. Amir Ayali TAU Dr. Ariela Azoulay BIU Prof. Roi Baer HUJI Prof. Shalom Baer HUJI Dr. Amir Banbaji BGU Prof. Gad Baneth HUJI Prof. Ilan Bank TAU Prof. Maya Bar-Hillel HUJI Prof. Eitan Bar Yosef BGU Dr. Oren Barak HUJI Prof. Isaac Barash, TAU Prof. Ron Barkai TAU Prof. Yacob Barnai Haifa U Prof. Shosh Bar-Nun TAU Prof. Arie Bass TAU Prof. Outi Bat-El TAU Prof. Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot TAU Prof. Yehuda Bauer HUJI Dr. Dalia Beck BGU Prof. Yhuda Beeton BGU Dr. Guy Beiner BGU Prof. Shimshon Belkin HUJI Prof. Avner Ben-Amos TAU Prof. Eyal Ben Ari HUJI Dr Hagit Benbaji BGU Prof. Yemima Ben-Menachem HUJI Prof. Ziva Ben-Porat, TAU Prof. Yinon Ben-Neriah, HUJI Prof. Simon Benninga TAU Prof. Zvi Bentwich BGU Dr. Yael Benyamini TAU Dr. Yael Ben-Zvi BGU Prof. Benjamin Isaac TAU Dr. Nitza Berkovitch BGU Dr. Louise Bethlehem HUJI Prof. Anat Biletzki TAU Prof. Yoram Bilu HUJI Prof. David Blanc Haifa U Prof. Rony Blum HUJI Prof. Shoshana Blum-Kulka HUJI Prof. Irena Botwinik-Rotem BGU Prof. Yohanan Brada HUJI Prof. Michael Brandeis HUJI Prof. Yigal Bronner TAU Prof. Jose Brunner TAU Prof. Judith Buber Agassi HUJI Prof. Victoria Buch HUJI Dr. Naama Carmi Haifa U Dr. Julia Chaitin Sapir College Prof. Reuven Chayoth BGU Dr. Raz Chen- Morris BIU Prof. Mottie Chevion HUJI Dr. Tamar Cholcman TAU Dr. Eyal Chowers TAU Prof. Esther Cohen HUJI Prof. Michael J. Cohen BIU Prof. Yerachmiel Cohen HUJI Dr. Yinon Cohen TAU Mrs. Anat Danziger HUJI Prof. Marcelo Dascal TAU Prof. Nathan Dascal TAU Prof. David Degani Technion Prof. Sahul Dollberg TAU Prof. Fanny Dolzhansky HUJI Dr. Daniel Dor TAU Prof. Yuval Dor HUJI Dr. Iris Dotan TAU Prof. Tommy Dreyfus TAU Prof. Amos Dreyfus HUJI Dr Eli Dresner TAU Dr Otniel Dror HUJI Dr Tammy Eilat Yagoury TAU Prof. Gerda Elata-Alster BGU Prof. Miri Eliav-Feldon TAU Prof. David Enoch HUJ Prof. Yehouda Enzel HUJI Prof. Daphna Erdinast-Vulcan Haifa U Prof. Ilan Eshel TAU Prof. Aharon Eviatar TAU Dr. Zohar Eytan TAU Dr. Ovadia Ezra TAU Prof. Raphael Falk HUJI Prof. Ruma Falk HUJI Prof. Emmanuel Farjoun HUJI Prof. Celia Fassberg HUJI Prof. Steve Fassberg HUJI Dr. Jackie Feldman BG Prof. Rivka Feldhay TAU Dr. Tovi Fenster, TAU Dr. Dani Filc BGU Dr. Lizzie Fireman TAU Prof. Menachem Fisch TAU Dr. Susie Fisher Open U Prof. Hanan Frenk TAU Prof. Gideon Freudenthal TAU Prof. Ariela Fridman TAU Prof. Ehud Friedgut HUJI Prof. Eli Friedlander TAU Dr. Alon Friedman BGU Dr. Paul Frosh HUJI Dr. Iris Fry Technion Prof. Michael Fry Technion Dr. Michalle Gal TAU Prof. Yolanda Gampel TAU Prof. Uri Gat HUJI Prof. Nima Geffen TAU Dr. Ido Geiger HUJI Prof. Deborah Gera HUJI Prof. Israel Gershoni TAU Dr. Mahmud Ghanayim TAU Prof. Avner Giladi Haifa U Dr. Asaf Gilboa Haifa U Dr. Jack Gilrom BGU Prof. Ruth Ginsburg HUJI Prof. Simona Ginsburg OU Prof. Rachel Giora TAU Dr. Snait Gissis TAU Prof.essor Eli Glasner TAU Prof. Ruth Glasner HUJI Prof. Marek Glezerman TAU Mr. Shuka Glotman BGU Prof. Michael Gluzman TAU Dr. Tamar Golan BGU Dr. Menachem Goldenberg TAU Prof. Haim Goldfus BGU Prof. Amiram Goldblum HUJI Prof. Oded Goldreich Weizmann Prof. Hari Golomb TAU Dr. Neve Gordon BGU Dr. Tresa Grauer BGU Dr. Moki Greefeld TAU Dr. Matine Grenak-Katrivs TAU Prof. Nachum Gross HUJI Prof. Yosef Gruenbaum HUJI Prof. Guretzki-Bilu TAU Prof. Zali Gurevitch HUJI Prof. David Gurwitz TAU Prof. Yossi Guttmann Haifa U Dr. Ran Hacohen TAU Prof. Uri Hadar TAU Dr. Abdulla Haj Ichia HUJI Prof. Aviva Halamish TAU Dr. Masud Hamdan Haifa U Dr. Talma Handler TAU Dr. Oren Harman BI Prof. Alon Harel HUJI Prof. Ran Hassin HUJI Prof. Galit Hazan-Rokem HUJI Prof. Shlomo Hasson HUJI Prof. Abraham Hefetz TAU Prof. Moti Heiblum Weizmann Dr. Sibyl Heilbron Haifa U Dr. Eyal Heifetz TAU Dr. Sara Helman BGU Prof. Yitzhak Hen BGU Dr. Omri Herzog HUJI Dr. Tamar Hess HUJI Prof. Hannan Hever TAU Dr. Sylvie Honigman TAU Prof. Ehud Hrushovski HUJI Prof. Boaz Huss BGU Prof. Eva Illuz HUJI Dr. Anat Israeli, Oranim Prof. Eva Jablonka TAU Prof. Dan Jacobson TAU Prof. Sulaiman Jubran TAU Prof. Edouard Jurkevitch HUJI Dr. Nirit Kadmon TAU Dr. Devora Kalekin Haifa U Dr. Itay Kama TAU Dr. Avi Kaplan BGU Dr. Nahum Karlinsky BGU Prof. Steve Karlish Weizmann Prof. Rimon Kasher BIU Prof. Tamar Katriel Haifa U Prof. Yaakov Katriel Technion Dr. Roni Kaufman BGU Prof. Gad Kaynar TAU Dr. Chen Keasar BGU Ms. Ruth Kener TAU Prof. Michael Keren HUJI Dr Nadera Shalhov-Kevorkian HUJI Prof. Hanan J. Kisch BGU Dr. Menachem Klein BI Prof. Sara Klein Breslavy TAU Dr. Yoel Klemes Open U Prof. Ruth Klinov HUJI Dr. Ariel Knafo HUJI Prof. Yehoshua Kolodny, HUJI Prof. Mordechai Kremnizer HUJI Prof. David Kretzmer HUJI Dr. Michal Krumer-Nevo BGU Prof. Richard Kulka HUJI Dr. Orna Kupferman HUJI Dr. Raz Kupferman HUJI Dr. Ron Kuzar Haifa U Dr. Ori Lahav Technion Prof. Lius Landa BGU Prof. Idan Landau BGU MS. Tali Latowicki BGU Dr. Shai Lavi TAU Prof. Boaz Lazar HUJI Dr. Gerardo Leibner, TAU Prof. Aaron Lerner Haifa U Prof. Haim Levanon HUJI Prof. Iris Levin TAU Prof. Yakir Levin BGU Prof. Shimon Levy TAU Prof. David Lior HUJI Dr Orly Lubin TAU Prof. Yael Lubin BGU Dr. Menachem Luz Haifa U Prof. M. Machover HUJI Dr. Daniel Maman BGU Dr. Shmuel Marco TAU Prof. Avishai Margalit HUJI Prof. Moshe Margalith TAU Prof. Shimon Marom Technion Prof. Imauel Marx TAU Dr. Anat Matar TAU Prof. Tsevi Mazeh TAU Prof. Raphael Mechoulam HUJI Prof. Gidon Medini TAU Prof. Avinoam Meir BGU Prof. Ron Meir Technion Prof. Yoram Meital BGU Dr. Eran Meshorer HUJI Mr. Avi Mograbi Bezalel Prof. Raya Morag HUJI Dr. Efrat Morin HUJI Prof. Uzi Motro, HUJI Prof. Guy Mundlak TAU Prof. Ben Zion Munitz TAU Dr Eti Nachliel TAU Prof. Zvi Neeman TAU Prof. Yosef Neuman TAU Dr. Yitshak Nevo BGU Dr. Gidi Nevo BGU Prof. David Newman BGU Prof.. Ariel Novoplanky BGU Prof. Avi Ohry TAU Prof. Dalia Ofer HUJI Dr. Yanai Ofran BIU Prof. Adi Ophir TAU Prof. Aharon Oppenheimer TAU Prof. Avi Oz Haifa U Prof. Iris Parush BGU Dr. Galia Patt Shamir TAU Dr. Einat Peled TAU Dr. Yoav Peled TAU Prof. Bezalel Peleg HUJI Prof. Hana Peres TAU Prof. Mordechai Perl BGU Prof. Kobi Peter( Peterzil) Haifa U Dr. Amit Pichevski HUJI Dr. Yona Pinson TAU Prof. Nava Pliskin BGU Prof.. Francis Dov Por HUJI Prof.. Dan Rabinowitz TAU Prof. Gad Rabinowitz BGU Prof. Chaim Rachman Technion Prof. Yoel Rak TAU Dr. Hagai Ram BGU Prof. Uri Ram BGU Prof. Mauro Rathaous TAU Prof. Shalom Ratzabi TAU Dr. Tal Raviv TAU Prof. Jacob Raz, TAU Prof. Elchanan Reiner TAU Prof. Omer Reingold Weizmann Prof. Meir Rigby HUJI Prof. Ruth Rigby HUJI Dr. Roer-Strier HUJI Prof. Freddie Rokem TAU Prof. Dana Ron TAU Prof. Moshe Ron HUJI Dr. Ayala Ronal TAU Prof. Steven Rosen BGU Prof. Tova Rosen BGU Dr. Zeev Rosenhek OPU Dr. Issachar Rosen-Zvi TAU Prof. Susan Rothstein BI Prof. Elisheva Rosen TAU Dr. Avi Rubin BGU Dr. Prof. Bella Rubin TAU Mr. Daniel Rubinstein BGU Dr. Ilan Saban Haifa U Prof. Yosef Sadan TAU Dr. Hanna Safran Haifa U Prof. Shlomo Sand TAU Prof. Shifra Sagi BGU Dr. Lilach Sagiv HUJI Prof. Edwin Seroussi HUJI Dr. Zvi Schuldiner Sapir College Dr. Sara Schwartz Open U Dr. Yossef Schwartz TAU Dr. Shlomi Segall HUJ Dr. Ella Segev Technion Prof. Idan Segev HUJI Prof. Ruben Seroussi TAU Dr. Alla Shainskaya, Weizmann Dr. Yeala Shaked HUJI Dr. Milette Shamir TAU Prof. Michal Shamir TAU Dr. Ronen Shamir TAU Dr. Yaakov Shamir HUJI Prof. Benny Shanon HUJI Prof. Itzhak Shapira TAU MS. Noa Shashar HUJI Dr. Relli Shechter BGU Prof.. Gaby Shefler HUJI Prof. Miriam Shlesinger BI Prof. Yehuda Shenhav TAU Prof. Yosef Shiloh TAU Prof. Tal Siloni TAU Dr. Eyal Shimoni Weizmann Prof. Naomi Shir BGU Prof. Moshe Shokeid TAU Prof. Boaz Shushan BGU Dr. Tal Shuval TAU Prof. Moshe Silberbush, BGU Dr. Ivy Sichel HUJI Dr. Rosalie Sitman TAU Dr. Vered Slonim Nevo BGU Prof. Varda Soskolne BIU Prof. Avishai Stark TAU Prof. Wilfo Stein HUJI Prof. Shamai Speiser Technion Prof. W. D. Zeev Stein HUJI Prof. Carlo Strenger TAU Dr. Deborah Sweeney, TAU Dr. Daniella Talmon-Heller BGU Prof. David Talshir BGU Dr. Daphne Tsimhoni Technion Prof. Gideon Toury, TAU Dr. Hamoutal Tsamir BGU Prof. Yoav Tsori BGU Dr. Rachel Tzelnik-Abramovitch TAU Prof. Joseph Tzelgov BGU Dr. Jehuda (Dudy) Tzfati HUJI Prof. Edna Ullmann Margalit HUJI Prof. Sabetai Unguru TAU Dr. Vered Vitizky-Seroussi HUJI Prof. Naphtali Wagner HUJI Prof. Alon Warburg HUJI Dr. Eynel Wardi HUJI Prof. Henry Wassermann OPU Dr. Nathan Wasserman HUJI Prof.. Ruth Weintraub TAU Dr. Barak Weiss BGU Dr. Haim Weiss BGU Prof. Sasha Weitman TAU Prof. Haim Werner TAU Prof. Yehuda Werner HUJI Prof. Paul Wexler TAU Prof.. Yoad Winter Technion Dr. Nurit Yaari TAU Prof. Yoel Yaari HUJI Dr. Haim Yacobi BGU Dr. Niza Yanay BGU Prof. Eli Yassif TAU Dr. Mahmoud Yazbak Haifa U Dr. Edit Yerushalmi Weizmann Prof. Oren Yiftachel BGU Dr. Daphna Yoel TAU Prof. Yuval Yonay Haifa U Prof. Mira Zakai TAU Dr. Michael Zakim TAU Prof. Shmuel Zamir HUJI Prof. Anat Zanger TAU Prof. Joseph Zeira HUJI Dr. Dina Zilberg BGU Prof. Moshe Zimmermann HUJI Dr. Michal Zion BIU Dr. Amalia Ziv TAU Dr. Ouriel Zohar Technion Dr. Tsaffrir Zor TAU Prof. Moshe Zuckermann TAU
———- Forwarded message ——— From: <e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com> Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:28 AM Subject: Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which launched the Boycott Israeli Goods Campaign, adopts the Petition Issued by Israeli Academics To:
This important petition (below) issued by Israeli academics provides further support for PACBI’s consistent denunciation of the Israeli academy for its complicity in the system of oppression against Palestinians and its silence about the long-standing violation of the basic freedoms — including the academic freedom — of Palestinians. Comment by PACBI:
The petition also vindicates PACBI in its campaign for the institutional boycott of the Israeli academy.
As the background to the petition makes clear, the Israeli academy is not the bastion of dissent it is purported to be by those seeking to defend it and thus delegitimize the call for the academic boycott of Israel. The vast majority of the Israeli academic community are oblivious to the oppression of the Palestinian people — both inside Israel and in the occupied territory — and have never fought to oppose the practices and policies of their state. In fact, they duly serve in the reserve forces of the occupation army and as such are either perpetrators of or silent witnesses to the daily brutality of the occupation. They also do not hesitate to partner in their academic research with the security-military establishment that is the chief architect and executor of the occupation and other forms of oppression of the Palestinian people.
This initiative also shows that sadly, even those who wish to rouse their colleagues from their slumber seem to be the victims of amnesia or else are willfully ignoring the basic political context within which the academic freedom of Palestinian academics and students is being violated. That context is no other than the illegal, four-decades-old military occupation of Palestinian land, an occupation that has striven consistently to destroy Palestinian society and its institutions, including universities. That a petition issued by academics ignores this basic fact and is unwilling to condemn the occupation regime is very telling.
The meaning of “academic freedom” is fairly obvious. It is something that is associated with democratic societies, and it is universally held in high esteem, even though its boundaries and limits are often unclear. Basically, where there is freedom to teach, study and carry out research in academic institutions, and to publish research-related books and articles, then academic freedom exists.
It is clear that there can be no real academic freedom in higher education unless it is possible to reach the institutions where one studies, teaches, and carries out research. Academics within the State of Israel are able to do this, but those working in the higher education institutions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not. There, checkpoints, blockades, walls and fences prevent thousands of students and teachers from leading a normal academic life, and lecturers with non-Palestinian passports, who wish to teach in those institutions, are prevented from staying for long enough to carry out meaningful continuous teaching.
The academic community of the State of Israel, which rightly demands academic freedom for its members both inside Israel and within the international academic community, has generally disregarded the demand for a similar freedom for Palestinian academics in the Occupied Territories for which the State of Israel is responsible. Because of this, and in view of the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Territories during the last couple of years, we approached all the senior faculty members in the major higher education and scientific research institutions in Israel: Bar Ilan University, Ben Gurion University, Haifa University, The Hebrew University, The Open University, the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), Tel Aviv University, and the Weizmann Institute for Science. We sent them the following letter and petition:
Dear colleagues:
As academics and citizens of the State of Israel, whatever our political opinions may be, we see ourselves as having a duty to fight for the academic freedom of our Palestinian colleagues. We call upon the Government of Israel to honour and implement the right of freedom of movement, academic study and instruction in the State of Israel and the territories controlled by it. Academic freedom is not divisible and cannot be selective. The State of Israel and we its citizens are directly responsible for upholding that freedom.
We call upon you to actively accept that responsibility and to add your support to the attached petition, which is being distributed among all senior staff members in all institutions of higher education in Israel. After the signatures have been gathered, we intend to seek the support of the Committee of University Presidents and members of the Israeli Academy of Science, and to submit the petition to the following government ministries: Defence, Education, Science, Foreign Affairs, and the Interior.
Sincerely,
The initiators of the petition:
Prof. Menachem Fisch, Tel-Aviv University
Prof. Raphael Falk, The Hebrew University
Prof. Eva Jablonka, Tel-Aviv University
Dr. Snait Gissis, Tel-Aviv University
Text of the petition
We, past and present members of academic staff of Israeli universities, express great concern regarding the ongoing deterioration of the system of higher education in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We protest against the policy of our government which is causing restrictions of freedom of movement, study and instruction, and we call upon the government to allow students and lecturers free access to all the campuses in the Territories, and to allow lecturers and students who hold foreign passports to teach and study without being threatened with withdrawal of residence visas. To leave the situation as it is will cause serious harm to freedom of movement, study and instruction – harm to the foundation of academic freedom, to which we are committed.
We sent about 9000 emails, of which around 5000 were to senior faculty and the rest to emeriti and junior faculty at some of the institutions. These numbers should be reduced by about 5% to allow for the emails that were returned. In order not to misuse the internal all-university lists, all email addresses were manually downloaded from the open-to-the-public sites of university departments. A total of 407 people, 403 of whom are mostly active senior faculty, (but also include emeriti and junior staff) from the above institutions, as well as 4 signatures from senior faculty of Colleges who became aware of our petition, responded to our call and signed the petition. It is our intention to publicize the list of signatories on the web.
The number of signatories from each university is as follows:
Bar Ilan University 10
Ben Gurion University 77
Haifa University 20
Hebrew University 110
Open University 7
Technion 14
Tel Aviv University 155
Weizmann Institute of Science 10
Sapir College 2
Oranim 1
Bezalel 1
We received a number of letters objecting to our call: some of the authors sent reasoned responses, arguing their case against our petition; others chose to send insulting hate mail.
At the Weitzman Institute of Science, one of the heads of the departments sent a letter via the Academic Affairs Office to all the senior faculty of that institute. In it, he warned the faculty of the danger lurking in our call, basing his argument on very inaccurate rumours about the political stance of the initiators of the petition.
In March 2008 we wrote to the Committee of University Presidents and to the Directorial Board of the Israeli Academy of Science asking them to support our petition. So far, the only answer received has been that our request would be considered.
We are well aware that only rarely do petitions cause a change in a political state of affairs. However, we do not doubt that when there are enough people in the Israeli academic community who are prepared to voice their objection to the conditions under which their colleagues in Palestinian higher education institutions have to work, and do all they can to ensure that their Palestinian counterparts have the same academic freedom that they enjoy, we shall all benefit – Israeli and Palestinian academics alike.
Prof. Menachem Fisch, Tel-Aviv University
Prof. Raphael Falk, The Hebrew University
Prof. Eva Jablonka, Tel-Aviv University
Dr. Snait Gissis, Tel-Aviv University
List of Signatories
Dr. Aref Abu-Rabia BGU Dr. Tabat Abu Ras BGU Prof. Zach Adam HUJI Prof. Hanna Adoni HUJI Dr. Riad Agrabia BGU Prof. Ron Aharoni Technion Dr. Iris Agmon BGU Prof. Joseph Agassi TAU Prof. Amotz Agnin HUJI Prof. Ofer Aharoni Weizmann Prof. Niv Ahituv TAU Prof. Gadi Algazi TAU Dr. Karen Alkalay Gut TAU Dr. Yoav Alon TAU Prof. Ehud Altman Weizmann Dr. Tammy Amiel – Hauser TAU Dr. Eleanor Amit TAU Prof. Gannit Ankori HU Prof. Yonathan Anson BGU Dr. Ruth Arav OPU Prof. Mira Ariel TAU Dr. Amos Arieli Weizmann Prof. Boaz Arpaly TAU Dr. Ruth Ashery-Padan TAU Dr. Nurit Ashkenasy BGU Dr. Daniel Attas HUJ Prof. Judy Auerbach BGU Dr. Michal Aviad TAU Dr. Yoram Ayal BGU Dr. Prof. Amir Ayali TAU Dr. Ariela Azoulay BIU Prof. Roi Baer HUJI Prof. Shalom Baer HUJI Dr. Amir Banbaji BGU Prof. Gad Baneth HUJI Prof. Ilan Bank TAU Prof. Maya Bar-Hillel HUJI Prof. Eitan Bar Yosef BGU Dr. Oren Barak HUJI Prof. Isaac Barash, TAU Prof. Ron Barkai TAU Prof. Yacob Barnai Haifa U Prof. Shosh Bar-Nun TAU Prof. Arie Bass TAU Prof. Outi Bat-El TAU Prof. Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot TAU Prof. Yehuda Bauer HUJI Dr. Dalia Beck BGU Prof. Yhuda Beeton BGU Dr. Guy Beiner BGU Prof. Shimshon Belkin HUJI Prof. Avner Ben-Amos TAU Prof. Eyal Ben Ari HUJI Dr Hagit Benbaji BGU Prof. Yemima Ben-Menachem HUJI Prof. Ziva Ben-Porat, TAU Prof. Yinon Ben-Neriah, HUJI Prof. Simon Benninga TAU Prof. Zvi Bentwich BGU Dr. Yael Benyamini TAU Dr. Yael Ben-Zvi BGU Prof. Benjamin Isaac TAU Dr. Nitza Berkovitch BGU Dr. Louise Bethlehem HUJI Prof. Anat Biletzki TAU Prof. Yoram Bilu HUJI Prof. David Blanc Haifa U Prof. Rony Blum HUJI Prof. Shoshana Blum-Kulka HUJI Prof. Irena Botwinik-Rotem BGU Prof. Yohanan Brada HUJI Prof. Michael Brandeis HUJI Prof. Yigal Bronner TAU Prof. Jose Brunner TAU Prof. Judith Buber Agassi HUJI Prof. Victoria Buch HUJI Dr. Naama Carmi Haifa U Dr. Julia Chaitin Sapir College Prof. Reuven Chayoth BGU Dr. Raz Chen- Morris BIU Prof. Mottie Chevion HUJI Dr. Tamar Cholcman TAU Dr. Eyal Chowers TAU Prof. Esther Cohen HUJI Prof. Michael J. Cohen BIU Prof. Yerachmiel Cohen HUJI Dr. Yinon Cohen TAU Mrs. Anat Danziger HUJI Prof. Marcelo Dascal TAU Prof. Nathan Dascal TAU Prof. David Degani Technion Prof. Sahul Dollberg TAU Prof. Fanny Dolzhansky HUJI Dr. Daniel Dor TAU Prof. Yuval Dor HUJI Dr. Iris Dotan TAU Prof. Tommy Dreyfus TAU Prof. Amos Dreyfus HUJI Dr Eli Dresner TAU Dr Otniel Dror HUJI Dr Tammy Eilat Yagoury TAU Prof. Gerda Elata-Alster BGU Prof. Miri Eliav-Feldon TAU Prof. David Enoch HUJ Prof. Yehouda Enzel HUJI Prof. Daphna Erdinast-Vulcan Haifa U Prof. Ilan Eshel TAU Prof. Aharon Eviatar TAU Dr. Zohar Eytan TAU Dr. Ovadia Ezra TAU Prof. Raphael Falk HUJI Prof. Ruma Falk HUJI Prof. Emmanuel Farjoun HUJI Prof. Celia Fassberg HUJI Prof. Steve Fassberg HUJI Dr. Jackie Feldman BG Prof. Rivka Feldhay TAU Dr. Tovi Fenster, TAU Dr. Dani Filc BGU Dr. Lizzie Fireman TAU Prof. Menachem Fisch TAU Dr. Susie Fisher Open U Prof. Hanan Frenk TAU Prof. Gideon Freudenthal TAU Prof. Ariela Fridman TAU Prof. Ehud Friedgut HUJI Prof. Eli Friedlander TAU Dr. Alon Friedman BGU Dr. Paul Frosh HUJI Dr. Iris Fry Technion Prof. Michael Fry Technion Dr. Michalle Gal TAU Prof. Yolanda Gampel TAU Prof. Uri Gat HUJI Prof. Nima Geffen TAU Dr. Ido Geiger HUJI Prof. Deborah Gera HUJI Prof. Israel Gershoni TAU Dr. Mahmud Ghanayim TAU Prof. Avner Giladi Haifa U Dr. Asaf Gilboa Haifa U Dr. Jack Gilrom BGU Prof. Ruth Ginsburg HUJI Prof. Simona Ginsburg OU Prof. Rachel Giora TAU Dr. Snait Gissis TAU Prof.essor Eli Glasner TAU Prof. Ruth Glasner HUJI Prof. Marek Glezerman TAU Mr. Shuka Glotman BGU Prof. Michael Gluzman TAU Dr. Tamar Golan BGU Dr. Menachem Goldenberg TAU Prof. Haim Goldfus BGU Prof. Amiram Goldblum HUJI Prof. Oded Goldreich Weizmann Prof. Hari Golomb TAU Dr. Neve Gordon BGU Dr. Tresa Grauer BGU Dr. Moki Greefeld TAU Dr. Matine Grenak-Katrivs TAU Prof. Nachum Gross HUJI Prof. Yosef Gruenbaum HUJI Prof. Guretzki-Bilu TAU Prof. Zali Gurevitch HUJI Prof. David Gurwitz TAU Prof. Yossi Guttmann Haifa U Dr. Ran Hacohen TAU Prof. Uri Hadar TAU Dr. Abdulla Haj Ichia HUJI Prof. Aviva Halamish TAU Dr. Masud Hamdan Haifa U Dr. Talma Handler TAU Dr. Oren Harman BI Prof. Alon Harel HUJI Prof. Ran Hassin HUJI Prof. Galit Hazan-Rokem HUJI Prof. Shlomo Hasson HUJI Prof. Abraham Hefetz TAU Prof. Moti Heiblum Weizmann Dr. Sibyl Heilbron Haifa U Dr. Eyal Heifetz TAU Dr. Sara Helman BGU Prof. Yitzhak Hen BGU Dr. Omri Herzog HUJI Dr. Tamar Hess HUJI Prof. Hannan Hever TAU Dr. Sylvie Honigman TAU Prof. Ehud Hrushovski HUJI Prof. Boaz Huss BGU Prof. Eva Illuz HUJI Dr. Anat Israeli, Oranim Prof. Eva Jablonka TAU Prof. Dan Jacobson TAU Prof. Sulaiman Jubran TAU Prof. Edouard Jurkevitch HUJI Dr. Nirit Kadmon TAU Dr. Devora Kalekin Haifa U Dr. Itay Kama TAU Dr. Avi Kaplan BGU Dr. Nahum Karlinsky BGU Prof. Steve Karlish Weizmann Prof. Rimon Kasher BIU Prof. Tamar Katriel Haifa U Prof. Yaakov Katriel Technion Dr. Roni Kaufman BGU Prof. Gad Kaynar TAU Dr. Chen Keasar BGU Ms. Ruth Kener TAU Prof. Michael Keren HUJI Dr Nadera Shalhov-Kevorkian HUJI Prof. Hanan J. Kisch BGU Dr. Menachem Klein BI Prof. Sara Klein Breslavy TAU Dr. Yoel Klemes Open U Prof. Ruth Klinov HUJI Dr. Ariel Knafo HUJI Prof. Yehoshua Kolodny, HUJI Prof. Mordechai Kremnizer HUJI Prof. David Kretzmer HUJI Dr. Michal Krumer-Nevo BGU Prof. Richard Kulka HUJI Dr. Orna Kupferman HUJI Dr. Raz Kupferman HUJI Dr. Ron Kuzar Haifa U Dr. Ori Lahav Technion Prof. Lius Landa BGU Prof. Idan Landau BGU MS. Tali Latowicki BGU Dr. Shai Lavi TAU Prof. Boaz Lazar HUJI Dr. Gerardo Leibner, TAU Prof. Aaron Lerner Haifa U Prof. Haim Levanon HUJI Prof. Iris Levin TAU Prof. Yakir Levin BGU Prof. Shimon Levy TAU Prof. David Lior HUJI Dr Orly Lubin TAU Prof. Yael Lubin BGU Dr. Menachem Luz Haifa U Prof. M. Machover HUJI Dr. Daniel Maman BGU Dr. Shmuel Marco TAU Prof. Avishai Margalit HUJI Prof. Moshe Margalith TAU Prof. Shimon Marom Technion Prof. Imauel Marx TAU Dr. Anat Matar TAU Prof. Tsevi Mazeh TAU Prof. Raphael Mechoulam HUJI Prof. Gidon Medini TAU Prof. Avinoam Meir BGU Prof. Ron Meir Technion Prof. Yoram Meital BGU Dr. Eran Meshorer HUJI Mr. Avi Mograbi Bezalel Prof. Raya Morag HUJI Dr. Efrat Morin HUJI Prof. Uzi Motro, HUJI Prof. Guy Mundlak TAU Prof. Ben Zion Munitz TAU Dr Eti Nachliel TAU Prof. Zvi Neeman TAU Prof. Yosef Neuman TAU Dr. Yitshak Nevo BGU Dr. Gidi Nevo BGU Prof. David Newman BGU Prof.. Ariel Novoplanky BGU Prof. Avi Ohry TAU Prof. Dalia Ofer HUJI Dr. Yanai Ofran BIU Prof. Adi Ophir TAU Prof. Aharon Oppenheimer TAU Prof. Avi Oz Haifa U Prof. Iris Parush BGU Dr. Galia Patt Shamir TAU Dr. Einat Peled TAU Dr. Yoav Peled TAU Prof. Bezalel Peleg HUJI Prof. Hana Peres TAU Prof. Mordechai Perl BGU Prof. Kobi Peter( Peterzil) Haifa U Dr. Amit Pichevski HUJI Dr. Yona Pinson TAU Prof. Nava Pliskin BGU Prof.. Francis Dov Por HUJI Prof.. Dan Rabinowitz TAU Prof. Gad Rabinowitz BGU Prof. Chaim Rachman Technion Prof. Yoel Rak TAU Dr. Hagai Ram BGU Prof. Uri Ram BGU Prof. Mauro Rathaous TAU Prof. Shalom Ratzabi TAU Dr. Tal Raviv TAU Prof. Jacob Raz, TAU Prof. Elchanan Reiner TAU Prof. Omer Reingold Weizmann Prof. Meir Rigby HUJI Prof. Ruth Rigby HUJI Dr. Roer-Strier HUJI Prof. Freddie Rokem TAU Prof. Dana Ron TAU Prof. Moshe Ron HUJI Dr. Ayala Ronal TAU Prof. Steven Rosen BGU Prof. Tova Rosen BGU Dr. Zeev Rosenhek OPU Dr. Issachar Rosen-Zvi TAU Prof. Susan Rothstein BI Prof. Elisheva Rosen TAU Dr. Avi Rubin BGU Dr. Prof. Bella Rubin TAU Mr. Daniel Rubinstein BGU Dr. Ilan Saban Haifa U Prof. Yosef Sadan TAU Dr. Hanna Safran Haifa U Prof. Shlomo Sand TAU Prof. Shifra Sagi BGU Dr. Lilach Sagiv HUJI Prof. Edwin Seroussi HUJI Dr. Zvi Schuldiner Sapir College Dr. Sara Schwartz Open U Dr. Yossef Schwartz TAU Dr. Shlomi Segall HUJ Dr. Ella Segev Technion Prof. Idan Segev HUJI Prof. Ruben Seroussi TAU Dr. Alla Shainskaya, Weizmann Dr. Yeala Shaked HUJI Dr. Milette Shamir TAU Prof. Michal Shamir TAU Dr. Ronen Shamir TAU Dr. Yaakov Shamir HUJI Prof. Benny Shanon HUJI Prof. Itzhak Shapira TAU MS. Noa Shashar HUJI Dr. Relli Shechter BGU Prof.. Gaby Shefler HUJI Prof. Miriam Shlesinger BI Prof. Yehuda Shenhav TAU Prof. Yosef Shiloh TAU Prof. Tal Siloni TAU Dr. Eyal Shimoni Weizmann Prof. Naomi Shir BGU Prof. Moshe Shokeid TAU Prof. Boaz Shushan BGU Dr. Tal Shuval TAU Prof. Moshe Silberbush, BGU Dr. Ivy Sichel HUJI Dr. Rosalie Sitman TAU Dr. Vered Slonim Nevo BGU Prof. Varda Soskolne BIU Prof. Avishai Stark TAU Prof. Wilfo Stein HUJI Prof. Shamai Speiser Technion Prof. W. D. Zeev Stein HUJI Prof. Carlo Strenger TAU Dr. Deborah Sweeney, TAU Dr. Daniella Talmon-Heller BGU Prof. David Talshir BGU Dr. Daphne Tsimhoni Technion Prof. Gideon Toury, TAU Dr. Hamoutal Tsamir BGU Prof. Yoav Tsori BGU Dr. Rachel Tzelnik-Abramovitch TAU Prof. Joseph Tzelgov BGU Dr. Jehuda (Dudy) Tzfati HUJI Prof. Edna Ullmann Margalit HUJI Prof. Sabetai Unguru TAU Dr. Vered Vitizky-Seroussi HUJI Prof. Naphtali Wagner HUJI Prof. Alon Warburg HUJI Dr. Eynel Wardi HUJI Prof. Henry Wassermann OPU Dr. Nathan Wasserman HUJI Prof.. Ruth Weintraub TAU Dr. Barak Weiss BGU Dr. Haim Weiss BGU Prof. Sasha Weitman TAU Prof. Haim Werner TAU Prof. Yehuda Werner HUJI Prof. Paul Wexler TAU Prof.. Yoad Winter Technion Dr. Nurit Yaari TAU Prof. Yoel Yaari HUJI Dr. Haim Yacobi BGU Dr. Niza Yanay BGU Prof. Eli Yassif TAU Dr. Mahmoud Yazbak Haifa U Dr. Edit Yerushalmi Weizmann Prof. Oren Yiftachel BGU Dr. Daphna Yoel TAU Prof. Yuval Yonay Haifa U Prof. Mira Zakai TAU Dr. Michael Zakim TAU Prof. Shmuel Zamir HUJI Prof. Anat Zanger TAU Prof. Joseph Zeira HUJI Dr. Dina Zilberg BGU Prof. Moshe Zimmermann HUJI Dr. Michal Zion BIU Dr. Amalia Ziv TAU Dr. Ouriel Zohar Technion Dr. Tsaffrir Zor TAU Prof. Moshe Zuckermann TAU http://academic-access.weebly.com/ The Big Campaign
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign launched the Boycott Israeli Goods Campaign in the House of Commons on the 4th July 2001. There had been calls for a boycott from within Israel itself as well as in the Occupied Territories.
Our decision to launch the BIG Campaign followed decades of Israel ‘s refusal to abide by UN Resolutions, International Humanitarian law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.
On 9th June 2005, after the International Court of Justice’s ruling against Israel’s apartheid wall, a coalition of Palestinian Civil Society Organisations issued a ‘Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against apartheid Israel until it complies with International Law’.
Boycott Israeli goods intends to campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions in line with this call from Palestinian civil society.
We will organise supporters to
Boycott Israeli goods and services
Boycott Israeli cultural and sporting institutions who do not condemn Israel’s ilegal occupation
Boycott Israeli academic institutions and academics who do not condemn Israel’s ilegal occupation
Promote a campaign against tourism in apartheid Israel
Promote divestment from companies who invest in apartheid Israel or profit from Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies
To camapign against companies who invest in apartheid Israel or profit from Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies
To persuade businesses to stop trading with apartheid Israel
To campaign for an end to European Union and British government trade agreements with Israel
To campaign for UK and EU sanctions against apartheid Israel until it complies with international humanitarian law
To promote initiatives to decrease the isolation of the occupied Palestinian people and promote ethical, fairly traded Palestinian goods.
The Israeli society has been degenerating morally and intellectually for several decades and reached a disgusting low point. This degeneration is due in part to a global degeneration (lead by the USA), but is actually dominated by a local factor. The latter is the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Thus, the single most important change that should take place is the immediate ending of this occupation. Other recommended actions include
Providing a critical analysis of (mass and elite) Culture.
A concrete suggestion: support HADASH, the only political party in the parliament that is committed to all these views. Meretz, the Labor Party and the Arab parties (i.e., Balad and Ra’am) share some of these views (in some cases in very moderate versions) but are not fully committed to all of them.
The most dominant source of evil in the Israeli society is the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This source of evil also contributes to several of the other problems discussed below. For example, the occupation strengthens the militaristic character of the Israeli society, fosters its contempt to human rights, and cultivates reactionary, ethnocentric, racist, and provincial attitudes. In addition, it causes severe economical and social problems and prevents a critical discussion of any other key issue (e.g., Globalization, Privatization and Capitalism).
However, the most evil part of the occupation is the occupation itself; that is, the violation of the most basic human right (i.e., freedom) of three million people (i.e., the Palestinians living in the occupied territories). In addition, Israel’s rule of these occupied territories is in clear violation of the globally-recognized duty of the ruler to administer and develop the occupied territory to the benefit of its residents. Needless to say, the settling of the ruler’s citizens in the occupied territories is not only implicitly forbidden by the above principle but is also explicitly forbidden by international law (which the Israeli administration disregards whenever it pleases). On top of this massive violation of human rights, Israel’s rule of the occupied territories is marked by an increasing number of war crimes ranging from murder (i.e., intentional killing of people without due process and/or sound justification), to causing death and severe injury of civilians in hundreds of cases (by criminal negligence), massive intentional destruction of private and public property (i.e., houses, plants, vehicles, equipment, etc), and the emprisonment and starvation of the entire population.
Typically, the justification offered for these violations and crimes is self-defense (“security reasons”), lack of other choice (i.e., “nobody to talk to”) and “common practice” (of other nations). These claims are neither valid nor the true reason for the continued occupation. But even if these claims were valid, a question of balance between legitimate concerns should have been seriously investigated (e.g., balance between the right of self-defense and the harm caused by specific actions taken according to that right). For example, when referring to the intentional killing of certain suspects, the questions are whether it is clear that this particular suspect plans to cause the death of other people and whether killing him/her is the only way to prevent him/her from carrying out this plan. Most if not all the intentional killing by the Israeli army cannot be justified by this defense; they are typically acts of revenge, which are sometimes directed against people that are not even responsible for any “act of terrorism” (but are rather political activists that are considered harmful to the cause of the continued occupation).
The continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip does not promote the security of the state of Israel, but rather endangers it. Indeed, alternative and far more effective security measures (at Israel’s borders with the Palestinian territories) would require far less (human and financial) resources than those wasted towards maintaining the occupation. The continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not performed in lack of other choice: Israel can just withdraw from there (as it did from the south of Lebanon) unilaterally and/or after negotiations with the Palestinians. If the topic of negotiation were withdrawal from the occupied territories as part of a lasting peace treaty then there would be no problem to find “somebody to talk to” on the Palestinian side. (The question is who is willing to conduct negotiations of such a realistic and justified agenda on the Israeli side.) Finally, the fact that other nations (mainly at other historical periods) have conducted worst crimes is not a justification for anything. Needless to say, the approval of the current USA administration (which conducts war crimes en route of its attempts to administer the entire world) is irrelevant.
The true reason for the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the invested interest of part of the Israeli society in this occupation, the miscalculation of the damage caused by the occupation to the Israeli society, and its disregard of universal considerations (by a large portion of the Israeli society). In particular, the “settlers” have a direct personal interest in the continued occupation and seem oblivious to its cost (in terms of damage to the Israeli society not to mention the Palestinian one). Some businesses also have such an interest. In addition, parts of the Israeli right-wing, which has nothing to offer but hatred of the other and confrontation with it, has an interest in the continued occupation and confrontation that comes with it, and certainly is emotionally incapable in “giving up” anything significant towards a resolution.
The forces in the Israeli society that are truly committed to ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are in clear minority. Given the state of affairs described above, it is a moral duty to refuse to take part in any action that serves the occupation. Such a moral choice also carries the political benefit of making a firm statement to the rest of the society regarding the evil (and cost) involved in the occupation, and puts pressure on the forces that favor the continuation of the occupation. Thus, the moral refusal to take part in the occupation is also an important political step. This makes organizations like Yesh Gvul and Ometz Le’Sarev worthy of special support and respect.Globalization, Privatization and CapitalismCapitalism at its current brutal stage is reflected by two slogans: Privatization and Globalization. Privatization, which aims to strip the state from any economical activity (supposedly because it cannot efficiently-perform such activities), is actually the main tool for destructing the structures of social security that were established decades ago by the social-democratic (a.k.a reform capitalist) movement. Globalization acts similarly on a global scale. In both cases, real social benefits (and, in particular, securities) of the entire population are replaced by vague promises (of “prosperity that benefits all”) and unrealistic dreams (of social mobility) that are being disseminated by the mass media. Specifically, general prosperity did not follow when pure (rather than reformed) capitalism was given a free hand (at the last 20 years of the 20th century), and the general population has not benefited but rather suffered. As for social mobility, it occurs very rarely unless promoted by non-economical means (e.g., affirmative action). That is, real-life concerns are being replaced by false ideology. This process is not being orchestrated by a small group of conspirators, but is rather developing through the actions of many members of the society (especially by the intellectual elite and the middle class). Thus, the victims of this process contribute to its development.
The arguments in favor of Globalization, Privatization and Capitalism come all from traditional economics, which is kind of circular at least in case of Capitalism that can be defined as the view that everything should be measured in terms of money or cost/merchandise. But there is no reason to agree to the reduction of everything to costs and merchandise. On the contrary, one should object to this view, and in fact almost all people object to this view when it is carried out to the “moral sphere”; for example, people are not allowed to sell themselves as slaves, to hire others to murder somebody, to offer money for a vote in the election, etc. That is, murdering somebody is not allowed even if it can bring about great economical advantages. The same reasoning should be applied to restrict the behavior of companies in the national and international sphere. Working people should not be treated as merchandise, and social rights and securities should not be treated as merchandise. [Human should not be treated as a mean (or an instrument); Kant, Critique of Practical Reason]
Thus we reject Capitalism at its current brutal stage. The alternatives are either to reform Capitalism (i.e., make it more “human” and “sensitive”) or to turn to socialism (which, roughly speaking, means giving priority to work and workers over capital). Both alternatives are aimed at improving the well-being of mankind and differ on the question of whether this should be done by influencing the evoloution of the “capitalist system” or trying to replace it. The distinction that sound sematical, may be reflected in different attitudes towards concrete questions (which again reduce to the difference between a moderate change and a radical one). There is a big unjustified antagonism between these two alternatives, which stems from the false belief that struggleing towards one alternative hurts the success of the other. In particular, both theoretical consideration and historical experience show that it is harder to move from harsh Capitalism to socialism than it is to move from reformed Capitalism to socialism.
The low standing of Human Rights in Israel is strongly related to the need to deny the evils involved in maintaining the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The conflict that arises from the occupation (as well as the induced “Israeli-Arab conflict”) is also used to justify the discrimination of the Arab citizens inside Israel, which is also fostered by an identity crisis of the Jewish society in Israel. The latter also prevents any action towards a true separation of religious and state affairs. Instead, secular Jews in Israel develop a hatred towards religious Jews while maintaining an inferiority complex towards the traditional religious Jewish culture.
All these problems are amplified by the lack of a lack of a truly democratic tradition and weakness of the civil society. Instead, the ethos of the state and its army play a major role. In such an atmosphere, equal treatment of women is but a phantom. The same and worst holds with respect to the treatment of other forms of “Others” such as gay/lesbians, Arab citizens and foreign workers.
The BDS movement has launched the global Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) of 2021.
In the UK, IAW is running between March 15 to 22. The long list of activities appears below:
-Monday 15th March at 6pm: SOAS Palestine Society: Understanding Palestine Through Gaza -Tuesday 16th March at 6pm: University of Leicester Palestine Society with PSC. Understanding Israeli Apartheid w/ Lubnah Shomali, Dr Nimer Sultany, Rania Muhareb, Hazam Jamjoum -Tuesday 16th March at 6pm: Lancaster University Friends of Palestine: Budrus Film Screening -Tuesday 16th March at 6pm: SOAS Palestine Society: Imprisoning a Generation Documentary Screening. -Tuesday 16th March at 6.30: Sussex Friends of Palestine Society: Medical Apartheid in Palestine w/ Dr Ghada Karmi -Tuesday 16th March at 6pm: UCL SJP and KCL SJP: Shira Robinson on ‘Citizens Stranger: Palestinians in Israel’ -Wednesday 17th March at 6pm: University of Bristol Friends of Palestine: United Against Israeli Apartheid -Wednesday 17th March: at 6pm Lancaster University Friends of Palestine: The Ongoing Nakba with Lubnah Shomali. -Wednesday 17th March at 7pm: University of Exeter Friends of Palestine Society: Solidarity with Palestine and the IHRA -Wednesday 17th March at 6pm: SOAS Palestine Society: Discussion with activists from Youth Against Settlements -Thursday 18th March at 6pm: KCL Students for Justice in Palestine w/ PSC: Resisting Israeli Apartheid, w/ Omar Barghouti, Ben Jamal, William Shoki and Larissa Kennedy -Thursday 18th March at 6.30: Sussex Friends of Palestine Society: 5 Broken Cameras Film Screening -Thursday 18th March at 6pm: SOAS Palestine Society: Hawiyya Dabke Workshop -Friday 19th March at 6pm: Lancaster University Friends of Palestine: From Ferguson to Palestine -Friday 19th March at 6pm: UCL SJP: Noura Erakat: ‘Resisting Apartheid: Breaking the Cycle of Injustice’ -Friday 19th March at 6.30pm: Sussex Friends of Palestine Society: “If only walls could talk” Open Mic Fundraiser -Saturday 20th March at 3pm: Stop the JNF Campaign: Richard Falk on Israeli Apartheid -Sunday 21st March at 3pm: Global Israeli Apartheid Week Rally: Feat Remi Kanazi, Shaeera Kalla and more! -Monday 22nd March at 6.30pm: This is Apartheid: A conversation with B’Tselem’s executive director Hagai El-Ad and renowned Palestinian lawyer Diana Buttu
In January, the Palestine Solidarity Committee hosted a webinar on “Resisting Lawfare on Campus,” which is a reply to the legal actions taken by Jewish and Zionist students who felt threatened by the anti-Semitic episodes that surfaced during pro-Palestinian events. According to the organizers of the webinar, It is “evident that crude lawfare tactics mainly aim to discourage students from speaking up for Palestinian rights on campus as well as educating others about the constant infringements of international law occurring in Palestine.” Legal experts outlined what students must do if their event faces “unfair (and potentially illegal) restrictions in the run up to Israeli Apartheid Week 2021.” The webinar highlighted the support available for any student “subjected to threats of litigation or inaccurate legal arguments.”
The group Palestine Solidarity Campaign Youth and Student Committee has published a newsletter, authored by a SOAS student who spent a year in Nablus as part of her Arabic degree. According to her, the IAW activities worldwide are “inspiring virtual events” intending to “protest against all forms of racism and discrimination, including Israeli apartheid.”
She announces that the protests will focus on “the struggle against Israel’s regime of systematic racial discrimination against all parts of the Palestinian people, amounting to the crime apartheid.” The BDS activities will act as a “massive virtual protest to resist racial discrimination, colonialism, and apartheid and celebrate our struggles’ diversity and connectedness.” Because history showed that “when movements for justice unite to take on oppressive structures, we can and will win. Liberation struggles must work together against institutional racism and oppression, challenging unjust systems of power together. So, let’s educate our peers about Israeli apartheid, and grow the struggle against all complicity,” she says.
Interestingly, the newsletter includes a section on the news from Palestine, stating that the upcoming Palestinian elections have been “met with a mixture of hope and apathy by Palestinians accustomed to living under seemingly perpetual occupation.” In particular, “there is widespread skepticism amongst Palestinians that the election process will be accepted or will translate into meaningful positive change for Palestinians.”
As per the last elections held in 2006, “the results were not accepted by the international community and Hamas, the winners, were squeezed out of the West Bank before consolidating power in Gaza following a failed coup d’état by their political rivals Fatah. Whilst Fatah’s chance of victory in these elections appears stronger than in 2006, there are rumors that, in an attempt to mitigate possible international condemnation of election results, Fatah and Hamas may put forward a joint list of candidates, although this remains unclear at time of writing.”
As can be seen, the protest is not only against Israel but also the US and Europe. “Those in power use it to generate fear and separate us from each other and from our dreams. In 2020 alone, thousands of migrants have lost their lives because of the racist migration policies imposed by the US and fortress Europe. Police brutality has taken the lives of hundreds of black people in the US.”
However, the harshest attack is always against Israel: “Israel ́s regime of apartheid, colonialism, and military occupation has gone unpunished for decades, subjecting the entire Palestinian people to a system of institutionalized and systematic racial oppression that denies their most basic rights.”
A preview of what can be expected was offered by the Nelson Mandela University in South Africa, which hosted Dr. Haidar Eid, an associate professor of English Literature at Al-Aqsa University, in a Zoom lecture on March 15, 2021. Eid made a case for “De-Osloization,” that is, “the redefinition of the Palestinian cause as an anti-colonial struggle against a system of settler-colonialism and apartheid, and reunification of the three components of the Palestinian people, namely, Gaza and the West Bank residents, refugees, and Palestinian citizens of Israel.” Eid observed that in the West Bank and Gaza, “What has been created is literally two different worlds, both of which have been led by undemocratic institutions, many security apparatuses, Third Worldish courts, corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency and nepotism—to mention but few (neo)colonial qualities.” The obtuse jargon of academic-activists, a subspecies of the Neo-Marxist, critical scholarship, does not clarify who should be blamed for the long list of governance failures, but knowing how this group thinks, it is safe to assume that Israel is the culprit.
By using the Israel cop-out, Dr. Eid and his colleagues don’t have to accuse the Palestinians, especially Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) for turning the Gaza Strip into the most fortified piece of real estate in the world. They don’t have to mention that billions of dollars that the Palestinians receive from the international community were squandered through corruption and nepotism, not to mention used to build monstrous tunnels, and hideouts for weapons and ammunition under the public buildings, schools, and mosques. They don’t have to note that the West Bank residents, under the “enlightened” rule of Mahmoud Abbas, enjoy precious few rights, that journalists and activists are jailed and occasionally murdered. In the Gaza Strip, under the brutal dictatorship of Hamas, there are no human rights, and dissenters are executed through extra-judicial means.
Of course, in this litany of alleged Israeli sins, there is no need to mention that the Oslo process was undermined by Iran and its proxies, Hamas and PIJ, which launched a campaign of suicide attacks that killed more than 1,500 Israelis and wounded thousands. The same elements intimidated Yasser Arafat to the point that he refused to sign the Oslo agreement presented at the Second Camp David in 2000. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, openly acknowledged that the Oslo agreement was an existential threat to the regime and needed to be “destroyed.”
Having ignored this reality, the Palestinian advocates on campus can perpetuate the myth of Israeli apartheid year after year.
Webinar RegistrationTopicDe-Osloization and the Fight Against NormalisationDescriptionIt has been almost 30 years since the first Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. The Accords promised that that one-third of the Palestinian people, those living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, would realize their “national dream” of statehood on no more than 22 percent of historic Palestine. 28 years later, the dream of Palestinian statehood has proved illusory as Israel has not only entrenched its occupation and relentlessly expanded its colonization in the West Bank, but also placed the Gaza strip under permanent siege.
So, as Dr Haidar Eid has observed, far from the possibility of self-determination, “Instead, what has been created in parts of the West Bank and Gaza is an apartheid-type Bantustan endorsed by the international community. What has been created is literally two different worlds, both of which have been led by undemocratic institutions, many security apparatuses, Third Worldish courts, corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency and nepotism—to mention but few (neo)colonial qualities.“
In this talk, Dr Eid, who is an Associate Professor in the Department of English Literature at Al-Aqsa University, makes the case for “De-Osloization”– which he describes as “the redefinition of the Palestinian cause as an anti-colonial struggle against a system of settler-colonialism and apartheid, and reunification of the three components of the Palestinian people, namely, Gaza and the West Bank residents, refugees, and Palestinian citizens of Israel.”Time
Monday 22nd March at 6.30pm: This is Apartheid: A conversation with B’Tselem’s executive director Hagai El-Ad and renowned Palestinian lawyer Diana Buttu
IAW 2021: United Against Racism – Resisting Israeli Apartheid
Free · Online event
Details
549 people respondedEvent by Palestine Solidarity Campaign UKOnline: bit.lyThursday, March 18, 2021 at 8 PM UTC+02Price: FreePublic · Anyone on or off FacebookREGISTER: http://bit.ly/IAWResistIsrael’s system of institutionalised racist discrimination amounts to the crime of apartheid under international law. This webinar, part of Israeli Apartheid Week 2021, will explore how Palestinians, and their allies around the globe, resist Israeli apartheid.This includes through the global Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement, which works to target companies and institutions aiding Israel’s violations of international law. History has shown us that when movements for justice unite to take on oppressive structures, we can and will win. Liberation struggles must work together against institutional racism and oppression, challenging unjust systems of power together.This webinar will also touch on how you can build the movement in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality on your university campus.SPEAKERS: William Shoki, activist with South African BDS Coalition Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Palestinian-led BDS Movement Ben Jamal, Director of PSC Larissa Kennedy, National Union of Student PresidentREGISTER: http://bit.ly/IAWResist
DetailsEvent by Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK and University of Leicester Palestine SocietyOnline: bit.lyTuesday, 16 March 2021 at 20:00 UTC+02Price: freePublic · Anyone on or off FacebookREGISTER: http://bit.ly/IAWApartheidSince its foundation Israel has developed a system of institutionalised racist discrimination against the Palestinian people. Whether living under occupation, as citizens of the Israeli state, or in exile, Palestinians face a system of rule which collectively oppresses and subjugates them.This year, Israel’s publicly stated aim of annexing at least 30% of the West Bank – following its illegal annexation of East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights – has further exposed its apartheid reality. This webinar, co-hosted by Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Uni of Leicester Palestine Society, as part of the global Israel Apartheid Week, will explore how Israel’s treatment of all parts of the Palestinian population amounts to the crime of apartheid under international law.Expert speakers will explore the way in which Israel’s practices meet the legal definition of apartheid, while focusing on the effect on Palestinians in all areas of their lives.SPEAKERS: Rania Muhareb, PhD researcher and scholar Hazem Jamjoum, al-Shabaka policy member, scholar. Lubnah Shomali, Unit Manager for BADIL Resource Centre Nimer Sultany, Reader at SOAS Law, commentator.REGISTER: http://bit.ly/IAWApartheid
========================================================== https://www.palestinecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/PSC-YSC-Newsletter-3.pdf WHAT’S NEW IN THE STORE Hello and a warm welcome to our third newsletter from all of us at the PSCYouth & Student Committee! As always, Israeli Apartheid Week is coming round fast. Students acrossthe world are organising inspiring virtual events as an international protest against all forms of racism and discrimination, including Israeli apartheid. You can read on and find out about national webinars we’ve organised.There’s still time to organise something on your campus! Get in touch for advice and support. In this newsletter, along with our plans for IAW, you’ll find reports from our previous events, including our workshop on how to resist unfair, and potentially illegal, restrictions on your events, as well as news from Palestine and our ‘Visit Palestine’ segment. In solidarity! Palestine Solidarity Campaign Youth and Student Committee PSC YOUTH AND STUDENT ISSUE 3: MARCH 2021 ISRAELI APARTHEID WEEK 2021 From March 15th to 21st, students and others across the world will be organisingevents and holding protests focused on growing the struggle against Israel’sregime of systematic racial discrimination against all parts of the Palestinianpeople, amounting to the crime apartheid. They’ll be joining up with those struggling against all forms of racism, marginalisation, and oppression, and promoting the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement for Palestinian freedom, justice andequality. From Hebron to Ferguson, from Khirbet Humsa to London, racism strips us of our humanity, tearing at our collective soul. But together, united as a movement for liberation – we can fight back. Our events around the world will act as massive virtual protest to resist racialdiscrimination, colonialism, and apartheid and celebrate our struggles’ diversity and connectedness. History has shown us that when movements for justice unite to take on oppressive structures, we can and will win. Liberation struggles must work together against institutional racism and oppression, challenging unjust systems of power together. So, let’s educate ourpeers about Israeli apartheid, and grow the struggle against all complicity. Along with many events organised across UK campuses, here’s two onlineevents you can join wherever you are: March 16th: Understanding Israeli Apartheid (co-hosted by PSC and Leicester Palestine Society) Featuring Lubnah Shomali (BADIL), Rania Muhareb, Dr Nimer Sultany + more! March 18th: United Against Racism – Resisting Israeli Apartheid (co-hosted by KCL Students for Justice in Palestine and PSC) w/ Omar Barghouti, Ben Jamal, Larissa Kennedy + more! REPORT: RESISTING LAWFARE ON CAMPUS As support for Palestinian rights amongst students grows, an increase in unjust attacks on students has also been witnessed. In an effort to maintain support for all students, PSC hosted a webinar in January titled ‘Resisting a Lawfare on Campus’, where legal experts outlined what students must do if their event faces unfair (and potentially illegal) restrictions in the run up to Israeli Apartheid Week 2021. As a university student myself, being part of this event allowed me to know exactly what my rights are and how to manage any violation of such rights. The webinar also highlighted the support available for any student subjected to threats of litigation or inaccurate legal arguments. Throughout the webinar, students and participants had the opportunity to raise questions which were answered by the speakers Lewis Backon, a campaigns office at PSC, Giovanni Fassina, the Programme Director of the European Legal Support Center – the first independent organisation that exists solely to defend and empower advocates for Palestinian rights across Europe through legalmeans, and Dima Khalidi, the founder and director of Palestine Legal andCooperating Counsel with the Center for Constitutional Rights. It’s evident that crude lawfare tactics mainly aim to discourage students from speaking up for Palestinian rights on campus as well as educating others about the constant infringements of international law occurring in Palestine. However, according to the students’ questions and contributions, such acts carried out by Israel and its allies have only motivated student activists to continue their support for Palestinian human rights until Israel complies withinternational law. If you are subject to any unfair treatment please email:lewis.backon@palestinecampaign.org News From Palestine Palestinian elections have been set for the coming months, but the seemingly welcome news has been met with a mixture of hope and apathy by Palestinians accustomed to living under seemingly perpetual occupation. Elections are planned to take place in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, although Israel is likely to undermine, if not stop entirely, voting in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem, predominantly made up of Palestinians and recognised as Occupied Territory under international law, has been claimed by Israel as part of its sovereign territory since 1980. Regardless of whether elections actually take place in all or part of the Occupied Territory, Palestinians in the global diaspora will not be able to take part, meaning the elections will not reflect the views of all Palestinians living outside occupied Palestine. In addition, and perhaps more significantly, there is widespread scepticism amongst Palestinians that the election process will be accepted or will translate into meaningful positive change for Palestinians. The last time elections were held in Palestine in 2006, the results were not accepted by the international community and Hamas, the winners, were squeezed out of the West Bank before consolidating power in Gaza following a failed coup d’état by their political rivals Fatah. Whilst Fatah’s chance of victory in these elections appears stronger than in 2006, there are rumours that, in an attempt to mitigate possible international condemnation of election results, Fatah and Hamas may put forward a joint list of candidates, although this remains unclear at time of writing. In other news, Palestinians continue to suffer the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic without access to significant quantities of vaccines. Meanwhile Israel, its neighbour and occupying power, has the highest per-capita vaccination rate in the world and appears set on dispensing its surplus vaccine stocks globally in support of its geo-strategic national interests, at the expense of Palestinians next door. VISIT PALESTINE I studied in Nablus for one year, as part of my Arabic degree at SOAS university in 2012-13. There are too many aspects to choose from of what I loved about Palestine, so I thought I would go through a few places which I would tell anyone going, to visit! Nablus is my number one! I lived in this beautiful, extremely friendly city for a year and I miss it. It nestles between two mountains – Aybal and Gerzim – and has an ancient quarter home to the city’s market where you can find local soap, olive oil, cheese, and the famous local dessert ‘knaffe’ – and lots more – in the stunning winding covered alleyways. I would definitely recommend visiting Sebastia, where there is a lovely café overlooking the place where you get dropped off. The ‘hummous ma lahem’ isdelicious as are the fresh Palestinian olives…during a short walk round the hilly village you will see the remains of a roman amphitheatre, the site Salome danced for John the Baptist’s head (so they say) and extensive remains of whatI was told was King Herod’s palace. Finally, the old city of Jerusalem during Ramadan is magical, with the markets opened through the night and lanterns of every colour decorating the arched stone passageways, as families visit shops and cafes after iftar, or go to theHaram al-Sharif to pray during this special and holy period. There is so much more to say (the coffee!the falafels!), but more than all the magical places and amazing food is the warmth and generosity of the people I met, so many of whom treated me like a member of their family, and looked after me and my friends. Free Palestine IAW CALL AGAINST COLONIALISM, RACISM, ANDAPARTHEID FROM THE BDS NATIONAL COMMITTEE Racism tears the soul of the world It strips us of our humanity Those in power use it to generate fear and separate us from each other and from our dreams In 2020 alone, thousands of migrants have lost their lives because of the racist migration policies imposed by the US and fortress Europe Police brutality has taken the lives of hundreds of black people in the US Israel ́s regime of apartheid, colonialism, and military occupation hasgone unpunished for decades, subjecting the entire Palestinian people to a system ofinstitutionalized and systematic racial oppression that denies their most basic rights Many cannot enjoy freedom and equality because of where they are born, the color of their skin, or their sexual identity This is the ugly reality we have, but not the beautiful one we want We don’t accept privileges for a few We demand rights for all. We and millions like us take to the streets to protest against systemic racism, patriarchal violence, climate injustice, neoliberal austerity, and economic inequality. We will not stop until we tear down the structures of oppression We will not stop resisting injustice We will continue dreaming of freedom, justice, and rights for all. We need all our voices united across the world to end racism,colonialism, and apartheid. Together we are unstoppable. Stand united against racism Get involved in Israeli Apartheid Week 2021. Take action online, or organise a webinar for your campus!
IAM has often reported on radical scholars who have recruited political-activist students, nurtured them, and provided them with academic positions, either in their own departments or helped them to move abroad. As IAM made clear, there is a flourishing market for Israeli pro-Palestinian academics in the West who provide a cover for BDS and other forms of delegitimization of Israel.
Dr. Hagar Kotef, a former student of Profs. Adi Ophir and Anat Biletzki from Tel Aviv University, currently based at SOAS, is a case in point. As well known, SOAS is a hotbed of anti-Israel activity.
Kotef was the subject of an article that Haaretz published last year about Israeli left-wing academics who moved abroad because of alleged difficulties of working in Israel. Haaretz wrote that Kotef “was active in Machsom Watch and other left-wing movements, completed her doctoral studies in philosophy at Tel Aviv University… Kotef found employment as a senior lecturer in politics and political theory in the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.”
Kotef did not disappoint her former professors. She recently published a book titledThe Colonizing Self Or, Home and Homelessness in Israel. The book is full of left-wing polemics. The acknowledgment in her book reads like a who is who of anti-Israel radicals.
She writes, “At Soas, my new home, Laleh Khalili, Ruba Salih, Rahul Rao, Charles Tripp, Rafeef Ziadah, and Carlo Bonura have read the manuscript or significant parts of it. The insights and thoughts they provided, their critique and their questions, have been essential to the process of writing it and thinking through its many predicaments.”
She also mentions Neve Gordon: “Over one brunch in London, Neve Gordon shifted much of the ethnographic work for this book, and helped me disentangle so many of my questions. On many other occasions he offered ideas, suggestions, and at times skepticism. These, and the comments he provided on the full draft, are woven throughout the final outcome. Over the years, our paths crossed in several continents, and now in London he has become not only a treasured colleague but also a friend.”
She mentions BDS activist, “Merav Amir seems to have become a person without whom I find it difficult to think. Much of the ideas herein were formed in a constant dialogue with her, endless phone conversations, and exchange of drafts.”
Murad Idris, an associate professor of Political Theory at the University of Virginia and the co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Political Theory, “has become an interlocutor and a friend during the long course of writing this book. At numerous junctures he has thought with me or pushed me to think differently, often shedding so much light on a problem with just one quick, almost incidental comment.
Kobi Snitz, staff scientist of Neurobiology at Weizmann Institute, “kindly traveled with me to the West Bank several times. He accompanied me when I went to take pictures or to check the accuracy of maps marking fences around settlements; he organized the visit to Yanun and facilitated the conversations I had there; he put me in touch with others, who provided crucial information. I am grateful for his time, for the indispensable information he provided following years of activism, and for his company.”
She then thanks Hagit Ofran from Peace Now; Dror Etkes, a radical political activist; Ziv Stahl from Yesh Din, and others.
In her book, she states that “settler colonialism” serves as an example for which “the existence of some is conditioned on inflicting violence on others.” This violence can be direct or unintentional, or “denied by the injuring persons, or can even hurt their sense of self (as is, for example, the case with progressive, leftist Israelis)—but it is nonetheless part of who they are.”
She also claims that “Israel has become a paradigm of a certain kind of leftist critique.” Nevertheless, “Sometimes I think that part of what is at stake for Left critique in Israel is to keep open more conversations— conversations which are getting increasingly impossible.”
Kotef is wondering what a Palestinian taxi driver would think, “how it is possible that he takes a route that is part of the dispossession of and discrimination against his own people?”
She discusses homes, or a “plurality of homes: the depopulated Palestinian homes that are inhabited by Israeli Jews, often progressive and left leaning… These Palestinian homes—in Jaffa, Jerusalem, Ein Hod—and this mode of homemaking in the depopulated home/ space serve as an allegory for Zionism at large (if not settlement as such). At the focus of this allegory is liberal Zionism, and, in this sense, there is a wider lesson concerning liberal sentiments here.”
In the book, she “moves between the 1967 and the 1948 borders and endeavors to think together (even if apart) the establishment of Israel and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.”
In another article, “Fragments,” Kotef questions BDS, which “is rearticulated as a series of paradoxical demands or practices when applied to Israeli academia. Some of us support the boycott, but how should such a support—a serious, genuine support—look from within Israel? What happens when we publish, with our names and Israeli affiliation, in international journals? Can the distinction between an individual and an academic boycott make sense here (especially within an economic model wherein universities receive governmental funding according to publication numbers)? Should we therefore encourage international journals not to publish our papers? Do we not violate the boycott regularly when we apply for international grants, when we provide scholarships based on such grants to our students? But can we survive in today’s neoliberal academia without doing so? Can someone belong to Israeli academia and coherently support the boycott then? One can contend that the boycott is not addressed to us, that it is not ours to support or object, that at best, we can make efforts not to undermine it. But don’t we undermine it on a regular basis, especially when we try to be politically and ethically engaged? We collaborate with Palestinian scholars, for example. But in that, don’t we put them in an impossible stance vis-à-vis the boycott? And what would the alternative be? Collaborating with the silencing of Palestinians in the Israeli academy?”
Kotef has also been associated with a Palestinian center that has the sole purpose of attacking Israel. It is called the Palestinian Forum for Israeli Studies (MADAR) and is based in Ramallah, Palestine. It is a registered NGO with the Palestinian Ministry of Interior and licensed by the Palestinian Ministry of Information.
Kotef provided MADAR, which is also supported by the Rosa Luxemburg Palestine Office, with one of her articles, “Checkpoints” in Arabic. It is based on her 2015 book Movement and the Ordering of Freedom, where shediscusses, as translated to English, the “peace negotiations” and “peace processes” and “talks” of all kinds, when in the midst, “Israel had to create a system that enables it to maintain its hold on the ground with a minimal (military) presence, physical and minimal direct violence. In this context, Israel’s ability to hold on lies in the state’s semblance, which seeks to achieve peace without giving up the advantages of controlling land and resources abundant at stake. This is the system some call a “matrix of control.”
The politicization of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict discourse has often been featuring in the academy in Israel and the West. This has an unfortunate result on what is known as “production of knowledge.” It is this type of knowledge that has fueled the BDS movement and other anti-Israel activities on campus. Those who fight it need to review the academic literature which portrays Israel as an apartheid colonial state. After decades of politicized scholarship, this view is now dominant, driving the vast delegitimization campaign against Israel.
Book Author(s) :Hagar Kotef Published Date :February 2021 Publisher :Duke University Press Hardcover :320 pages ISBN-13 :978-1478010289
Book review by Ramona Wadi
A look at Israeli colonisation from the inside requires a thorough reckoning. In Hagar Kotef’s recent study, The Colonising Self: Or, Home and Homelessness in Israel/Palestine, settlement narratives are juxtaposed with accountability. Running parallel to Palestinian memory, Kotef immediately embarks upon the concept of settlement and settler narratives, and examines the extent to which these narratives can threaten or colonise Palestinian memory itself.
The book is engaging from the start. The Nakba’s presence and absence in settler narratives, even those conscious of the destruction wrought by the earlier Zionist colonial process, is not necessarily authentically conveyed. What is the positioning of the settler in Nakba narratives? On Israeli efforts to render the Nakba more visible to Israeli society, Kotef writes of: “The risk of colonising Palestinian memory itself in and through this endeavour.”
Settler homes cannot be separated from colonial violence. The author notes that without attachment to violence, settlement cannot be contained. What is perceived by society as shelter was constructed upon the ruins of dispossession, or simply by moving into the houses of displaced Palestinians. Within the settler mind-frame, there is a dissociation between the home and the self, and Kotef asks if settlers can reconcile their image with the violence that provided them with homes. The fantasy of the home conceals the atrocities that produced the current dwellings.
In the introduction, Kotef asserts: “This is a book about homes that were formed in and through violence; about homes that themselves became tools of destruction and expulsion, and about lives and selves whose very being is a form of injury.”
Kotef discusses three main issues of settler-colonialism: homes and identity built upon destruction as a common feature, the settler attachment to homes and how this brings about oblivion to violence and the ongoing settlement practices in the occupied West Bank. Focusing on how settler-colonialism and settling legitimises violence, the author discusses how the settler identity is shaped under violence and how settler presence itself is a form of violence, even if the act of settling is far removed from the acts of violence perpetrated by others.
As a result of settling and the way settler-colonialism generates identity, the colonised and their lack of homes contributes to a loss of identity that is visible. Kotef writes: “As part of the shift in perspective from violence in the home to homes as a tool of violence that is deployed externally, scale changes; at stake is an entire society that disposes of another.”
The “settler self” is described by Kotef as “a function of territory”. On the other side of the equation, the Palestinian “unsettlement” has dissociated the concept of home from the state. For Palestinians, the home also has a political meaning – its absence emphasises its importance.
Noting how the concept of home for Palestinians altered through Zionist settler-colonialism, Kotef discusses the implications of temporary homes in Palestinian refugee camps. She addresses how Palestinians are trapped between the right of home in a camp, albeit as a result of dispossession and not of choice, and the Palestinian right of return, in which acknowledging the Palestinian homeownership would spell the beginning of undoing the Zionist settler-colonial project. While Palestinians contend with these restrictions, the Israeli settler-colonialist is entrenched in the home of the dispossessed.
Kotef’s discussion on decolonisation is particularly insightful and recognises the multi-layered approach and intricacies that one must acknowledge, in particular, the “change of attachment”. The book argues that state-level democracy is not enough to produce a decolonial framework, since the settler is an intricate part of the process. “The Israeli attachment to territory is at least derivatively also an attachment to the act of colonisation, since the latter is the condition for the self’s placement in the land.”
For Israeli settlers, the victory rests at the settlement project, which comes as a result of negotiating with violence to justify its existence. As the book shifts its discussion to Palestinian ruins and how these have been integrated into the colonial landscape to the detriment of the colonised, Kotef notes how such normalisation erases the Nakba from the settlers’ consciousness, which in turn leads to a denial of Israeli violence. Denying violence constructs dissociation, so much so that Kotef argues: “The point, then, is not that we could not see the remnants of violence, but that we saw them all the time and almost everywhere.” A pertinent observation by Kotef, bluntly stated: “As Jewish Israelis, we learned to feel at home in Palestinian ruins.”
Dissecting the settler consciousness as Kotef does, brings forth a realisation that the history of colonisation spills over to the present. The ongoing colonial expansion in the occupied West Bank – illustrated in detail by the author through the story of a farming enterprise that differentiates between business and product ethics, and the absence of ethics that comes with the expulsion of the Palestinian people – shows both the trauma of the dispossessed, as well as the settler justification for expulsion, which is violent and wrongly legitimised.
Yet in media narratives, as the book portrays, the settler’s trauma over the eviction at Amona eclipses decades of Zionist expulsion of the Palestinian people. The erasure of Palestinians has been so thorough – there is no consideration for the people who the settlers uprooted in order to establish homes built upon violence. As far as mainstream narratives go, it is the evicted settler that lost a home, and not the Palestinian people whose homes have been destroyed or re-inhabited by the settler-colonists.
Kotef’s writing on settler narratives is, first and foremost, a reckoning for the Israeli settlers themselves. Being conscious of the role that the settler plays is an important step in the decolonisation process that is often overlooked. An incredibly detailed and engaging study that illustrates Palestinian erasure from within the settler consciousness, the book brings forth an understanding from within that does much to bring the Palestinian trauma to the fore.================================================================================
Preface I think Israelis should be aware that their presence in many places in the country entails the loss of a Palestinian family, the demolition of a house, the destruction of a village. . . . Many Israelis resist this because they think the consequence would be to leave. Not at all. . . . The last thing I want to do is to perpetuate this process by which one distortion leads to another. I have a horror of that. I saw it happen too many times. I don’t want to see more people leave.—edward w. said “The Nakba is the history of anyone living on this land and/or anyone who cherishes it,” states Eitan Bronstein Aparicio, director of the organization Zochrot and founder of De-Colonizer. And yet, it seems that making it, indeed, part of his own history is a struggle for Bronstein Aparicio—a struggle that manifests itself as a movement between two poles: On the one hand, Bronstein Aparicio is part of an ongoing endeavor to make the Palestinian Nakba visible and legible to the Jewish Israeli public. On the other hand, he reports grappling with the risk of colonizing Palestinian memory itself in and through this endeavor. As a result, he states, he can “never feel at home.”1 Throughout this book we shall reencounter this sentiment: a sense of Jewish Israeli home that becomes impossible, or at least unstable, when home is entwined with the present or past of the Palestinian disaster. Yet we Epigraph: Edward W. Said, “Interview with Ari Shavit,” Ha’aretz, August 18, 2000, republished in Power, Politics, and Culture: Interviews with Edward W. Said, by Edward W. Said, ed. Gauri Viswanathan (New York: Vintage Books, 2001). An English version can also be found at “Edward Said Interviewed by Ari Shavit for Ha’aretz,” MiddleEast .org, August 26, 2000, http://www .middleeast .org /archives /8 -00 -31 .htm. 1 Eitan Bronstein Aparicio, “Finding Home in a New Memory: A Journey to the Golan,” + 972 magazin, June 4, 2016, https://972mag .com /finding -home -in -a -new -memory -a -journey -to -the -golan /119816# ftnref1. x · Preface 2 Bronstein Aparicio, “Finding Home.” shall find that just as prevalent is a sound sense of home that emerges despite, besides, and even through this disaster. The negotiations of a sense of belonging against the reality of this disaster give rise to the type of “self ” this book seeks to identify. For the sake of brevity, I call it “the colonizing self.” In narrating his struggle, which so accurately captures the impasses of many activists working to undo the evils their own societies generate, Bronstein Aparicio takes us to the ruins of his wife’s village, Mansura. Situated in the Golan Heights, Mansura is a Syrian village that was demolished in 1967. With his wife’s family and others, Bronstein Aparicio returned to this site of destruction to tell the stories of the ruined village and to rebuild it—if only very partially—as a symbolic gesture. It is through this project, he writes, that he was finally able to construct his own sense of home. Through this experience, “it became clear to me that the story of Mansura had become my own—not exclusively mine but also my own.”2 In Bronstein Aparicio’s description, the story of expulsion, expropriation, and demolition became “his own” when he participated in reconstructing both the oral history and the concrete space of the village; it is therefore “his” story as a storyteller, or as a participant in reconstructing both stories and traces. But what Bronstein Aparicio recognizes, and yet refuses to assert, is that the stories of the ruins were always also his stories; not as stories he comes to inhabit through Palestinian narratives or through his own embodied effort to create counternarratives, but as stories he inhabits through Israeli narratives and embodied projects that were always part of the Israeli project of settling the land. These stories were his own as the agent of these homes’ destruction, rather than as the agent of their reconstruction and narration. Akin to the Palestinian memories, these stories of settlement are passed on through generations (from my grandparents’ generation, which was directly involved in the Nakba, to us, who still live in its aftermath and keep generating other catastrophes); and akin to the Palestinian memories, they come to shape Israeli identity. Yet they are often told differently, through gaps and silences that nonetheless carry with them acts of ruination. Stories of triumphs alongside stories of wartime anxiety and a fear of war that so many of us grew up with—that so many of us inhabit directly, having lived through wars and violence of various kinds—are inlaid with the physical remnants of Palestinian destruction. To recognize ourselves in these stories is to refuse a gap between “the state” and its people, between what “it” has done and who “we” are. For Bronstein Aparicio, or for me and Preface · xi many others, it is to refuse a gap between the Left in Israel and Israeli violence, between some progressive “us” and all those forces standing between “us” and “peace.” This refusal is not an act of erasing those distinctions; it is a form of taking responsibility—for what we have done, or for what was and is done in our name, or for all the destruction and violence whose fruits we still enjoy. This sense of responsibility can then become a first step toward reconstituting these distinctions in a way that is more politically productive. I recall trips with my father along an abandoned railway to the ruins of Na’ane, which was close to the kibbutz where he was born and where my grandparents still lived. I recall bathing on hot summer days in a pool in the Golan Heights that was built by the Syrian army for its officers. We knew it was called “the officers’ pool,” we always passed through the traces of war on our way to it, and yet this was “our” pool, a site of beauty amid fig trees, whose freezing water became our challenge—who would be brave enough to jump? My childhood memories, my home, cannot be detached from the violence of 1948 and 1967. When I miss my home, this is part of what I miss. In this regard, my point here and one of the main arguments of this book is that the construction of Jewish attachment to the landscape of Israel, the establishment of belonging to the land, the founding of home as well as homeland, includes a certain longing for and belonging to a past violence that becomes integral to Israelis’ self-identity. It is this identity I seek to understand here. Many Israelis who write about the occupation or the wider colonial facets of Israel’s control over Palestinians—including myself—often focus on the mechanisms and technologies of power and domination, the structure of the law, or the logics of violence and governance. I seek here to turn the gaze toward the subject positions within the wider networks of occupation and settlement: the settler or colonizing self. How, then, can a critique be formulated when its material conditions are the object of critique? One can criticize one’s state, to be sure—its violence, its wars. But how can one question the legitimacy of their own home; how can one point to the wrongs that are embedded in the very nature of their political existence? What would it mean for a Jewish Israeli to not simply write against “the occupation,” but to recognize that her home is historically conditioned on the destruction of Palestinians’ homes; that her attachment to this place is founded on a history—not such a distant history— of violence and is conditioned, at least to some extent, on the perpetuation of this violence? (And since Israel has become a paradigm of a certain kind of leftist critique, it is worth noting that the primary difference between Israel and other settler colonies such as the United States or Australia in this regard xii · Preface 3 Manu Samnotra, “ ‘Poor in World’: Hannah Arendt’s Critique of Imperialism,” Contemporary Political Theory 18, no. 4 (2018): 562–82. is temporal density). Once we move to engage in such a critique, there is no more separation between the “I” who writes and her object of critique, that is, the state and its doings: military and police violence, planning policies, legal discrimination. The I itself becomes the object of critique and her voice—the place from which she speaks, her language, the dialogues available to her—can no longer pretend to assume a position that is simply and clearly oppositional to injustice. From this perspective, this book was impossible to write, an act of hitting an ethical and political wall wherever I turned. It is a book about these impasses. Ultimately, at stake here is not the possibility to settle this mode of being-at- an- impasse, but to find ways of presence in the land (Israel in my case) that fracture and then undo it. I am not interested, in other words, in lamenting the tragedy of this subject position, but in offering a critique of this form of subjectivity. And yet to understand the mechanisms by which the colonizing self can be decolonized and a territory—a home—can be inhabited in noncolonial ways despite a history of colonization, we first need to understand what Manu Samnotra refers to as “the objective conditions of colonialism.”3 In particular, we need to understand the mechanism of the colonizing self ’s entrenchment in both space and senses of justice. This is the main object of the book. Acknowledgments This book is strangely personal, and yet was conceived with the help, support, thoughts, and investment of so many others. I have had the rare opportunity and sheer luck of working with the most brilliant colleagues, who have engaged with this manuscript in thorough, critical, and committed ways beyond what I could have ever hoped for. I really cannot thank them enough. Their thoughts and comments have shaped this book and so many of its arguments. At soas, my new home, Laleh Khalili, Ruba Salih, Rahul Rao, Charles Tripp, Rafeef Ziadah, and Carlo Bonura have read the manuscript or significant parts of it. The insights and thoughts they provided, their critique and their questions, have been essential to the process of writing it and thinking through its many predicaments. I have been overwhelmed, in the most positive way possible, by their thoughtfulness, kindness, and ways of seeing. Over one brunch in London, Neve Gordon shifted much of the ethnographic work for this book, and helped me disentangle so many of my questions. On many other occasions he offered ideas, suggestions, and at times skepticism. These, and the comments he provided on the full draft, are woven throughout the final outcome. Over the years, our paths crossed in several continents, and now in London he has become not only a treasured colleague but also a friend. Noam Leshem and Keally McBride read the full manuscript as well. They did this thoroughly and carefully and with rare attentiveness. In Keally’s hand it became a jigsaw puzzle, and as I worked through her comments—always as generous as they are astute—so many of its pieces fell into place. Noam has been significant in adding some of the missing pieces to the puzzle, rendering the picture somewhat more complete. Merav Amir seems to have become a person without whom I find it difficult to think. Much of the ideas herein were formed in a constant dialogue with her, endless phone conversations, and exchange of drafts. She was also kind enough to join me on the trip to Giv’ot Olam, during which significant parts xiv · Acknowledgments of the ethnographic work for chapter 3 took place. Murad Idris has become an interlocutor and a friend during the long course of writing this book. At numerous junctures he has thought with me or pushed me to think differently, often shedding so much light on a problem with just one quick, almost incidental comment. Kobi Snitz kindly traveled with me to the West Bank several times. He accompanied me when I went to take pictures or to check the accuracy of maps marking fences around settlements; he organized the visit to Yanun and facilitated the conversations I had there; he put me in touch with others, who provided crucial information. I am grateful for his time, for the indispensable information he provided following years of activism, and for his company. Hagit Ofran from Peace Now, Dror Etkes from Kerem Navot, Ziv Stahl from Yesh Din, and John Brown from many places have all provided vital support in the process of writing this book. I am not merely indebted for their time and help; I am in awe and admiration of their work, for which the adjective “important” seems like an understatement. They are some of the few people who demonstrate in their daily doings that the space between the sea and the river can be made into a different, less destructive one. Throughout the years, segments of the work herein have been presented in quite a few workshops, seminars, and conferences, and this book has benefited from so many such interactions. I have had the privilege of thinking out loud alongside some of the brightest critical thinkers in the world, and I thank those who gave me the opportunity to do so and those who engaged in the conversation. These have included two installments of Association for Political Theory (apt) (and I am especially thankful to Libby Anker and Adom Getachew for their comments as discussants), one Western Political Science Association (wpsa) (with special thanks to Jeanne Morefield for her comments as a discussant), an American Political Science Association (apsa), as well as many workshops and colloquiums. I thank Shai Gortler for the invitation to present at the Minnesota Political Theory Colloquium; Monica Brito Vieira for inviting me to the Political Theory Workshop at York; Sorana Jude for the invitation to the Politics Seminar in Newcastle; Merav Amir (again) for inviting me to the Lexicon Workshop at Queen’s University, Belfast; Yair Wallach and Moriel Ram for the invitation to the “After Oslo” Lecture Series, as well as the “Turning to Matter and Space in Israel-Palestine” Workshop, both at soas; Jason Edwards for the invitation to the Birkbeck Political Theory Colloquium; Miriam Ticktin and Alexandra Delano for the invitation to the Zolberg Institute on Migration and Mobility at the New School for Social Research; María González Pendás and Whitney Laemmli, for the invitations to present at the Crisis of Democracy Acknowledgments · xv Workshop at Paris’s Institute for Ideas and Imagination; and Teresa Bejan for the invitation to present at the Oxford Political Thought Seminar. Jack Halberstam and Lisa Lowe have offered me the rare honor of presenting a chapter as part of a Modern Language Association presidential panel, and I am grateful for this and for their support of my scholarship at large. David Joselit generously organized a public lecture at the Committee on Globalization and Social Change, cuny Graduate Center, where I also had the opportunity of meeting the brilliant Audra Simpson, who has since become a dear interlocutor. Kristina Hagström-Ståhl has given me several exceptional opportunities to present bits and pieces of this project at Gothenburg—I thank her for the conversations she facilitated, her own unique insights, and her generosity. Catharina Bergil’s inspiring invitation to Gothenburg’s Dance and Theatre Festival began this exchange and, in a way, gave me the opportunity to think with others on this work for the very first time. There were also the intense and productive workshops organized by Jo McDonagh and Jonathan Sachs at the Clark Library, University of California, Los Angeles; by Adam Stern at Yale; by Murad Idris and Lawrie Balfour at the University of Virginia; and by Irus Braverman at suny Buffalo. Finally, again with Murad Idris, there was the Empire by Its Other Names Workshop we both assembled at Columbia University. The people I met through these scholarly encounters, and those whom I already knew and saw again, the intensity of discussion, and the thoughtful suggestions they made have been critical to the formation of the pages herein, and will stay with me much beyond. The Politics Seminar at soas and the workshops organized by the Centre for Comparative Political Thought are other venues in which I have had the opportunity to present, listen, share thoughts, and work through critiques. And I thank Charles Tripp (again and again) for cultivating these spaces. Further, the ideas herein have been shaped through engagements with colleagues at soas’s Politics and International Studies Department, as well as through less formal conversations and exchanges. Many of them have been acknowledged above as readers of the manuscript. I express my deep appreciation also to Meera Sabaratnam; Kerem Nisancioglu; Salwa Ismail, to whom I am especially grateful, as she facilitated my arrival at the department; Manjeet Ramgotra; and Mark Laffey, whom I thank also for supporting, together with Fiona Adamson, a manuscript workshop, which has been essential in the final revisions of this text. This department, in its unique approach to the discipline, its critical thinking, its commitment to politics, and its amazing students and wonderful colleagues, has been more than I could have imagined as an academic home. xvi · Acknowledgments There are so many others, in so many corners of the world, friends and colleagues and those who make this distinction impossible, who have been a part of this journey and contributed to it: Andrew Dilts, Ariel Handel, George Shulman, Hellen Kinsella, Uday Mehta, Yair Wallach, Gil Hochberg, Rafi Grosglik, Jeanne Morefield (again), Rob Nichols, Nancy Luxon, Yves Winter, Anne McNevin, Ann Stoler, Onur Ulas Ince, Chris Brown, Michal Givoni, and Yuval Evri. I feel blessed by the long or short conversations we have had, their knowledgeable references or suggestions, the work they have been kind enough to share, and their ongoing support. Parts of this book have been published in other academic journals, and although I cannot personally thank the anonymous reviewers of these essays, if they happen to read this book, I hope they can identify their contributions. A version of the theoretical overview was published in Political Theory; I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Lawrie Balfour, for the engaged and dedicated work she has done as part of this publication. Thinking on this book started many years ago with another publication, the entry “Home” in Mafte’akh: Lexical Review of Political Thought. Much like my previous book, which took form after writing the entry “Movement,” the roots of this book can be traced back to this intellectual project, which has been one of the most productive scholarly endeavors in which I have taken part. I am indebted to all those who were part of this project, and above all to Adi Ophir, who initiated it and assembled all of us around it. Mori Ram has worked with me on this research and has helped with so much more than I originally expected or planned for. Phoebe O’Hara and Jordi Lpez Bo have also been incredibly helpful in the research process. Marieke Krijnen and Emma Jacobs provided attentive and careful editing, and the team at Duke University Press has done fantastic work throughout the production process. I am particularly appreciative of Sandra Korn, Susan Albury, and, of course, Courtney Berger, who was involved in this book even before it hatched, who has believed in it, pushed for it to be published with Duke, provided advice, and was patient and accommodating of so many requests. The two anonymous reviewers provided feedback that was simultaneously so uplifting and so perceptive. Their meticulous and careful reading and the productiveness with which they expressed their critique is deeply appreciated. Finally, there are few people who have not contributed to this book directly, but without whom I would have probably not become the person writing it. Anat Biletzki introduced me to philosophy and to its intimate links to politics. She was my ultimate source of inspiration, and my decision to pursue an acaAcknowledgments · xvii demic career was very much a function of my desire to stand, one day, like her, in 144 Gilman (the room where she taught her Introduction to Logic) and open the eyes of others as she did for me. Adi Ophir has taught me what radical, critical thinking looks like, and has provided the philosophical path I have since sought to follow. Judith Butler has shaped my ways of seeing the world and understanding it, first in her writings and then in person; she also opened the world for me, and provided me the opportunity—often rare if not impossible— to escape. Last, Eileen Gillooly created a space—for me and so many others— in which more than I have ever believed to be possible became a reality. So many of the encounters, conversations, and friendships mentioned throughout these acknowledgments are her making, in one way or another. The Leverhulme Trust generously provided the material conditions for the work of writing, as it gave me the precious gift of time. I am grateful for the opportunity they have given me to complete this book. Epigraphs: Yael Navaro-Yashin, “Affective Spaces, Melancholic Objects: Ruination and the Production of Anthropological Knowledge,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15, no. 1 (2009): 5; Rebecca Bryant, “History’s Remainders: On Time and Objects after Conflict in Cyprus,” American Ethnologist 41, no. 4 (2014): 690; Edward W. Said, “Interview with Ari Shavit,” Ha’aretz, August 18, 2000, republished in Power, Politics, and Culture: Interviews with Edward W. Said, by Edward W. Said, ed. Gauri Viswanathan (New York: Vintage Books, 2001), 458. 1 Alison Blunt and Ann Varley, “Introduction: Geographies of Home,” Cultural Geographies 11, no. 1 (2004): 3. 2 T. Peil, “Home,” in International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, ed. Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2009). For a phenomenological analysis of home as fundamental to being, see Dylan Trigg, The Memory of Place: A Phenomenology of the Uncanny (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2012). Introduction Home This is a story of ruination at the foundation of a new political system. —Yael Navaro-Yashin Indeed, the house is often made to stand for “the conflict” insofar as it represents the tangible losses and gains that resulted. —Rebecca Bryant I suppose part of my critique of Zionism is that it attaches too much importance to home. Saying, we need a home. And we will do anything to get a home, even if it means making others homeless. —edward w. said This is a book about homes that were formed in and through violence; about homes that themselves become tools of destruction and expulsion; and about lives and selves whose very being is a form of injury. “A space of belonging and alienation, intimacy and violence, desire and fear,” as Alison Blunt and Ann Varley put it,1 which is “fundamental to being,”2 home functions for me here as 2 · Introduction 3 Amahl Bishara, “House and Homeland: Examining Sentiments about and Claims to Jerusalem and Its Houses,” Social Text 21, no. 2 (summer 2003): 143. On home as a metaphor for the nation or state, see also, among many others, Alon Confino, The Nation as a Local Metaphor: Wurttemberg, Imperial Germany, and National Memory, 1871–1918 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997); Michael Feige, “Soft Power: The Meaning of Home for Gush Emunim Settlers,” Journal of Israeli History 32, no. 1 (2013): 109–26; or Erin Manning, Ephemeral Territories: Representing Nation, Home, and Identity in Canada (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003). 4 For an excellent analysis tying together capitalism (postindustrialization, globalized markets), ethnic violence, and homes—their shortage, the fantasies constructing and undoing them, their geographies, and the various forms through which they are (re)created at a time of crisis—see Arjun Appadurai, “Spectral Housing and Urban Cleansing: Notes on Millennial Mumbai,” Public Culture 12, no. 3 (fall 2000): 627–51. 5 Bishara, “House and Homeland,” 144. 6 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). a concrete site, but also a placeholder, a metaphor, for thinking identities (collective and individual) that emerge through violence. Most explicitly, home is a site that ties the self to the nation, for which it often serves as “an uneasy metaphor.” 3 This book, then, looks at the systems of injury that have founded the system of property (from which enclosure, imperialism, slavery, or gentrification cannot be cleansed away) and are thus embedded into the concept of home if we think of any industrial, capitalist society.4 It looks at the violence intertwined with the intimacies of love and sexual desire, which is thus embedded into the concept of home if we think of kinship. But above all, it looks at settler colonies, wherein the construction of one’s home, and ultimately one’s (national) identity, is the destruction of another’s. In this context, this book’s main test case is Israel/Palestine, where, indeed, the territorial struggle involved in the formation of homeland often took—still takes—place through various struggles around houses. 5 My linguistic points of departure are Hebrew and Arabic, in which home and house (affect and architecture, belonging and territory) are merged. This linguistic point of departure, as well as the location from which I write, allow a linguistic slide between several words: home, household, house, domestic, domos, and oikos. If Hannah Arendt is correct, these words do not merely have different meanings and do not merely represent different political systems; they actually organize and shape different political orders. 6 And yet, the Hebrew word ba’it encapsulates this array of meanings. It is Home · 3 7 For a further analysis of this concept, see Hagar Kotef, “Ba’it (Home/Household),” Mafte’akh: Lexical Review of Political Thought 1e (2010), http://mafteakh .tau .ac .il /en /2010 -01 /01 /. 8 Achille Mbembe provides a concise yet comprehensive map of these forms of violence in the context of colonization—from the founding violence that creates the space for its own appearance to a violence that “give[s] this order meaning,” and to a violence that “recur[s] again and again in the most banal and ordinary situations,” which falls “well short of what is properly called ‘war,’ ” yet cannot be reduced to the notion of structural violence. Achille Mbembe, On the Postcolony (Oakland: University of California Press, 2001), 25. 9 I am thinking here about belonging primarily in its political form, that is, as a mode of maintaining, demarcating, reproducing, or imagining “the boundaries of the political community.” See Nira Yuval-Davis, The Politics of Belonging: Intersectional Contestations (London: sage, 2011), 204. But as Yuval-Davis proposed, this mode of belonging is tangled up with other forms of belonging—with social categories (of race, class, gender, etc.) or value systems. 10 In Sara Ahmed’s words: “The issue is that home is not simply about fantasies of belonging—where do I originate from—but that it is sentimentalized as a space of belonging (‘home is where the heart is’). The question of home and being at home can only be addressed by considering the the domos of the domestic sphere and it entails (or is contained within) the oikonomia of the oikos; it is a home, a house, and at times a household. In other words, it is the physical site, the social order that is organized within it, and the affectual dimensions that eventually territorialize identity as well as attachment.7 The Arabic beit likewise entails an array of functions that are scattered over several English concepts. But as we shall see, whereas language unites these functions, political history dissociates them in the case of many Palestinians. “Home” thus represents here the spatial facets of attachment, belonging, community, kinship, identity, and thus subjectivity. These spatial facets render “home” an apt site (or, as stated above, an analogy, an allegory) for understanding settler colonialism: the political system defined by an attachment to space that rests on dispossession, on a primordial act of ethnic cleansing and the many forms of violence that follow.8 Accordingly, the task ahead is to understand the cultural, political, and theoretical apparatuses that enable people and nations to construct a home on the ruins of other people’s homes, to feel that they belong to spaces of expulsion, or to develop an attachment to sites which subsequently—or even consequently—are transformed into sites of violence. Belonging is thus conceptualized here as and through settlement (homemaking, a mode of taking place) in order to produce an account of the relationship between collective identities and institutional, mass, or state violence. 9 In a way, then, I ask about the affectual conditions of possibility of settler colonialism,10 which is 4 · Introduction question of affect: being at home is here a matter of how one feels or how one might fail to feel.” “Home and Away: Narratives of Migration and Estrangement,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 2, no. 3 (December 1999): 341. 11 Indeed, as Butler notes, the ethical and political reflection of the question of violence “must take place precisely at the threshold of the psychic and social worlds” (Judith Butler, The Force of Non-violence [New York: Verso Books, 2020], 172). 12 Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), 68. See also Stoler’s Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule (Oakland: University of California Press, 2002); Antoinette Burton, Dwelling in the Archive: Women Writing House, Home, and History in Late Colonial India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Philippa Levine, Prostitution, Race, and Politics: Policing Venereal Disease in the British Empire (New York: Routledge, 2003); and Anne McClintock, Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest (New York: Routledge, 1995), among many others. 13 See, for example, Ian Baucom, “Mournful Histories: Narratives of Postimperial Melancholy,” mfs: Modern Fiction Studies 42, no. 2 (summer 1996): 259–88; Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism (London: Vintage Books, 1994). simultaneously a sociopolitical and a psychic question.11 After all, without such mechanisms of attachment to violence, “settling” would have been impossible amid the conditions of colonization. In so doing, I follow a rich body of literature that argues that colonization cannot be understood without what Ann Stoler terms the “ ‘emotional economies’ of empire,” and I try to understand those in their most spatially articulated manifestation.12 The house, its structure, its ideology, the sentiments invested in it, the social textures within it and those of which it forms a part, are inseparable from the financial systems, policies, and moral economies of empire.13 I therefore move between “home” as a metaphor for a state or an attachment to wider political constellations (community, territory, nation) and home as a component of the state (which is composed, as Aristotle stated, of many households), that is, the homes of individuals and small kinship units. This movement is a way of weaving together these affective economies, or untangling them to see how they are produced, managed, and regulated. This means that settler colonialism also serves here as an example (if not an allegory in and of itself ) of other political formations in which the existence of some—their lives, their bodies, their security, and their prosperity—is conditioned on inflicting violence on others. This violence can be direct or structural, deliberated or unintentional, celebrated or denied by the injuring persons, or can even hurt their sense of self (as is, for example, the case with progressive, leftist Israelis)—but it is nonetheless part of who they are. Who Home · 5 14 Jennifer Terry, Attachments to War: Biomedical Logics and Violence in Twenty-First- Century America (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017); Bruce Robbins, The Beneficiary (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017); Michael Rothberg, The Implicated Subject: Beyond Victims and Perpetrators (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2019); Jeanne Morefield, Empires without Imperialism: Anglo-American Decline and the Politics of Deflection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 2. 15 See, for example, James Martel, The Misinterpellated Subject (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017); or Judith Butler’s work, in particular, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990), and Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (New York: Routledge, 1993). we are. As Jennifer Terry recently showed in regard to war, Bruce Robbins in regard to various modes of privilege, or Michael Rothberg in regard to various orders of systematic violence, systems of injury are woven into social positions in ways that make it impossible to simply renounce them, to simply take a stance against them, to simply say, in Jeanne Morefield’s reconstruction, this is not “who we are.”14 Which is not to say that we should accept these systems of injury. “Who we are” always takes form within broken, contradictory schemes that can never be determined once and for all.15 this book was written over a period of more than seven years, during which many dominant assumptions concerning political lives have shifted. When I started writing it, around 2012, there was a need, I thought, to question the assumption that those living in liberal democracies disavow violence, if only as a rhetorical maneuver. There was an urgency, I thought, to point to the undercurrents tethered to the political fabric (in Israel, but also in the United States or Europe) that render legitimate the explicit embrace of, and political will to, violence. But as the book was written, with the rise of Trump and the Far Right across the world, the explicit racism that came to light with Brexit, and the slow legalization of apartheid in Israel, these undercurrents rose to the surface. In this sense, the book is both more and less timely than originally planned. The theoretical effort to expose these desires or attachments may be less needed as they are now barer, but understanding them is more urgent than ever. What I seek to offer here is a theory of the dispossessor. At least in the context of Israel/Palestine, much has been written on the dispossessed subject, and theories of subjectivity that work through the figure of the refugee or through the space of diaspora are quite prevalent. There has also been a proliferation of literature about the state as an actor or state actors, or mechanisms of power 6 · Introduction 16 For an analysis, see Ariella Azoulay and Adi Ophir, The One-State Condition: Occupation and Democracy in Israel/Palestine (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012), 203–24. that explain dispossession. But a theory of the dispossessing subject is largely missing. The Colonizing Self thus works at two levels: first, it provides a contextualized analysis of spaces of belonging in Israel/Palestine, and second, it provides a theoretical analysis of the forms of subjectivity at the foundation of both liberalism and settler colonialism (which are, historically at least, inextricable). In this regard the status of Israel as a liberal democracy (albeit an eroding one) merits some explication. “Liberal” and “democratic” are in Israel parameters limited to a dual matrix, combining citizenship status and location: All Jewish citizens (within the 1948 borders and in the settlements) enjoy liberal democracy, and, to a lesser degree, all citizens (Jewish and Palestinian) within the 1948 borders. Thus, even though also within these parameters, both the liberal and the democratic facets of the regime are limited, stratified, and eroding, and even though the “one state” is already the political condition of Israel/Palestine—and within these boundaries it is clearly a nondemocratic state—its matrix of control allows for clearly defined zones of democratic rule.16 When I refer here to “liberal” or “democratic” I refer to these enclaves, within which most Jewish Israelis reside. To unfold this dual analysis, the book focuses on three main homes or, better yet, three main figures of home, archetypes of sorts that come to represent different modes of inhabiting violent geographies. The first is the home of one of the most violent settlers in the West Bank, a home that effectively led to the eviction of an entire Palestinian village. It is also the largest organic farm in Israel, and the relation between the ethics of organic agriculture and this form of dispossession is crucial to me, as part of an effort to understand the ethical schemes that are employed to support homes under such conditions of violence (part III). The second home is in fact a plurality of homes: the depopulated Palestinian homes that are inhabited by Israeli Jews, often progressive and left leaning (part II). These Palestinian homes—in Jaffa, Jerusalem, Ein Hod—and this mode of homemaking in the depopulated home/ space serve as an allegory for Zionism at large (if not settlement as such). At the focus of this allegory is liberal Zionism, and, in this sense, there is a wider lesson concerning liberal sentiments here. The duo formed by parts II and III moves between the 1967 and the 1948 borders and endeavors to think together (even if apart) the establishment of Israel and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. In very different ways, these two modes of homemaking open questions concerning the various narratives, ideologies, and ethics Home · 7 17 Peil, “Home,” 181. that allow one to live amid the destruction for which they are responsible. Accordingly, this analysis allows us to see the forms of social and political positions—the selves—that emerge through the attachment to these sites of violence. The analysis of these two parts is based on a spatial typology of contested homes, an ethnographic examination of these homes as sites wherein both formal citizenship and claims for place are negotiated, and a cultural analysis of identity production via a study of the representations of homes, national or private. Finally, the third home, which opens this book, is the figure of home as it circulates in political theory (part I). At its core, it is the home I reread into the Lockean concept of property, but in its wider sense, it is the home that I seek to situate as the core unit of political analysis. Via this reading, I show how the structure of dispossession is embedded into different modes of subjectivity, thereby providing a conceptual foundation for the analysis that follows. Home and Violence: The Wider Scope of the Argument Home is “the primary site around which identities are produced and performed,” a site of intimacy and love, a site defined by attachments.17 At the same time, home is always also a site of injury: injuries caused by and to the territories we inhabit or the people with whom we share our lives or with whom we refuse to coinhabit; injuries caused by our disposed piles of rubbish or our sewage flows, or by police or military violence that penetrates home or refuses to do so. Furthermore, home is also an exclusionary space: it creates distinctions between those who can come in and those who must stay out; between those who stay overnight and those who must leave; those who have keys and those who must knock on the door—between the members of the household (and, within them, between family and domestic workers or slaves, for example) and guests or unwanted strangers. Or, to apply these distinctions to another context, between the members of the nation-state and its outsiders: guest workers, undocumented migrants, and those who cannot even cross the border. Home is thus a site of differentiations. Therefore, in its articulation as both a political technology and a political concept, we can think of the home as a place of governing differences—governing by creating differences (by hiding them, containing them) or governing those who have been differentiated: the governance of wives, slaves, servants, and other domestic workers, as well as children or those presumed 8 · Introduction 18 We see this in the Aristotelian demarcation of the oikos as the other of the polis and in a long tradition of both philosophy and historical accounts ever since. It underlies the dichotomy identified by Max Weber between the pure form of rational authority in the modern bureaucratic state, on the one hand, and the traditional state, drawing its form from the household, on the other. Mediated by civil society, this opposition also appears in Hegel; it is central to the rigid distinction between the private and the political that liberalism both assumes and demands—a distinction that preconditions the notion of private property; and it is shared by institutional-historical analyses that depict the emergence of the modern state from the royal court. According to the latter analyses, even though the state in its embryonic form was inseparable from the king’s household, the modern state is defined as such because of the disentanglement of the sovereign from the persona of the king and of the state’s bureaucracy from the management of the king’s household. 19 I am thinking here along the lines of Arendt’s reading of Aristoteles (see Human Condition). 20 As Carole Pateman has observed, or as Marx has made clear. Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988); Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert Tucker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978), 26–52. to be like children (and thus we can think of home as a meeting point for questions of race, class, legal residency, age, and disability). Home is that which can be—indeed is—differentiated (above all from the political), 18 and is that within which difference resides: It is the place of Woman (she who is different from Man); the signifier of private property (which produces class differences); and it is the function through which forms of government are differentiated: differences between those who are thoroughly and fully governed and those who can, in some fields, transcend being governed and are therefore “free” and “equal.”19 If one of the main problems of early modern and modern political theory is the tension between theoretical equality (universalism) and a reality of domination, discrimination, and exploitation, then “home” may provide a theoretical solution. Prefiguring and conditioning the political sphere as a sphere of (presumed) equality, the home (or private sphere, or domestic sphere) allows differences and differentiations to be governed outside of politics and as if they were nonpolitical, making way for “universalism” at the state’s level.20 At stake, then, is the array of connections between exclusion, often violent, and intimacy—an intimacy that always requires exclusion to maintain its parameters (intimacy, after all, cannot be stretched too far), yet tends to hide this aspect from the stories it tells about itself. This combination means that also at stake is a tension between fantasy and real life, or a tension between the promises of political concepts and the political orders they actually depict. In this sense, too, this book can be read as a parable. The Home · 9 fantasy (or concept) it captures is a certain fantasy of home, as a sheltering, stable, and peaceful space. The reality is that of violence— the violence of forced mobility, demolition, and dispossession on which this book’s argument focuses, but also of rape, incest, beating, imprisonment, confinement, isolation. This is not to say that all these violences are the same, and indeed, I will not consider all of them here. Many have pointed to this tension before me, and their work can mark the larger scope of the argument, the wider field to which it applies. Feminists across disciplines, historical moments, and geographical contexts have exposed the frequency of domestic violence, marital rape, or incest; they have shown how domestic work and care are outsourced to those working under conditions of exploitation, often paying with their own homes’ collapse. Drawing on their important insights, my book nevertheless centers not on violence in the home, but on homes as a technology of violence that operates outward. Accordingly, working on home here is not a way of foregrounding intimate modes of injustice that often take place in the private sphere. Rather, my focus is the intimacies of public wrongs. The history of public wrongs that is woven into the theory and practice of homemaking is quite diverse. Another one of its main fields is capitalism, and alongside gender and sexuality it, too, provides some of the larger parameters within which my argument can echo. Much like in settler colonialism, which is the focus of this inquiry, in capitalism we find mechanisms of attachment to objects of violence— objects whose production necessitates violence— and a continuous attachment to these objects even after this violence becomes apparent. Most relevant to the subject of this book would be cases of gentrification, or instances in which eminent domain is declared to evict some (most often the less well-off), transferring places of residence to private real-estate enterprises in a process through which new homes are constructed on the ruins of others. But in different forms and under different structures, we are attached to objects in which violence is implicated in even the most mundane practices of domesticity: from our contribution to degrading working conditions when ordering home supplies from Amazon, to the toxicity of mineral dust in the cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo that goes into the production of almost every battery we use (from laptops to electric cars), to the child and forced labor in those and other mines; the list goes on and on. Lauren Berlant further shows that desire under capitalism attaches itself not just to objects implicated in violence (through their production, or through the social organizations that coalesce around either production or consumption), 10 · Introduction 21 David Harvey, The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Gastón Gordillo inverts the famous “creative destruction” into “destructive production” to think of the capitalist production of space. Gastón R. Gordillo, Rubble: The Afterlife of Destruction (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014). See also Marshall Berman, All That Is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity (New York: Penguin Books, 1982), 100. 22 Lauren Berlant, Cruel Optimism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011), 27. Quote from Sigmund Freud, “Mourning and Melancholia [1915],” in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 14, ed. James Strachey (London: Hogarth, 1957), 244. but to the very order of violence. I will return to this analogy in detail in the theoretical overview and chapter 2. Whereas it is Berlant’s model of attachment that will stand at the basis of one of the main arguments of this book, the analogy between capitalist systems and settler colonialism has other facets which will be considered here only partially. A key analogy here is the capitalist mode of production through destruction that David Harvey identifies, following Marx.21 For Harvey, it is capitalist production that is at stake here; but creative destruction is also the mode through which settlers’ homemaking takes place. Finally, much like the case of both settler colonialism and intimacy or kinship, part of what shapes capitalist form of destruction is the question of substitution. Presumably, whereas both capitalist consumption and sexual desire are organized according to the logic of substitution, at stake in settler colonialism is precisely the lack of the possibility of substituting the object of attachment: territory. That is, if in capitalism the logic of value or exchange, and certainly practices of surplus consumption, are anchored in the possibility—and the desire—to substitute one object (concrete or abstracted) for another, and if sexual desire is organized around the substitution of one object of desire with another (this is precisely the foundation of the Oedipal complex, the structure of Lacan’s objet petit a, but also the nature of any new relationship or most fantasies), then in settler colonialism the singularity of the territory, its irreplaceability, is the political principle that drives and justifies settlement. Yet the difference does not hold, and the mechanism of substitution often remains an unrealized potential, even in the former two orders. In this sense, to borrow Berlant’s words (themselves borrowed), this book “politicizes Freud’s observation that ‘people never willingly abandon a libidinal position, not even, indeed, when a substitute is already beckoning to them.’ ”22 Home · 11 23 Patrick Wolfe, Traces of History: Elementary Structures of Race (New York: Verso Books, 2016), 33. 24 Ruba Salih and Sophie Richter-Devroe, “Palestine beyond National Frames: Emerging Politics, Cultures, and Claims,” South Atlantic Quarterly 117, no. 1 (2018): 7; my italics. 25 I add here the qualifier “Jew” to “Israeli” in order not to erase the roughly 20 percent of the Israeli population who are not Jews, particularly Palestinians who are citizens of the Israeli state. This qualifier may produce some discomfort, as it may sound essentializing and as such racist (anti-Semitic). This is not my intention here. 26 Sumud literally means “persistence,” but also refers to the act of Palestinians staying closely, tightly, stubbornly to the land, and building a home and a homeland, despite the effort to dispossess them. See Alexandra Rijke and Toine van Teeffelen, “To Exist Is to Resist: Sumud, Heroism, and the Everyday,” Jerusalem Quarterly 59 (2014): 86–99; Raja Shehadeh, The Third Way: A Journal of Life in the West Bank (New York: Quartet Books, 1982). 27 Yael Allweil, Homeland: Zionism as Housing Regime, 1860–2011 (London: Routledge, 2017), 5. Allweil analyzes the Zionist project through what she refers to as “Israel’s housing regime,” which was Israeli Homes “The ongoing requirement to eliminate the Native alternative continues to shape the colonial society that settlers construct on their expropriated land base,” argues Patrick Wolfe.23 The main argument of this book is that not just societies, but also modes of selfhood are shaped by this ongoing requirement. In other words, there is a settler self and it is constituted as part of a project of ethnic cleansing. As Ruba Salih and Sophie Richter-Devroe put it in the Israeli context, “land confiscation, annexation, and fragmentation are foundational not only to the formation of Israeli settler nationalism but also to the definition of its citizens as political and human subjects.”24 The story of the “political and human subject” that is formed via “land confiscation, annexation, and fragmentation” (in Salih and Richter-Devroe’s words) is the story of the homemaking of the Israeli Jew in Israel/Palestine.25 And this story must be examined also through all those Palestinian homes whose destruction constitutes this home: homes that are bulldozed or bombarded, at times killing their inhabitants in their collapse; homes that are still standing but have become inaccessible; homes whose keys are kept in the hope of return and that are often inhabited by others; temporary homes in refugee camps that have become permanent; homes that are rendered illegal by discriminatory land regimes; homes that are being demolished cyclically as part of Israel’s effort to make more land available for Jewish settlement; but also homes that are being rebuilt, again and again, as a form of resistance—staying put, sumud, as a political struggle reasserting identity and belonging.26 Zionism is often described as (indeed is) “a massive housing project.” 27 Yet as Idan Landau observed, 12 · Introduction “intended to provide housing for each citizen as a fulfilment of the right of each Jew to the ancestral homeland in which he or she was being rooted” (12). Note the conflation here between “citizen” and “Jew,” which has served to deny many Palestinian citizens the right to a proper home. 28 Idan Landau, “House Demolitions: The Enduring Background Noise of Zionism,” Lo lamut tipesh [Don’t die dumb] (blog), June 10, 2013, https://idanlandau .com /2013 /06 /10 /house -demolishions -zionism -background -noise /; my translation. The quoted segment is from Walter Benjamin’s “On the Concept of History,” in Selected Writings, vol. 4: 1938–1940, ed. Michael W. Jennings and Howard Eiland, 389–400 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), ix. if someone were to summarize the Zionist project one day, [they] would have to face one baffling fact: how is it that so many people tie Zionism to construction and production, rather than to destruction and eviction? After all, alongside the obsession with nonstop construction, mostly beyond the Green Line, the roars of bulldozers have always been present: ascending, striking, breaking, and shattering. Migrants’ housing projects were built instantly, build-your- own- home neighborhoods, neighborhoods for military personnel, suburbs, and luxurious high-rises sprung up like mushrooms after the rain; and at the very same time, the angel of Zionist history amassed a pile of debris which “grows skyward.”28 Stories of destruction also feature in Israeli identity via the destruction of Jewish homes: above all, the hounding image of the destruction of the temple, which is referred to in Hebrew as the destruction of home, the prolonged exile that followed, and the Holocaust. This duality of constitutive destruction can be a version of Said’s claim that both nations share a history of dispossession, but this is not the claim I want to make here. I will not offer a detailed mapping of these various destroyed homes and the diverse courses of their destruction. I rather seek to isolate a segment from this complex map in order to integrate destruction and construction into one history, one identity, of a community, a nation, for which destruction is constitutive. for now, amid all this destruction, I want to focus on the constitutive destruction that took place in 1948 and its long aftermath in order to introduce a wider question regarding knowledge and violence. In the aftermath of the two grand territorial wars of Israel—in 1948 and 1967—massive projects of demolition have changed the Israeli landscape. Home · 13 29 There are many dimensions to the transformation of Arab land into Jewish land. On the legal status of territory, see Geremy Forman and Alexandre Kedar, “From Arab Land to ‘Israel Lands’: The Legal Dispossession of the Palestinians Displaced by Israel in the Wake of 1948,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22, no. 6 (December 2004): 809–30; Alexandre Kedar, “The Legal Transformation of Ethnic Geography: Israeli Law and the Palestinian Landholder 1948–1967,” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 33, no. 4 (2001): 923–1000; Issachar Rosen-Zvi, Taking Space Seriously: Law, Space and Society in Contemporary Israel (Abingdon, VA: Routledge, 2017). In regard to the Bedouin minority, see Alexandre Kedar, Ahmad Amara, and Oren Yiftachel, Emptied Lands: A Legal Geography of Bedouin Rights in the Negev (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2018). Noam Leshem emphasizes that the state is not a unified entity in this regard, and many who settled in depopulated Arab houses or areas cannot simply be seen as its agents. They had conflicting relations with the state, which often treated them as illegal trespassers. Noam Leshem, Life after Ruin: The Struggles over Israel’s Depopulated Arab Spaces (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016). 30 A very partial list includes Nadia Abu El-Haj, Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001); Salman H. Abu Sitta, The Palestinian Nakba 1948: The Register of Depopulated Localities in Palestine (London: Palestinian Return Centre, 1998); Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000); Noga Kadman, Erased from Space and Consciousness: Israel and the Depopulated Palestinian Villages of 1948 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2015); Walid Khalidi, ed., All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948 (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992). I review others throughout this book. Pictures and maps showing “before” and “after” strikingly present the construction of the Jewish homeland as heavily dependent on destruction (see figures I.1–I. 3). Ever since this period, house demolition in its various forms has been a dominant political technology in Israel, and an essential element in its construction.29 My argument in regard to this political technology is dual. First, as aforementioned, I argue that this destruction is constitutive. That is, this destruction is not a mere historical contingency. It is rather woven into Israeli subjectivity, as far as such exists (and national selves never fully exist as such). To put it differently, this book sets out to show that Israelis are intimately invested in destruction in various ways. Second and relatedly, I argue that in some cases, this destruction is affirmed rather than denied. This second argument intervenes in a larger debate in the literature concerning the work of collective memory in Israel/ Palestine, as well as colonial memory more broadly. I touch on it extensively in the theoretical overview. Within this debate, some emphasize the erasure of Palestinian history and landscape, intended to deny their very existence in the land and, derivatively, the violence entailed in removing them;30 some focus on 14 · Introduction figure i.1. Manshiyya. January 1949 (source: Zalmanya). the various rationales deployed to justify Palestinians’ dispossession when their existence becomes undeniable;31 some argue that there are large holes in these networks of blindness and denial through which that past constantly emerges;32 some call for a complete change of metaphors. 33 Rather than working to provide 31 The myth of nomadism alongside apparatuses producing nomadism, and with them the notion of terra nullius, is probably the most dominant here, in the context of Israel/Palestine and others. See, for example, Kedar, Amara, and Yiftachel, Emptied Lands; Hagar Kotef, Movement and the Ordering of Freedom: On Liberal Governances of Mobility (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015); Carole Pateman and Charles W. Mills, Contract and Domination (Malden, MA: Polity, 2007). Home · 15 32 Gil Z. Hochberg, Visual Occupation: Violence and Visibility in a Conflict Zone (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015); Leshem, Life after Ruin. For other contexts, see Stoler, Along the Archival Grain, chapter 7, “Imperial Dispositions of Disregard.” 33 Ann Laura Stoler, “Colonial Aphasia: Race and Disabled Histories in France,” Public Culture 23, no. 1 (winter 2011): 121–56. further “proof” of or “support” for this side or the other, I am more interested in the very existence of this debate. The debate itself reflects an unstable dyad of collective memory that can then be translated into an argument regarding the content of what is remembered (did we know? did we see? have we forgotten? erased? denied? could we have been aware?—or unaware?). I contend that this dyad, and the difficulty of accounting for it, is at least partly generated figure i.2. Shows Tel Aviv in the early 2000s. The minaret of the Hassan Bek Mosque serves here as a visual anchor. figure i.3. Manshiyya’s destruction plan. In dark gray houses that were destroyed by October 1949; in light gray, houses that were destroyed by 1980. Courtesy of Or Aleksandrowicz. Aleksandrowicz’s work details these acts of destruction, questions the security claims behind them, and unfolds the long history of destruction behind several of Tel Aviv’s neighborhoods. Image from “The Camouflage of War: Planned Destruction in Jaffa and Tel Aviv, 1948,” Planning Perspective 32, no. 2 (2017): 188. Home · 17 34 This was done via the regulation of sex and kinship, the school system, and the emphasis on constant mobility of bureaucrats across the empire. Such managed circulations—within the empire and between colonies and metropoles—aimed at creating proper attachments and ways of being “moved” that separated “home” (in the metropole) from “away” (in the empire). It generated bonds to people as well as territories, but also cultivated aversions to people and territories in the colony, from whom one had to remain detached. See Stoler, Along the Archival Grain, 68 (although the project of narrating these movements reaches beyond this page and book, and can be traced through most of Stoler’s writings). Sara Ahmed shows how the result is entire groups, mostly of postcolonized subjects, for whom this distinction between “home” and “away” becomes impossible (Ahmed, “Home and Away”). 35 Wolfe, Traces of History, 33. by the difficulty of settling modes of being-with- violence. Put differently, the inability to settle down colonial memory, as well as the inability to settle the different theoretical frameworks accounting for this memory, is a function of the difficulty of acknowledging that selves can live with their own violence in nonconflictual ways. This difficulty may be of the settler’s own memory or the theorist’s frame—and I will keep moving here between these levels of analysis. It is this assumption, that people cannot reconcile their self-image with the violence they inflict on others, that I want to question. A Methodological Note: Settler Colonialism “Home” can be seen as one of the main criteria differentiating colonialism from settler colonialism. Wolfe famously distinguished between the imperative to work imposed on the colonized in colonialism (part of a racial system that exploits bodies and resources) and the imperative to move imposed on the colonized in settler colonialism (part of a racial system that takes over land for the purpose of settlement). Thus, in the first system, various modes of colonial governance endeavored to maintain the metropole as a home and keep the attachments of Europeans to the colony limited and transient.34 In the case of settler colonialism, however, at stake is the production and preservation of home in the colony. What will be outlined in this book is therefore a history of sentiments that allow one to stay put, to form an identity unaffected, or less affected, or at least not completely undone by its contradictions and violence. The facts that “settlers come to stay,” that settler colonialism is “first and foremost a project of replacement,” and that in the act of settlement settlers “destroy to replace”35 render the paradigm of settler colonialism an apt lens through which to examine my question concerning home as a tool of destruction (or perhaps render “home” an apt lens through which to examine settler 18 · Introduction 36 This is the case even if settlement takes the form of a national identity, mostly since such societies are often migrant societies, united primarily by the territory. 37 Patrick Wolfe’s famous formulation of settler colonialism as a “logic of elimination” is not an argument that all settler colonies are necessarily genocidal. The imperative posed by such societies is not always about death, but always about movement: the imperative on indigenous populations to move. Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event (London: Cassell, 1999). For the colonial histories and the limits of the concept of dispossession, as well as for the possibility of reclaiming it in radical struggles for decolonization, see Robert Nichols, Theft Is Property! Dispossession and Critical Theory (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, forthcoming). 38 With Ariella Azoulay, we can think of this claim somewhat differently but with the same conclusion: by being governed as a citizen alongside noncitizens, one is “in effect exerting violence.” Ariella Azoulay, “Civil Alliances—Palestine, 1947–1948,” Settler Colonial Studies 4, no. 4 (2014): 416. 39 Ann Laura Stoler, “On Degrees of Imperial Sovereignty,” Public Culture 18, no. 1 (2006): 125–46. colonialism). This does not mean that settlers necessarily bring about destruction maliciously, but if in settler colonialism the primary identity is the relation to place,36 and if this belonging is an act of elimination and dispossession,37 then by being who one is, one is already implicated in violence. 38 Violence, then, emerges as a precondition for the integrity of one’s subjectivity. This is the main claim of this book. Nevertheless, two primary reservations can be made in regard to the framing of Israel as a settler-colonial state and this argument’s framing. First, many of the events, modes of attachment, and practices of homemaking that will occupy these pages resonate and have parallels with other historical and geopolitical contexts: Poles, Germans, or Hungarians who moved into the homes of Jews after the Second World War; postpartition “house swaps” in India/Pakistan; or Turkish Cypriots who came to inhabit the homes of Greek Cypriots after partition. I therefore refer here to “settler colonialism” not as an exclusive and excluding framework. Unlike some tendencies in the recent field of comparative settler-colonial studies, I prefer to follow Stoler’s insight that there is no one imperial (or colonial, or settler-colonial) case that is identical to the other, which also means that sometimes cases that can be categorized as settler colonialism in some respects resemble civil wars, postcolonial partitions, or national revivals in other facets.39 The second reservation has to do with the particular status of Israel within this framework. With the emergence of “settler-colonial studies,” there has been much debate concerning the relevance of this framework to the Israeli/Palestinian context. Some have treated it as a clear case of Home · 19 40 A special issue of the journal Settler Colonial Studies (as well as many other essays in it throughout the years) was dedicated to examining this paradigm in relation to Israel/Palestine. For the analytical and political benefits of applying the category “settler colonialism” to the Israeli case, see Omar Salamanca, Mezna Qato, Kareem Rabie, and Sobhi Samour, “Past Is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine,” Settler Colonial Studies 2, no. 1 (2012): 1–8. See also other papers in that volume. One of the first accounts of Israel as a settler-colonial state is Maxime Rodinson’s Israel: A Colonial-Settler State? (New York: Monad Press, 1973). However, as Patrick Wolfe notes, despite its title, this book does not think about settler colonialism in particular, but about colonialism as such. For Wolfe’s account of how this book has shaped his understanding of settler colonialism, see Patrick Wolfe, “New Jews for Old: Settler State Formation and the Impossibility of Zionism: In Memory of Edward W. Said,” Arena Journal 37/38 (2012): 285–321. Wolfe dedicated a significant segment of his comparative account of settler colonialism to the Israeli case, marking it as a settler-colonialism case par excellence (see Traces of History). Just as important, the paradigm has given language to resistance and the imagination of new horizons, particularly among Palestinians who are citizens of Israel, since it allowed for a shift from the discourse of “peace process,” “conflict management,” or even “occupation” to a language of decolonization that assumes the need to account for the mode of governance also within the 1948 borders. 41 For the limits of this paradigm in this context, see Rachel Busbridge, “Israel-Palestine and the Settler Colonial ‘Turn’: From Interpretation to Decolonization,” Theory, Culture and Society 35, no. 1 (January 2018): 91–115, which also provides a comprehensive review of the settler-colonialism literature in relation to the Israeli/Palestinian context. Some have called for thinking within other frameworks, such as apartheid (e.g., Abigail B. Bakan and Yasmeen Abu-Laban, “Israel/Palestine, South Africa and the ‘One-State Solution’: The Case for an Apartheid Analysis,” Politikon 37, nos. 2–3 [2010]: 331–51; Hilla Dayan, “Regimes of Separation: Israel/Palestine and the Shadow of Apartheid,” in The Power of Inclusive Exclusion: Anatomy of Israeli Rule in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, ed. Adi Ophir, Michal Givoni, and Sari Hanafi [New York: Zone, 2009], 281–322); ethnocracy (Oren Yiftachel, Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006]); or simply colonialism (Derek Gregory, The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq [Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005]). Lorenzo Veracini argued that while the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is a colonial project, within the 1948 borders it is a settler-colonial one (“The Other Shift: Settler Colonialism, Israel, and the Occupation,” Journal of Palestine Studies 42, no. 2 [winter 2013]: 26–42). Others have rejected these critiques altogether, insisting that Zionism is a national project. Between these approaches, Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin argued that “we must rid ourselves of the tendency to think in terms of the dichotomy colonialism/nationalism, which often dominates the discussion of the Zionist consciousness,” not just because the term colonial seems to entail “a total delegitimating” and “the term ‘national’ [presumably] justifie[s] anything,” but also because, as Raef Zreik notes, both historically and conceptually, Zionism has always entailed both dimensions—the national and the settler colonial. Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, “Exile, History, and the Nationalization of settler colonialism, if not one of the primary players in the comparative playing field of the discipline.40 Others pointed to the limitations of this paradigm—for Israel as well as for other geopolitical contexts.41 Given the 20 · Introduction Jewish Memory: Some Reflections on the Zionist Notion of History and Return,” Journal of Levantine Studies 3, no. 2 (winter 2013): note 43; Raef Zreik, “Leumit ve colonialit” [National and colonial], Ha’aretz, July 21, 2015, https://www .haaretz .co .il /opinions /. premium -1 .2688934. 42 Raef Zreik, “When Does a Settler Become a Native? (With Apologies to Mamdani),” Constellations 23, no. 3 (2016): 359. 43 Yuval Evri and Hagar Kotef, “When Does a Native Become a Settler?,” Constellations (forthcoming). 44 Unlike Palestinian Jews—who have been living in Palestine during, and sometimes before, the Ottoman Empire, and were considered as natives by themselves as well as by their fellow Muslim and Christian Palestinians and the authorities, Mizrahi Jews is a term usually serving to mark those who immigrated to Israel, often after 1948. However, because they came from Arab-speaking countries and had been an integral part of the Middle East and the Ottoman Empire, Jews from North Africa and the Middle East (“Mizrahi”) are often seen as part of a different logic and structure of immigration and placement, if not the victims of Zionism as a European/ settler project. See, for example, Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, “Zionist Return to the West and the Mizrachi Jewish Perspective,” in Orientalism and the Jews, ed. Ivan Kalmar and Derek Penslar (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2005), 162–81; Ella Shohat, “Sephardim in Israel: Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Jewish Victims,” Social Text 19/20 (autumn 1988): 1–35. first reservation, I have no stakes in arguing that Israel falls or does not fall within the parameters of this paradigm. I nevertheless use it, despite these limits, since—to follow Raef Zreik’s useful formulation—in its “praxis and tools,” Zionism follows the structure of settler colonialism: “Its takeover of the land, its dream of the disappearance of the native, the importance it allocates to the frontier, its expanding nature and the stories that it tells itself about the land as being terra nullius all match the settler-colonial paradigm.” 42 This is even though, as Zreik himself contends, Zionism was at the same time a national movement, a revival of a nation in what was—and still is—seen as its own homeland. Finally, a conceptual clarification is required. In the Israeli context, the term settler is most often used to designate someone living beyond the Green Line, primarily in the West Bank. However, if we think within the framework of settler colonialism, then at least schematically, all Jews in Israel fall under this category. There are several ways in which this categorization can—and should—be problematized. Elsewhere, with Yuval Evri, I do some of this work of problematization in regard to Palestinian Jews (who were natives of the land)43 and others have done so as well, particularly in regard to Mizrahi Jews.44 But the work of this book progresses primarily through figures, and the detailed historical work that such problematization necessitates will not be done here. Home · 21 45 For a complex analysis of this rejection, see Raz-Krakotzkin, “Exile, History.” 46 For such a call, see Daniel Boyarin, A Traveling Homeland: The Babylonian Talmud as Diaspora (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015); Judith Butler, Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013); and Arendt, to whom we shall return. For a contemporary call for Jewish/Israeli diasporic existence as part of a growing despair in the Israeli left, as well as its critique, see Michal Givoni, “Indifference and Repetition: Occupation Testimonies and Left-Wing Despair,” Cultural Studies 33, no. 4 (2019): 595–631. 47 See, for example, Tim Cresswell, On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World (New York: Routledge, 2006); Kotef, Movement. 48 Ahmed, “Home and Away,” 335. 49 Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, “Exile and Binationalism: From Gershom Scholem and Hannah Arendt to Edward Said and Mahmoud Darwish” (Carl Heinrich Becker Lecture, Fritz Thyssen Stiftung, Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Berlin, 2012), 129. A Note on Exile (and Politics) If Zionism can be defined as a negation of exile45 and a construction of an exclusively Jewish homeland, and if the outcome of this return from exile is destruction, would the key to justice be exile, a refusal of a home that has become a tool of dispossession? 46 Within a state of left-wing despair, some have advocated this as the political solution. But within a global regime in which modes of both mobility and stability are radically differentiated,47 there are political and ethical risks involved in romanticizing exile. Sara Ahmed questions, as a mode of warning, whether exile and other modes of nomadic and diasporic existence are the coherent choices of the “one that can do so, because the world is already constituted as their home.” “Is this,” she further asks, “an example of movement as a form of privilege rather than transgression, a movement that is itself predicated on the translation of the collective and forced movements of others into an act of individual and free choice?”48 Alternatively, one could advocate exile not as a concrete call, say, for the Jews to leave Israel/Palestine (a call, we must note, that takes the form of ethnic cleansing), but as a conceptual tool that allows a reorganization of political life. Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin proposes to think of exile not as “the opposition to homeland, but [as] a sensitivity that leads towards a process of decolonization that includes Jews and Arabs alike, in which Jews limit their rights in order to create the space for a Palestinian existence, while Palestinians recognize Jewish existence.” Such a concept “may become the starting point for thinking about alternatives to partitions, as well as the idea of the nation state, without ignoring national differences.”49 This imagining of political exile will not be a romanticization of what Said saw as “the unhealable rift forced between a human being and a native place, between the self and its true home,” but rather, and still after Said, a way of thinking of a 22 · Introduction 50 Edward W. Said, Reflections on Exile and Other Essays (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 171. 51 J. Butler, Parting Ways, 208. 52 J. Butler, Parting Ways, 209. 53 Theodor W. Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life (London: Verso Books, 2005), 39. 54 Ahmed, “Home and Away,” 334. 55 Said, Reflections on Exile, 177. shared condition of displacement from which another politics can emerge.50 Not a negation of home, but a way of envisioning “political principles that are derived from the diasporic conditions that must also, as it were, be brought home.”51 Such a concept of exile could become, in Butler’s words, “an internal criticism of the national, if not a set of qualifications and safeguards that inhere in any possible nation.”52 In times in which, as Adorno famously put it, “it is part of morality not to be at home in one’s home” (and were there ever any other times?), would this advocation of exile not be a preferred political solution?53 Perhaps. But, again following Ahmed, it may be that by thinking of exile conceptually we are, once more, engaging in a romanticizing move in which the nomads, the exiled, “come to perform a particular kind of theoretical work, to represent something other than themselves.”54 Can one think concretely about exile as a condition that can be employed to organize the political communities at home, as it were? Can one do so in ways that fracture the modes of entrenched, exclusive nationalism but do not further fracture the subject, already in “a discontinuous state of being” generated by displacement?55 Perhaps. But in this book, rather than focusing on shared models of diasporic homemaking or the Jewish sense of rebuilding a home postdiaspora, I ask about the meeting point of these two homes—the Palestinian and the Jewish Israeli—as part of an effort to understand how the destruction of homes (of Palestinians) becomes constitutive of the construction of homes: of the construction of Israel as a national home, of the establishment of houses for Israelis to reside in, and of the sense of attachment to territory that is formative of identities. Thinking about this connection urges us to think of the home’s absence not as another possible definition of homes (as in the case of diasporic models of homemaking) but as a condition that subtends the being—the presence—of some homes. This again places the conceptualization of home within an analytic of violence, or makes home the embodiment of such an analytic. Home · 23 Structure and Main Arguments The Colonizing Self is composed of three main chapters and six shorter “satellites” organized in three parts. Before each of the main chapters, a brief interlude opens the particular question of the chapter to a different context—sometimes, the interlude examines a different case of settler colonialism; at other times, it serves to offer a different departing point for the main chapter. The goal of these interludes is to gesture toward other domains to which the argument is relevant, even though I cannot fully develop these other directions here. After each chapter, an epilogue offers an analysis of one of the core problems that surfaced in the main chapter. These are more structural interventions, focusing on specific questions the main chapters opened up but did not fully address. after this introduction, a theoretical overview sets the ground for my main question concerning the relations between violence and identity. It attempts to map the primary models within which these relations are conceptualized in existing literature, and marks the main theoretical lacuna this book seeks to address. These models are going to be unpacked throughout the book and guide its inquiry. part i: homes A home—and identity—that is built on the dispossession (the destruction) of others encapsulates a structure of belonging that is not limited to Israel. Rather than a comparative analysis of settler colonies and their construction of home (which is undoubtedly of value), part I, “Homes,” returns to some key moments in political theory to show the conceptual foundations for this book’s inquiry. Specifically, I argue that the kind of political self that is formed within a specific theory in which home is the basic unit of analysis is ontologically dependent on violence. The interlude, “Home/Homelessness,” works primarily with Arendt to foreground two claims: (i) Despite an effort to allocate “home” to a separate, nonpolitical sphere, homemaking appears to be foundational in a significant part of the history of political thought, and “Man” emerges as a domestic animal. The ability to sustain a political community is thus seen as a function of sedentary qualities. (ii) Within these texts, the concept of home is narrowed down to particular (European) models. Given (i), this narrowing means that this tradition can see only some subjects as fully human. This global distribution of homelessness and entitlement to homes will be mapped onto the 24 · Introduction Israeli/Palestinian context in the following chapters. The main chapter of part I, “The Consuming Self: On Locke, Aristotle, Feminist Theory, and Domestic Violences,” looks at the concept of home as it materializes in three moments in political theory: Aristotle’s theory of politics, feminist theory’s critique of domesticity, and Locke’s theory of property. The latter is the focus of that chapter, since it works at the essential converging point of liberalism and settler colonialism. Drawing on Carole Pateman’s famous reading in The Sexual Contract, according to which it is the family, rather than the individual, that “contracts in,” I argue that the basic property-making unit shifts throughout chapter 5 of the Second Treatise (the chapter on property). Whereas it begins with the individual body, over the course of the chapter Locke carries it to the household. The household thus appears as the basic political unit, rather than the individual or even Pateman’s couple. My reading of Locke does not merely serve to introduce the home to the core of political theory; it also demonstrates that the Lockean individual had strong expansionist tendencies. This understanding of the expansionist drive at the foundation of liberal subjectivity establishes the basis for the analysis of settler colonialism that is to follow. Moreover, since the household can materialize as a property-making unit in Locke only via enclosure, and since its paradigmatic means of expansion is agriculture, the link to the analysis of organic agriculture in the West Bank (part III) is fully made. Part I ends with an epilogue titled “Unsettlement,” which situates the analysis in the particular space of Israel/Palestine. The epilogue problematizes some of the framings of this book in order to show the multiple positions and possible trajectories that will be sidelined by the focus of my argument. Marking those is necessary not only as part of demarcating the wider picture, but also since this plurality entails alternative political possibilities to the trajectory this book tracks. It thereby also lays bare some of the methodological frames employed in my analysis of homemaking in Israel/Palestine, and as such serves as an introduction of sorts to parts II and III. Thus, even readers less interested in the more theoretical discussion, who may prefer to skip Part I and focus their reading on the more concrete discussion of Israel/Palestine, should probably begin with this brief chapter. part ii: Relics Part II, “Relics,” opens with a reading of Lorraine Hansberry’s Les Blancs. This interlude, “A Brief Reflection on Death and Decolonization,” focuses on notions of home among the settler figures in the play and asks about the prospects of decolonization given their modes of attachment to territory. Since the play is Home · 25 situated in an imaginary African country, this reading also opens a path to a comparative analysis vis-à- vis chapter 2. Chapter 2, “Home (and the Ruins That Remain),” looks into identities that are shaped when one’s own sense of belonging is saturated with the violence of the past. Focusing on Jewish Israelis who made homes in depopulated Palestinian homes, the chapter develops a model of wounded attachments (following Wendy Brown) to the violence undergirding political belonging. It may be questioned to what degree this attachment is indeed an attachment to violence: Those who live in the ruins of others often do not experience their lives as violent, and those who look at the landscape dotted with half-standing houses may not see it as a remnant of violence. There is here an attachment to a home, a land, but not, one may argue, to the violence that made the former possible, even if such violence was a necessary element of colonization. To address this potential reservation, the epilogue, “A Phenomenology of Violence: Ruins,” provides a typology of the violence that is nonetheless there. It is there as a residue that cannot be erased; it is there as a trace that still carries elements of the violent past; it is there in the clash between temporalities of those for whom violence is indeed in the past and those who still experience it as their everyday. The chapter provides a phenomenological map of these modes of violence in order to peel apart—but also weave together—the different forms of violence with which this book engages. part iii: Settlement Part III, “Settlement,” moves to the West Bank. Thus, whereas part II focuses on those who inherited the colonized space they came to inhabit, part III looks at the act of colonization as it takes place. Nevertheless, the divisions between the arguments developed in part II and those developed in part III are not necessarily superimposed on the 1948/1967 division. These lines of division are questioned at the end of chapter 3, and feature here only for the sake of clarity and simplification. Part III presents two stories of two homes in the West Bank, both revolving around the production of food, as an element of domesticity. It begins with an interlude, “A Moment of Popular Culture: The Home of MasterChef,” that introduces the concept of home in the West Bank through a brief engagement with the Israeli franchise of the popular reality show MasterChef. The show’s seventh season included a settler from the evicted outpost Amona among its contestants. I follow the way this contender won over the hearts of the Israeli mainstream through this show. His story of loss and homelessness joins the politics of food to provide an account of the normalization of settlements in Israel today. This politics of food remains central to the main chapter of this 26 · Introduction 56 I thank reviewer number 2 for this observation. part, chapter 3: “On Eggs and Dispossession: Organic Agriculture and the New Settlement Movement.” Focusing on one extreme outpost in the West Bank called Giv’ot Olam, it analyzes a process of homemaking in which violence and dispossession are ongoing practices. Giv’ot Olam was the forerunner of the new settlement movement that is often referred to as “hilltop youth”: a movement aimed at grabbing more land by building illegal outposts outside established settlements. Giv’ot Olam is also, as aforementioned, the largest organic farm in Israel and the largest supplier of organic, free-range eggs in the country. Examining both the ethics of organic food and the material conditions of organic agriculture (land resources, waste, and water), I show how a home is created as a dispositional tool within an ethical scheme. This chapter also tracks the story of the Palestinian village Yanun, which has been almost completely abandoned following constant harassment and severe attacks from Giv’ot Olam’s settlers. The epilogue, “An Ethic of Violence: Organic Washing,” returns to the question of violence’s visibility that is key to the theoretical overview and part II. It asks whether the scheme of organic agriculture sustains settlements’ violence by enveloping it with a language of justice and care (toward animals or the earth) that hides violence from sight (“washes” it in green politics). Based on the ethnographic work of chapter 3, the epilogue concludes the book by arguing that we need to find an alternative account, one that shows not how people deny their violence to sustain it, but how life with violence is embraced. the three main chapters at the heart of each part thus offer a certain historical journey. I begin with the imaginary past of settler colonialism (chapter 1), move to a more recent history of Israel/Palestine (chapter 2), and end by looking at the present-day West Bank (chapter 3).56 Yet this chronology is not strictly kept. It presents a present that can be dated to the past, and a past that still lingers in the present, in order to show the ontologies and fractured histories of the settler-colonial project. Chapter 2 is “historical” not just because it focuses on the homes depopulated in 1948, but also because it represents a position that is becoming less dominant in Israel. In the last decade or so, Israel’s attitude toward its own violence has dramatically changed. Though such changes are always fractured, never linear, and appear gradually and unevenly across society—and hence dating them is a somewhat problematic exercise—this change occurred sometime after the 2006 Lebanon War. It was first clearly manifested in Gaza in Home · 27 57 To paraphrase the election slogan of the Jewish Home Party from the 2014 campaign. I elaborate on this formulation at the end of chapter 2. 58 Robbins, Beneficiary; Rothberg, Implicated Subject. 59 Rothberg, Implicated Subject, 2. 2009. Chapter 2 marks this trajectory from selves who are truly undone by their own violence, who cannot inhabit life once they realize the destruction that this inhabitation generates, to selves who “shoot and cry”—the famous formulation that comes to mark “crying” as both a token paid so that violence can continue and a way of indulging one’s own pain when confronted with the suffering one causes to others— and, finally, to selves who do not even cry after shooting, who “shoot and do not apologize,”57 who fully own their violence and no longer come undone by it. Nevertheless, the subjects featured in chapter 2 are not perpetrators in the classic formulations, but rather those defined by Robbins as structural beneficiaries or by Rothberg as implicated subjects: 58 They are those who “occupy positions aligned with power and privilege without being themselves direct agents of harm,” who “contribute to, inhabit, inherit, or benefit from regimes of domination but do not originate or control such regimes.”59 Their relations to violence accordingly remain more ambivalent than what we see in chapter 3. In a similar yet mirrored vein, chapter 3 is “contemporary,” not just because it depicts the current settlement movement in the West Bank but also because it depicts most clearly the aforementioned nonconflictual approach to violence that is becoming more dominant in Israeli public discourse. It represents, in this sense, a wider tendency in Israel to steer away from the liberal-democratic facets of the state project and more openly embrace its nationalist-settler facets. And yet this chapter, too, is “historical,” in the sense that the positions and patterns of settlement it describes have been typical to the project of settling Israel from the very outset. The juxtaposition of chapters 2 and 3 is, accordingly, not a claim that West Bank settlers (the protagonists of part III) inhabit this violent position whereas liberal Zionists within the 1948 borders (the protagonists of part II) do not. My point is precisely that in the historical trajectories this book marks, both positions come to inhabit violence in non-( or less) conflictual ways, albeit differently.
(see original article for bibliography) =================================================
Fifty years of occupation and seventy years from partition, which led to the Nakba and establishment of Israel. Israel is a man in the seventies. He spent the last fifty years of his life as an occupier. Is the occupation merely an incident, a transient illness, in his life? Is it a constituent part of its being and nature? Is the occupation an illness, which Israel has to recover from? Is it evidence for its health, strength and agility? The more the years pass, the twenty year interval between the Nakba and Naksa appears as a truce that is not quiet. This time marked the massacres of Kafr Qasem and Qubeiba, murder of infiltrators who returned to their homeland, and 1956 war. Overtime, this truce looks like a marginal detail in a project that is more than 120 years old. For example, who recalls that California was not part of the United States when it was established and that it was occupied almost a century later?
With the end of the last chapter and conclusion of the settlement enterprise in America, all details seem to be secondary vis-à-vis the grand narrative.
Looking at the occupation in its broader context allows us to understand its current process. This occupation is no longer belligerent, ideological or temporary. It is no longer belligerent because those who construct highways, railways and universities, and transport half a million settlers, have nothing to do with the army or security apparatus. It is no longer ideological because the forces which take part in and embrace settlement and control over land and resources are not a Messianic, religious right wing any more. These are parties of the political centre, economy sharks who are avid for cheap land, and poor groups who enjoy better living conditions, tax exemptions and spacious houses. When these two factors meet, the result is that Israel no longer deals with it [the occupation] as if it were temporary.
All this tempts us to say that the Green Line has been erased and become as brown as the land. However, the colour of the line is not painted by Israel alone. If the last chapter in America’s narrative was written, the last chapter in Palestine’s narrative has not. Extreme caution should be taken to understand politics as the inevitable consequence of historical analysis and requirements of logic. There is a political logic in the thought of those who insist on thickening and demarcating the Green Line in tandem with international and UN Security Council resolutions. Nevertheless, time is not on their side.
Nothing justifies that Palestinians accept this threshold as long as Israel does not admit that the Green Line to be its border. Reciprocity requires that the Green Line be either a border for both parties or not be a border at all. The Green Line today is a Green Line for Palestinians solely. In the eyes of Israel and its settlers, it does not exist. Let this reciprocity be an idea that might inform the Palestinian strategy.
The Sciences of Academia is a joint project of all three research groups at the Minerva center. It emerged from the ongoing work of the Minerva center, including both its research activities, as well as the public-intellectual involvement and commitment of the center as a whole, and of senior and junior scholars within it. This project aims to open new ways for reflecting on the various aspects of- and transformations in the status of the academia, knowledge and scholarship in this era. We try to consider these issues through at least three interfaces: first, the institutional relationship between the university and the state, in its historical, philosophical, and legal contexts. Second, the socio-economic relations between the academia, the market, and civil society. Third, the relationship between knowledge and different facets of the political: a critical inquiry into the political dimensions of knowledge. We focus on the Israeli case while placing it within both the global context of our time and a wide historical context. We aim to examine the material, institutional, ideological and political conditions of knowledge production, looking into matters such as: issues of public funding alongside the privatization and commercialization of public universities; modes of employment and of obtaining funding for research; the institutional relations between universities and governments; the making and breaking of disciplinary boundaries; the processes of selecting and establishing fields of research and methodologies. Apart from conferences and workshops, we have formed an ongoing research and writing group, Sciences of the Academia, in collaboration with the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Tel Aviv University. The group’s work is dedicated to both reading and research. In the 2014-2015 academic year the group is working towards the compilation of an edited volume of papers focusing on the civic, social, and political roles of the academia (particularly in the contemporary Israeli context, but introducing global and historical perspectives).
Project participants:
Dr. Hagar Kotef, Minerva hUmanities Center
Dr. Lin Chalozin-Dovrat, Minerva Humanities Center Prof. Shai Lavi, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Tel Aviv University Prof. Eyal Chowers, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Tel Aviv University Prof. Yossef Schwartz, the Cohn Institute, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Yofi Tirosh, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Tel Aviv University Dr. Anat Matar, The Philosophy Department, Tel Aviv University Prof. Isaac (Yanni) Nevo, Ben Gurion University, Department of Philosophy Prof. Menachem Mautner, Law Faculty, Tel Aviv University Prof. Oded Goldreich, The Weizmann Institute for Science Dr. Tamar Hager, Tel Chai Academic Center Naveh Frumer, Minerva Humanities Center Itay Snir, Minerva Humanities Center Dikla Bytner, Minerva Humanities Center
אנחנו חיים במערכות פוליטיות שמבקשות לשלוט בתנועה, ומאורגנות סביב התשוקה והיכולת לקבוע מי רשאי להיכנס לאילו מרחבים, מקהילות מגודרות עד מדינות לאום. הספר בוחן את התפקידים של ניידות ואי-ניידות בהיסטוריה של המחשבה הפוליטית, ובהיסטוריה של הבניית מרחבים פוליטיים.
תוכן העניינים: Chapter 1: Between Imaginary Lines: Violence and Its Justificationsat the Military Checkpoints in Occupied Palestine Hagar Kotef and Merav Amir
Chapter 2: An Interlude: A Tale of Two Roads — On Freedomand Movement
Chapter 3: The Fence That “Ill Deserves the Name of Confinement”:Locomotion and the Liberal Body
Chapter 4: The Problem of “Excessive” Movement
Chapter 5: The “Substance and Meaning of All Things Political”:On Other Bodies
Hagar Kotef, 43, found herself in an even more disturbing situation with regard to an Israeli university. Dr. Kotef, who was active in Machsom Watch and other left-wing movements, completed her doctoral studies in philosophy at Tel Aviv University and at the University of California, Berkeley. In 2012, she had an opportunity to come back to Israel as part of a plan to integrate returning academics. She was offered a teaching job in a prestigious program at one of the country’s universities.
On the evening before her contract was approved, a right-wing NGO launched a campaign against her employment by the university. As a result, the rector refused to sign the contract, and the university put forward new conditions for the appointment, notably a demand that she sign a commitment relating to her political activity: Kotef was required to undertake not to attend demonstrations, not to sign petitions and not to speak publicly – or in the classroom – about any subject not related to her academic research.
It was the summer of 2014. When Operation Protective Edge broke out, in the Gaza Strip, Kotef signed an internet petition calling for Israel to negotiate with Hamas. Minutes later, she received a phone call from the university informing her that her employment was terminated. Kotef took the case to the Labor Court and was reinstated. “I started to work, but my job contract never arrived.”
Kotef and her partner, a physicist and brain scientist, started to look for jobs in England. “It was clear that staying there [at the university] wasn’t an option, and also that I wouldn’t find a job anywhere else in Israel,” she says.
Kotef later found employment as a senior lecturer in politics and political theory in the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. After teaching a semester there, she and her family left Israel permanently: “The combination of what happened in the university, the war, the violence in the streets, the fear to speak out, the racism and the hatred simply broke me.”
Open gallery view A 2014 protest in Tel Aviv against the war in Gaza. The signs say “A demonstration of hope” and “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies.”Credit: Tomer Appelbaum
Even today, six years later, Kotef is still clearly shaken by the memories of that period. “Exile is too highly charged a concept: I don’t categorize myself as a political exile, because all in all we left for a good job and a good place. But at the same time, we did not leave by choice and it wasn’t a relocation.” Kotef admits frankly that she did not find a way to continue her political activity in London.
“I’m not capable of being an activist [regarding Israel or other issues] here,” she adds. “A few years ago, my partner scolded me for going to a demonstration: ‘We’ve already been expelled from one country because of you, we don’t want to be expelled from another.’”
Do you feel guilty about leaving?
Kotef: “No. I lost hope that it’s possible to change things from within, so I don’t feel I could be doing something if I were [in Israel]. If anything, I feel guilty toward my family, toward my parents, who were separated from their granddaughters, and toward my daughters, whom I moved to this place. Sometimes I look and say it’s lucky we’re not in Israel; and sometimes there is a feeling of loss. London is a cosmopolitan city, but there is still a hatred of minorities here, which Brexit exposed intensely, and we will always be strangers here.
“But I prefer to live and raise children in a place where my foreignness sometimes generates antagonism, rather than in a place where I am part of the side that is racist toward the other. There are moments when I ask myself what we have done, but I don’t feel that it was really our choice.”
IAM often reports on political activism disguised as academics. Recently, a Hebrew University research project raised some eyebrows. The 2021 Index for Shared Society Progress in Youth (ISSPY) was conducted by the aChord Center of the Hebrew University, specializing in the social psychology of intergroup relations. The index is based on a survey taken between May to July of 2020 among 1,091 teenage boys and girls aged 16 to 18 from secular-Jewish, religious-Jewish, Haredi, and Arab backgrounds.
The results were published in the media spreading hatred. Titled “Survey: The ultra-Orthodox youth hate Arabs, the religious youth want to deprive them of rights.” The reporter explained that “A comprehensive study conducted at the Hebrew University shows that many teenagers in Israel hold negative stereotypes towards other groups.” The researchers in the study said that “The Ministry of Education must stop ignoring.” The article continues, “About half of the religious youth support the denial of the right to vote from Arabs, the levels of hatred among Haredim towards Arabs are the highest recorded among the various social groups, about half of the Arab youth hold negative stereotypes towards Haredim, while secular ones report low empathy towards all the groups, pointing to internal isolation. This emerges from a large-scale study conducted at the Hebrew University and clearly outlines the ‘map of hatred’ in Israel. There are important differences and nuances in the expressions of fear, disgust or disregard of the members of the various groups towards each other, but no one escapes them.”
Arab media such as Middle East Monitor, an outlet that publishes hatred of Israel, has published the article “Poll: Most young Israelis hate Palestinian citizens of Israel.” It announced that “A poll by the Hebrew University’s aChord Centre revealed nearly half of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox and nationalist religious young people support stripping Palestinians of their Israeli citizenship.” Similarly, Middle East Eye, another anti-Israel Arab outlet, published a report, “Israeli press review: Report finds widespread racism among Israel’s youth.” For the same purpose of spreading hatred against Jews, The Muslim Times republished this article.
Two persons are behind the aChord Center. One is Prof. Eran Halperin, a political psychologist at the Hebrew University, the other is Ron Gerlitz, a New Israel Fund associate, formerly co-general director of the NGO Sikkuy. Halperin is a former student of Daniel Bar-Tal, who was hired to teach early childhood development at Tel Aviv University, only to remake himself into an expert on Israeli-Palestinian conflict to suit his political activism. One of Bar-Tal’s inventions was the so-called “Masada Complex,” a form of collective trauma that allegedly prevented the Israelis from concluding the Oslo peace process. Quite conveniently, Bar-Tal did not mention the suicide attacks on Israeli citizens undertaken by Hamas and Islamic jihad on behalf of the Islamist regime in Iran desperate to scuttle the budding peace venture. Halperin’s Ph.D. thesis in 2007 titled “Psychology of Intergroup Hatred in Political Systems” was co-supervised by Bar-Tal. Like his supervisor, Halpern’s had exclusively blamed the Jews for the alleged hatred.
In an interview with the Israeli press, Halperin stated, “we [in Jewish society] can’t build a partnership with Arab society by trying to prevent them from commemorating the Nakba or talking about their Palestinian identity.”
In an article discussing “A conflict within a conflict: intragroup ideological polarization and intergroup intractable conflict,” by Tal Orian Harel, Ifat Maoz, and Eran Halperin, the authors claimed that “Studies conducted in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have found that Jewish-Israeli right-wing political ideology is associated with less recognition of the adversary’s pain and suffering and less openness to its narrative.” This assumption was based on a 2017 article co-authored by Ifat Maoz, another political activist, titled “Predicting Jewish-Israeli recognition of Palestinian pain and suffering.”
The authors even egregiously claim that the murder of Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was “an act which is considered as one of the main reasons for the failure of the peace process.” Like Bar-Tal, Halperin and his co-authors ignored the jihadist bloodletting that left hundreds of Israelis dead and wounded. Of course, Halperin did not mention that Arafat rejected a generous offer to settle the conflict by Prime Minister Ehud Barak during the Oslo II summit.
aChord styles itself as an NGO, but it does not appear on the Ministry of Justice website of Non-Governmental Organizations and Companies for Public Benefit. Likewise, the New Israel Fund no longer appears there as an NGO since 1997.
In a job opening published last year, aChord describes itself as “Social Psychology for Social Change,” part of the Magid Institute at the Hebrew University. Their description is quite telling: “aChord is a social-academic organization that seeks to promote equal, tolerant, and respectful intergroup relations within the Israeli society and between Israel and its neighbors by using cutting-edge research from the social sciences. The current project aggregates insights on successful peace processes to create an empirically based model that will advance Israeli-Palestinian Peace.” It is seeking a candidate that “Identifies with aChord’s values.”
Another aChord’s research provides a glimpse into the political activities that it promotes. “The Majority of the Public Opposes the Unilateral Annexation,” they wrote, declaring that “A new comprehensive study regarding the annexation reveals important findings about the way the plan is perceived by the public.”
The Hebrew University should not allow publishing propaganda pieces camouflaged as legitimate research in its name. The purpose of conducting such “hate research” is clear, to tarnish Israeli society. Needless to say, a negative depiction of the Israeli society, especially by academics, is a moneymaker, drawing support from a multitude of foundations and organizations engaged in extensive efforts to prove that Israel is a racist, apartheid state.
Hebrew University cannot afford to lose its prestige, even when outside sources fund this endeavor.
Poll: Most young Israelis hate Palestinian citizens of Israel
A poll by the Hebrew University’s aChord Centre revealed nearly half of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox and nationalist religious young people support stripping Palestinians of their Israeli citizenshipFebruary 22, 2021 at 3:19 pm
A poll by the Hebrew University’s aChord Centre reveals that nearly half of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox and nationalist religious young people have expressed hatred towards Palestinians and support stripping them of their Israeli citizenship, Haaretz has reported. Around 1,100 respondents aged 16 to 18 took part in the poll.
New study reveals a dangerous & unchecked growth in racism, right-wing views and xenophobic hatred among israeli teenagers #BDS
Israeli human rights group B’Tselem took to social media to illustrate how this sort of statistic translates into attacks on the Palestinians by illegal settlers.
Wafa news agency, meanwhile, has reported that a Palestinian woman died of a heart attack last Wednesday when Israeli settlers broke into her home in the occupied West Bank.
According to the settlement watchdog Peace Now, there are 132 settlements and 113 settlement outposts in the occupied territory. All of Israel’s settlements are illegal under international law. The outposts are even illegal under Israeli law.
Peace Now also points out that more than 413,000 settlers now live in the illegal settlements. Moving citizens into territory occupied by war is a war crime under international law.=============================================
Israeli press review: Report finds widespread racism among Israel’s youth
Meanwhile, Netanyahu polling well but election stalemate still predicted, and Palestinian filmmaker excluded from Labor listBy MEE staffPublished date: 19 February 2021 16:43 UTC | Last update: 3 days 16 hours ago
Racial hatred among Israel’s youth
A comprehensive study conducted at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem revealed widespread racism and belief in stereotypes among a majority of teenagers from various backgrounds in Israel.
The study, which was conducted by the university’s aChord Center, aimed to draw a “map of hatred” in Israel, according to Haaretz, and reached 1,100 youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 – including Palestinian citizens of Israel, secular, religious and ultra-Orthodox Jewish Israelis – between May and July 2020.
The study showed that 66 percent of the ultra-Orthodox, 42 percent of religious Israelis, and 24 percent of secularists “hate Arabs”, meaning the Palestinian community that makes up 20 percent of the Israeli population and who participate in the Knesset and government institutions.
The study said that 49 percent of religious Israelis and 23 pecent of secular citizens supported stripping the right to vote from Palestinians inside Israel. Twelve percent of Palestinian citizens of Israel said they hated Israeli secularists, and 22 percent said they hated religious and ultra-Orthodox Israelis.
Nine percent of the Palestinians approached by the study said they support stripping the right to vote from Israeli secularists, 13 percent supported taking the vote from religious Israelis, and 19 percent agreed to do the same for the ultra-Orthodox community.
Among Israelis, the levels of hatred varied according to the study. Seven percent of Israeli secularists said they believed religious Israelis should not vote in the elections, and 12 percent said the Ultra-Orthodox communty’s right to vote should be denied.
Also, 23 percent of Israeli secularists said they hated the ultra-Orthodox community, and eight percent expressed dislike of religious Israelis. Eight percent of the latter, however, said they hated Israeli secularists, and ten percent said they dislikeed ultra-Orthodox Israelis.
The study concluded that young Israelis expressed severe negative feelings and preconceptions and almost no desire to get to know other groups in the society considered marginal to them.
aChord Center, which deals with social psychological issues to drive change in society, said the goal of the study was to open a discussion about hatred and bridge the gaps between communities and sects in the country through the educational system.
It called for immediate measure to be taken to counter “the absence of tolerance, the hatred and the rejection of the youths who differ from them.”===============================================================================
Intergroup hatred between Arab, religious-Jewish and haredi (ultra-Orthodox) youth is high, with nearly half of religious-Jewish youth supporting denying Arabs the right to vote, according to the 2021 Index for Shared Society Progress in Youth (ISSPY) published by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s aChord Center last week. The index is based on a survey conducted from May to July of 2020 among 1,091 teenage boys and girls between the ages of 16 and 18 in Israel’s four education streams: secular-Jewish, religious-Jewish, haredi and Arab. The aChord Center specializes in social psychology of intergroup relations. The report examines perceptions, feelings, attitudes and behaviors of teenagers in the context of intergroup partnership and the effects of the coronavirus outbreak on relations between the four groups.The survey found that two-thirds (66%) of haredi youth expressed hatred against Arabs, as did 42% of religious-Jewish youth. A quarter (24%) of secular Jewish youth expressed hatred against Arabs and a similar number (23%) expressed hatred against haredim. Among Arab youth, 22% expressed hatred against haredim, 22% expressed hatred against religious Jews and 12% expressed hatred against secular Jews.The survey also found that many youth among the religious-Jewish (about 41%) and haredi sector (about 58%) hold stereotypical and negative views of Arabs, while half of Arab youth (50.5%) hold stereotypical and severely negative views of haredim. More than a third (35%) of secular youth expressed negative views of haredim.The center expressed concern over findings that a relatively high percentage (49%) of religious-Jewish youth expressed support for denying Arabs the right to vote. The report additionally found that the less aware religious-Jewish youth were of anti-Arab discrimination, the more they supported denying Arabs the right to vote. “It is possible that these phenomena reinforce each other – those who are unaware of discrimination against the Arab minority even support its extremism,” wrote the researchers in the report. RELIGIOUS-JEWISH and haredi youth also expressed less support for minority rights compared to other groups in the survey. The study also found that, amid the coronavirus outbreak, youth from all groups in Israeli society believed both that resources should not be equally allocated between the groups and that groups more heavily affected by the outbreak should not receive more assistance.These two youth groups supported allocating resources to the Arab sector considerably less than they supported allocating resources to Jewish groups, according to the report.”It seems that the boys and girls of all groups are less supportive of providing assistance to groups that they perceive as the most threatening, perhaps as a kind of means of punishment,” wrote the researchers in the ISSPY.The study additionally found that religious-Jewish and haredi youth showed low willingness to be close with or improve relations with Arabs. The researchers described the desire and readiness of haredi youth to meet or interact with Arabs as “almost non-existent.” While Arab youth expressed a higher level of readiness for closeness with Jewish groups than the Jewish groups expressed towards them, their desire for closeness with religious Jews and haredim was still very low.Despite the relatively severe findings of the survey, the study did find some signs of improvement compared to prior years. Compared to previous years, Secular and religious Jews and Arabs expressed a higher level of readiness for closeness between the groups, and fewer secular and religious Jews and Arabs expressed negative and stereotypical views of other groups.The most impressive declines in reports of negative and stereotypical views of other groups was reported among Arab youth, especially concerning their views of religious Jews, according to the study. THE ACHORD center stressed in a press release that the study’s findings paint “a particularly difficult picture regarding the relationship between the minority groups in Israel, the difficult relationship that develops between them from such a young age, and the chance that schools can influence and change the situation.””The particularly worrying data in the situation that emerges from the report include stereotypical perceptions and difficult feelings such as hatred towards some of the groups in Israeli society, little desire to maintain ties with these groups and support for discriminatory treatment towards them to the point of supporting their denial of basic rights,” the researchers said.T”These findings are a wake-up call and a call to action for the Israeli education system, which is responsible for building the future of Israeli society,” they said. “The serious findings that emerge from the report are intended to stimulate action for all those involved in education – from educators and school principals to the education departments in local authorities and the Education Ministry – and to motivate them to work intensively to promote education for partnership to which every student in the State of Israel will be exposed.”As a possible explanation for the tense relations between Arab and haredi youth, the researchers wrote that, “according to the research literature in the field of social psychology, isolated groups often work against other isolated groups to promote themselves and protect their image on their own.”The researchers also pointed to the fact that a “certain trend of improvement” was noticed in intergroup relations between youth in Israel, stating that “it seems that the issue needs to be further explored in order to understand in depth the various factors that promote these positive trends. The education system and all those involved in the craft have a duty to continue to work so that these positive processes will continue in the coming years.”The report presented a number of recommendations for teachers, administrators and anyone interested in promoting education for partnership in Israel, including promoting positive perceptions and feelings even towards the most remote social groups and encouraging partnership education, especially among those for whom engaging in the subject of partnership arouses greater opposition.The researchers also called on the education system to implement a number of operations immediately, including appointing coordinators in each school to promote partnership education, building a regulated curriculum for partnership education, adjusting curricula in all subject to promote partnership and training for teachers.”The emotional support provided by the school has positive implications not only for the student’s personal well-being but also for the quality of interaction between groups at this time,” wrote the researchers. THE ISRAEL National Council for the Child called the findings of the study “worrying.””It is important to remember that children and youth are not disconnected from the society in which they live, and they are nourished by what adults around them think,” said the council. “The Education Ministry has an important role to play in promoting tolerance and partnership, and in promoting the right to mutual respect and equality, but the challenge lies not only in its development but also in the development of adult society in general, including policymakers and shapers of public opinion.”Imam Iyad Amer, principal of the Kfar Qassem Comprehensive School, was quoted by the report as stating that “the findings of the report teach us that without partnership education, it is impossible to survive – neither as a Jewish society nor as an Arab one.”The school has been working for about four years with the aChord center and succeeded in creating noticeable improvements in intergroup attitudes among students and faculty.Rabbi Pinchas, principal of the Zivia Lod School, was quoted as stating that “the report teaches us that every stream of education has different characteristics, and this should be addressed when building a curriculum for partnership education. Areas that are groundbreaking require a lot of guidance, and the field of partnership education is a groundbreaking topic today, which is not sufficiently engaged in.”This is the first year that the report is being published for the general public. In the past, it was presented to the president of Israel as part of the Israeli Hope in Education project of the President’s Office, the Education Ministry and the Lautman Forum.The full ISSPY report will be published on Tuesday during a conference with President Reuven Rivlin at 10 a.m.
Nearly Half of Israeli Arab Academics Avoid Applying for Jobs at
Predominantly Jewish Companies, Research Shows
According to the study, conducted by The Hebrew University’s aChord Center, Arab candidates are afraid of encountering
racism or failing to get the job for non-professional reasons as well as of the way working for a Jewish company may be perceived
by their own community
Maayan Manela1
27.01.20
While the Israeli tech sector is slowly upping its efforts to diversify its workforce to fight an ongoing talent crunch, a new study shows members of Israel’s Arab minority tend
to avoid predominantly Jewish companies altogether.
According to the study, conducted by The Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s aChord Center, which specializes in the social psychology of intergroup relations, 45% of Arab
academics do not apply to Jewish companies, mostly for fear of encountering racism or failing to get the job for non-professional reasons. Of the 400 Arab academics questioned,
65% also said they feel their own community would have trouble accepting them working for such a company.
AChord’s research attempted to examine the psychological obstacles—on top of objective obstacles, such as place of residence or infrastructure, and cultural obstacles, such as
worrying that a predominantly Jewish workplace will not provide a good working environment—that are preventing Arabs from applying to jobs, Oranit Ramati Dvir, director
of the employment program at aChord, told Calcalist in an interview.
“If you do not feel like you have a chance to get the job, if you think you would not be happy with the corporate culture or that the people around you would frown upon your
choice to work at a company with a Jewish majority, then you are much less likely to apply,” Sama Safouri, employment project leader at aChord, said.
What the research shows is that the challenge of reaching Arab candidates is not just a technicality, but the result of an acute trust crisis between the Arab minority and the Israeli
industry that has pushed it aside for decades, Nawa Jashan Batshon, CEO of Co-Impact, an organization dedicated to promoting Arab employment in Israel, said in an interview.
“aChord Center is a unique capacity building organization that strives to improve the efficacy of activity for shared society in Israel”
Meet the Team
aChord Center aChord Center was established in response to the field’s need for practical knowledge and innovative tools to best deal with psychological
barriers in intergroup relations. Home to a diverse group of researchers and professionals, the Center has a unique ability to connect the latest
research with real world needs and activities. The Center offers training, consulting and research services, develops practical and tailor-made
tools, and examines their effectiveness, all based on broad and developing knowledge in social psychology from Israel and abroad.
aChord Center is a non-profit organization that specializes in the social psychology of intergroup relations. The center’s unique added value is in developing innovative, evidence based, practical knowledge and tools to improve intergroup relations, by utilizing cutting-edge social psychological theory and data.
The Center was established in 2015 by Professor Eran Halperin, a full professor of psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, together with his colleagues, Prof. Tamar Saguy and Dr. Michal Reifen-Tager. Eran is a recognized and highly acclaimed expert in his field worldwide, having published over 130 academic papers and three books. A frequent lecturer at universities, such as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton, Eran won the award as the most promising young political psychologist in the world from the International Society of Political Psychology in 2012.
Eran built the center out of concern for the disconnect between research based knowledge on intergroup relations and the actual work being done in the field. The high levels of tension, prejudice, and negative emotions between groups are the most pressing social issues in Israel today. Bound up in these issues are numerous subtle and deep-seated psychological factors that underlie and influence intergroup relations. Yet currently, the numerus organizations and programs that aspire to enhance social cohesion within Israeli society lack socio-psychological knowledge and tools that can significantly increase the effectiveness of their work. It is this gap that the center aims to fill.
aChord’s services are varied, and tailored to specific challenges and fields. To date, the Center conducts research, develops training sessions, offers intensive workshops, designs tools, and consults numerous organizations; helping them address psychological barriers in their work with social groups. The center works in collaboration with the PICR research lab. Home to more than 30 researchers from Israel and abroad, it is one of the leading research labs in the world in the development of effective socio-psychological interventions.
We aim to promote tolerant and equal intergroup relations by developing practical knowledge and innovative tools from cutting-edge research in social psychology.
The center operates in the area that lies between academia and the field. It aims to bridge the gap between current research on the psychology of intergroup relations and civil society organizations, government agencies, and other programs that promote shared society in the fields of education, employment, leadership, the media, etc. Today, there is research-based knowledge, developed in Israel and abroad that enables the dismantling of psychological barriers and the advancement of perceptions, emotions, and behaviors that are more conducive to equal and respectful intergroup relations.
To date, this knowledge has only been used by the field to a limited extent.
We believe that by addressing people’s actual psychological needs, the impact of the work done today can be dramatically increased.
Three basic assumptions guide us:
Group identity and belonging are of immense importance to people’s welfare, and therefore effective social partnership will give respect to distinct identities. Respectful, tolerant, and equal relationships among groups are possible and necessary for a shared society. Any significant social change in this area must include psychological change, that is, a change in people’s perceptions, attitudes, and feelings. We believe that social psychologists and researchers have a professional obligation to make the existing scientific knowledge available to the field and, with the field, to develop practical and creative ways to apply it, enabling agents of social change to base their work on data and research-based tools.
In a polarized reality, with many conflicts and deep-rooted rifts, we believe that our mission is not only necessary, but also urgent: to reduce manifestations of hostility, violence, and racism; to empower the forces working to eradicate these phenomena; and to promote respect, tolerance and mutual responsibility, sensitivity to inequality, and support for narrowing social gaps. In this spirit and in partnership with social leaders, organizations, individuals and policy makers, the center will act creatively and consistently as an auxiliary force and a model of supportive and groundbreaking cooperation.
aChord – Social Psychology for Social Change • 2nd floor, Hutzot Shefayim 6099000 Israel • +972-9-373-0300 • Website: aChord.huji.ac.il Job opening at aChord Center – Research Associate aChord Center, a part of Magid Institute at the Hebrew University, is seeking a research associate for conducting a multidisciplinary study on international peace. The position is for five months, with a tentative possibility of extension, and is between half-time and full-time. aChord is a social-academic organization that seeks to promote equal, tolerant, and respectful intergroup relations within the Israeli society and between Israel and its neighbors by using cutting-edge research from the social sciences. The current project aggregates insights on successful peace processes to create an empirically based model that will advance Israeli-Palestinian Peace. The research associate will be a part of a small and dedicated team of researchers. Main Responsibilities: – Conducting a systematic review of scholarly resources (journal articles, book chapters, and books) about peace processes and agreements. The work includes coding approximately 1,000 resources based on pre-defined criteria. – Writing and presenting chapters of the report about the aggregated insights from the review. Qualifications: – Interest in cross-disciplinary research on international peace and conflict. – Ability and motivation to read and code a large volume of academic publications on peace and conflict. – High proficiency in English is a prerequisite (all research resources and communications are in English). – Master’s degree in the social sciences. Research-oriented MA students are also eligible. Skills: – Ability to work independently. – Diligent and meticulous – Ability to work under tight schedules. – Identifies with aChord’s values Scope: – Between 50% and full-time position, to be determined by aChord and the applicant. – Duration: Five months, with a tentative possibility of extension. – Immediate recruitment. – Location: Hotzut Shefayim, Sharon District. The employee will be expected to work from our offices at least once a week. Otherwise, the work can be done remotely. Interested? Please send your CV and a short statement in English about your motivation and qualifications for this position to cvachord@gmail.com. In the statement, detail your availability for the next five months and your preference for the scope of the position (between 50% and full time). Please mention “application for research associate” in the subject of the email.
The Tel Aviv University Dan David Prize annually awards three prizes to “globally inspiring individuals and organizations,” the sum of one million dollars each. According to the prize page, the prize honors “outstanding contributions that expand knowledge of the past, enrich society in the present, and promise to improve the future of our world.” The laureates were announced live in an online event on February 15, 2021, and the Prize Award Ceremony will be held in an online event in May 2021.
This year’s fields are History of Health and Medicine (Past category), Public Health (Present category), and Molecular Medicine (Future category).
In the History of Health and Medicine (Past Category), the award is given to Prof. Alison Bashford of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, among two others. She is a “world-leader and an agenda-setter in the history of health and medicine.” Bashford’s books constitute a major resource for understanding the current global pandemic, as an early analyst of the relationship between public health, disease control, and race, who galvanized historians of health and medicine worldwide around the question of quarantine and medico-legal border control. She researched the biosecurity threats of SARS, anthrax, and avian influenza that amplified political insecurity in the early 2000s.
The TAU Dan David Prize encourages scholars to excel in researching and solving global crises.
However, a Palestinian BDS group is seeking to sabotage the Prize.
BDS Australia, a BDS group that calls to boycott Israel to support Palestinians rights, has recently urged Prof. Bashford to “support Palestinians in their struggle against apartheid and brutal repression by rejecting the Dan David Prize.” According to the BDS group, “Israel is currently obstructing Covid vaccines’ delivery to Palestinians.” They also claim that “its illegal military occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip, which Tel Aviv University facilitates, have systematically attacked Palestinians’ public health for decades.”
BDS Australia claims that “Palestinians are calling on people of good will to boycott organizations that profit from, contribute to, or normalize Israel’s repression of them. Academics from all over the world have met the call with strong support.”
The BDS movement has scored one success. In 2018, Prof. Catherine Hall of University College London declined the Dan David Prize. Hall said: “I have withdrawn from the prize – this was an independent political choice, undertaken after many discussions with those who are deeply involved with the politics of Israel-Palestine, but with differing views as to how best to act.” Instead, the award was distributed as grants for students at Tel Aviv University and across the globe. Ariel David from the foundation’s administrative board said: “This will give Israelis of all backgrounds, whether Jewish or Arab, as well as international scholars, the opportunity to meet at this beautiful campus and engage in academic discussion, research and discovery.”
BDS Australia told Bashford that:
-the Dan David prize obscures the severe rolling health crisis in the occupied territories, and ignores the fact that Israel robs countless Palestinians of their right to health, well-being and ordinary prospects of flourishing.”
-“accepting the prize contributes to misleading the public about Israel’s violence and racism towards Palestinians, and legitimizes institutions at the center of Israel’s apartheid policies.”
-Israel’s “complicity with the stockpiling of the bodies of dead Palestinians, Tel Aviv University, the prize administrator, directly facilitates the violence of Israel’s apartheid policies.”
-“Millions of Palestinians are subjected to Israel’s slow ethnic-cleansing regime, which dispossesses, arbitrarily imprisons, maims and kills them in large numbers.”
-“we ask you to refuse to be one for Israel’s apartheid and brutal military occupation and blockade of Palestinians.”
-“You surely would not have been an apologist for South Africa’s apartheid.”
Like other branches of the BDS movement, BDS Australia has consistently and often maliciously misrepresented the complex realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by blaming the Israeli side exclusively. Such a one-sided view allows the BDS advocates to whitewash the Palestinian leadership role in creating a situation in which the Palestinians cannot thrive. The history is full of examples. In 2000, Yasser Arafat, influenced by Iran and its Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad proxies, refused Israel’s generous offer to settle the conflict. Even so, the international community had spent untold millions of dollars to help the Palestinians, by far the most generous donation per capita to any population. Hamas, which evicted the PLO from Gaza in 2006, has chosen to spend this largess on Kassam rockets, weapons, ammunition, and tunnels against Israel. The group has run a brutal dictatorship in which dissent is not tolerated. The PLO leadership in charge of the West Bank is inept and highly corrupt, a recipe for robbing its people of the opportunity to thrive.
Dan David Prize 2021 Laureates in Health and Medicine Announced
Dr. Anthony Fauci among winners in fields of infectious disease, history of medicine, and anti-cancer immunotherapy15 February 2021
This year’s Dan David Prize laureates are Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr. Anthony Fauci; health and medicine historians Prof. Alison Bashford, Prof. Katharine Park, and Prof. Keith Wailoo; and the pioneers of an anti-cancer immunotherapy Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Prof. Carl June, and Dr. Steven Rosenberg.
The laureates were announced live in an online event on February 15, 2021.
The internationally renowned Dan David Prize, headquartered at Tel Aviv University, annually awards three prizes of US $1 million each to globally inspiring individuals and organizations. The Prize honors outstanding contributions that expand knowledge of the past, enrich society in the present, and promise to improve the future of our world. The total purse of US $3 million makes this prestigious prize also one of the highest-valued awards internationally. This year’s fields are: History of Health and Medicine (Past category), Public Health (Present category), and Molecular Medicine (Future category).
The Laureates
History of Health and Medicine (Past Category)
A world-leader and an agenda-setter in the history of health and medicine, Prof. Alison Bashford’s wide-ranging work is unusually expansive across geographies, topics, and periods, and demonstrates the global interconnectedness of medicine and public health in the modern world. As one of the earliest analysts of the relationship between public health, disease control, and race, she galvanized historians of health and medicine worldwide around the question of quarantine and medico-legal border control. When the biosecurity threats of SARS, anthrax, and avian influenza amplified political insecurity in the early 2000s, she quickly convened scholars from diverse fields, curating and editing three books that have expanded our understanding of that complex global moment. One of them constitutes a major resource for understanding the current global pandemic. She currently serves as the Laureate Professor of History, UNSW Sydney, Australia.
Prof. Katharine Park is a professor emerita of the History of Science at Harvard University, and a pioneering scholar of medieval and early modern science and medicine. Her early scholarship focused on the medical profession in Renaissance Florence; applying an innovative approach, she surveyed “the entire world of medical practice” in the wake of the first plague epidemic in 1348. Her research re-orients what we thought we knew about medieval and Renaissance anatomy and places gender at the center of the analysis, demonstrating how this can provide radically new insights. Combining conceptual temerity, visionary analysis, and methodological innovation, her work has revitalized the field and is reshaping our understanding of gender, sexuality, and the [female] body in pre-modern societies.
Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University, Keith A. Wailoo’s research is shedding new light on hidden health experiences in the past, from pain management to the way cultural values shape ideas about cancer, or how sickle cell disease emerged from medical invisibility to become a focal point of debate in the U.S. over race, health equity, and social justice. He is redefining the social history of American medicine, by positioning the issue of race at its heart. By forcefully bringing a historical perspective into public commentary and policy discussions on topics ranging from the opioid crisis to the politics of vaccination and COVID-19, he is advancing a broad understanding of health and health equity.
Public Health (Present Category)
Dr. Anthony Fauci, M.D., is the consummate model of leadership and impact in public health. As the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the U.S. National Institutes of Health since 1984, he oversees an extensive research portfolio focused on infectious and immune-mediated diseases. He is widely respected throughout the world for his efforts to develop novel diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines against COVID-19. As the COVID-19 pandemic unraveled, he leveraged his considerable communication skills to address people gripped by fear and anxiety and worked relentlessly to inform individuals in the United States and elsewhere about the public health measures essential for containing the pandemic’s spread. In addition, he has been widely praised for his courage in speaking truth to power in a highly charged political environment. Dr. Fauci has also made many seminal contributions in basic and clinical research and is one of the world’s most-cited biomedical scientists. He was one of the principal architects of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which has saved millions of lives throughout the developing world.
Molecular Medicine (Future Category)
Prof. Zelig Eshhar is an immunologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science and the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, known for his pioneering work on T cells and chimeric antigen receptors (CAR) cancer immunotherapy. By combining antibodies with T-cell through genetic engineering, he created “killer” T cells, which have improved cancer recognition skills. His team was the first to employ the CAR -T cells to specifically fight cancer. He also worked to create unique antibodies for allergies. As an expert in monoclonal antibodies, Prof. Eshhar was invited to teach in developing countries and to advise many biotech companies. In a visit to another Dan David Prize laureate, Prof. Steven Rosenberg, Eshhar set the groundwork for the clinical application of his technology.
Prof. Carl June is a physician scientist and the Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy in the department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at Penn’s Abramson Cancer Center. June and his lab discovered several basic scientific principles of how the cells in the immune system work to fight cancer and infections in the 1980s and 1990s. His lab would go on to conduct the first clinical evaluation of gene-modified T cells, initially in people with HIV/AIDS and then in patients with advanced leukemia beginning using CAR T cell therapy, the approach that retrains a patient’s own immune cells to attack cancer. The cellular therapy was awarded “Breakthrough Therapy” status by the FDA for acute leukemia in children and adults in 2014 and was approved as the first personalized cellular therapy for cancer, Kymriah, in 2017. It is now in use for the treatment of pediatric and adult blood cancer patients.
Dr. Steven Rosenberg is Chief of the Surgery Branch at the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland and a Professor of Surgery at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences and the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences. He pioneered the development of gene therapy and was the first to successfully insert foreign genes into humans. He was also the first to demonstrate the effectiveness of genetically engineered CAR-T cells to mediate the regression of B-cell malignancies in humans, a treatment now approved by the FDA for widespread use. In recent work Dr. Rosenberg established new approaches for the application of immunotherapy to patients with a variety of common solid cancers by targeting the unique mutations present in the patient’s cancer. His recent studies of the adoptive transfer of genetically modified lymphocytes have resulted in the regression of metastatic cancer in patients with various types of tumors.
About the Dan David Prize
The Dan David Prize was established by the late Dan David, an international businessman and philanthropist whose vision is the driving force behind the international Dan David Prize. His aim was to reward those who have made a lasting impact on society and to help young students and entrepreneurs become the scholars and leaders of the future.
Previous Dan David Prize laureates include cellist Yo-Yo Ma (2006); former US Vice President Al Gore (2008); novelist Margaret Atwood (2010); filmmakers Ethan and Joel Coen (2011); distinguished economist and recent Nobel Laureate, Esther Duflo (2013); and artificial intelligence researcher, neuroscientist, and entrepreneur Dr. Demis Hassabis (2020).
The laureates donate 10% of their award money to scholarships for graduate or post-graduate researchers in their respective fields.
Prof. Ariel Porat, President of Tel Aviv University and Chairperson of the Dan David Prize Board said:
“The coronavirus pandemic has presented humanity with new challenges. Therefore, this year, we decided to honor the fields at the forefront of the battle against the virus – health and medicine. International review committees selected this year’s laureates for their pioneering work and their exceptional contributions to humanity in these fields, in three time dimensions – past, present and future.”
Ariel David, director of the Dan David Foundation and son of the prize founder, said:
“During the past year, we sought to address the challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. We chose to do so while staying true to the broad and diverse approach that distinguishes the Prize, recognizing achievements in a wide variety of fields that deal with issues of health, medicine and epidemiology. Our laureates for this year have probed how humanity has dealt with sickness and pandemics throughout history; they have provided relief, guidance and leadership in dealing with current outbreaks – from AIDS to Ebola and the Novel Coronavirus – and they are at the forefront of discovering new treatments that give us hope for the future in the ongoing battle against cancer and other diseases. I feel fortunate that we have the opportunity to celebrate their achievements and to remind ourselves that it is only by marshaling all the resources of the human intellect that we can trace a path through the darkest of crises.”
The Prize’s unique model implements a ‘roving’ formula that rewards achievements in all fields of human endeavor, rather than in a fixed set of categories, and every year, a new theme is selected for each of the three time categories – past, present, and future.
The seven laureates will be honored at the 2021 Dan David Prize Award Ceremony, to be held in a special online event in May 2021.
BDS Australia calls on UNSW Laureate Professor Alison Bashford to support Palestinians in their struggle against apartheid and brutal repression by rejecting the Dan David Prize.
The 2021 prize, which is administered by Tel Aviv University, rewards contributions to the understanding of public health. Yet Israel is currently obstructing the delivery of Covid vaccines to Palestinians, and its illegal military occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip, which Tel Aviv University facilitates, have systematically attacked Palestinians’ public health for decades.
State-based efforts to bring about justice for Palestinians have comprehensively failed. In response, Palestinians are calling on people of good will to boycott organisations that profit from, contribute to, or normalize Israel’s repression of them. Academics from all over the world have met the call with strong support. As one example only, Prof. Catherine Hall of University College London declined to accept the same Dan David Prize in 2018 after extensive discussion about the politics of Israel-Palestine.
In suggesting that Israel is committed to advances in public health, the Dan David prize obscures the severe rolling health crisis in the occupied territories, and ignores the fact that Israel robs countless Palestinians of their right to health, well-being and ordinary prospects of flourishing. In its structural ties to Israel’s military and political architecture, including fee-waiversand scholarships for Israeli soldiers, and its complicity with the stockpiling of the bodies of dead Palestinians, Tel Aviv University, the prize administrator, directly facilitates the violence of Israel’s apartheid policies.
Millions of Palestinians are subjected to Israel’s slow ethnic-cleansing regime, which dispossesses, arbitrarily imprisons, maims and kills them in large numbers. To them, a high-profile prize from the heart of the Israeli political and academic establishment can only appear a cruel joke.
Professor Bashford, accepting the prize contributes to misleading the public about Israel’s violence and racism towards Palestinians, and legitimizes institutions at the centre of Israel’s apartheid policies. We therefore ask you to put into practice your declared commitments to public health and antiracism, and respect Palestinians’ call for solidarity by boycotting the Dan David prize. You surely would not have been an apologist for South Africa’s apartheid; we ask you to refuse to be one for Israel’s apartheid and brutal military occupation and blockade of Palestinians.
We are academics, researchers and students. We ask you to please reconsider accepting your share of the prestigious 2021 Dan David Prize,[1] the academic award administered by and headquartered at Tel Aviv University (TAU).[2] This year’s prize rewards scholars who have contributed to advances in and understanding of medicine and public health. In reality, however, accepting it serves to legitimize and normalize Israel’s colonial violence and apartheid.
As we are sure you are aware, for decades, through its military occupation, blockade and apartheid, Israel has been undermining Palestine’s health systems and systematically denying Palestinians medical care.[3] In a report from November last year, the director of the World Health Organisation noted that Israel’s ‘chronic occupation has profound implications for the sustainability of health-care provision by public authorities, in terms of both revenue raising and affordability.’[4] Palestinians are regularly blackmailed into collaboration with the Israeli Security Services in order to get the permits they need to leave the West Bank and Gaza for medical treatment.[5] Currently, while Israel has been hailed for vaccinating its population, it is refusing to immunize all Palestinians under its rule,[6] as is its responsibility,[7] and placing obstacles in the way of transfer of vaccines into Gaza and the West Bank, entry to which it fully controls – clear testament to the apartheid regime it maintains.[8]
Since 2005, Palestinian civil society organizations have been calling on supporters of justice and antiracism around the world to express solidarity with the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause by boycotting Israel, including its academic institutions. Accepting the prize would be a clear violation of this call, and an outright refusal of Palestinians’ aspirations for freedom. We ask you to respect the wishes of Palestinian people and not side with their oppressor.
TAU directly facilitates Israel’s ongoing illegal occupation of the West Bank and its illegal blockade of Gaza. It must be held accountable for supporting Israel’s repression of Palestinians. Examples of TAU’s complicity in Israel’s anti-Palestinianism are numerous:
– An affiliate of the university’s Sackler School of Medicine, the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute,[9] is currently stockpiling the bodies of scores of Palestinians for use as leverage in negotiations, refusing to release them to their families, a practice which contravenes international treaties and conventions.[10] – TAU hosts the Institute for National Security Studies, whose 2018 ‘Plan’ recommends completing the illegal separation wall, and ‘ongoing construction in settlement blocs’ – in other words, perpetuation of Israeli apartheid – and which declares in its current report that ‘it is necessary to prepare for the next war’.[11] – TAU’s Yuval Ne’eman Workshop for Science, Technology and Security cooperates closely with the Israeli Defence Force and other security services, and hosts work on, among other things, ‘missiles and guided weapons, homeland security, [and] force build-up policy’.[12] In 2008 the TAU President described himself as ‘awed by the magnitude and scientific creativity of the work being done behind the scenes at TAU that enhances the country’s civilian defense capabilities and military edge’.[13] – TAU’s Iby and Aladar Fleischman Faculty of Engineering runs an ‘entrepreneurship program’ with Elbit Systems,[14] a major Israeli arms manufacturer, whose weapons and technology are battle-tested on Palestinians.[15] – Since 2016, as at all Israeli universities, soldiers’ TAU tuition fees are paid after discharge from the army.[16] – In 2014, TAU offered a year’s free tuition to students who had participated in the murderous military attacks on Gaza.[17] – In 2012, TAU started collaboration with settlement organisations in archaeological digs in Palestinian East Jerusalem, in violation of international agreements.[18]
Professor Bashford, we call on you to follow the lead of your colleague and fellow historian Professor Catherine Hall, who in 2018 refused the Dan David Prize prize.[19] Doing so would make an important contribution to the cause of antiracism and opposition to apartheid in Israel in a context in which state-led resolution efforts have failed. It would also avoid a flagrant contradiction with your own published work, which aims to contribute to ‘the critical history of colonialism, nationalism and public health’, investigating, among other topics, ‘segregation as both hygienic – that is, as part of public health – and racial – as part of the systems and cultures of race management’.[20]
Israel’s racist policies against Palestinians, long criticised as instances of apartheid by Palestinians themselves, as well as by international legal and humanitarian authorities (including recently by the Israeli NGO B’Tselem) are an egregious example of racial segregation imposed on an entire population, with all the desperate consequences for Palestinians’ health and well-being that this implies.[21]
Professor Bashford, you have a significant opportunity to contribute to public understanding of the importance of antiracism and anti-apartheid. In 2003, you and a co-author noted that ‘even repressive regimes have been eroded through criticism generated by external human rights groups attempting to universalise democratic ideals’; as you pointed out, ‘it is difficult to imagine the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, for example, without the chorus of international calls to release high-profile political prisoners on Robben Island’.[22] Palestinians’ appeal for boycott is an attempt to mobilise a chorus of international calls of exactly this kind.
Nothing obliges you to accept the Dan David prize and the financial reward that accompanies it. Doing so would be a sharp rebuke to the unanimous call from Palestinian organisations to support their struggle for freedom. As you have noted, ‘liberalism and the idea of democratic rule — most recently through the language of human rights — problematises arbitrary detention, the incarceration of non-criminals and of political prisoners’.[23] These are, however, among the very practices which Israel imposes on Palestinians. Refusing the award, opposing the whitewashing of Israel’s crimes, and rejecting collaboration with an Israeli academic institution complicit with the oppression of Palestinians, would earn you the respect and admiration of all those who believe that academic research must serve the cause of freedom, in Palestine and in the world.
Samah Sabawi, independent scholar, Melbourne Nick Riemer, University of Sydney Rima Najjar, Al Quds University, Palestine Ahmed Alnajjar. Director of Public and International Relations, Ministry of Education, Palestine Randa Abdel-Fattah, Macquarie University Randa Farah, University of Western Ontario Wael Hallaq, Columbia University Peter Slezak, University of New South Wales Alistair Sisson, University of New South Wales Michael Grewcock, University of New South Wales Alana Lentin, University of Western Sydney David Brophy, University of Sydney James Godfrey, Birkbeck, University of London Jumana Bayeh, Macquarie University Sara Dehm, University of Technology, Sydney Ntina Tzouvala, Australian National University Lucia Sorbera, University of Sydney Kieron Cadey, Canterbury Christ Church Inna Michaeli, independent scholar, Germany Michael Griffiths, University of Wollongong Sara Saleh, University of New South Wales Liyana Kayali, Australian National University Micaela Sahhar, University of Melbourne Kate Davison, University of Melbourne Daniel A. Segal, Pitzer College of the Claremont Colleges, USA Nicola Perugini, University of Edinburgh Sharri Plonski, Queen Mary, University of London Ronit Lentin, Trinity College Dublin Ryan Al-Natour, Charles Sturt University Robert Boyce, London School of Economics Mohd Nazari bin Ismail, University of Malaya Dr Lobna Yassine, Australian Catholic University Dr. Suzita Noor, University of Malaya Karel Arnaut, KU Leuven Paola Manduca, University of Genoa, Italy John King, New York University Angelo Baracca, University of Florence Zati Azizul, University of Malaya Marcelo Svirsky University of Wollongong Elsa Haniffah Mejia Mohamed, University Malaya MY Musa, USM Aneesa Abdul Rashid, Islamic Medical Association of Malaysia Herman De Ley, Ghent University Mark Ayyash, Mount Royal University, Canada Raja Jamilah Raja Yuso, University of Malaya Norhayati Ab.Rahman, University of Malaya David Faber, Flinders University Dr. Noor Fadiya Mohd Noor, University of Malaya Noor Adwa Sulaiman University of Malaya Fatiha Shabaruddin, Universiti Malaya Marc De Meyere Gent University Susan Ferguson, Wilfrid Laurier University Nozomi Takahashi, Staff scientist, VIB/Ghent University Snehal Shingavi, University of Texas, Austin Hassan Basri, University of Sultan Zainal Abidin J. Ahmad, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia Meera Atkinson, University of Notre Dame Australia George H Morgan, Western Sydney University Brian Brophy, University of Adelaide Zul’aini Zainal Abidin, Kolej Poly-Tech MARA Sharmani Patricia Gabriel, Universiti Malaya Amir Nor, Islamic Science University Professor Omar bin Yaakob, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia M.Tashid, University of Technology malaysia Rozaini Roslan, UTHM Mohamed Hatta Shaharom, Chairman Ikram Foundation of Malaysia Harlina Halizah Siraj, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) Prof Dr Hayati, USIM Borhanuddin Mohd Ali, Universiti Putra Malaysia Prof. Azman Che Mat, UiTM Mustafa Mohd Hanefah Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia Ramli Bin Nazir, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Ahmad Hariza Hashim, Universiti Putra Malaysia Prof Dr Norhasmah, UPM Prof. Dr. Nor Azan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Dr. Abdul Rashid Mohamed, Universiti Sains Malaysia Daing Nasir Ibrahim University Malaysia Pahang Dr Sahrim Ahmad/Professor, UKM, Malaysia Haiyun Ma, Frostburg State University, USA Mahamod Ismail, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Tengku Shahrom Tengku Shahdan, Universiti Selangor Associate Professor Dr Suhaimi Mhd Sarif International Islamic University Malaysia A’zzah, CEO, Al Musab Institute Wan Jefrey Basirun University Malaya Adlina Suleiman Academy of Professors Malaysia Khairul Saidah Abas Azmi, Senior Lecturer University of Malaya Noorsyazly Rameli, Malaysia Mohammad Nazri, Universiti Malaya Kelton Muir Sydney University John Michael O’Brien, University of Sydney Souheir Edelbi, UNSW Paul Russell, Victoria University Toby Fitch, University of Sydney Finola Laughren, University of Sydney Dr Azmi Aminuddin, UiTM Rohana Hassan, UiTM Christiane Schomblond, Université Libre de Bruxelles Kathryn Ticehurst, University of Sydney Carol Que, University of Melbourne Noor Sapiei, University of Malaya Alan Hill, RMIT University, Melbourne Goldie Osuri, University of Warwick Azman Hassan , Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Meloni Muir, University of Sydney Liam Ward, RMIT University, Melbourne David Klein, California State University Northridge Mike Cushman, London School of Economics Harry Smaller, York University, Canada Vannina Sztainbok, University of Toronto Colin Mooers, Ryerson University, Canada Sylvat Aziz, Queens University, Toronto Joy Moore, Dawson College, Montreal Asha Varadharajan, Queen’s University Brett Story, Assistant Professor, Ryerson University Larry Hannant, University of Victoria Sumi Hasegawa, McGill University Nicola Pratt, University of Warwick David Borgonjon, Rhode Island School of Design Kevin Moloney, York University, Toronto Steven Jordan, McGill University Peter Chidiac, University of Western Ontario Anne Meneley, Trent University Dr. Edwin E. Daniel, University of Alberta Christo El Morr, York University Natalia Maystorovich Chulio, University of Sydney Matilda Fay, University of Technology Sydney Mark LeVine, UC Irvine Robert Austin, University of Sydney Viviana Ramírez, independent scholar, Chile Mohd Hilmi Jaafar, University of Malaya Victor Wallis, Berklee College of Music Zuhaimy ismail, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Shira Robinson, George Washington University Daing Nasir Ibrahim, University Malaysia Pahang Malek Abisaab, McGill University Graham Holton, University of Queensland
The shortages of medical staff in Israel are well known. The need for a medical school is the first step in alleviating this problem. With this in mind, in August 2018, the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson School of Medicine at Ariel University was established.
As reported by Ariel University, the medical school is based on a four-year course of post-graduate studies: The first year includes courses in basic medical sciences such as anatomy, physiology, clinical microbiology, clinical immunology, epidemiology, and clinical pharmacology; The second year focuses on integrative teaching of the body systems in health and disease. The clinical and basic science-related aspects of body systems, such as the gastrointestinal tract, the cardiovascular system, infection, and immunity, will be highlighted; The third and fourth years are devoted to hands-on clinical studies, based on small group bed-side interaction in hospitals and the community.
The school emphasizes that a “Great effort went into designing an advanced educational program that will empower students with comprehensive knowledge both in medical sciences and clinical medicine to ensure delivery of total patient care.” Real medical scenarios will be initiated from the early stages of the program. Medical studies with an integrative approach on personalized medicine such as robotics, digitalized medicine, and evidence-based decision-making aim to encourage graduates to be “inquisitive, research-oriented and resolute physicians with excellent interpersonal and communication skills,” with a special emphasis on “comprehensive courses in translational bioinformatics using big data, clinical molecular biology and human genetics.”
However, the founding of the Adelson School of Medicine at Ariel University was not smooth, facing opposition for several years. First, other medical schools wanted to see this money going to existing schools and not new ones. However, the Adelsons preferred to invest in Ariel University.
The most significant opposition came from political activist-academics who perceive Ariel’s settlement in Judea and Samaria as illegitimate, including the university. For them, this territory is occupied and not disputed, and as a result, Jews are not allowed to live there.
Also, a committee under the Council for Higher Education (CHE) voted in February 2019 in opposition to establishing the medical school at Ariel University. Nevertheless, in another round of votes two months later, the CHE approved the school’s founding.
As IAM reported in February 2020, there was another boycott attempt against Ariel University. The Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education has urged the international academic community to reject cooperation with Ariel University. In a campaign titled “No Academic Business as Usual with Ariel University and all other Israeli Academic Institutions Illegally Built on Occupied Palestinian Land,” also joined by the Council of Palestinian Universities’ Presidents and the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees. It was first published on November 29, 2018, calling on states, academic institutions, and research bodies to end institutional relations with Ariel University and “other Israeli academic institutions illegally built on occupied Palestinian land.” The campaign cited the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, which stated
that Ariel was “seized under the false pretext of imperative military needs and on land that was declared state land.”
The “Ariel University non-recognition and non-collaboration” campaign was backed by an International Advisory Board, which included Prof. David Harel of Weizmann Institute of Science. As stated by the organizers, the Advisory Board members provide “strategic input and serve as public advocates of the campaign.”
Similarly, Academia for Equality, a radical-leftist group of academics based at Tel Aviv University, also embraced the “Ariel University non-recognition and non-collaboration” campaign and posted a letter from Israeli psychologists and social workers who refuse to participate in a series of seminars organized by Ariel University. The signatories included Dr. Ruchama Merton and other radical Israeli academics such as Prof. Uri Hadar, Dr. Kim Yuval, and Dr. Julia Chaitin, among the 68 signatories.
Not easily discouraged, Academia for Equality is now running a similar campaign. On January 23, 2021, Academia for Equality voiced its reservations about a “collaboration outline” between the Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University and the academic institute in Ariel, which will operate from August 2021. In a public declaration, Academia for Equality wrote a letter to the TAU’s administration claiming that “this institutional cooperation, obtained without open debate in the University Senate, is alarming for a variety of moral, legal, professional and technical reasons. First and foremost, the very existence of this institution, which stands on occupied land and serves the population of the occupying nation exclusively, is a war crime and a clear example of apartheid. The recognition of this institution by far-right forces around the world which overlook its inhuman aspect is neither a victory nor an achievement for Israeli society but the opposite. We keep working against this cooperation and call upon our colleagues worldwide to join us.”
The Council for Higher Education should sanction Academia for Equality and warn its supporters at Tel Aviv University. As IAM repeatedly argued, boycotting Ariel University is illegal in Israel since the anti-Boycott Law was enacted.
23 January at 14:43 Academia for Equality voiced in October its reservations about the “collaboration outline” between the Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University and the academic institute in Ariel, which is planned to operate starting from August 2021. See comments for our full letter to TAU’s administration (in Hebrew).This institutional cooperation, obtained without open debate in the University Senate, is alarming for a variety of moral, legal, professional and technical reasons. First and foremost, the very existence of this institution, which stands on occupied land and serves the population of the occupying nation exclusively, is a war crime and a clear example of apartheid. The recognition of this institution by far-right forces around the world which overlook its inhuman aspect is neither a victory nor an achievement for Israeli society but the opposite. We keep working against this cooperation and call upon our colleagues worldwide to join us.Read Meron Rapoport’s report at +972 Magazine for all the details (link in comments).
https://tinyurl.com/y22djn45 أكاديميون من أجل المساواة | Academia for Equality | אקדמיה לשוויון https://www.academia4equality.com info@academia4equality.com 1 לכבוד: 1 באוקטובר, 2020 פרופ’ אהוד גרוסמן, דיקאן הפקולטה לרפואה, אוניברסיטת תל אביב פרופ’ אריאל פורת, נשיא אוניברסיטת תל אביב פרופ’ מרק שטייף, רקטור אוניברסיטת תל-אביב העתקים: פרופ׳ שגב ברק, יו״ר ארגון הסגל הבכיר, אוניברסיטת תל אביב מר פלג מיכאלי, יו״ר ארגון הסגל הזוטר, אוניברסיטת תל אביב גב׳ אבלין מילוא, יו״ר ארגון הסגל המנהלי, אוניברסיטת תל אביב אנו פונים אליכם בשם “אקדמיה לשוויון”, ארגון המאגד כ- 600 חברים וחברות בקהילה האקדמית ופועל למען דמוקרטיזציה של המוסדות האקדמיים בישראל ושל החברה הישראלית בכללה . לאחרונה התבשרנו שהפקולטה לרפואה באוניברסיטת ת”א חתמה עם המוסד האקדמי באריאל על “מתווה” לשיתוף פעולה, שמתוכנן להתחיל לפעול מאוגוסט 2021 . ברצוננו להאיר את תשומת לבכם לבעייתיות שבמהלך כזה ולדרוש מכם לסגת ממנו, מהסיבות הבאות : המוסד האקדמי באריאל איננו ממוקם בשטחה הריבוני של מדינת ישראל אלא נבנה בלב הגדה המערבית, כחלק מההתנחלות אריאל. בשל כך, הוא נמצא בלב הקונפליקט הלאומי והפוליטי שמפלג את החברה הישראלית כבר עשורים. שיתוף פעולה מערכתי, מטעם האוניברסיטה או הפקולטה לרפואה, מציב את חברי הסגל והסטודנטים שמתנגדים להתנחלויות ולכיבוש בדילמה בלתי-אפשרית. יש הבדל מהותי בין שיתופי פעולה אינדיבידואלים עם אריאל, שכל חוקר/ת יכולים לבצע לפי ראות עיניהם, לבין מהלך קולקטיבי מטעם הפקולטה כולה. שיתוף פעולה ממוסד כזה מכריח אנשי סגל וסטודנטים בתל-אביב לעזור להתנחלויות ולכיבוש להתבסס וכופה עליהם אימוץ בפועל של עמדה פוליטית, אשר חלקם מתנגדים לה בכל מאודם. עירוב כזה של האקדמי והפוליטי יוצר דילמה מוסרית חריפה, כזו שאינה קיימת בהקשר של אף מוסד אקדמי אחר במדינת ישראל, ופוגע בזכויותיהם הבסיסיות ביותר כאזרחים וכעובדים. כידוע, הקמתו של המוסד האקדמי באריאל, ביסוסו כ”אוניברסיטה” וכינונה של פקולטה לרפואה במסגרתו היו כולם מהלכים פוליטיים לעילא, שמטרתם הייתה ל”הלבין”, לנרמל ולתת ארשת מכובדות להתנחלויות – ובכך להפכן לעובדה שאין לערער עליה. מהלכים אלה בוצעו בראשית הדרך באמצעות גוף מומצא בשם “מל”ג- יו”ש”, כאשר את האישור ה”אקדמי” הסופי נתן בשם המדינה אלוף פיקוד מרכז, ולא המועצה להשכלה הגבוהה. כדי ל”תקן” את המעוות הזה, עודכן ב- 2018 חוק המל”ג כך שסמכות המועצה הורחבה אל מעבר לגבולות המדינה והיא נפרשת מאז על כל הישראלים הנמצאים בשטחים הכבושים. “תיקון” זה הפך את האקדמיה הישראלית לשותפה פעילה בחוקי ההפרדה האתנית המתקיימים בשטחים הכבושים. לא מיותר להזכיר גם את התנגדותם הנחרצת של כל דיקני הפקולטות לרפואה בישראל להקמת הפקולטה באריאל ואת הגיבוי שנתנו בכך להחלטת ות”ת שלא להקים את הפקולטה, וכן את המניפולציות הפוליטיות שננקטו באיוש מחודש של הוועדה לתכנון ולתקצוב כדי להפוך את ההחלטה על פיה . ההתנחלויות בשטחים נחשבות ע”י חלק גדול מהציבור בישראל וע”י הרוב המוחלט של הקהילה הבינלאומית כהפרה של אמנת ז’נבה האוסרת על המדינה הכובשת ליישב את אוכלוסייתה בשטח הכבוש. אי-חוקיות ההתנחלויות אושרה מחדש בהחלטת מועצת הביטחון 2334 ב- 2016 . בשל עובדות אלו, קרנות המחקר הבינלאומיות הראשיות הפועלות בישראל, כדוגמת ה – ERC וה BSF , לא נותנות מענקי מחקר וכל מימון שהוא למוסדות בשטחים הכבושים. יש לשאול האם בכך שהפקולטה לרפואה באוניברסיטת ת”א מעמידה במסגרת ה”מתווה” הנדון את משאביה לטובת המוסד באריאל אין היא מפירה את תנאי הקרנות שמהן נהנים חוקרים בפקולטה. ציוד וכוח אדם שמתקיימים בזכות כספי הקרנות הללו יעמדו לרשות אריאל, אף שבתנאי הקרנות אסור שכספיהן יעברו את הקו הירוק . מכל הסיבות הללו, אנו דורשים מכם לסגת משיתוף פעולה ממוסד עם הפקולטה לרפואה באריאל . בברכה , הוועד אקדמיה לשוויון أكاديميون من أجل المساواة | Academia for Equality | אקדמיה לשוויון https://www.academia4equality.com info@academia4equality.com
Tel Aviv University’s Sackler Faculty of Medicine has signed a student exchange agreement with Ariel University, located in the settlement of Ariel in the occupied West Bank. The deal will allow students from Ariel University’s Adelson School of Medicine to be placed in hospitals affiliated with Tel Aviv University for their clinical practice.
Tel Aviv University spokesperson Tomer Velmer hinted that the agreement was signed as a result of external pressure by Israel’s Council for Higher Education, the supervisory body for universities and colleges in Israel that is headed by the education minister. However, the Council denies that it demanded or coerced Tel Aviv University to agree to this cooperation.
Sackler’s dean, Prof. Ehud Grossman, sent a letter to faculty members in September 2020 to inform them that the university’s medical school will “begin teaching students from the faculty of medicine at Ariel University in the run-up to August 2021,” in accordance with the deal. In the letter, Grossman also explained that the agreement was reached “with the goal of maintaining the quality and level of instruction and allowing both faculties to operate optimally.”
The Sackler Faculty of Medicine is affiliated with several hospitals in the center of the country, which medical students are placed in during the clinical phase of their studies. During this practice, the students spend time in various hospital wards shadowing doctors who teach at Tel Aviv University and keeping up with patients’ progress.
Since the faculty at Ariel University is not “affiliated” with any hospital, it therefore needs assistance from an existing medical school to allow its students clinical access. The lack of affiliation seems to be the impetus for the letter from the dean of Tel Aviv University’s medical school.
According to a source who was involved in the discussions between the Council for Higher Education and the Planning and Budgeting Committee, a subcommittee responsible for funding Israel’s higher education institutions, Ariel University is paying Tel Aviv University a “high fee” for teaching students from Ariel. The source asked to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions. However, both universities refused to say how much money Tel Aviv University will make from the agreement.
Israel’s first settlement medical school
The Adelson School of Medicine at Ariel University was established in August 2018. The cornerstone for the faculty building, which received funding from American pro-settlement billionaire Sheldon Adelson, was laid even before Ariel University obtained the necessary authorization for the faculty’s establishment.
According to Tel Aviv faculty members, the school’s opening was politically motivated and pushed along by far-right leader Naftali Bennett during his tenure as education minister between 2015 and 2019. For example, the Committee of University Heads, a voluntary body composed of the presidents, rectors, and directors-general of Israel’s universities, opposed the establishment of the school. In a letter it sent to the Council for Higher Education, it claimed the decision was abrupt and seemed “to be dictated by the political echelon.”
Three university representatives who sit on the Planning and Budgeting Committee claimed that Bennett’s actions amounted to “political intervention in the committee’s work.” In a discussion the Planning and Budgeting Committee held in 2019, the professional echelon expressed reservations about establishing a medical faculty in Ariel, due to the lack of hospitals in the area that medical students can undergo clinical training in. “It was clear that Ariel did not have the infrastructure and capabilities, but the political echelon pushed for it,” says a source who was involved in the discussions and asked to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions.
Despite the professionals’ opposition, the Planning and Budgeting Committee approved the establishment of Ariel’s medical school. But in February 2019, Israel’s attorney general ordered the committee to hold a re-vote, after it was revealed that one of the members of the committee was up for promotion by Ariel University.
Days later, the committee voted to reverse its decision to open a medical school in Ariel. Yet Bennett was determined not to give up.
That same February, the Council for Higher Education in Judea and Samaria — a body that used to operate under the auspices of the military commander of the West Bank, and that supervised Israeli higher education in the West Bank under a similar authority to that of the Council for Higher Education in Israel proper — convened to approve the establishment of the faculty in Ariel. Just two days after the vote, the Council for Higher Education in Judea and Samaria was dissolved, when the Knesset voted to place Ariel University and other West Bank institutions under the control of the Council for Higher Education.
In November 2019, the Planning and Budgeting Committee approved the school’s budget, after then-Education Minister Rafi Peretz replaced some of the committee’s members for previously opposing the school’s establishment. With that, Ariel University’s Adelson School of Medicine was ready to officially open.
‘Cooperation forces faculty to support the occupation’
The letter from the dean of the Sackler Faculty of Medicine provoked resentment among some faculty members at Tel Aviv University. “They try to whitewash [the issue], as if the occupied territories and Israel are the same thing,” said a faculty member at the medical school who preferred to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions. “They want to stick to a seemingly non-political agenda, when in fact it is actually political. Now I’m being forced to cooperate with this.”
The faculty member explained that the deal prevents him from opting out of the collaboration with Ariel University. “Once we receive the students, I will not be able to refuse to teach them. I will not be able to tell students from Ariel ‘do not enter the department.’”
Academia for Equality, an organization that includes 600 academics in Israel working to promote democratization, equality, and access to higher education for all communities living in Israel, demanded Sackler withdraw from the agreement. In a letter sent to the university administration on Jan. 10, the group said: “Cooperation with such an institution forces faculty and students at Tel Aviv [university] to support the settlements and the occupation, and forces them to adopt a political position that some [faculty and students] strongly oppose.”
The letter stated that many international research funds do not provide grants or funding to institutions in the occupied territories. “One must ask whether the fact that the Faculty of Medicine in Tel Aviv diverts its resources toward the institution in Ariel as part of the ‘deal’ in question does not violate the conditions attached to the funds, which are enjoyed by researchers in the faculty,” since the “equipment and manpower made available by these funds will be made available to Ariel.”
The letter further states that Ariel University is “putting faculty members and students who oppose settlements and occupation in an impossible dilemma,” and that the deal “violates their most basic rights.” The letter claims that there is a “substantial difference” between individual lecturers who collaborate with Ariel and a “collective process on behalf of the entire faculty.”
Senior lecturers at Tel Aviv University also wondered why the decision to collaborate with Ariel did not come up for discussion in the university’s academic senate, which approves new curricula, among other things. The university explained that the deal was not part of a new curriculum, but rather would allow Ariel to use their clinical facilities at various affiliated hospitals. However, according to the Sackler faculty member, Ariel’s faculty members will likely make use of “resources that belong to the doctors and patients” at Tel Aviv University.
Tel Aviv University spokesperson Tomer Velmer hinted that the Council for Higher Education had forced the university into the deal with Ariel. “The deal was signed more than a year ago, after the opening of a medical school in Ariel was approved in principle by the Council for Higher Education,” said Velmer. “The agreement was required at the request of the Council and the Planning and Budgeting Committee.”
The Council of Higher Education offers a different version of the events. “The deal does not require the authorization of the Planning and Budgeting Committee,” Beata Krantz, the Council’s spokesperson said, “but rather the committee is required to ensure during the authorization process that there are enough practicum spaces for students who are beginning their studies, and therefore Ariel University was requested to present before the committee where it was planning to carry out the practicum. The Planning and Budgeting Committee neither demands nor requires the signing of the agreement, and the institutions have administrative freedom to do as they please in this context.”
In other words, the Council of Higher Education claims it never demanded Tel Aviv University sign the agreement, and that the understanding was reached between the two institutions so that Ariel’s medical students could have a place to conduct their practical training.
Velmer’s comment did not address a concern raised by Academia for Equality regarding grants from international research foundations such as the European Research Council and the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation, both of which deny funding for academic research initiatives beyond the Green Line. The EU’s Horizon 2020 plan — a seven-year, 80 billion euros fund that provides financial support for research, technological development, and innovation — also refers to the West Bank and East Jerusalem as occupied territories, and thus those areas are not included in its agreement with Israel.
“Clinical training for students in Ariel will not harm the high level of clinical training of the Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University,” Velmer said in his response.
“According to the agreement, the hospitals in question are affiliated with Tel Aviv University only, and the allocation of students is determined by Tel Aviv University’s dean of medicine with regard to the needs and capacity of the hospitals,” Velmer said. “It should be emphasized that according to the agreement, the training of the students is done separately, with Ariel using the hospitals only when not in use by Tel Aviv University, and in any case, as stated there will be no harm to the training of students at Tel Aviv University.”
Ariel University Spokesperson Naama Cohen Yehezkeli stated in response that “the agreement signed a few years ago between the universities is intended to ensure that the training of medical students is optimal and professional, as part of the national effort to increase the number of doctors in Israel, while giving young men and women a proper opportunity to study medicine in Israel.”
A version of this article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here.
ביום שני הקרוב תקיים עמותת “זוכרות” סיור וירטואלי ביישוב הפלסטיני ההרוס אלשֵיח’ מֻוַנִּס. היישוב, בו חיו למעלה מ-2200 תושבים, נכבש במרץ 1948, תושביו גורשו ולא הותר להם לשוב, בתיהם יושבו זמנית על ידי משפחות יהודיות והחל משנות הששים הרסו השלטונות הישראליים את המבנים והקימו על חורבותיהם את אוניברסיטת תל אביב ומוסדות נוספים.זו הזדמנות עבור כולנו, ובעיקר עבור חברות וחברי הקהילה האקדמית של אוניברסיטת תל אביב, ללמוד על ההיסטוריה של אלשֵיח’ מֻוַנִּס ועל הווה של הסתרה ומחיקה. זו הזדמנות לחשוב על המשמעות של שיתוף פעולה קולוניאלי ועל הדרכים להתנגד לו.
התנצלויות פומביות, הסרת פסלים, מימון מחקרים לבירור המעורבות של המוסד עם עוולות, הענקת מלגות לבנות ובני קהילות ילידיות או מדוכאות, תשלום פיצויים על שימוש באדמות – אלו הן חלק מהפרקטיקות בהן נוקטים בשנים האחרונות לא מעט (אבל בוודאי לא מספיק) מוסדות אקדמיים ברחבי העולם כחלק מההכרה בשיתוף הפעולה ההיסטורי והמתמשך שלהם עם עוולות שונים לרבות גזל אדמות של עמים ילידיים, תמיכה בסחר עבדים וקבלת “תרומות מזוהמות”.נראה שהאקדמיה הישראלית רחוקה שנות אור מתהליך כן של הכרה ותיקון. קמפוסים בנויים על כפרים מחוקים וקברים מתפוררים ללא כל אזכור של ההיסטוריה של המקום ושל ההווה של תושביו הפליטים, תמיכה והכרה במוסד אקדמי בעל מאפייני אפרטהייד מובהקים, שיתוף פעולה צמוד עם תעשיית הנשק והביון ועוד ועוד… במציאות הזו אנחנו גאות במיוחד בחברות וחברי אקדמיה לשוויון שלוקחות אחריות וחושפות את היסודות הרקובים של האקדמיה הישראלית, בין היתר באמצעות הובלת סיורים ביקורתיים בשטח הקמפוסים.בנוסף, חברות וחברי אקדמיה לשוויון מתעדים באופן שוטף את התמיכה רחבת ההיקף של מוסדות אקדמיים ישראליים בכיבוש ובשימור מבני כוח אי-שוויוניים בגבולות 1948 באמצעות מאגר המידע המקוון “אקדמיה מגויסת”. לא מאוחר לעצור, לקחת אחריות ולתקן.
בתגובות: קישור לסיור של זוכרות (ישודר גם בעמוד הפייסבוק Zochrot / זוכרות / ذاكرات)קישור למאגר המידע #אקדמיה_מגויסתבתמונה: לוחמים אחרי כיבוש היישוב ליד ביתו של אברהים אבו כחיל, הבית הידוע היום בכינויו “הבית הירוק” ומשמש כמועדון לסגל האוניברסיטה, מסעדה, אולם אירועים ואולם כנסים. אוסף יהודה זיו, יד בן צבי.
The Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson School of Medicine at Ariel University was established in August 2018 and will begin accepting medical students in the 2018-2019 academic year. Great effort went into designing an advanced educational program that will empower students with comprehensive knowledge both in medical sciences and clinical medicine to ensure delivery of total patient care. Our integrative approach to medical studies highlights personalized medicine, robotics, digitalized medicine and evidence-based decision making to encourage graduates to be inquisitive, research-oriented and resolute physicians with excellent interpersonal and communication skills. Self-learning is of prime importance in our program to keep abreast of the ever-expanding body of medical knowledge. Special emphasis will be given to comprehensive courses in translational bioinformatics using big data, clinical molecular biology and human genetics. To nurture excellent communication skills, exposure to patients and real medical scenarios will be initiated from the early stages of the program.
The medical school is based on a four-year course of post-graduate studies. The first year includes courses in basic medical sciences such as anatomy, physiology, clinical microbiology, clinical immunology, epidemiology and clinical pharmacology. The second year focuses on integrative teaching of the body systems in health and disease. The clinical and basic science-related aspects of body systems, such as the gastrointestinal tract, the cardiovascular system, infection and immunity, will be highlighted. The third and fourth years are devoted to hands-on clinical studies, based on small group bed-side interaction in hospitals and in the community.
Higher Education Committee blocks medical school at Ariel
The Yesha Council accused the Council of Higher Education of “damaging the future of Israel’s medicine.”
By MAAYAN JAFFE-HOFFMAN, YVETTE J. DEANE FEBRUARY 7, 2019 14:57
The future of Israeli healthcare took a blow on Thursday when the Council for Higher Education voted against the establishment of a medical school at Ariel University. “This was to be an essential and critical component in increasing the number of medical students in Israel,” said Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman regarding the decision.
According to the Israel Medical Association, Israel faces a severe healthcare crisis, largely due to a lack of both licensed medical personnel and training vacancies for students. “It is inconceivable that more than half of Israel’s medical graduates come from abroad in schools that are not always satisfactory,” Litzman said. Thursday’s vote undoes a previous decision made by the council’s Planning and Budgeting Committee in July 2018, when it voted 4-2 to establish the medical school at Ariel University, which is in the West Bank’s Area C – under Israeli civil and military control. Six months later in December, Deputy Attorney General Dina Zilber ordered a re-vote due to an alleged conflict of interests. One of the members of the committee, Dr. Rivka Wadmany Shauman, had originally voted in favor of establishing the faculty of medicine at Ariel University – even though she was a candidate to teach at the institution as part of the teacher training program. Education Minister Naftali Bennett lashed out at Thursday’s decision, stating that he intends to “fight the university cartel until we establish the Faculty of Medicine at Ariel University.
“Israel is crying out for doctors, and [the committee is] holding it back,” he continued. The Yesha Council accused the Council of Higher Education of “damaging the future of Israel’s medicine.” “Israeli academia is motivated by extraneous considerations and has stopped the scientific development of the State of Israel with its own hands,” the Yesha statement said. The council had previously found that Ariel University’s medical program meets all the requirements for quality training of medical practitioners in Israel. As such, despite the committee’s decision, the university said medical studies will begin in October, as planned. Ariel held an inaugural ceremony for the new medical school in summer 2018, shortly after the initial vote. The school was founded in 1982 as a branch of Bar-Ilan University. It became an independent college in 2004 and in 2012 was granted accreditation by the Council for Higher Education in Judea and Samaria. Today, Ariel University is home to more than 15,000 students and 300 faculty members. In the field of health sciences, the university already offers a pre-med program and has 30 research labs. The new medical faculty is named after Sheldon Adelson, the American billionaire and his Israeli-born wife, Miriam. It was reported that the Adelsons donated $5 million to the medical school, nearly a quarter of the estimated $28.4 million price tag. Israel currently has five other medical schools: the Azrieli Faculty of Medicine of Bar-Ilan University in Safed; the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa; the Sackler Faculty of Medicine of Tel Aviv University; the Hadassah School of Medicine of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; and the Joyce and Irving Goldman Medical School of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheba. Ariel University said in a statement: “We are confident that the competent authorities will support us through this legal process to ensure we can move forward without hindrance.”
IAM has repeatedly demonstrated that political activist-academics have penetrated humanities and social sciences in Israel. Once tenured, many have switched their field of research into subjects for which they were not hired and for which they have no qualifications, but which fit their political agenda. Although such practices would not have been tolerated in a properly managed university, the activists had received continuous support from their political-activist colleagues who recruited and promoted them.
Dr. Anat Matar, a Tel Aviv University lecturer of Philosophy, is a case in point. A veteran member of the Communist Party. She first made her name as one of the leaders of the group ‘Boycott from Within.’ In the last decades, she has campaigned for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. She is also a member of ‘Academia for Equality’ that aims to “struggle against the complicity of Israeli academia with oppression and denial of education in the occupied Palestinian territories.”
Next week Matar plans to participate in a Webinar titled “Political Arrests as Continuous Suppression: Conversation with Adv. Abeer Baker, Adv. Janan Abdu and Dr. Anat Matar.” The event was organized by the group “Zochrot,” as the invitation says, “We provide access to information and teach about the Nakba that began in 1948 and never ended. The Nakba is the continuous colonization, oppression, and dispossession of the Palestinian People in various ways and forms. One of them is arrests, administrative and other. The General Security Services has always arrested Palestinians on vague allegations with a weak legal basis, which are received with apathy by the Israeli public, but it seems that in the past year, arrests have become more frequent and common than they have been for a long time, perhaps under cover of Covid-19. We have recently witnessed a wave of arrests of journalists, writers, intellectuals, and students from the young political leadership of the Palestinian opposition to Israeli control. This also includes arrests of Palestinians in areas 48, with Israeli citizenship, who refuse to succumb to the split imposed by the Israeli government and insist on working for liberation alongside Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and the Diaspora.”
Other participants are Adv. Abeer Baker – a Palestinian lawyer specializing in prisoners’ rights and representing Palestinian political prisoners in hundreds of cases and petitions. Adv. Janan Abdu – a lawyer at the legal department of the Public Committee Against Torture. Worth noting that Baker also works at the University of Haifa Prisoners’ Rights and Rehabilitation Clinic. Abdu is the wife of Ameer Makhoul, sentenced in 2010 to nine years in prison on espionage for Hezbollah and was released in 2019.
Prof. Yehouda Shenhav-Saharabani is another case in point. He was hired to research and teach sociology of organizations at Tel Aviv University. With his tenure secured, he admitted to switching fields after joining the Democratic Rainbow Coalition, HakeshetHademocratit Hamizrahit, an outreach for lower-class Mizrahim. Shenhav was influenced by Ella Shohat, whose book Mizrahim in Israel: Zionism from the Standpoint of its Jewish Victims was a replay of Edward Said’s “Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims.” According to Shohat, the Mizrahim, like the Palestinians, were victims of white Ashkenazi colonialists. To make the parallel stick, she placed the Mizrahim within the region’s cultural sphere and in opposition to European Jews. Shohat blamed the Ashkenazi Zionist ideology for alienating the immigrants from their cultural kin, the Arabs, and with “de-Orientalizing” them to fit the Western image of the State of Israel. Shohat’s ideas found fertile ground in Mizrahi intellectuals’ identity movement, which subsequently created the HakeshetHademocratit Hamizrahit. Shenahv was a leading activist in this circle, although he was an unlikely candidate, having been born to a well-to-do middle-class family of Iraqi immigrants; his father worked for the Israeli intelligence. Shenhav was employed by the Israeli Military Industry that sponsored his Ph.D. studies at Stanford University. To bolster his political agenda, he published a book claiming that the Mizrahim were actually Arab Jews. The study aimed at providing academic legitimacy to the goal of creating an anti-Zionist Palestinian-Mizrahi alliance. After signing the 2004 Olga Document, a declaration of support for a bi-national state, Shenhav wrote a number of monographs on the subject. Van Leer Institute, a highly activist leftist organization, boosted Shenhav-Shaharabani’s career.
Recently, the Van Leer Institute and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Tel Aviv University announced an annual prize for translation and research in the thought of Shenhav-Shaharbani. “The Yehouda Shenhav-Shaharbani Prize for Translation and Research.” The press release states that “The work of Yehouda Shenhav-Shaharbani in research, teaching, translation and public arena position him as one of the outstanding intellectuals of Israel today. The variety of topics that he researched spans many fields of knowledge, from statistics and engineering, through the philosophy of science, the study of bureaucracy, and postcolonial studies, to literature and translation. His commitment to the sociology of knowledge and social history runs like a thread between the fields. During his decades of work at the Van Leer Institute, he edited and founded prominent journals and publishing platforms (“Theory and Criticism;” “Maktoob;” and “Theory and Criticism in Context“), wrote and edited many books that influenced generations of students studying at universities in Israel and abroad and served as the head of many research teams. Throughout his career, Shenhav-Shaharbani has served and continues to be a loyal mentor to generations of students, researchers in various research fields and founded courses taught at many institutions around the country. Shenhav-Shaharbani also worked outside the ivory tower and became one of the major public intellectuals that influenced generations of leaders in civil society, in social, cultural and educational organizations.”
According to the press release, “Constituting an award for research and translation on the name of Prof. Shenhav-Shaharabani is a tribute to his activity and remarkable generosity. The prize marks for us, the social science community, working values and intellectual and public activity, and contributes to the continuity of the unique and acute intellectual tradition outlined by Shenhav-Shaharbani in his academic and public life.”
In 2021, the prize of $1000 will be awarded for research in knowledge and science in the social sciences. Preference will be given to unpublished articles, which combine sociology, history, and philosophy of knowledge, or articles dealing with the theory and criticism of its various shades and future manifestations. The door is open for articles criticizing the work of Shenhav-Shaharbani. The article will be presented at an annual session by the winner, and Shenhav-Shaharbani will respond to it. The Prize committee in 2021 is Adriana Kemp, Areej-Sabagh-Khouri, and Gil Eyal.
Israeli universities have traditionally been reluctant to take a stand against faculty that switched fields to promote their political agenda. By doing so, they defaulted on their fiduciary responsibilities to students, the research capital, and the taxpayer. Students have been taught by faculty that hardly research in their designated fields. The research capital in humanities and social science was depleted, and the taxpayers were forced to support these activists’ political agenda.
מעצרים פוליטיים כדיכוי מתמשךשיחה עם עו”ד עביר בכר, עו”ד ג’נאן עבדו וד”ר ענת מטר בזוכרות, אנחנו מנגישות מידע ומלמדות על הנכבה שהתחילה ב-1948 ומעולם לא הסתיימה. הנכבה היא הקולוניזציה, הדיכוי והנישול המתמשכים של העם הפלסטיני בשלל אופנים וצורות. אחת מהם היא מעצרים, מנהליים ואחרים. השב”כ תמיד עצר פלסטינים בטענות עמומות עם בסיס משפטי רעוע, שמתקבלות בשוויון נפש בציבור הישראלי, אבל נדמה שבשנה האחרונה מעצרים הפכו תכופים ונפוצים יותר משהיו זה זמן רב, אולי בחסות הקורונה.
בתקופה האחרונה אנו עדות לגל מעצרים של עיתונאים, סופרים, אנשי רוח וסטודנטים מההנהגה הפוליטית הצעירה של ההתנגדות הפלסטינית לשליטה הישראלית. זה כולל גם מעצרים של פלסטינים בתחומי 48, בעלי אזרחות ישראלית, שמסרבים להיכנע לפיצול שכופה השלטון הישראלי ומתעקשים לפעול לשחרור לצד פלסטינים בגדה המערבית, בעזה ובגולה.
מה המצב כרגע ומה הרקע לו? מה מעצרים עושים לעצור.ה ומה מעצרים המוניים עושים לחברה כולה – לאקדמיה, לתרבות, לסיכוי לבנות חברה חופשית? מה המטרות של משטר המעצרים ומה אנחנו יכולות לעשות מולו?
אנא מלאו פרטים למטה כדי לקבל לינק להשתתפות.
עו”ד עביר בכר – משפטנית פלסטינית שמתמחה בזכויות אסירים וייצגה אסירים פוליטיים פלסטינים במאות תיקים ועתירות. ד”ר ענת מטר – מרצה באוניברסיטת תל אביב ופעילה פוליטית, חברת אקדמיה לשוויון עו”ד ג’נאן עבדו – עורכת דין במחלקה המשפטית של הוועד נגד עינויים
מכון ון ליר והחוג לסוציולוגיה ואנתרופולוגיה באוניברסיטת תל אביב מכריזים על הענקת פרס שנתי לתרגום ולמחקר במסורת המחשבה של יהודה שנהב-שהרבני .פועלו של יהודה שנהב-שהרבני במחקר, בהוראה, בתרגום ובזירה הציבורית מציב אותו כאחד האינטלקטואלים הבולטים בישראל כיום. מגוון הנושאים שחקר משתרע על פני שדות ידע רבים, החל בסטטיסטיקה והנדסה, דרך פילוסופיה של המדע, חקר בירוקרטיות ולימודים פוסטקולוניאליים, וכלה בספרות ובתרגום. מחויבותו לסוציולוגיה של הידע ולהיסטוריה חברתית עוברת כחוט השני בין התחומים. במשך עשרות שנות פעילותו במכון ון ליר ערך וייסד כתבי עת ובמות פרסום בולטות (“תיאוריה וביקורת”, “מכתוב”, “הקשרי עיון וביקורת”), כתב וערך ספרים רבים שהשפיעו על דורות של תלמידים שמלמדים באוניברסיטאות בארץ ובחו”ל, וכיהן כראש תחומי מחקר רבים. לאורך כל הדרך שנהב-שהרבני שימש ומשמש חונך נאמן לדורות של סטודנטיות וסטודנטים, חוקרות וחוקרים במגוון תחומי מחקר, וייסד קורסים הנלמדים במוסדות רבים ברחבי הארץ .שנהב-שהרבני פועל גם מחוץ למגדל השן והפך לאחד האינטלקטואלים הציבוריים המרכזיים שהשפיעו על דורות של מנהיגים בחברה האזרחית בארגונים חברתיים ,תרבותיים וחינוכיים .פרס על שם יהודה שנהב-שהרבני יינתן לסירוגין בתחום התרגום ובתחום המחקר. לזוכה יוענקו פרס כספי של 1,000 דולר, לוחית פרס ומארז ספרים מהוצאת מכתוב. בתחום התרגום הפרס מיועד למתרגמים על תרגום פרוזה שטרם ראתה אור משפה לא-מערבית ,ועדיפות תינתן לתרגום מערבית. בתחום המחקר הפרס מיועד לדוקטורנטים.יות ופוסט-דוקטורנטים.יות על מאמר מחקרי מקורי בתחומי ידע ודעת במדעי החברה .בשנת תשפ”א יינתן הפרס למחקר בתחום הידע והדעת במדעי החברה. עדיפות תינתן למאמרים שטרם פורסמו, המשלבים סוציולוגיה, היסטוריה ופילוסופיה של הידע, או למאמרים העוסקים בתחום התיאוריה והביקורת על גווניה השונים ומופעיה העתידיים .הדלת פתוחה למאמרי ביקורת על עבודתו של שנהב-שהרבני. המאמר יוצג במושב שנתי על ידי הזוכה, ושנהב-שהרבני יגיב לו .וועדת הפרס תשפ”א: אדריאנה קמפ, אריז’ סבאע’ ח’ורי וגיל אייל.הגשת מועמדות: דוקטורנטים.יות ופוסט-דוקטורנטים.יות במדעי החברה ישלחו כתב יד באורך של לא יותר מ- 12,000 מילים לראשת ועדת הפרס (akemp@tauex.tau.ac.il), ויצרפו מכתב בן כ-200 מילה המנמק בקצרה את מועמדותם. התאריך האחרון להגשת כתבי יד הוא 1.3.2021.אירוע הענקת הפרס למאמר הזוכה ייערך ביום חמישי ,10 ביוני 2021, בשעה 18:00 באוניברסיטת תל אביב .מיסוד פרס למחקר ולתרגום על שמו של פרופ’ שנהב-שהרבני מהווה הוקרה ראויה לפועלו ולמסורת הנתינה יוצאת הדופן שלו. הפרס מסמן עבורנו, קהילת מדעני החברה בישראל, ערכי עבודה ופעולה אינטלקטואלית וציבורית, ותורם להמשכיות המסורת האינטלקטואלית הייחודית והאקוטית שמתווה שנהב-שהרבני בחייו האקדמיים והציבוריים.
מדוע אוהבים ההיסטוריונים החדשים לעסוק בדיכוי הפלסטינים, אך מתעלמים מפרשת ילדי תימן. מדוע אין בישראל שמאל אמיתי, ודיבורים על פער עדתי נתפסים כהסתה?
ההיסטוריונים החדשים ראויים לשבח: הם סייעו לנו להתנער מהבלים ולהג מתוצרת הפוליטרוקים של הציונות, לימדו אותנו על פשעיהם של ממלאי פקודות לדורותיהם, על טכניקות הגירוש, על פעולות ‘התגמול’ (היזומות), על יחסו האמביוולנטי של היישוב לטבח יהדות אירופה ועל אידיאולוגית השוויון (המזויף) כמיתוס מגייס.
אבל להיסטוריונים אלה יש גם נקודה עיוורת, ולכן קשר שתיקה נוסף טרם פוצח: אני מתכוון לקשר השתיקה הבין-דורי בין הקומיסרים האידיאולוגיים של הציונות המגשימה (“מלח הארץ”) לבין האינטלקטואלים של השמאל הישראלי בן ימינו (גם כן “מלח הארץ”). זו הסכמה שבשתיקה בין שני דורות של הגמוניה אשכנזית – כלפי הבעיה המזרחית.
בעניין זה נשאר הדור הצעיר של האינטלקטואלים האשכנזים, לרבות ההיסטוריונים החדשים, נאמן ומזדהה עם דור הוריו. “השמאל” הישראלי הציוני מוכן להשקיע את כל כולו בחשיפת העוולות שנעשו ונעשים לפלסטינים, אך אינו מוכן להתייצב ולהוקיע את דור ההורים על גזענותו כלפי היהודים המזרחים. חשוב יותר: דור זה אינו מוכן כלל להודות, ששאלת המזרחיות היא בעיה אקטואלית מרכזית. כך האינטלקטואלים וכך הפוליטיקאים: דדי צוקר, יוסי שריד וחבריהם אינם מפגינים כל מעש למען הקבוצות, שהיו צריכות לעמוד בראש מעיניהם. הם מתהדרים בתווית “שמאל” כפי שדור הוריהם השתמש במושג “שוויון”. בדיוק כפי שהוריהם לא היו שוויוניים, הם אינם אנשי שמאל. התוצאה היא, מזרחים מן המעמד הנמוך, פעילי שכונות ואף אינטלקטואלים מזרחים המפגינים עוינות גם כלפי תנועת העבודה המסורתית וגם כלפי יורשיה. מדוע להוט השמאל לעסוק בבעיה הפלסטינית, ומדוע הוא מכחיש את הסוגיה המזרחית, שלהחרפתה הוא שותף? עצם העובדה שהדור הצעיר של “השמאל” הישראלי אינו מזהה את המכנה המשותף הבולט בין שתי הקהילות הללו – הפלסטינים והמזרחים – מעוררת חשד ותמיהה. אבל, בעצם, הסברה אינו קשה: הוקעת העוול שנעשה לפלסטינים אינה מסכנת את מעמדם של האינטלקטואלים האשכנזים בני דורנו. היא לא מסכנת אותם כקבוצה תרבותית הגמונית בתוך החברה הישראלית ולא כמעמד כלכלי. היא לא מסכנת את הגדרתם העצמית כנציגי התרבות המערבית בתוך המזרח הערבי (או ה”ים-תיכוני”, אם נשתמש בביטוי מטפורי מעדן למען החרדים מהתווית “ערבי”). העיסוק בעוול, שנעשה לפלסטינים, מספק את זרי הדפנה של ההומניזם, את העמדה היוקרתית של שוחטי פרות קדושות ושואפי שלום, את תווית המרדנות, את הקתרזיס לנוכח עוולות דור ההורים. כלומר המזרח – הבלתי מוכר, המאיים, הלא-רציונלי – מקובל על ה”רדיקלים”, כל עוד הוא נשאר מחוץ לגדר – כמו הפלסטינים. הוא ניתן לעיכול, כל עוד אפשר לסמנו, להפכו ל”אחר” ולהרחיקו. מתוך זה, אפשר להבין למה תומך השמאל הישראלי בהפרדה ובשתי מדינות לשני עמים.
בשל אותו חשש מן המזרח פיתחו ישראלים רבים, לרבות אנשי שמאל ברוח מרצ, הכחשה כלפי מזרחיותם של היהודים המזרחים, שהרי את היהודים המזרחים אי אפשר להפוך ל”אחר” או להוציא אל מחוץ לגדר. לכל היותר, אפשר לבנות כבישים עוקפי עיירות פיתוח ושכונות עוני. ההכחשה היא אמצעי ההגנה: אם יכירו אנשי השמאל בעוול שנעשה למזרחים וישאפו לתקן אותו, יצטרכו לתקן גם את עצמם. הם יצטרכו לוותר על מעמדם ההגמוני, לחלק אחרת את העוגה הלאומית, להשתלב באזור כשווים ולא כפטרונים. הם יצטרכו לשנות את תכניות הלימודים, מהמוסדות להשכלה גבוהה ועד לגן הילדים. הם יידרשו להקים אקדמיה למוסיקה קלאסית ערבית (למשל אנדלוסית), ללמד מקורות של תרבות עמי ערב (ולא רק מקורות של תרבות המערב), ללמוד וללמד את השירה והשפה הערבית. הם יצטרכו להיפרד מן הזיקה הבלעדית לאירופה ולצפון אמריקה, ממה שנתפס בעיניהם אוניברסלי. נוכח כל הסכנות האלה הנשק האפקטיבי הוא שתיקה: ההכרה במזרחיות כתופעה פנים ישראלית היא טאבו.
מתוך כך אפשר להבין את שטחיות עמדתו של “השמאל” כלפי הפלסטינים. השמאל הוא פרו-פלסטיני, כל עוד אין הפלסטינים תובעים את זכות השיבה, כל עוד יש חלוקה, כל עוד יש הפרדה, כל עוד מוותרים הפלסטינים על בתיהם בטלביה וביפו, כל עוד תישאר המדינה יהודית (ומערבית) וכל עוד ימשיכו הפלסטינים המכונים “ערביי ישראל” להיות נוכחים נפקדים. אילו היו האינטלקטואלים של השמאל משוחררים באמת מהמיתוסים של דור ההורים, הם היו חושפים את הציונות כתנועה אירופית אנטי-מזרחית, אשר הגיעה למזרח (מסיבות מוצדקות או לא-מוצדקות) ולא ראתה בו ישות פוליטית, אלא מדבר הזקוק להפריה. אילו היו ההורים והבנים – האשכנזים – מכירים במזרח כבישות פוליטית, הם היו מבחינים גם במכנה המשותף בין המזרחיות היהודית למזרחיות המוסלמית והנוצרית. הם היו מבינים, שהאנטגוניזם, רב השנים, בין המזרחים לבין הערבים, הוא בחלקו תוצר של תקיעת טריז אירופי בין מזרחים למזרחים. אבל השמאל הישראלי ממשיך את מדיניות העיוורון וההתנשאות של הוריו השמרנים.
ברור, אפוא, מדוע עסקה החברה הישראלית כל השנים בדה-פוליטיזציה של שאלת המזרחים. המזרחיות הוצגה כקוריוז מקומי, כאוסף מיצגים תרבותיים כמו נענע, חומוס, עבודות-יד תימניות או מופלטה. כל ניסיון להפכה לשאלה פוליטית נתקל בדה-לגיטימציה ובהכחשה כמו כל טאבו חברתי אחר. מצד אחד, עודדו המפלגות הגדולות את המזרחיות ברמה הארגונית, כמקור לגיוס קולות. מצד שני, שללו את המזרחיות ברמה האידיאולוגית. מצע עדתי הוצג כסותר את מיזוג הגלויות ואחדות העם. בשנות החמישים הוצגו רשימות מזרחיות כמזוהות עם גורמים עוינים, והפנתרים השחורים הוצגו כתנועה מסוכנת למדינה.
תהליכי הדה-פוליטיזציה הללו השפיעו גם על ההיסטוריונים החדשים. למרות הרדיקליות שלהם, לכאורה, הם אינם עוסקים, באופן מעמיק, בהיסטוריוגרפיה מזרחית – למרות שנושאים הזועקים לטיפול מונחים ממש לרגליהם. שתי דוגמאות קטנות, ידועות למדי: עדיין לא נעשה מחקר מקיף ובעל תהודה על המניפולציות של התנועה הציונית בהבאת יהודי תימן. משום מה ההיסטוריונים החדשים לא מתעניינים בכך. אף אחד מן האינטלקטואלים בני דורנו לא עוסק באנלוגיות בין אי-כניעתם של התימנים לבעלי האדמות במושבות לבין אי-כניעתם של התימנים בפרשת עוזי משולם. בתפיסה הפולקלוריסטית האשכנזית, התימנים נשארו נקיים, צייתנים, אוהבי עבודה וציוניים.
אף אחד מההיסטוריונים החדשים – לוחמי זכויות האזרח – לא התעורר לעסוק בפרשיות המחרידות של חטיפות ילדי תימן. מי מהם הפגין למען הקמת ועדות חקירה? באותה מידה, אף אחד מן ההיסטוריונים החדשים לא עוסק ברצינות מספקת בעדויות על הפרובוקציות של התנועה הציונית בעיראק, בתחילת שנות החמישים, שנועדו לזרז את העלייה לישראל. כמעט אף אחד מהם לא שואל כיצד הסכימה התנועה הציונית להלאמה של רכוש יהודי עיראק, ואם לא הייתה זו תוצאה של חשש, שהמפגש של עיראקים אמידים עם המעברות, יחזיר אותם בהמוניהם אל ארץ מוצאם.
אלה, שהתנסו בפעילות מזרחית, יודעים לספר עד כמה חרדים האשכנזים בכל פעם שעולה שאלת הכמיהה של מזרחים לזהות ייחודית. יש לחרדה זו, בדרך כלל, כמה תגובות אשכנזיות אופייניות. בולטות בהן שתיים: הטענה שאין טעם לעסוק בעוולות היסטוריות, שהרי גם קבוצות אתניות אחרות, כמו הפולנים, ההונגרים או הרומנים סבלו קשיי קליטה, השפלה ודחייה. טענה נוספת היא שהבעיה נעלמת והולכת, הפערים נסגרים, שיש נישואים בין-עדתיים, שיש מזרחים בפוליטיקה ושמתפתחת תרבות “ישראלית”. כל מי שמעז לטעון אחרת עובר דיסקרטיזציה, מכונה “מקצוען עדתי”, מואשם שהוא מנסה להפוך עלבון להון אישי ושהוא פוגע באחדות העם (אחדות העם וקונצנזוס היו תמיד מיתוס מגייס ומנגנון השתקה של מיעוטים). והמגוחך מכל: בכל פעם שאינטלקטואל מזרחי טוען שקיימת בארץ גזענות, הוא מואשם בגזענות כלפי אשכנזים ומתויג כקיצוני.
אלא שלכל הטענות יש תשובות משכנעות. ראשית, אין ספק שגם יוצאי ארצות אירופה סבלו קשיי הגירה, וחלקם אף התנשאות של היישוב, אך ההבדלים בין חוויות אלה לבין השפלת המזרחים משמעותיים ומכריעים. לא היה ספק שיוצאי מזרח אירופה ישתלבו יפה מאוד כמעצבי תרבות וכמעמד בינוני מובהק בחברה הישראלית, כפי שלא היה ספק שהעולים החדשים מרוסיה בשנות השבעים יתמקמו במרכז החברה וכך גם עולי רוסיה בשנות התשעים (לעומת זאת, אין ספק שהאתיופים יתמקמו כ”חלשים”, “שכבות מצוקה”, “טעוני טיפוח” וכיוצא באלה). העולים המזרחים תועלו לשולי הכלכלה וקופחו על ידי הממסד הקולט בהקצאת מים, קרקע, דירות ומשרות.
הטענה, שהפערים נסגרים והולכים, נשמעת עוד משנות החמישים. המציאות הפוכה, הקשר בין מוצא להישגים מתהדק והולך. הפערים אינם רק נחלת דור המדבר. הם שרירים וקיימים בקרב הדור השני ואף מתרחבים. במחקר, שבדק את מצבם של ילידי הארץ בני הורים מזרחים בהשוואה לילידי הארץ בני הורים אשכנזים, נמצא כי ב- 1975 השתכרו גברים מזרחים כ- 79 אחוזים משכר האשכנזים, ב- 1992 היה השיעור כ- 68 אחוזים. החוקרים מיחסים שליש מהפער הזה להפליה. הם התמקדו גם בבני המחזור הצעיר (בני 25-29), אשר שיפר במידת מה את מצבו בין השנים 75 ל- 92. שיעור בעלי תואר ראשון בקרב המזרחים היה 3.3 אחוזים ב- 75, ועלה ל- 7.7 אחוזים ב- 92. בקרב האשכנזים: 23.8 אחוזים בשנת 75, 31.1 אחוזים בשנת 92. כאן המגמה אפוא חיובית, ואם הפער באחוז בעלי התואר הראשון ישתנה באותו קצב, מציינים החוקרים, ינון כהן ויצחק הברפלד, ישתווה הפער בהשכלה בעוד 94 שנים. הדור שישיג זאת עדיין לא נולד.
אחת התוצאות המרות של הכחשת המזרחיות היא שהדור השני והשלישי של המזרחים מבין את הזהות המזרחית שלו (אם בכלל) כאנטגוניזם לאשכנזיות. הוא מזרחי לא כחיבור תרבותי של ממש אלא כזהות ישראלית מסוימת הכרוכה בכעס ובתסכול. זהו “מזרח” חדש, של מזרחים ישראלים בלבד.
ואילו השמאל הישראלי החדש לא ראוי להתכנות שמאל. הוא מורכב ברובו מאשכנזים שאין להם כל קשר לסוגיות חברתיות. עסקני שלום עכשיו, פעילים שונים של מרצ ואינטלקטואלים מתנשאים מן הפקולטות למדעי החברה והרוח (“החדשים”), אינם מתעוררים למראה עוולות הדיכוי המכוער של המוני עניים, “אנשי שוליים”, “שכבות חלשות”, “טעוני טיפוח”. רוב רובם של פעילי ה”שמאל” הם בורגנים אמידים, אנשי קהילת העסקים, פרופסורים למינהל עסקים ולכלכלה. כאשר הם מדברים על השלום או על החזרת השטחים הם קושרים זאת בצמיחה כלכלית, במהפכת מיחשוב ובטיפוח מצוינות. כלכלנים המזוהים עם מרצ ושלום עכשיו תומכים, באופן חד משמעי, בהפרטה ובצמיחה כלכלית (“מזרח תיכון חדש”), וממשלות ישראל מגדילות את אי-השוויון למען צמיחה כלכלית כמיטב המסורת של כלכלת צד ההיצע. הן מאפשרות להון לנצל את המדינה לצרכיו.
השמאל של מרצ הוא שמאל מזויף: שמאל של “חירות” (כלכלית), ולא שמאל של שוויון ושל סולידריות. אפילו משפטני זכויות האזרח של מרצעוסקים הרבה מאוד בזכויות אדם, על פי המסורת הליברלית, אולם אינם עוסקים בזכאויות אחרות של האזרח מול השלטון, כפי שמחייבת מסורת סוציאל-דמוקרטית. אין הם עוסקים בזכויות חינוך, זכויות דיור או זכויות בפיתוח תרבות אתנית. את התביעה לזכאויות כאלה הם משאירים לש”ס, לחרדים ולשאר קבוצות האינטרסים. בתוך הקשר זה יכול היה שמעון פרס לטעון שהבעיה של העניים היא שהם עניים.
למען הדיוק ההיסטורי: לא רק השמאל ותנועת העבודה אשמים בהתרחקות המזרחים מהם. חלק מהאשמה יש לתלות בהצלחתו של הימין להשתמש במזרחים ולהלהיבם בסמליו הלאומניים האנטי-ערבים. בשני העשורים האחרונים, אחד האויבים הגדולים של הצדק החברתי בארץ הוא דוד לוי, שתפס את משבצת הקיפוח, והפך אותה לרטוריקה חלולה. יש להאשים בכך גם את הפוליטרוקים המזרחים לדורותיהם, משה שחל, שלמה הלל, שמעון שיטרית, יצחק נבון, שושנה ארבלי-אלמוזלינו, משה קצב, מרדכי בן-פורת, ועוד רבים אחרים – מזרחים מלידה אך לא מזרחים בתודעה, שעשו דה-לגיטימציה למזרחיות כעניין של פוליטיקה.
בכנסת הנוכחית יש מספר ניכר של פוליטיקאים מזרחים. אין בהם ולו אחד אשר פרש אידיאולוגיה מזרחית חברתית סדורה. כולם משחקים בכלים, במגרש ובשפה של ההגמוניה האשכנזית. אין שמאל אמיתי שיציע מצע חברתי דמוקרטי, שידחה את השיח הליברלי של מרצ ואת השיח הפשיסטי של הימין. אין שמאל שיאפשר גם למזרחים היהודים להיות מפויסים עם מקורותיהם הערבים בלי אפולוגטיקה או הכחשה, ויאפשר לאשכנזים הישראלים להכיר במזרחיות של המזרחים בישראל. אין שמאל שיאפשר כינון זהות מזרחית לא מתוך קונפליקט אלא מתוך חירות תרבותית. את השמאל הזה יוכלו ליזום, כנראה, רק מזרחים.
פרופ’ יהודה שנהב חושב שיש לנו יותר מסכסוך אחד לפתור פה, לפני שיהיה שקט
אנשי השמאל האשכנזים שואפים להיפרד מהשטחים ומהפלסטינים ולהתכנס בגבולות הקו הירוק כדי למנוע את הפיכתה של ישראל לחברה עם רוב מזרחי. פרופ’ יהודה שנהב מנתח את המצב קצת אחרת
18.02.2010 04:11 עודכן ב: 01.09.2011 14:14
יותם פלדמן
רבים מבני משפחתו של פרופ’ יהודה שנהב, מבקר רהוט ועקבי של השלטון הישראלי בשטחים, הרוויחו מהשתלטות ישראל על המרחב שבין הקו הירוק לנהר הירדן. אביו המנוח, אליהו שהרבני, עולה מעיראק שדיבר ערבית, טיפח קריירה משגשגת בקהילת המודיעין ובממשל הצבאי – שנהב זוכר שהתלווה אליו למבצעי החרמת מחברות בגדה המערבית אחרי 67′ והסתיר בילקוטו עפרונות ועטים שנלקחו מפלסטינים. בן דודו שמתגורר במעלה אדומים מתפרנס מעבודות שיפוצים באזור וקרובי משפחה אחרים מתגוררים אף הם מעבר לקו הירוק ונהנים ממה שמכנה שנהב (בעקבות דני גוטווין) “מדינת הרווחה הישראלית שבשטחים”: תעסוקה מלאה, הנחות בארנונה ודיור מוזל.
לעומת זאת, טוען שנהב, רוב רובם של אנשי השמאל הציוני מנוכרים לא רק לדרישות הפוליטיות ולצורכיהם של הפלסטינים, אלא גם למתנחלים שהוא מכנה בספרו החדש “ישראל השלישית”: חרדים, מזרחים תומכי ש”ס ומהגרים מחבר המדינות שמצדדים באביגדור ליברמן. שנהב גורס כי הבדל זה – בין היתר – איפשר לו לכתוב את הספר “במלכודת הקו הירוק” (עם עובד) שיצא לאור החודש. בחיבורו הוא מנסה לזנוח את ההבחנות המקובלות בין שמאל לבין ימין בישראל, וממיר אותן בהבחנה בין המעמידים את יסודות הסכסוך על כיבוש השטחים שממזרח לקו הירוק ב-67′ לבין המעמידים אותם על כיבוש השטחים שממערב לו ב-48′.
המחנה הראשון כולל את מרבית אנשי השמאל הציוני, המרכז הפוליטי ורבים מאנשי השמאל הרדיקלי היהודים. המחנה השני, מציע שנהב, הוא קואליציה שבין פלסטינים שמתגוררים בשטח ישראל, פליטים פלסטינים, אנשי ימין שסבורים כי פשרה על בסיס גבולות הקו הירוק אינה אפשרית, שמאלנים תומכי מדינה דו-לאומית ומתנחלים שרוצים להישאר בבתיהם גם לאחר הסדר עם הפלסטינים.
שנהב, שמייחד את ספרו לביקורת על מרכזיותו של הקו הירוק בדיון הפוליטי בישראל, אינו מתחייב על שיוכו לשמאל. “כיהודי הנהנה מפריבילגיות של יהודי, כמזרחי בעל תודעה מזרחית וכמי שגדל והתחנך מרבית שנותיו בישראל”, הוא כותב בהקדמה לספר, “זה שנים רבות אני חש ניכור כלפי עמדותיו (של השמאל) ביחס לסכסוך וביחס לשאלות מעמדיות, אתניות וזהותיות. בשני העשורים האחרונים מצאתי את עצמי מבקר בחריפות את גוש השמאל לא פחות מאשר את גוש הימין”.
הניתוחים הפוליטיים שעמם הוא מזדהה ביותר הם אלה של אנשי הימין הישראלים: “קראתי לפני חודשיים מאמר של בני בגין בעיתון ‘הארץ'”, הוא אומר, “ואני מסכים עם כל מלה. יכולתי לכתוב את זה בעצמי לגבי העובדה שתהליך השלום כושל, ואין דרך להמשיך אותו. אם תשאל אותי אם אני בעד שהאמריקאים יכפו על הצדדים פתרון מדף של שתי מדינות, אני אגיד – כמו בגין – שלא. הניתוח שלנו הוא אותו ניתוח, גם אם המסקנות הנורמטיביות שלנו יהיו שונות”.
הקו הירוק שנקבע בוועידת רודוס ב-49′ אינו אלא תיחום אדמיניסטרטיבי שרירותי, לפי שנהב. בעיניו, יסודותיו האמיתיים של הסכסוך – מלחמת 48′ וגירוש הפלסטינים שהתגוררו ממערב לקו הירוק – הם גם המוכחשים ביותר. “לאנשים רבים שחיים פה, משכילים ובעלי ידיעות רבות על תרבות מערבית, אין מושג מה קרה פה ב-48′, הם מדברים כמו יצורים שלא חיו פה. זו התוצאה של סגירת המיתוס של 48′ בארון מיד. אנחנו מסרבים להוציא אותו משם”.
למה לקבוע את 1948 כנקודת האפס של הסכסוך? זו קביעה די שרירותית. אפשר לחשוב על צמתים משמעותיים אחרים: הצהרת בלפור ב-1917, או המרד הערבי ב-1936.
“זו שאלה שמציקה לי: למה לא 1917 למשל? דברים מרתקים קורים לא רק בהצהרת בלפור אלא בתהליך הכתיבה שלה. אבל יש בנקודה הזאת משהו אחר: בחרתי בה במכוון כי אני לא חושב שצריך לרסק את מדינת ישראל. בחרתי ב-48′ בדיוק בגלל שאני רוצה שכל ניתוח היסטורי יכלול את ההישגים של מדינת ישראל. אם חוזרים להצהרת בלפור, אז חוזרים למצב קשה מאוד מבחינת היהודים”.
אבל למה בכלל לקבוע נקודת אפס? למה לתלות את כל ההתפתחויות ההיסטוריות באירוע אחד?
“בחרתי בנקודת אפס מתוך עמדה שמכירה באפשרות להציג היסטוריה אלטרנטיבית, גם אם היא מדומיינת – ההיסטוריה שלא קרתה, מה היה קורה אילו היתה מתממשת הסתעפות אחרת מהנקודה שאתה מגדיר כצומת. באותו מקום שבו בחרתי כנקודת אפס אני עוצר את ההסתעפויות ומקבל את מה שקרה עד אז כטבעי. מהבחינה הזאת, המקום שבו תבחר הוא זה שבו אתה מכונן את העמדה הפוליטית שלך. אני מניח את קיומה של ישראל ואת המאפיינים שלה כחלק הכרחי מהניתוח, כי אני לא רוצה להרוס אותה”.
מלחמת 19 השנים
בראיון בדירתו בתל אביב, מציג שנהב תפיסה היסטורית שמתארת את מלחמת 48′ כמאורע המחולל, נקודת האפס, שממנו נבעו באופן ישיר ההתפתחויות ההיסטוריות המאוחרות יותר. כך הוא מציג את פעולות קיביה (53′) וסמוע (66′) כהמשך “הטיהור האתני” של המרחב מפלסטינים שהחל ב-48′; את מלחמת ששת הימים כהרחבה מתוכננת היטב של הישגי 48′ ואת ההתנחלות בשטחים כהמשך ישיר של ההתיישבות היהודית בתוך תחומי הקו הירוק.
הניתוח נראה לעתים חד-ממדי וחלקי, אך בה בעת מציע חלופה מאתגרת למובן מאליו של השמאל והימין ה”מתונים” בישראל. “בוא נחשוב שאנחנו יושבים בעוד 150 שנה”, אומר שנהב, “ואנחנו קוראים ספר היסטוריה. יהיה כתוב שם שהכוחות היהודיים הצליחו לכבוש חלקים מארץ ישראל או מפלסטין המנדטורית, ולעשות טיהור אתני – מושג שמקובל לגבי ישראל בספרות המחקרית הבינלאומית – ושהתהליך נמשך בשני שלבים: ב-48′ וב-67′. כל המנגנונים שבדרך, כמו מלחמות, מעקב דמוגרפי, טרנספר מרצון, דיכוי מאוויים פוליטיים, חינוך, הם תוצאה של אותו תהליך שהיו לו שני חלקים”.
משום כך סולד שנהב מהתיאור ההיסטורי הרווח בשמאל, לפיו ישראל “הושחתה” ב-67′ והכיבוש ממזרח לקו הירוק סיאב את מידותיהם המוסריות של הישראלים. לא רק שהמידה המוסרית אבדה לישראל כבר במעשי הטבח והגירוש של 48′, טוען שנהב, אלא שכיבוש השטחים ויצירתו של מרחב רציף בין הים לירדן היו התפתחות משמחת עבור רבים שסבלו מההפרדה שגזרה עליהם שרירותיותו של הקו הירוק. “מלחמת 67′ העניקה עצמאות, מעמד ואפשרויות קידום לדור שלם של יהודים מארצות ערב שחגגו את פתיחת המרחב”, כותב שנהב. “היא איפשרה הגדרה מחודשת של הזהות המזרחית בישראל לא כאנטיתזה לזהות אשכנזית, אלא כאופציה להשתלבות במרחב, גם אם במקרה זה הנסיבות הן של השתלבות דכאנית”.
שנהב מראה את ההבדלים בהתייחסות ל-67′ דרך ניתוח כתביהם של שלושה סופרים: דויד גרוסמן, האשכנזי, שמעון בלס, המזרחי, וע’סאן כנפאני הפלסטיני: “דויד גרוסמן לא מבין איך זה קרה לנו, איך ביום אחד הפכנו ללאומנים, איך הפכנו לקלגסים של הפלסטינים. ככה הוא כותב ב’זמן הצהוב’ ויוצר תורת מוסר חדשה, שבגבולות 67′ ישראל צודקת, כי רק אז התחלנו להיות צהובים לפלסטינים. באמת רק אז התחיל השלטון על הפלסטינים? עד דצמבר 66′ ישראל הפעילה שלטון צבאי על הפלסטינים בתוך הקו הירוק.
“שמעון בלס כותב חודש אחרי המלחמה שזו ההזדמנות שלנו לצאת מתוך מדינת הגטו, כלומר, מה שגרוסמן מתאר כרגע הנורא – שמעון בלס, כסופר מזרחי, חוגג כרגע פתיחת המרחב. לא רק בגלל החזון האידיאולוגי של קיום משותף, אלא גם בגלל עניינים כלכליים פוליטיים: הוא יכול לפרסם בערבית, יש לו עם מי לדבר בערבית, להתווכח בערבית.
“סופר שלישי זה ע’סאן כנפאני. הוא כותב את ‘שב לחיפה’, שם הוא מתאר את הרגע המרגש שבו הגבול של הקו הירוק קורס והוא יכול לנסוע לראות את הבית שלו ואת הבן שלו שנשאר מאחור. השינוי הזה מוחק את מי שהקו הירוק הוא מדיניות אלימה בעבורו. כלומר, יש שלוש גישות ואנחנו אימצנו את גישת גרוסמן. זו עמדה שמכחישה את העובדה שישראל קיימת ומתקיימת בעולם ערבי”.
ניתוחו של שנהב, לפיו יש מרחב רצוף משני צדי הקו הירוק, מתעלם מההבדל התהומי שבין מעמדם של הפלסטינים תושבי ישראל, לבין תושבי השטחים, הפריבילגיות שמוענקות לראשונים, ואופי השלטון הצבאי שמוטל על האחרונים. לעומת השמאל שמתמקד בביקורת על השלטון הצבאי בשטחים, שנהב מותח קו ישיר בינו לבין המדיניות כלפי הערבים בישראל. לדידו, ההבדל בין היחס לפלסטינים של 67′ ושל 48′ אינו בהכרח משמעותי. “אזרחות לא מבטיחה שוויון ויש אזרחויות חלקיות”, הוא אומר. “כשאתה שולח מורים לבית ספר ערבי ממערב לקו הירוק רק אחרי שהם עברו תחקיר של השב”כ, אתה מייצר מערכת חינוך מעוותת. פלסטינית שאני מכיר קנתה בית עם בן זוגה בכרמיאל והיא ביקשה ממני להיות חתום במקומה או יחד איתה בטאבו. כששאלתי אותה למה, היא אמרה שהיא לא בטוחה שזה יישאר בידיה, שהיא לא יודעת אם יום אחד לא יהיה טרנספר. האיום הזה באלימות הוא חלק בלתי נפרד מתפיסת האזרחות, רוב הפלסטינים בתחומי הקו הירוק מפחדים מאפשרות כזאת. מהבחינה הזאת ליברמן והרעיון של ‘בלי נאמנות אין אזרחות’ הם לא דיסוננס. זה הייצוג האותנטי של רעיון המדינה היהודית והדמוקרטית, של האופן שבו אפשר להגדיר אזרחות באמצעים חדשים”.
היציאה מהארון
שנהב נולד בבאר שבע ב-52′ כיהודה שהרבני, להורים ילידי בגדד. אביו, בן למשפחת סוחרים, נהנה מקריירה משגשגת בקהילת המודיעין הודות לשליטתו בערבית. השכונה שבה גדל היתה מיועדת לאנשי ביטחון והתגוררו בה שתי משפחות של מהגרים מעיראק, ששימשו מורים לערבית. בהמשך עברה משפחתו של שנהב לשכונת נוה משכן, הסמוכה לצהלה, ולפתח תקוה, שם למד בבית הספר עד שהורחק ממנו בכיתה י’, אחרי שהעלה אכסניה באש.
“הייתי די עבריין”, הוא אומר. “אני זוכר שהכנסנו מזרנים לאכסניה ושרפנו אותה”. לאחר מכן, החל לעבוד בבניין, ורק לפני גיוסו השלים את הלימודים. בצבא שירת בחיל המודיעין. בגיל 22 התחתן עם בת למשפחה אשכנזית מבוססת. לפני החתונה, החלה אמה ללחוץ עליו לשנות את שם משפחתו, והוא אף שיכנע את שני הוריו, את אחיו ואת אחותו לעשות זאת.
במשך שנים הכירו רק מעטים את שמו הקודם של שנהב. ב-95′, כשהתראיין לתוכנית הלילה של קובי מידן, הוא נשאל מה היה שם המשפחה הקודם שלו ובלית ברירה השיב. “אתה יודע כמה זה קשה לצאת מהארון”, הוא אומר כיום. “אמרתי לו שהרבני, והתחלתי להזיע כאילו שהייתי צריך להגיד זין וכוס בטלוויזיה. זה ממש כמו יציאה מהארון, זה נתן לי אנרגיות ותחושה של שחרור והקלה. היכולת להפוך את השם ממשהו מצמצם למשהו מרחיב”.
כיום שנהב מתרגם מערבית סיפורים של הסופר הלבנוני מיכאל נועימה וכשהספר ייצא לאור יחתום לראשונה כיהודה שנהב-שהרבני. “כשצילצלתי לאמא שלי, ואמרתי לה שאני רוצה לספר לה משהו שאני חושב שישמח אותה, שאני מחזיר את השם לשהרבני, היא אמרה לי ‘בשביל מה’. אמרתי לה שהשינוי נראה לי טעות והיא ענתה בסמכות ‘שום טעות. לא היית מגיע למעמד בלי זה’ – עם דגש על המלה מעמד”.
אחרי השירות הצבאי למד שנהב לתואר ראשון בסוציולוגיה באוניברסיטת תל אביב ותעשייה וניהול בטכניון, מתוך כוונה לשמש יועץ לניהול. הוא המשיך ללימודי תואר שני ואת הדוקטורט, שהיה קריאה ביקורתית של תורות ניהול ויעילות, עשה באוניברסיטת סטנפורד בארצות הברית. כששב לישראל, החל ללמד בחוג לסוציולוגיה באוניברסיטת תל אביב ובשנים 95′-98′ אף עמד בראשו. בשנות ה-90 השתתף בקבוצה שהקימה את כתב העת “תיאוריה וביקורת”, שהוא עורכו כיום (הגיליון הבא יהיה האחרון שבעריכת שנהב).
ב-96′ פירסם שנהב במוסף זה את המאמר “קשר השתיקה”, שבו האשים את “ההיסטוריונים החדשים” בהתעלמות מהקיפוח של היהודים המזרחים. המאמר עורר סערה ממושכת ויותר מעשרים מאמרי תגובה עליו הופיעו אז ב”הארץ”. הבעיה שניסה שנהב להגדיר היא “נתק בין שתי זירות שונות: ההיסטוריונים החדשים של 48′ וההיסטוריונים החדשים של המזרחים. מי שעוסק בסכסוך לא עוסק במזרחים ולהפך, אין חיבור רעיוני בין השניים”.
למה שיהיה?
“אי אפשר להבין את הסכסוך בלי לדבר על החיבור הזה בין שני סוגים של פליטים ערבים – פלסטינים ויהודים. איך אפשר לדבר על שאלות של פליטות בלי לדבר על הפליטים היהודים הערבים? העובדה שבני מוריס מדבר על פליטים בלי לדבר על פליטים מזרחים היא ביטוי לאשכנזיות שלו, למבנה השיח הטהור של הסכסוך. באופן דומה, האנתרופולוגים והסוציולוגים שחוקרים את המזרחים כבר שישים שנה, שמדברים על מושבי עולים ועל תרבות מזרחית, מנתקים את שאלת הפלסטינים מהניתוח שלהם”.
בני מוריס טוען בתגובה שעניין הפליטים היהודים פשוט לא היה חלק ממחקרו. “כתבתי ספר על בעיית הפליטים הפלסטינים וזה היה הנושא”, הוא אומר. “בספר האחרון שלי, שייקרא בעברית ‘תש”ח’, הקדשתי כמה עמודים בדברי הסיכום לפליטי ארצות ערב מאז 48′ וקישרתי בין שני מקרי הפליטות. 48′ גרמה להתהוות בעיית פליטים פלסטינים, אבל גם לבעיית פליטים יהודים מארצות ערב. זו בעיה שהפסיקה להתקיים משום שהפליטים היהודים מארצות ערב נקלטו והפליטות שלהם נגמרה, בעוד שבעיית הפליטים הפלסטינים נותרה בעינה”.
שנהב טוען שבעיית הפליטים היהודים מארצות ערב לא נפתרה.
“זו בעיה שלו, יותר משזאת בעיה אמיתית. אני חושב שהם נקלטו בצרפת ובאנגליה וגם איכשהו בישראל. זה לקח זמן, זה היה תהליך כואב, אבל בסך הכל הם נקלטו”.
הנוסטלגיה החדשה
העמדה ששנהב מבקר, זו שמאפיינת את גרוסמן ואנשי שמאל רבים אחרים, רובם אשכנזים, מתאפיינת בערגה למדינת ישראל כפי שהיתה לפני כיבוש השטחים ב-67′. געגועים אלה, “הנוסטלגיה החדשה” בלשון שנהב, הם “מצב תרבותי של אליטות יהודיות ממעמד הביניים הליברלי ורוב אינדיבידואלי דומם של פרופסיונלים”, הוא כותב בספרו: “טכנוקרטים, עובדים של השירות הציבורי, פרקליטות המדינה, אנשי אקדמיה במדעי החברה והרוח, אנשי משרד החוץ, גנרלים בדימוס ועיתונאים – רוב מצביעי קדימה, העבודה ומרצ”.
שנהב מונה נציגים רבים לנוסטלגיה החדשה, בהם יוסי ביילין, דן מרידור, חיים רמון, ציפי לבני, טליה ששון, אהרן ברק, רות גביזון, עמוס אילון, ארי שביט, עמוס שוקן, דן מרגלית, אמנון דנקנר ורבים נוספים. שנהב כותב כי געגועיהם של האוחזים ב”נוסטלגיה החדשה” אינם רק לישראל נטולת הגדה המערבית, אלא גם לישראל אשכנזית יותר ודתית פחות. הוא מביא שורה של ציטוטים שבהם המתגעגעים לתקופת שקדמה ל-67′ מביעים את סלידתם מצורות התנהגות בלתי-רציונליות של המתנחלים, שמנוגדות לערכיהם של מייסדי המדינה האשכנזים. בחלק ניכר מהביקורת שלהם על ההתנחלויות הם מתייחסים אל המתנחלים כאל מקשה אחת.
“פרדיגמת 67′ של השמאל הליברלי אינה נובעת אפוא רק מתוך פחד מפני הריבוי הדמוגרפי הפלסטיני”, מסיק שנהב, “אלא גם מתוך חרדה מפני הפיכתה של ישראל לחברה עם רוב מזרחי… זוהי שפתו של מי שבא למזרח התיכון לזמן קצר, שלא על מנת להתערות בו, אלא להתקיים בו כאורח. עמדה זו אינה רק בלתי מוסרית כלפי הפלסטינים, היא גם הרת אסון ליהודים עצמם. היא כופה עליהם חיים בתוך גטו עם תפיסת דמוקרטיה המבוססת על חוקי גזע ומצב חירום מתמיד”.
לכן חש שנהב מנוכר מהקבוצה הבולטת ביותר באקדמיה הישראלית ובחיי הרוח של תל אביב ורחוק מהם עוד יותר משהוא רחוק מאנשי הימין הקיצוני וממתנחלי הגדה המערבית. הוא החל לעמוד על כך בשנות פעילותו ב”קשת הדמוקרטית המזרחית”, שהוא היה ממקימיה ב-96′. אנשי הקשת לחמו נגד חוסר השוויון שממנו סובלים המזרחים בכלכלה הישראלית ובחלוקת נכסי המדינה, ובעיקר בקרקעות.
הקמת הקשת המזרחית, מספר שנהב כיום, התאפשרה הודות להסכמי אוסלו שיצרו את התחושה כי אפשר לעסוק במאבקים פוליטיים שאינם נוגעים לפלסטינים. השותפים לתנועה היו בחלקם אנשי ימין שהשקפותיהם ביחס לסכסוך עם הפלסטינים היו רחוקות מאלה של שנהב. “אני זוכר את עצמי בעבר כשמאל בנאלי”, מספר שנהב. “היתה לי תפיסה של שמאל אשכנזי רגיל, וההתנסות שלי בקשת הדמוקרטית המזרחית לאט לאט לימדה אותי איפה המכשלות במיקום של השמאל האשכנזי. אני זוכר שדיברתי באירוע פוליטי באוקטובר 2000 שהשתתפו בו שולמית אלוני ואורי אבנרי ואחרים, ואף אחד מהחברים שלי בקשת לא היה שם. חזרתי הביתה ולא ישנתי כל הלילה. אני זוכר את הבוקר שבו התעוררתי ואמרתי ‘מה אני עושה, איך יכולה להיות התהום הזאת?’ כשהזמינו אותי ב-2004 לדבר בכנס של ‘יש גבול’, מתוך 500 סרבנים היו ארבעה מזרחים. זו תופעה שאי-אפשר להתעלם ממנה. למי יש פריבילגיה להיות סרבן?”
המתנחלים הדפוקים
שנהב מתבסס בדבריו על ביקורתם של אנשי הקשת המזרחית את מפלגות השמאל, שבפועל ייצגו את בעלי ההון: “העמדה הסוציאל-דמוקרטית האשכנזית לא יכולה להכיל צדק הקצאתי אמיתי. מרצ, שמציגה את עצמה כמפלגת שמאל, נתמכת על ידי אלקטורט של בעלי אדמות. לפני הבחירות ניסו להקים שמאל חדש. אתה מסתכל על הגלריה הגברית, האשכנזית והמנותקת מהבנה אתנית וגזעית ושואל את עצמך איך נולד הדבר המוזר הזה. איך בעלי קרקעות ובעלי תאגידים יכולים להוות שמאל מעמדי, והם מכריזים על עצמם ככאלה. גם עמדתה של הקבוצה הזאת ביחס לפלסטינים קונסרבטיבית. מי בלע לקרבו את האדמות של הפלסטינים לאחר 48′ אם לא אנשי תנועת העבודה ומפ”ם בתוכם?
“כשהלכנו אל אופיר פינס, שהיה שר הפנים, לדבר איתו על גבולות בין יישובים – אמרנו לו שמתוקף תקנה הוא יכול להביא לצדק, אם יתן לכפר קרע את תחנת הדלק שלו – הוא אמר ‘אני לא יכול לבגוד באלקטורט שלי'”. משתתף נוסף בפגישה מאשר את דברי שנהב. פינס בתגובה: “על פניו, ההתבטאות של שנהב מופרכת ואין לה בסיס במציאות. הייתי בקשר לא מקרי ולא חד-פעמי עם הקשת המזרחית, היו דברים שהסכמתי איתם והיו דברים שלא. יש אכן מחלוקת נוקבת בין הקשת המזרחית לבין התנועה הקיבוצית בשאלת הקרקעות, אבל אני לא קיבוצניק”.
שנהב: “התובנה שאני מבקש להדגיש ולהוסיף היא שהשמאל החברתי הוא גם ימין מדיני. כששמואל הספרי אומר לארי שביט ‘אנחנו לאומנים של הקו הירוק, אנחנו בעד שתי מדינות לשני עמים אבל בתוך זה אנחנו לאומנים’ – האמירה הזאת משקפת את האופן שבו השמאל הציוני הוא במובנים רבים הרבה יותר לאומני מחלקים אחרים בציבור, והלאומנות הזאת בולטת במיוחד בשלד שהיא מחזיקה בארון, שאלת 48′”.
והימין לא לאומני? אנשי ימין לא רוצים מדינה יהודית חזקה?
“לא בהכרח כמו השמאל. אליעז כהן מכפר עציון אומר שאם לא נשרטט את הגבול על הקו הירוק, אז זכות השיבה של הפלסטינים ושל היהודים תהיה הדדית, ‘כמו שלי יש זכות שיבה לכפר עציון’, הוא אומר, ‘אין שום סיבה שלפלסטינים משכם לא תהיה זכות שיבה ליפו’. זו אוטופיה, אבל זו קבוצה שהיא הרבה יותר שמאלנית מאמנון רובינשטיין וארי שביט ויוסי ביילין ודויד גרוסמן, זה המקום שבו צריך להפוך את הקטגוריות ולייצר אותן בצורה אחרת.
“בשביל השמאל הציוני כל המתנחלים נראים אותו דבר וחושבים אותו דבר, כולם מלוכסני עיניים. אבל יש לפחות 250 אלף איש בהתנחלויות שהם המעמדות הנמוכים שהיו צריכים ויכולים להיות חלק מרכזי מהשמאל הישראלי. האנשים האלה גרים בשטחים, הם הנדפקים העיקריים של משטר מפא”י ושל הכלכלה הניאו ליברלית, שנדחפו לשם כתוצאה ישירה מהמבנה של אי השוויון בתוך ישראל. שרטוט הקו הירוק וגיבוש פתרון בהתאם לו הוא איום עליהם, איום שפינוי ימנע מהם את מדינת הרווחה שקיבלו”.
לפיכך, הסדר עתידי לא חייב להיות כרוך, לדעת שנהב, בפינוי כל ההתנחלויות, אפשרות שהוא מגדיר בספר “פנטזיה של השמאל שמכחיש את המציאות הפוליטית”. קשה לראות כיום מי יהיו השותפים הפלסטינים לפתרון שאינו כולל פינוי של ההתנחלויות, בשעה שהמאבק נגדן מהווה חלק מכריע בהתנגדות הפלסטינית, אך שנהב אופטימי גם בעניין זה. מבחינה היסטורית, הוא אינו רואה הבדל בין התיישבות משני עברי הקו הירוק, ההבדל נעוץ רק בכך שהפלסטינים הכירו בהתיישבות שממערב לו. “השמאל לא יכול לראות את העוול שנגרם למתנחלים”, הוא אומר. “אני לא בטוח שזה מוסרי לפנות דורות של אנשים שחיים שם. אני לא חושב שצריך לתקן עוול מוסרי אחד בעוול אחר”.
אתה חושב שיש שותפים פלסטינים לדרישה הזאת? איזה פלסטיני יסכים להסדר שלא כולל פינוי של ההתנחלויות? חלק משמעותי מההתנגדות הפלסטינית עוסק בקרקעות שההתנחלויות גוזלות.
“אם תהיה תביעה הדדית שתאפשר סוג של חילופי של שטחים ואדמות, אני לא רואה סיבה מיוחדת שלא להשאיר את ההתנחלויות שם. הדיונים האלה קיימים אצל מתנחלים כל הזמן, אני קורא ב’נקודה’ וב’מקור ראשון’ את השאלות על הנוכחות שלהם שם, אם היא מוסרית ומה העתיד שלה, רק שזה לא חשוף לציבור”.
בסוף הספר מציע שנהב שלושה פתרונות אפשריים לסכסוך, שמתבססים על ההנחה כי מקורו הוא במלחמת 48′ ולא ב-67′. שנהב מציג את המודל של “מדינת כל אזרחיה” על כל השטח, בניהול משותף של יהודים וערבים. באותה נשימה הוא גורס כי זה המודל המועדף פחות, שכן הוא אינו מתחשב בהבדלים שבין האינטרסים של הצדדים וייצור ביניהם מירוץ דמוגרפי להשגת רוב.
המודל המועדף על שנהב הוא “דמוקרטיה הסדרית”: חלוקה של האזור לשטחים קטנים שבהם יתגוררו קהילות דתיות ואזרחיות שונות, במבנה של קנטונים, שישמרו על עצמאות ויאוגדו במבנה רופף. גם אם פתרונות אלה נראים דמיוניים כיום, שנהב סבור ששינויי השנים האחרונות הפכו את פתרון שתי המדינות דמיוני עוד יותר. למעשה, הוא טוען, הפתרונות העתידיים מתעצבים כל העת. “זה לא שהכל מחכים שבן עמי יחזור מקמפ דיוויד עם הסכם. בינתיים יש העמקה של הכיבוש והשליטה על השטחים, השליטה בעזה מבחוץ ודרך ארגונים הומניטריים, היא השליטה הכי טובה שיכולה להיות. השינויים האלה מעבים את המרחב האחד. אנחנו לא חיים במדינה יהודית ודמוקרטית, אנחנו חיים במרחב אחד, שבו ישראל מפעילה ריבונות דה-פקטו מהים ועד הירדן, כולל שטחי סי ובי ואיי, בעזה וברמאללה. נוצרת מציאות שאי אפשר לנתק בינה לבין פתרונות”.
ואולי לא תהיה הכרעה? למה שהמצב הנוכחי לא יימשך?
“אנשים אולי ימשיכו לחיות כמה שנים ב’לסה פאסה’ מהים ועד הירדן, אולי אפילו עוד חמישים שנה. אבל בסוף תבוא המהפכה. אין לי ספק שהתהליך שקורה היום ילך ויתעבה ולא יאפשר חזרה לשתי מדינות”.*
פרופ’ יהודה שנהב טוען שאשכנזים הם שמקדמים במידה לא מבוטלת את רעיון ההפרדה מהפלסטינים. לדידו, ייתכן שלמזרחים יהיה קל יותר לחיות לצד פלסטינים במרחב דו-לאומי אחד: “זו עמדה שמזרחים יכולים לאמץ. אבא שלי וכל מי שהיה סביבו, כולם אנשי מערכת הביטחון, תוך שנייה אתה יכול לראות בהם ערבים”.
זה רלוונטי לדור צעיר יותר? הרי אין כמעט צעירים ממך שדוברים ערבית או קשורים לתרבות הזאת.
“יכול להיות שיש פה עניין דורי שאני קצת שבוי בו. אבל ההורים שלנו פתחו אופציה שאפשר לשחזר אותה, שיכולה להפוך לעמדה פוליטית. ולהפך: זה כמעט בנאלי, אבל נכון, שהאשכנזים הם אלה שהובילו את הרעיון שישראל היא סניף של אירופה. נראה מה הם יגידו כשהאיסלאם יהפוך לגורם מרכזי באירופה”.
The previous IAM post has dealt with the elements that contribute to the decline of the Humanities in higher learning institutions, such as political activism disguised as academics.
One of the main facilitators of political activism dressed in academic garb is the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute.
Van Leer often hosts discussions for “leftists,” who follow neo-Marxist, critical scholarship. For example, recently, Van Leer has held an event in memory of David Graeber, who was “one of the most fascinating and pioneering intellectuals on the renewed left [emphasis added] in the last decade.” Graeber, an “anthropologist and activist,” was the author of “groundbreaking books” such as Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, as well as Debt: The First 5,000 Years. The Van Leer discussion has dealt with his life and work. “His activism in the United States and the Middle East; His harsh critique of capitalism and his identification as an anarchist; His revolutionary view of money and value;” among others. Worth noting that Graeber was one of the founders of Occupy Wall Street. Clearly, there is not much academic work here but rather polemics. For the discussion, the organizers also invited Dr. Yaara Benger Alaluf from Academia for Equality, who specializes in “Exploring the production of relaxation in Club Med seaside resorts.”
Also recently, Van Leer has held an event, “Philosophy at the end of the world – Hegel, Agamben and the day after.” According to the invitation, it is the second meeting to honor the publication of issue 53 of Theory and Criticism. The event questioned “Agamben and Hegel: Why should we read them, especially today? What in their total and all-encompassing philosophy can describe or interpret the current political moment—a moment of dismantling and lack of a way out, of confusion and error? What is the end of history that each of them predicted and how is it related to the end of a particular world order—and with it, also, the order of culture and meaning—that we are witnessing now? And what can come after it?” Not surprisingly, the end of the world order is referring to the former US President Donald Trump. Participants: Dr. Gal Katz, Columbia University, who already gave a talk at Van Leer in June 2019, titled “The Philosopher and the Political Sphere;” Shir Hacham, an independent researcher, a former Haaretz and Time Out contributor in arts and dance; Dr. Yoav Ronel, Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, Jerusalem, who teaches “representations of desire in western culture, through 20th century critical theory.” The host is Dr. Shaul Setter, the editor of Theory and Criticism.
The previous edition of Theory and Criticism, number 52, titled “Critical Theory in the Era of the New Radical Right,” was also edited by Setter. He wrote in the preface that critical theory is a “philosophical endeavor with noise at its heart. It is a noise generating enterprise—that is, intellectual activity that is not hemmed in by the boundaries of thought, of the kingdom of reason and imagination or of the ivory tower of institutional research and academic freedom.” Instead, he argues, “it is an endeavor whose movement echoes throughout the polis, takes place in the public sphere and is heard throughout the social sphere, raising its voice and seeking to transmit and disseminate it. Its center is the din of philosophy that is created by connecting thought to action, that is, to practice. It has been this way not only from the moment of its founding or its naming, but rather since 1845, the year in which a young intellectual who was exiled from his homeland jotted down some thoughts after reading a book; that is, since Marx’s theses on Feuerbach.”
By its own admission, Van Leer’s Theory and Criticism is a “journal for theoretical thought and critical study” founded in the early 1990s. It has dealt with “critical theory in local contexts.” Articles of “theoretical discussions and new forms of critique, and portray their demands from both scholarship and social praxis. They consider the fundamental questions of theory and criticism in light of the concrete changes in society—in Israel, with all its political and cultural issues, and elsewhere, from a comparative perspective and in a global context.” In effect, the journal has been a platform for the radical left, producing mountains of undetected polemical verbiage.
IAM reported about Van Leer before. Two years ago, IAM reported that Van Leer has been facilitating Holocaust inversion practiced for over a decade by a number of scholars whose aim is to minimize the scale of the catastrophe befallen on the Jews in WWII, by comparing the Holocaust to the Palestinian Nakba. This Holocaust equivalence serves two goals: It absolves the Palestinians and their Arab allies from any blame for starting a war that intended to destroy the nascent State of Israel, and it presents the former Jewish Holocaust victims as the “new” Nazi perpetrators. In Holocaust inversion, the Palestinians have become the “new Jews.”
Between 2017 and 2019, Van Leer facilitated another project, “Settler Colonialism and Resistance,” by a group of radical activists who discussed “a new understanding of the relations between the Zionist settlers and the local Arab-Palestinian population.” Among the participants were Lev Grinberg, Daniel DeMalach; Gadi Algazi; Khaled Anabtawi; Avishai Ehrlich; Hanna Herzog; Alexandre (Sandy) Kedar; Jacob (Kobi) Metzer; Mansour Nasasra; Tom Pessah; Areej Sabbagh-Khoury; Oren Shlomo; Na’aman Tal; Erez Tzfadia; Himmat Zu’bi’. Some of the participants are BDS supporters, and others are just anti-Israel activists.
It is easy to see that, in essence, many of the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute’s projects espouse the negation of the right of Jews to a Jewish state by describing it as a settler-colonial entity. There are no academics on the various panels who can provide a rebuttal to the settler-colonial theory which has become dominant in universities in the West.
But the ‘cherry on the icing’ is that the Council for Higher Education is housed on Van Leer Institute’s premises. There cannot be a more significant conflict of interests than this.
Philosophy at the End of the World – Hegel, Agamben, and the Day After
Tuesday | 01/26/21 | 08:30 pm
Second meeting in honor of the publication of Issue 53 of Theory and Criticism
Dr. Gal Katz, Shir Hacham, Dr. Yoav Ronel, Dr. Shaul Setter |
Agamben and Hegel: Why should we read them, especially today? What in their total and all-encompassing philosophy can describe or interpret the current political moment—a moment of dismantling and lack of a way out, of confusion and error? What is the end of history that each of them predicted and how is it related to the end of a particular world order—and with it, also, the order of culture and meaning—that we are witnessing now? And what can come after it?
Participants
Dr. Gal Katz, Columbia University Shir Hacham, independent scholar Dr. Yoav Ronel, Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design, Jerusalem Editor-in-chief of Theory and Criticism, Dr. Shaul Setter, moderator.
26 JANUARY AT 20:27פילוסופיה בסוף העולם – הגל, אגמבן והיום שאחרי // שידור חיThis video is now available to watchWatch Now
ערב לכבודו של האנתרופולוג והאנרכיסט דייוויד גרייבר (2020-1961)
דייוויד גרייבּר שמת בפתאומיות בתחילת ספטמבר נמנה עם האינטלקטואלים החלוצים המרתקים ביותר בשמאל המתחדש בעשור האחרון. הוא היה אנתרופולוג ואקטיביסט, מחברם של ספרים מחוללי שינוי ובהםBullshit Jobs: A Theory ו-Debt: The First 5,000 Years. בערב הדיון נעסוק בשלל היבטים של חייו ועבודתו: האקטיביזם שלו בארצות הברית ובמזרח התיכון; עבודתו האנתרופולוגית רחבת ההיקף; ביקורתו החריפה על הקפיטליזם והזדהותו כאנרכיסט; השקפתו המהפכנית על כסף ועל ערך; ניסיונו להציע תפיסה מוסרית שונה של חוב ושל עבודה, וגישתו הייחודית ומעוררת התקווה ביחס להיסטוריה האנושית.
ערב לכבודו של האנתרופולוג והאנרכיסט דייוויד גרייבר (2020-1961)
יום שני | 09/11/20 | בשעה 18:00
שיחה בשידור חי |
דייוויד גרייבּר שמת בפתאומיות בתחילת ספטמבר נמנה עם האינטלקטואלים החלוצים המרתקים ביותר בשמאל המתחדש בעשור האחרון. הוא היה אנתרופולוג ואקטיביסט, מחברם של ספרים מחוללי שינוי ובהם Bullshit Jobs: A Theory ו-Debt: The First 5,000 Years. בערב הדיון נעסוק בשלל היבטים של חייו ועבודתו: האקטיביזם שלו בארצות הברית ובמזרח התיכון; עבודתו האנתרופולוגית רחבת ההיקף; ביקורתו החריפה על הקפיטליזם והזדהותו כאנרכיסט; השקפתו המהפכנית על כסף ועל ערך; ניסיונו להציע תפיסה מוסרית שונה של חוב ושל עבודה, וגישתו הייחודית ומעוררת התקווה ביחס להיסטוריה האנושית.
The Settler Colonialism and Resistance Group met throughout 2017-2019to discuss a new understanding of the relations between the Zionist settlers and the local Arab-Palestinian population. In the first year the group discussed theoretical texts and the early work of its participants. In the second year the group focused on presentations of original research with the aim of publishing a collection of articles.
Led By
Lev Grinberg, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Daniel DeMalach, Sapir Academic College
Participants
Gadi Algazi Khaled Anabtawi Avishai Ehrlich Hanna Herzog Alexandre (Sandy) Kedar Jacob (Kobi) Metzer Mansour Nasasra Tom Pessah Areej Sabbagh-Khoury Oren Shlomo Na’aman Tal Erez Tzfadia Himmat Zu’bi
In December 2020, the Israeli Council for Higher Education (CHE) asked the public to send suggestions for advancing the Humanities in higher education institutions. The CHE appointed a committee headed by a CHE member, Prof. Haviva Padia of the Department of Jewish History, Ben Gurion University. The committee invites the public to write his/her position or proposal regarding ways to promote the Humanities in academia and the public in Israel. The proposals must be sent by email, no later than January 31, 2021, to Humanities-Committee@che.org.il.
The CHE public announcement has sparked a debate among members of the academic network Academia-IL. No one doubts the necessity of the Humanities, rather, the debate was more concerned with who decides what is considered important research that deserves public funding.
There is no doubt that the Humanities are essential, as students should be able to critically examine written texts. However, what has gone wrong with the Humanities is that political activists have seized the Humanities to advance their political agenda through the neo-Marxist, critical studies paradigm. Dozens of political activists masquerading as academics were recruited by their like-minded political activist peers to proliferate a particular political agenda as pioneered by Edward Said.
For example, the Walter-Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab Coexistence, established in 2002 at the School of Humanities at TAU, aims to create and promote a “critical discussion of issues related to the Jewish-Palestinian conflict and to coexistence in Israel.” The Institution is involved in academic courses related to the impact on the peace process, land policies in the Negev desert, legal issues, among others, and “the occupation and its implication on Israeli society.” The Institution grants annual scholarships.
Of late, the Walter-Lebach Institute has published “A call for applications for a grant to candidates on doctoral dissertation or thesis.” Shortly after, the Institute announced the publication of an article, “Half-Statelessness and Hannah Arendt’s Citizenship Model: The Case of Palestinian Citizens of Israel,” co-authored by Noa Gani, a Ph.D. student at the Hebrew University and Prof. Amal Jamal, the head of the Walter-Lebach Institute. The article explores Hannah Arendt’s “conceptualization of half-statelessness,” which, according to the authors, theorizes “the partial invasion of citizenship by characteristics of statelessness. It is a process of dehumanization.” The article uses Arendt’s conceptualization to “demonstrate the meaning of dehumanization by examining the reaction of Palestinian citizens of Israel to recent radicalization of state policies towards them.” The article also refers “to the anti-liberal legislation and the radicalization of political discourse in Israel during the last decade, leading to further deterioration in the civil status of Palestinian citizens.” The co-authors describe how “Palestinian citizens of Israel have never been recognized as an indigenous national group. This misrecognition is most intensely manifested in the denial of having equal right to the land (Jamal, 2007). This denial is translated into the realization of the Zionist vision of creating exclusive Jewish sovereignty at the expense of negation and repression of Palestinian nationalism” The article’s proof is a citation of Knesset member Ayman Odeh.
Evidently, the article is a political exercise dressed up in academic garb.
The Institution also held an event, “2019 Elections: New Hegemony or Adequate Representation of public positions?” in May 2019, inviting, again, Ayman Odeh, the leader of the Hadash party and Joint List alliance, and Michal Biran, member of the Labor Party, to speak, moderated by Prof. Amal Jamal. Hardly an academic or balanced debate. It is not surprising that the books the Institution publishes are: The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Israeli-Palestinian Relations (2020) Control and Thorn in It (2020) The Media Activities of National Minorities in the Algorithmic Age (2020) Palestinian Arab Organizations in Israeli Civil Society (2019) The Conflict – Sociological, Historical and Geopolitical Aspects (2019) Arab Civil Society In Israel (2017) The Nakba in the National Memory of Israel (2015) The Impact of the Occupation on Israeli Society (2013) Land, Democracy and Multi-Minority Relations (2013) Dialectic of Memory and Oblivion in Israeli Independence and the Palestinian Nakba (2010).
As can be seen, the Institution provides a one-sided political perspective that does not allow alternative voices.
The Institution also provides a link to another one-sided political event. In 2019 the Minerva Humanities Center at TAU had held a book launch for Idith Zertal’s “Refusal: The Duty of Obedience and the Right to Conscience,” published the year before. Speaking at the event were Adi Ophir, Gadi Algazi, Hagit Gur Ziv, Zehava Galon, Amal Jamal, Michael Sfard, Yishai Rosen-Zvi, and Yonatan Shapira. The event was filmed and uploaded to the TAU website. Zertal, a highly controversial historian, has been accused of misrepresenting events surrounding the decision of Holocaust survivors to come to Israel. The speakers’ roster at this event is telling as well, many like Ophir and Algazi are leaders of the neo-Marxist, critical school, and some are from the Meretz Party.
As for Zertal’s book on “Conscientious objection” and “Obedience and refusal,” she discusses the “thought of the refusal and right – and duty – of citizens to say ‘no’ to the government and the law; The intellectual, political, and cultural background of conscientious objectors; The concrete motives, anchored in time and place, of the refusal of conscience and its modes of action, its purposes, and its clashes with the institutions of the state and with its basic myths; And the ongoing controversy surrounding refusal in the public sphere – in the military, in the courts, in the media and academia.” The book questions, “How does a person become a refuser? What are the individual, social and political conditions in which such an event matures and takes place? How does the refusal resonate in the public sphere and what does it attest to?” And argues that the “connection of conscientious objection to a democratic state is clear and can serve as a standard for the very democratic essence of a state. But the Israeli democracy haunts its conscientious objectors, especially since the occupation and its wars were their main motives. While the state of occupation is denied or considered the norms of the military, backed by the political and legal systems, defines conscientious objectors as an existential security threat, danger to democracy and the rule of law, and punishes accordingly: young Israelis, reservists or conscientious objectors before enlisting, are sent, since half a century for extended periods of time in the military prison.” Zertal’s reading of the topic is biased and misguided, not to mention the lack of contextual understanding of the phenomenon.
Unfortunately, the market for one-sided, Israel-bashing academic work is flourishing as many publishers compete with each other to publish books that reflect badly on Israel. It is hardly a secret that since the publication of Said’s books, many in the Israeli and Western academy have devoted themselves to undermining the image of Israel while neglecting or soft-pedaling human rights abuses in the dictatorships of the Middle East.
The CHE committee should fight the distortion of the political activists disguised as academics. IAM has been researching the phenomenon since 2004 and has collected numerous instances of such politicization. IAM will provide more examples in the next several posts.
פנייה לציבור – קבלת הצעות לקידום מדעי הרוח באקדמיה
המועצה להשכלה גבוהה (מל”ג) והוועדה לתכנון ולתקצוב (ות”ת)מייחסות חשיבות רבה ביותר לקידומם של מדעי הרוח במוסדות להשכלה גבוהה באופן מערכתי. בשנים החולפות יזמו ות”ת ומל”ג מספר מהלכים במטרה לקדם את מדעי הרוח בראייה מערכתית ארוכת טווח וכללו את הנושא במסגרת התכנית הרב שנתית הנוכחית (תשע”ז- תשפ”א).בנובמבר 2020 הוקמה ועדת היגוי לקידום מדעי הרוח מקרב חברי מל”ג וות”ת בראשותה של חברת המל”ג, פרופ’ חביבה פדיה – המחלקה להיסטוריה של עם ישראל, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון בנגב.הוועדה התבקשה לגבש הצעה לתכנית עבודה מסודרת ואחודה, ובה המלצות קונקרטיות, תיעדוף, לוח זמנים ואופני יישום, לקידום תחום מדעי הרוח בהשכלה הגבוהה.הוועדה פונה לציבור ומזמינה את כל המעוניין להציג בכתב לוועדה את עמדתו או הצעתו בנוגע לדרכים לקידומם של מדעי הרוח באקדמיה ובציבור בישראל.את ההצעה יש להעביר בדואר אלקטרוני לכתובת Humanities-Committee@che.org.ilלא יאוחר מיום 31 ינואר 2021 =======================================
The Walter-Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab Coexistence was established in 2002 as part of the Social Science School, the School of Humanities, and the School of Education at Tel-Aviv University. The Institution’s goal is to create and promote critical discussion of issues related to the Jewish-Palestinian conflict and to coexistence in Israel. The Institution is involved in conventions, publications, and academic courses related to its core interests, including psychological factors and their impact on the peace process, third section activity in Israel, land policies in the Negev desert, legal issues, the occupation and its implication on Israeli society, and dilemmas of recognition in conflicts. The Institution grants annual scholarships for outstanding students and researchers who focus on relevant issues, in addition to collaborations with other institutions and research centers.
התפתחויות במערכת היחסים בין המדינה למיעוט הערבי בישראל בעשרים האחרונים.
השלכות והשפעות הקורונה על החברה בישראל ובמיוחד בממשק בין החברה היהודית לערבית.
המערכת הפוליטית הישראלית ומיקומם של האזרחים הערבים.
מערכת המשפט וזכויות האזרחים הערבים.
האלימות בחברה הערבית ותפקידה של משטרת ישראל במניעתה.
השתלבותם של האזרחים הערבים במשק והכלכלה בישראל.
קריטריונים להגשת מועמדות: תלמידי/ות התואר השלישי והתואר השני, אשר מצויים/ות במהלך כתיבת עבודת דוקטורט לאחר שהצעת המחקר נשפטה ואושרה או תזה העוסקות בנושאים אלו, מוזמנים/ות להגיש את מועמדותם/ן לקבלת מענק כספי. המלגות הן בסך 12,000 ₪ לתלמידי/ות הדוקטורט ו- 5000 ₪ לתלמידי/ות התואר השני.
** תלמידי/ות הדוקטורט יהיו מחויבים/ות בכתיבת מאמר קצר בשפה העברית עבור המכון המבוסס על עבודתם/ן. המאמרים שיימצאו מתאימים ויעמדו בסטנדרטים המחקריים המתאימים יפורסמו במסגרת המכון לאחר שיעברו שיפוט אקדמי כמקובל.** כלל הזוכים/ות במלגות יתחייבו להגיש עותק של עבודתם/ן למכון בתום הכתיבה ולציין את קבלת המלגה בדברי התודות.
הגשת מועמדות: יש להגיש את הפריטים הבאים בקובץ PDF אחד:
נושא העבודה ותקציר בהיקף של עד 5 עמודים, הכולל את רציונל המחקר, מסגרתו התיאורטית, סקירת ספרות קצרה, מתודולוגיה, מבנה המחקר ואופן ביצועו. יש להקפיד להפריד בין חלקי התקציר בצורה ברורה.
אישור על הצעת העבודה מרשויות אקדמיות מתאימות )אישור מעבר לשלב ב’ לדוקטורנטים ואישור הצעת התיזה למסטרנטים(. המלגה איננה מיועדת למי שכבר מסר/ה את העבודה לשיפוט.
שני מכתבי המלצה )אחד ממנחה/ת העבודה(. מכתבי ההמלצה אמורים להישלח על ידי הממליצים ישירות למייל המכון.
קורות חיים אקדמיים.
מידע על מלגות ופרסים נוספים שהוענקו עבור העבודה. למגישים בפעם השנייה, חשוב לציין זאת ולדאוג להמלצות מעודכנות.
פרטים אישיים: יש לציין על הבקשה שם מלא, כתובת, מס’ טלפון, מס’ ת.ז. וכתובת דואר אלקטרוני.
את כל החומרים המפורטים לעיל יש להגיש ב- 2 עותקים בדואר רגיל וכן למייל המכון בקובץ אחד מרוכז בפורמט PDF, לא יאוחר מתאריך ה- 15/01/2021.
כתובת למשלוח: מכון וולטר ליבך לחקר הדו-קיום היהודי-ערבי, בניין נפתלי, קומה 5, הפקולטה למדעי החברה, אוניברסיטת תל אביב, תל אביב, 6997801 lebachinst@tauex.tau.ac.il
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fmed20 Mediterranean Politics ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fmed20 Half-Statelessness and Hannah Arendt’s Citizenship Model: The Case of Palestinian Citizens of Israel Noa Gani & Amal Jamal To cite this article: Noa Gani & Amal Jamal (2020): Half-Statelessness and Hannah Arendt’s Citizenship Model: The Case of Palestinian Citizens of Israel, Mediterranean Politics, DOI: 10.1080/13629395.2020.1824377 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2020.1824377 Published online: 23 Sep 2020. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 4 View related articles View Crossmark data Half-Statelessness and Hannah Arendt’s Citizenship Model: The Case of Palestinian Citizens of Israel Noa Gani a and Amal Jamal b aThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel; bSchool of Political Science, Government and International Affairs, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel ABSTRACT This article explores Hannah Arendt’s conceptualization of half-statelessness, theorized as the partial invasion of citizenship by characteristics of statelessness. It is a process of dehumanization, since according to Arendt, human beings can realize their humanness only within the confines of genuine citizenship. Explicating Arendt’s conceptualization of half-statelessness helps us better understand her dynamic citizenship theory and better explain contemporary developments, characterizing ethnic national states in which populist trends lead to gradual substantial revocation of national minorities’ citizenship status. We illustrate the analytical advantages of Arendt’s conceptualization and demonstrate the meaning of dehumanization by examining the reaction of Palestinian citizens of Israel to recent radicalization of state policies towards them. KEYWORDS Hannah Arendt; citizenship; half-statelessness; dehumanization; israel; palestinian minority
מחבר: עדית זרטל שנת ההוצאה: 2018 מילות מפתח: סרבנות גיוס ושירות צבאי; סרבנות מטעמי מצפון; סרבני גיוס מטעמי מצפון; סרבני מלחמה; סרבנות פוליטית מה קורה לאדם שנוף מולדתו הושחת ונגזל ממנו, שמדינתו וחוקיה השתעבדו לאי־חוקיות ולאי־צדק? האם עליו לציית אוטומטית לתביעות המדינה או לדבוק בחופש המצפון וכבוד־האדם שלו ולסרב, מכוח אהבת המולדת שלו? סירוב מצפוני הוא אירוע נדיר שמעטים מסוגלים לו. כיצד נעשה אדם לסרבן? מהם התנאים האינדיווידואליים, החברתיים והפוליטיים, שבהם מבשיל אירוע כזה ומתחולל? איך מהדהד הסירוב במרחב הציבורי ומה הוא מעיד עליו? זיקתו של הסירוב המצפוני למדינה הדמוקרטית ברורה ויכולה לשמש תו־תקן לעצם מהותה הדמוקרטית של מדינה. אולם הדמוקרטיה הישראלית רודפת את סרבני המצפון שלה, במיוחד מאז היו הכיבוש ומלחמותיו למניעיהם העיקריים. שעה שמצב הכיבוש מוכחש או נחשב לנורמטיבי הצבא, בגיבּוּיָן של המערכות הפוליטית והמשפטית, מגדיר את סרבני המצפון כאיום ביטחוני קיומי, סכנה לדמוקרטיה ולשלטון החוק, ומענישם בהתאם: צעירים וצעירות ישראלים, חיילי מילואים או סרבני־חִיּוּל טרם גיוס, המסרבים לשרת בצבא כובש, משוגרים זה חצי מאה לפרקי זמן ממושכים בכלא הצבאי. ציות וסירוב; מַחְשֶׁבֶת הסירוב והזכות – והחובה – של אזרחים לומר “לא” לשלטון ולחוק; הרקע האינטלקטואלי, הפוליטי והתרבותי של סרבנות המצפון; המניעים הקונקרטיים, המעוגנים בזמן ובמקום, של סרבנות המצפון ואופני הפעולה שלה, תכליותיה, והתנגשויותיה עם מוסדות המדינה ועם מיתוסֵי היסוד שלה; והפולמוס המתמשך המתנהל סביב הסירוב במרחב הציבורי – בצבא, בבתי המשפט, בתקשורת ובאקדמיה – הם נושאי הדיון בספר מעמיק, סוחף וחיוני זה. אל הספרנושא/נושאים: , שלטון וממשל, פוליטיקה וממשלתוכן הספר:
Uri Goren (Greenblatt) who died in 2017, was a member of the Gideonim (specialists of the Haganah in Morse code communication between Palestine and the Diaspora, from both ships and land stations); commander of the illegal immigrant ship “Latrun” during the British Mandate period; a colonel in the IDF who commanded the technological unit of the Intelligence Division, and the first director of the company ECI.
Another Look at Aliya: Idith Zertal Idith Zertal, born at Kibbutz Ein Shemer, is a leading historian in the stream of those who deny Zionism and preach a different view of it and of the State of Israel. They are called the ”New Historians”. I came across her name and her ideas in an article published in the newspaper Haaretz, which referred to her book “The Jews’ Gold” 1 – the result of her research. I learned from that article, that it was the author’s opinion that the leadership of the Jewish settlements in Palestine, with Ben Gurion at its head, brought the remnants of the Holocaust to Palestine for the purpose of using them to increase the fighting forces, in preparation for the War of Independence which was bound to come. In other words, they were to be cannon fodder! I wrote Idith a letter in which I expressed my amazement in a very polite language. I received an answer from her, thanking me for the letter and suggesting that I read the book itself, after which we could meet and discuss it again. I purchased the book and read all of the more than 500 pages, but I ended up very much angrier than I had been after reading only the article. The book describes the rescue of the remnants of the Holocaust in a way which would make any anti-Zionist and anti-Semite proud. She ignores the fact that no other country in the world agreed to allow the entry of Jews and that they had been left without homes, without families and without hope. Zertal describes the leaders of the Yishuv as a bunch of cruel individuals working in devious ways and forcing desperate people to come to Palestine. Indeed, having no choice, they are brought on rotting and dangerous ships,
1 Translation of the Hebrew title; it was published in English under the title: From Catastrophe to Power: The Holocaust Survivors and the Emergence of Israel
under sub-human conditions, they arrive in this foreign country and are thrown into a desperate war, in the course of which many of them are killed. She describes the cruelty of the young Israelis, the Palyam and the soldiers of the Jewish Brigade and other branches of service in bringing these ‘slave ships’ to Palestine. I did not find in the book any supporting testimonials; not from one ma’apil nor from one Palyamnik such as I. I know how strongly the desire of the remnants of the Holocaust was to come to Palestine and how disappointed they were if their turn was delayed. The “Exodus” is the best example of this. After arriving in Palestine and then being sent back to France, they were offered refuge there, yet only a few of the weakest individuals took up the offer. Sick people and women with advanced pregnancy were the only ones to leave the vessel. They also found a means to return to Israel at a later date. In a telephone conversation with Zertal I expressed surprise that she did not interview any ma’apilim or any of those who accompanied them. Her peculiar answer was: “History is based on written material and not on interviews.” I said that may be correct as regards ancient history but it is ridiculous when there are many who are still living that experienced an event. Our discussion became more severe and was discontinued. I was cut off by her for some time after that, but I wrote her a letter and detailed my criticism of her book.
A few years later I was invited to participate as a speaker in a seminar on Aliya Bet at Kibbutz Ma’ale HaChamisha. Idith Zertal was to lecture at the seminar. The organizer of the seminar asked me if my name could also be included as a speaker and I agreed. I suggested, however, that if my name was published then Idith was likely to beg to be excused from appearing. That is exactly what happened. In my lecture I told my own personal story after which I expressed my anger at Idith’s book and accused her of telling a bunch of lies. I finished my diatribe against her with a very severe sentence: In Zertal’s description of the actions of Ben Gurion and the leadership of the Yishuv, the only accusation missing is that Ben Gurion encouraged Hitler to wipe out the Jews so that we would be able to convince the remainder to come with us to Palestine, where they could act as ‘cannon fodder’. I admit that I exaggerated, but I was mad! The letter exchange with Dr. Idith Zertal is enclosed in appendix A.
Appendix A: Letter to Dr. Idith Zertal and her reply June 17, 1996 Dr. Idith Zertal Editorial Board of “Times” [Hebrew: Zmanim] Department for the Study of Zionism Tel Aviv University, Chaim Levanon Street, Tel Aviv Shalom Idith; I read and reread an article by Dalia Karpel dealing with your book, and among other subjects, with the matter of the Aliya movement (1945 – 1948) and the role played by the leaders of the Yishuv (the Jewish settlement in Palestine), the Mosad for Aliya Bet and the Palyam in its organization. I tend to believe that the author (Karpel) misquoted you or did not interpret you correctly. If otherwise, then I am completely confused and my request is that you give me a private lesson in the history of the Holocaust and “illegal immigration”. I am willing to pay any price you name for such a lesson, if it will clear up the confusion in which I find myself. I am a Sabra born in 1926 and when I became 19 and was a communications person in the Hagana, I was called to the offices of the “Mosad” in Tel Aviv, where they offered me to join their operation and to go to Europe, where I would work together with other Aliya Bet delegates. Although my parents had a farm to take 174 Uri Goren care of and my older brother was already in Europe, as a member of the Jewish Brigade, my parents urged me to accept the challenge. That is how it came about that I left Palestine by a devious route, (described by Lova Eliav in his book, “The Vessel Ulua”), arrived in Italy and continued from there to Southern France. From a wireless operator I became the manager of a camp, where immigrants were being prepared and trained for Aliya. Following that, I was commander of the immigrant vessel “Latrun”, which ended up with the immigrants and I being sent to the Cyprus detention camps. I returned to Europe and once again was appointed to take charge of the immigrant camp “Grand Arénas”. It was here that the immigrants, who later sailed on the “Exodus” were gathered; I met these same immigrants again when they arrived at Port de Bouc, on the deportation ships. You can understand from the short review of this chapter in my life, that I have had the opportunity to meet thousands of the survivors of the Holocaust, and as a young Sabra I was appalled and deeply affected by what I saw. I heard many of their stories during days and nights that I spent with them and tried to ease their paths as best I could. As a result I earned the thanks and the good will of many of them and have maintained contact with some until the present. This in brief, is part of my story, which is similar to that of many of my friends in the Palyam, the Machal, the Jewish Brigade and On Both Sides of the Crypto 175 other groups of volunteers, who had contact with the survivors. I would now be extremely grateful to you if you explained your view to me. I shall present my questions as concisely as possible: If I understood correctly (perhaps I did not), in your research you criticize the actions of the leaders of the Yishuv, the Mosad for Aliya Bet and the one who stood at its head, Shaul Avigur, and the men of the Palyam, (I was one of them during a part of my career). At the end of WW II hundreds of thousands of survivors found themselves destitute and homeless and there was no country in the whole world that was willing to take them or to assist them in their hour of need. On the contrary; they closed their gates before them (including of course, those of Palestine). A colorless man (as Karpel says you describe him), Shaul Avigur, answered the call of the leadership of the Yishuv, and created the Mosad for Aliya Bet, an amazing organization which spread its branches through many of the countries of ravaged Europe, and took the survivors of the Holocaust under its wing. It did its best to rehabilitate them and brought them from inland Europe to the shores of the Mediterranean, supplied them with their basic needs, bought ships and brought them safely to the shores of Palestine. About 140,000 refugees were brought to Palestine in this manner and this – in no small way – contributed to the establishment of the State of Israel, in which you and I live today. 176 Uri Goren I lived with the survivors of the Holocaust for three years and I can truthfully say that their greatest wish and their greatest hope was to be able to come to Palestine, the Land of Israel. To attain this goal they were ready to face the most extreme hardships. The physical conditions on the immigrant vessels were atrocious. But I bear witness that I and my friends, who worked with me in preparing the vessels, did everything possible on our part to ease the suffering of the passengers. When I was commander of the “Latrun”, I spent hours in the hold of the vessel and tried to encourage the survivors and make their journey a bit more comfortable. My Palyam friends on other vessels did the very same thing. Moreover, before every voyage we explained to the survivors exactly what the conditions of the voyage would be like. We knew from experience though, that no difficulty would convince them to forego the trip. If, for some reason we would refuse to take on a passenger because of that person’s state of health or some other reason, the person would plead and beg and sometimes even threaten us, trying to convince us not to strike him from the list of passengers. The case of the “Exodus” can serve as a model for research. 4,500 passengers were returned to Port de Bouc by the deportation ships. The French authorities, under the pressure of the British, invited them to come ashore, where they would be granted asylum. On Both Sides of the Crypto 177 Nevertheless, none but a few who were very sick agreed to leave the ships. The rest went back to Hamburg, in Germany, to another detention camp. I was amazed when, not long after, I met a goodly number of them in a transition camp of ours in southern France. These survivors who had been through all that they had been through, were ready to make the terrible journey once again on a Hagana vessel. Forty years later, in 1986 I believe, the survivors of the “Exodus” had a convention in the “Culture Hall” of Tel Aviv. I was overwrought with emotion to see so many healthy and happy people with their families and offspring who came to be present at that meeting. They and the Palyamnikim who brought them are ingredients in a typical cross-section of the present Israeli population. Their children are successful farmers, scientists, businessmen and industrialists. Almost all of them have made their way and found their niche and are proud members of the Israeli community. Those that recognize me point me out to their children and say: “He brought me to Palestine.” That is my reward. Idith, if I understood you correctly, you claim in your research that the men of the Mosad and the Palyam used the ma’apilim (the immigrants) for their own political and other purposes. I just cannot understand such a statement. First and most important: because I know how strongly the ma’apilim felt about coming to Palestine. You might say that those that fought and fell in the War of Independence were also merely pawns in the hands of the leadership of the Yishuv. Among those who fell was Gur, the son 178 Uri Goren of that ‘colorless man’, Shaul Avigur. What I have written here is merely a smattering, which I will sum up with a few thoughts: What would historians have said if the leadership of the Yishuv had not mobilized to save the lives of the remnants of the Holocaust? I and my friends are really hurt and insulted by the thoughts expressed in your research. Most of us volunteered to do what we did, and did our jobs with the utmost devotion. I went to Europe with a suitcase of clothes from my closet and returned in a shirt and a pair of short pants. I did not think that I was doing something outstanding, but to present us as exploiters?!? What would have happened to the remnants of the Holocaust if the Yishuv in Palestine had not opened its arms to take them in? The real heroes of this mass immigration were the ma’apilim themselves. No one knows that better than we, the ones who accompanied them. Shaul Avigur was a wise and well-balanced leader. I would hate to have seen someone who pulled weighty decisions ‘out of his sleeve’ in his place. If he was calculating and careful in making a decision, then that is paying him a compliment. Where did you get your inside information from, by the way? Might I suggest that you take a poll; that is a popular thing to do nowadays. Question the ma’apilim living in Israel today and ask them, what they think of the whole Aliya Bet operation. Best do this quickly because time is running out and the biological clock is ticking away. I shall be grateful to you if you would study these pages and react. I would On Both Sides of the Crypto 179 be more than happy to discuss this with you personally. I am of course willing to pay for the time you devote to this subject. Thank you, and cordial greetings, Uri Goren Dr. Idith Zertal’s letter of reply June 19th, 1996 Shalom Uri Goren, Firstly, thank you for your letter. It is easy to see that you wrote it from your heart, with emotion and even with pain. I do not wish, nor can I remain inattentive to it. At any rate, the style and the gentlemanliness of your letter is very much better than those of the vulgar type that appeared in the supplement of “Haaretz”, following an interview with me. I will try to answer your questions within the limits of this letter. The interview was really terrible and left me feeling frustrated. I tried to prevent its being published but could not. It had been readied for publishing and it was election week, so the editors had nothing suitable with which to replace it. All I can say to you is that much that was said was abbreviated or removed from its context, and many quotes were actually misquotes. For every ten sentences of written material, only one sentence appeared, leaving 180 Uri Goren only the extreme impression, a vulgar condensation of a complicated subject. This is not my style or my way of expressing myself. However, having agreed to an interview, I decided not to voice my complaint about the result in public, nor to complain of the injustice that had been done me. I have heard politicians complain about their having been misunderstood and having their words taken out of context; I preferred to let it pass in silence. You may have noticed that I have not reacted to the vulgar letters that were published. I haven’t because: a) I believe that everyone has the right to his own opinion, and the right to express it; b) I cannot argue about feelings, or with memories or what people think they remember; c) Most important, no one bothered to read my book before they wrote their reaction to it. Now I address you and your reaction. You say that you are ready to pay any price for a lesson in history from me. Uri Goren, you are not serious. For seventy shekels you can purchase my book which has 674 pages and more than one hundred more pages of notes and bibliography. Had you read the book, a good number of your questions would have been answered, and you might have also learned that my knowledge of the subject is extensive. (Allow me to mention that the work on my doctorate received the designation, “cum laude”). You would have found that a good deal of what you pointed out appears in the book. I must assume that there may be some errors in the book, and there is room for some argument relating to my interpretation of some events, but I assure you that it was written only after thorough research and also after I developed a personal proximity and involvement with the subject. I tried to maintain a high standard of intellectual honesty. I am certain that had read the book you would have found that many things are even more complicated than you imagined. You might even found some facts and material that were not known to you and you might even agreed with some of my conclusions. What surprises me about the book is how little people are ready to learn more about the past, and think that they already ‘know it all’. I am surprised at the aggressiveness expressed in the letters and the inability to be ready to listen and perhaps learn something new. Is it really too much of an intellectual effort to ask of you to read my book? I would then be happy to discuss it with you and even to debate it. As a rule, historical research is not a copy of what people recall, or the retelling of what people were once told and recall. Decent historical research involves critical analysis, sometimes painful analysis of texts and documents of the related period. This of course includes protocols of the period dealt with; decisions taken at that time as well as correspondence. Such critical analysis applied years after the event itself, when compared to the memories of those who were there at the time, usually leads to a problematic situation, at least, and sometimes to outright confrontation. Those who were present at an event of the past usually do not have all the information and the background to the particular event, and they are bound to be biased by a personal attitude to the people or to the matter involved. What I have written here is also only ‘the tip of the iceberg’. My thoughts on historical discipline and on writing history are topics upon which numerous books have been written, and this subject is the main focus of my academic and intellectual endeavor today. Nothing that I have written has been done off-handed, everything has been done only after deep thought and consideration of all the material that I have on hand. My book stands on its own merits; read it and then judge it. Until then, I wish you all the best, and I thank you once again for your letter. Dr. Idith Zertal
israel-academia-monitor.com 