Israel’s academic community was in turmoil last week, with the uproar spreading fast into the general news. Various media outlets announced that Dr. Sebastian Ben-Daniel, an Israeli lecturer in computer science at Ben Gurion University, was suspended for his social media posts.
Ben-Daniel, using the pseudonym “John Brown,” launched attacks on Israel and the IDF. The lecturer called the IDF soldiers baby killers. He wrote, “IDF soldiers kill babies not because of orders, but because they were raised to be baby killers” .He also referred to the religious right-wingers as “religious neo-Nazis.” In a Facebook post he wrote, “IDF soldiers murder women and babies not by accident, but by the orders of a commanding general, another Death Eater from the Mechinat Eli. Not that they have a problem carrying out these orders. Between the thesis of ‘ordinary people’ and voluntary executioners,’ they are much closer to the latter. By order, without asking questions, they murdered a man who was driving in a car and did nothing. His eight-month-pregnant wife manages to get out of the shot vehicle, and they murder her, three directly in the chest. Everything is done by order. All Israelis support these baby killers. In fact, they are their heroes. I hope Trump doesn’t want to transfer the Israelis too because of this.”
BGU suspended Ben-Daniel on March 6, 2025, pending an investigation.
Quite predictably, the academy responded in force. Some 550 faculty members at universities and colleges across Israel petitioned BGU, calling Ben-Daniel’s suspension “a new low point – Those who are supposed to serve as defenders of freedom of expression are collaborating with forces that seek to harm it.”
Prof. Gadi Algazi, a longtime radical activist and one of Israel’s earliest army refusers, responded harshly, “Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba did a despicable thing and suspended Sebastian Ben Daniel, a computer science lecturer, from teaching because of his political views. The suspension followed a quick campaign led by the “Im Tirzu” group, a waste of time to malign them. Anyone who heads an academic institution and violates freedom of expression in this way violates the most basic principles of democracy. He won’t be able to raise the slogan “Without democracy, there is no academy.” But every abomination committed at a university needs partners from within the university. They need a president, in this case a biologist, Dr. Daniel Haimovitz. His main area of research is food security (and in this context I also got to know him). Dr. Haimovitz is an expert on a subject that many hungry people in the Gaza Strip could say a thing or two about. They also need a rector, who summoned the rebellious lecturer for a conversation. This is a medieval historian, Dr. Chaim Haymes, who has done a lot of work on encounters between Christians, Muslims and Jews in the Middle Ages. Anyone who studies such encounters thinks about persecution and dialogue, tolerance and understanding. Let’s say you did what you did. Will you think about the consequences of your actions? The government did not force you. Channel 14 did not put a knife to your throat. The responsibility is entirely yours. Will you go back on your word?”
The Association for Civil Rights Israel (ACRI) wrote a threatening letter to the president and rector of Ben Gurion University. In a public statement, ACRI stated, “On March 6, 2025, we appealed to the President and Rector of Ben-Gurion University to cancel the suspension… In her appeal, Attorney Tal Hassin argued that the suspension of Dr. Ben-Daniel due to publications made outside the university, and the manner in which it was carried out, are illegal, and constitute a shameful surrender to pressure exerted by right-wing elements, both within and outside the university, and a disgrace to the academic institution and its leaders. She argued that the harsh and piercing criticism of the government and state institutions, which Ben-Daniel has been publishing for many years under his pen name, is protected by the weighty protections that the law provides for freedom of expression in general and for freedom of expression in general. Political expression in particular, and especially for unusual, outrageous and infuriating opinions and statements that are not in consensus. ‘The university is of course entitled to convey the message that Dr. Ben Daniel’s words are not in its opinion and do not reflect the position of those at its head,’ the appeal reads, ‘However, his hasty, illegal suspension is a considerable distance from basic due process, and the university’s conduct undermines the right to expression. These things constitute another stage in the disintegration of academia from the fundamental values of freedom of expression and thought to which it is committed, and another step towards its complete trampling by right-wing, anti-liberal and anti-democratic elements, who, through a pressure machine, dictate its agenda’.”
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz explained that “Ben-Daniel is a veteran online activist under the pen name ‘John Brown,’ and routinely publishes harsh criticism of government and military policy, especially toward the Palestinians. He has been a lecturer in computer science at Ben-Gurion University’s Faculty of Natural Sciences for 18 years. 14 years ago, he began publishing criticism of Israel on social media, in Haaretz, and other media outlets, alongside investigations into topics such as Military Police Investigative files and arms trafficking.”
Prof. Alon Harel took the argument further. He stated, “Ben Gurion University declared war on the freedom of expression of its leftist lecturers. To my astonishment, I did not encounter right-wingers defending Mr. Ben Daniel’s right to write whatever he wants on social media. The day will come when institutions may fire right-wingers. It won’t happen tomorrow, but it will happen someday. I will ask right-wingers then not to whine about ‘freedom of expression.’ Because I will remind them of how they behaved… A complete victory over the right is the order of the day. The right is the true enemy of all freedom, including fundamental freedoms, primarily freedom of expression and freedom of occupation.”
Faced with this barrage, the University caved in fast. The suspension was lifted less than a week later, on March 11, 2025, followed by an explanation. “The university strongly condemns and rejects John Brown’s defamatory statements against IDF soldiers, particularly since many members of our academic community serve in the military. However, as reprehensible as his comments may be, they were not made in the context of Dr. Sebastian Ben Daniel’s academic work.”
For his part, Ben-Daniel issued an apology to students while wrapping himself in the mantle of a free speech fighter. “If my statements caused harm to anyone, I sincerely apologize and hope you understand that was never my goal… The people targeting me are not doing so to punish me personally, but rather to undermine freedom of expression in this country by harming academia, one of the last remaining bastions of independent thought… Again, I regret that you are the ones impacted by all this media attention. Hoping for better news and calmer days ahead.”
The Ben-Daniel case is one more in a long litany of incidents in which activist scholars had used the argument of “free speech” to slander Israel and the IDF soldiers by comparing them to Nazi Germany, as IAM often pointed out. To consider these incidents as a legitimate expression of free speech is absurd. In many European countries, denying or minimizing the Holocaust is considered illegal. Defaming the IDF soldiers as “baby killers” is libelous.
More consequentially, the huge wave of antisemitism on display on American and other Western campuses has used the Nazi-IDF equivalence among other specious accusations.
The Israeli public who sponsors Israeli universities through taxes deserves better value for money.
It could be expected that Ben-Daniel, now famous in anti-Israel circles, will be recruited to prestigious universities in the West.
REFERENCES
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-845606 Ben-Gurion University lifts suspension on lecturer who criticized IDF, Israel The suspension was lifted on Tuesday after the lecturer apologized and said he would refrain from posting content that could offend or harm students in the future.
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF, PELED ARBELI MARCH 11, 2025
Ben-Gurion University has decided to lift the suspension of Dr. Sebastian Ben-Daniel, who opened a fictitious online account under the name “John Brown” in order to publish criticism of Israel and the IDF.
Ben-Daniel was suspended on 6 March, pending an investigation into his conduct, despite calls for his blanket dismissal.
The suspension was lifted on Tuesday after the lecturer apologized and said he would refrain from posting content that could offend or harm students in the future.
Furthermore, 550 faculty members at universities and colleges across Israel petitioned BGU earlier this week, calling Ben-Daniel’s suspension “a new low point.”
“Those who are supposed to serve as defenders of freedom of expression are collaborating with forces that seek to harm it.”
BGU’s inquiry into his controversial posts about IDF soldiers and Israel in general found he had called IDF soldiers “baby killers” and Tzav 9 activists “religious neo-Nazis.”
According to the university, Ben-Daniel cooperated with the investigation and expressed understanding for the suspension decision.
The university emphasized that his comments are regrettable, and that they do not represent the institution in any way.
“The university strongly condemns and rejects John Brown’s defamatory statements against IDF soldiers, particularly since many members of our academic community serve in the military. However, as reprehensible as his comments may be, they were not made in the context of Dr. Sebastian Ben Daniel’s academic work,” the university stated.
Actions following the suspension
Following a meeting with the university rector, Ben Daniel issued a letter of apology to students, acknowledging the sensitivity of the current climate and expressing regret that the controversy surrounding his statements had affected students. He wrote that he understood how the issue had entered the academic space “against our will, even if for cynical reasons that I oppose.”
Ben Daniel maintained that his criticism had been taken out of context by political actors and insisted that his personal views were distinct from his professional role. “Despite my efforts to maintain a clear separation, certain elements have attempted to blur this distinction,” he said, emphasizing that this boundary is “both necessary and significant.”
“My intention has always been to keep these matters separate,” he continued. “Still, I recognize that my words carry consequences and that this separation is not absolute, regardless of how much I intended it to be. If my statements caused harm to anyone, I sincerely apologize and hope you understand that was never my goal.”
Although he issued an apology, Ben Daniel also criticized the university’s decision to suspend him, arguing that it was not a personal attack but rather part of a broader effort to suppress free speech.
“The people targeting me are not doing so to punish me personally, but rather to undermine freedom of expression in this country by harming academia, one of the last remaining bastions of independent thought,” he wrote.
Referencing his upbringing in Argentina during its military dictatorship, he warned that silencing dissent could have irreversible consequences. “Once this path is taken, there will be no turning back,” he cautioned.
He ended his letter with a message to students: “Again, I regret that you are the ones impacted by all this media attention. Hoping for better news and calmer days ahead.”
Reactions to dismissal
In response, the Im Tirtzu movement dismissed Ben Daniel’s apology, asserting that he had not retracted his statements and calling his response “embarrassing.” The group insisted that suspension was insufficient and called for his immediate dismissal.
The B’Tsalmo organization welcomed the suspension but argued it was not enough. “Anyone who incites against IDF soldiers and Israeli citizens belongs in the dustbin of history, not in academia. We will continue to fight against those who harm IDF soldiers and Israeli citizens,” the group stated.
חיילי צה”ל רוצחים נשים ותינוקות לא בשוגג, אלא בפקודה של אלוף פיקוד, עוד אוכל מוות ממכינת עלי. לא שיש להם בעיה למלא את הפקודות הללו. בין התיזה של “אנשים רגילים” לתליינים מרצון” הם קרובים הרבה יותר לשני. בפקודה, בלי לשאול שאלות, הם רצחו בן אדם שנסע ברכב ולא עשה דבר. אשתו ההרה בחודש שמיני מצליחה לצאת מהרכב הירוי, והם רוצחים אותה, שלוש ישירות בחזה. הכל בפקודה. כל הישראלים תומכים בהם ברוצחי התינוקות הללו. למעשה הם הגיבורים שלהם. אני מקווה שטראמפ לא ירצה לטרנספר גם את הישראלים בשל כך.
אוניברסיטת בן גוריון הכריזה מלחמה על חופש הביטוי של המרצים השמאלנים שלה. לתדהמתי לא נתקלתי באנשי ימין המגנים על זכותו של מר בן דניאל לכתוב מה שהוא חפץ ברשתות החברתיות.
יום יבוא ומוסדות עלולים לפטר אנשי ימין. זה לא יקרה מחר אבל זה יקרה ביום מן הימים. אבקש מאנשי הימין אז לא ליילל “חופש ביטוי”. כי אני אזכיר להם כיצד הם נהגו. אצטט את ידידי מר נתניהו שדבר על נצחון מוחלט: “הציפייה העיקרית שלי זה ניצחון מוחלט. לא פחות מזה. אין תחליף לניצחון. אני שומע באולפנים, פרשנים וכל מיני זה מסבירים ‘אי אפשר’ ו’לא צריך’. אפשר, צריך וגם אין לנו ברירה אחרת. ניצחון מוחלט.”
נצחון מוחלט על הימין הוא צו השעה. הימין הוא האויב האמיתי של כל חירות כולל חירויות היסוד ובראשן חופש הביטוי וחופש העיסוק.
אוניברסיטת בן גוריון ביטלה את השעיית המרצה שביקר הרג חפים מפשע בידי צה”ל
ד”ר סבסטיאן בן־דניאל הושעה ביום רביעי שעבר בלחץ ארגון “אם תרצו” לאחר שכתב שחיילי צה”ל “חונכו לרצוח תינוקות”. לפי האוניברסיטה, בן־דניאל התנצל על דבריו “כפי שפורסמו, והבין שעליו לקחת בחשבון שסגנון כתיבתו עשוי לפגוע בסטודנטים”שלחו את הכתבה במתנה
אוניברסיטת בן גוריון הודיעה היום (שלישי) על ביטול השעייתו של ד”ר סבסטיאן בן־דניאל, שמתח ביקורת חריפה ברשתות החברתיות על הרג פלסטינים חפים מפשע בגדה המערבית. רקטור האוניברסיטה, פרופסור חיים היימס, הודיע כי החליט להשיב את בן־דניאל לעבודה, לאחר שבדק את התלונות נגדו. לדברי האוניברסיטה, בן־דניאל, שכותב ברשתות תחת שם העט “ג’ון בראון”, “הביע התנצלות על דבריו כפי שפורסמו, והבין שעליו לקחת בחשבון שסגנון כתיבתו עשוי לפגוע בסטודנטים שלומדים אצלו”. באוניברסיטה הוסיפו כי הוא “קיבל בהבנה את השעייתו, ושיתף פעולה עם הבירור”. האוניברסיטה הדגישה כי היא “מסתייגת מהדברים שכתב והם אינם מייצגים אותה בשום צורה”.
בן־דניאל אמר בתגובה להחלטה כי “זאת היתה מערכה קשה, אבל אני חושב שבסופו של יום חופש הביטוי ניצח – דבר חשוב תמיד, ושבעתיים בזמן מלחמה”. בן־דניאל הוסיף כי לא הוא היה “היעד של המתקפה המאורגנת” של פעילי הימין שניסו לפטרו. “זה מאבק על ערכים דמוקרטיים, על האקדמיה כמעוז כמעט אחרון של מחשבה חופשית ועל החופש של כולנו”, אמר, “מניסיון, כאשר זה מגיע לשם אין דרך חזרה”.
חשיפה חשובה, אבל חיילי צה”ל רוצחים תינוקות לא בגלל פקודות, אלא כי הם חונכו להיות רוצחי תינוקות
Hagar Shezaf
@hagar_shezaf
אתמול נהרגו שתי נשים בטול כרם – האחת, בהריון, נורתה מחוץ לרכבה אחרי שעל פי התחקיר הראשוני “הסתכלה בצורה חשודה” על הקרקע. @yanivkub חושף שמדובר במדיניות של הקלה על פתיחה באש כלפי מי ש”מתעסק עם הקרקע” (מתוך חשד שהוא מטמין מטען) וכן בירי אל עבר רכבים > haaretz.co.il/news/politics/…
האוניברסיטה השעתה בשבוע שעבר את בן־דניאל בלחץ פעילי ימין, בהם פעילי ארגון “אם תרצו”, שהחתימו יותר מאלף סטודנטים על עצומה שנשלחה להנהלת האוניברסיטה בדרישה לפטרו. הם נימקו את בקשתם בפוסט שפרסם בן-דניאל בחודש שעבר ובו שיתף כתבה מ”הארץ” שעסקה בירי למוות באישה בהריון, בעקבות הוראתו של אלוף פיקוד מרכז להרחיב את הנחיות הפתיחה באש, וכתב: “חיילי צה”ל רוצחים תינוקות, לא בגלל פקודות אלא כי הם חונכו להיות רוצחי תינוקות”. בפוסט אחר התייחס לפעילות צה”ל במחנה פליטים ליד טולכרם שבה נורה ילד פלסטיני, וכתב: “צה”ל לא יורה במחבלים הדתיים שתוקפים אזרחים, אבל כן רוצח אישה בהריון וילד בן 7 כי ‘הסתכל לקרקע’, לא בגלל הפקודות אלא בגלל שחינכו אותם לרצוח ילדים פלסטינים”.
תחילה הודיעה האוניברסיטה כי פרסומיו של בן־דניאל ברשתות החברתיות לא “נעשו במסגרת פעילותו האקדמית”. בשבוע שעבר שינתה את עמדתה והשעתה אותו “עד לבירור התלונות”, בנימוק כי ייתכן ש”התנהגותו של בן־דניאל חצתה את הגבולות” האוסרים על “פגיעה בכבודם של תלמידים או סגל, או מהווה הסתה או לשון הרע”. בהקשר זה גם נבדק אם בן־דניאל עבר על הגדרת האנטישמיות של כוח המשימה הבינלאומי להנצחת זכר השואה (IHRA).
פרופ’ דורון כהן מאוניברסיטת בן גוריון אמר היום כי חברי סגל רבים במוסד תומכים בליבון סוגיות הקשורות לחופש הביטוי במסגרת הסנאט, וחושבים כי אין לאוניברסיטה סמכות מוסדית למשטר התבטאויות של חברי סגל שנאמרו מחוץ לקמפוס וברשתות החברתיות. “חלק חושבים שיש מקום להתייחס להתבטאויות מקוממות”, אמר, “אבל נדרשת הבהרה כי פעולות כמו השעיה אינן בסמכות ההנהלה. כדי לקבל החלטה כזו צריך קודם כל להיוועץ עם ועדת האתיקה, ולפעול על בסיס החלטותיה”.
כ־550 חברי סגל באוניברסיטאות ובמכללות, רבים מהם מאוניברסיטת בן גוריון, חתמו השבוע על עצומה שדורשת מראשי האוניברסיטה לבטל את השעייתו של בן־דניאל. “ויתור על חופש הביטוי עכשיו, הוא מסוכן ביותר לעתיד האקדמיה, במיוחד על רקע המתקפה המתמשכת נגד האקדמיה וחופש הביטוי”, נכתב בעצומה. “אנו מבקשים להביע את מורת רוחנו החריפה מההתנהלות של הנהלת האוניברסיטה, שנכנעה ללחצים פוליטיים במקום לעמוד על ערכיה”. אנשי הסגל הוסיפו כי ההשעיה היא “נקודת שפל חדשה – אלו האמורים לשמש כמגיני חופש הביטוי, משתפים פעולה עם כוחות המבקשים לפגוע בו”.
בן־דניאל הוא פעיל ותיק ברשתות תחת שם העט “ג’ון בראון”, ונוהג לפרסם ביקורת חריפה על מדיניות הממשלה והצבא, בעיקר ביחס לפלסטינים. הוא משמש כמרצה למדעי המחשב בפקולטה למדעי הטבע באוניברסיטת בן גוריון זה 18 שנים. לפני 14 שנים החל לפרסם ביקורת על ישראל ברשתות החברתיות, ב”הארץ” ובכלי תקשורת נוספים, לצד תחקירים בנושאים כמו תיקי מצ”ח וסחר בנשק.
ד“ר בן דניאל לא נאשם בהפרת חוק כלשהו, אלא פרסם מידע שכבר הופיע בתקשורת, וכן הביע את דעתו על המידע אותו פרסם. במדינה שחופש הדיבור עדיין ערך חשוב ומוכר בה, זכותו המלאה לעשות זאת, כל עוד אינו עובר על כל חוק. השאלה אם דעותיו של בן דניאל נעימות לאוזניהם של קוראיו, כולל הסטודנטים שבהם, כלל אינה רלבנטית ובוודאי שאינה יכולה להיות פרמטר בשאלת העסקתו באוניברסיטה.
אקדמיה לשוויון מוחה בחריפות על החלטה זו.
מדובר במהלך חמור שמנוגד לעקרונות חופש הביטוי וחירות אקדמית, ומהווה כניעה ללחצים חיצוניים אשר מטרתם נהירה לגמרי – להפעיל לחץ על ההנהלות כדי ״לטהר,״ בלשונם, את המערכת מקולות שאינם תואמים את עמדותיהם ואת תפיסת עולמם.
אנו קוראות להנהלת אוניברסיטת בן גוריון @bengurionuniversity לחזור בה מהחלטתה ולהשיב את ד“ר בן דניאל למשרתו לאלתר.
האוניברסיטה מחויבת להגן על חברי הסגל שלה מפני מסעות הסתה ודה-לגיטימציה פוליטיים. על המוסדות האקדמיים להבטיח סביבה חופשית לביטוי ודיאלוג פתוח, ולא להפוך לכלי שרת בידי ארגונים הפועלים לצמצום המרחב הדמוקרטי בישראל.
לבטל את השעייתו של ד”ר סבסטיאן בן דניאל מאוניברסיטת בן גוריון
לפני 6 ימים זמן קריאה 1 דקות
ב-6.3.2025 פנינו לנשיא ולרקטור אוניברסיטת בן גוריון בקריאה לבטל את השעייתו של ד”ר סבסטיאן בן דניאל, שנעשתה בשל דברים שפרסם ברשתות החברתיות תחת שם העט “ג’ון בראון”. עוד ביקשנו למחוק את הפוסט שפרסם נשיא האוניברסיטה בעניינו, ושתרם לשלהוב הרוחות ונתן את האות להשתלחות רבתי וקשה בו.בפנייה טענה עו”ד טל חסין כי השעייתו של ד”ר בן דניאל בשל פרסומים הנעשים במסגרת חוץ אוניברסיטאית, והאופן שבו התבצעה, אינם חוקיים, ומהווים כניעה מבישה ללחץ שהפעילו גורמי ימין, בתוך האוניברסיטה ומחוצה לה, ואות קלון למוסד האקדמי ולעומדים בראשו. היא טענה כי דברי הביקורת החריפים והנוקבים על הממשלה ומוסדות המדינה, שבן דניאל מפרסם כבר שנים ארוכות בשם העט שלו, חוסים תחת ההגנות כבדות המשקל שמעניק הדין לחופש הביטוי בכלל ולחופש הביטוי הפוליטי בפרט, ובמיוחד לדעות ולאמירות חריגות, מקוממות ומכעיסות, שאינן בקונצנזוס. “האוניברסיטה רשאית כמובן להעביר את המסר, כי דבריו של ד”ר בן דניאל אינם על דעתה ואינם משקפים את עמדת העומדים בראשה”, נכתב בפנייה, “אולם השעייתו החפוזה, הלא חוקית, רחוקה מרחק ניכר ממושכלות יסוד בדבר הליך הוגן, והתנהלות האוניברסיטה חותרת תחת הזכות לביטוי. דברים אלה מהווים שלב נוסף בהתפרקות האקדמיה מערכי יסוד של חופש ביטוי ומחשבה להם היא מחויבת, וצעד נוסף לעבר רמיסתה המוחלטת על ידי גורמים ימנים, אנטי ליברלים ואני דמוקרטים, שבאמצעות מכבש לחצים מכתיבים את סדר יומה”.
האגודה לזכויות האזרח בישראל )ע”ר( | جمعية حقوق المواطن في اسرائيل | (ACRI (Israel in Rights Civil for Association The איתמר בן אב”י 9 תל אביב 6473629 | شارع ايتمار بن ابي ٩ تل ابيب | Aviv Tel .St Avi Ben Itamar 9 www.acri.org.il | talh@acri.org.il | Fax: 03-5608165 :فاكس פקס | Phone 0528-595351 :هاتف טלפון
6 במרץ 2025
לכבוד לכבוד פרופ’ דניאל חיימוביץ פרופ’ חיים היימס נשיא אוניברסיטת בן גוריון רקטור אוניברסיטת בן גוריון בדוא”ל
שלום רב,
הנדון: השעיה בלתי חוקית ופסולה של מרצה
אנו פונים אליכם בקריאה לבטל לאלתר את השעייתו של ד”ר סבסטיאן בן דניאל, ולמחוק את הפוסט שמיהר נשיא האוניברסיטה לפרסם שלשום, אשר תרם לשלהוב הרוחות ונתן את האות להשתלחות רבתי וקשה בו. פרסומיו של ד”ר בן דניאל נעשים במסגרת חוץ אוניברסיטאית. השעייתו בגינם, והאופן שבו התבצעה, אינם חוקיים, ומהווים כניעה מבישה ללחץ שהפעילו גורמי ימין, בתוך האוניברסיטה ומחוצה לה, ואות קלון למוסד האקדמי ולעומדים בראשו.
אתמול פורסם בתקשורת כי ד”ר בן דניאל, מרצה מבוקש בחוג למדעי המחשב, הושעה “עד להודעה חדשה” )כאן 11( או עד “לתום הבירור בעניינו” )וואלה(, בגין “פרסומים שהפיץ ברשתות החברתיות נגד חיילי צה”ל”. ד”ר בן דניאל, המתבטא ברשתות החברתיות תחת שם העט ג’ון בראון, הושעה בעקבות שיחה עם הרקטור. לשיחה לא קדם זימון לשימוע, ולמרצה לא נמסרו הטענות נגדו קודם לה.
ההשעיה התבצעה לאחר שלהנהלת האוניברסיטה נשלחה פנייה, עליה חתמו למעלה מאלף סטודנטים, בתביעה לפטרו. את הפנייה יזמו פעילי תנועת הימין “אם תרצו”, והיא זו שניצחה על מבצע ההחתמה.
מחול השדים התובע את ראשו של המרצה פרץ בעקבות ביקורת חריפה שמתח ברשת על חיילים לפני כשלושה שבועות, בעקבות הריגתן של שתי נשים, אחת מהן בהריון מתקדם, בפעילות צה”ל במחנה הפליטים נור א-שמס הסמוך לטול כרם. תחילה עמדה האוניברסיטה בפרץ. בתגובתה לתקשורת היא הודיעה שהיא מגנה את הדברים ומתנערת מהם, אך קבעה ש”עם זאת, הדברים שפרסם, נוראיים ככל שיהיו, לא נעשים במסגרת פעילותו האקדמית של ד”ר סבסטיאן בן דניאל” )ערן אביגל, סערה באוני’ בן גוריון: מרצה טען ‘שהחיילים חונכו לרצוח ילדים’, סטודנטים דורשים את פיטוריו, וואלה, 27.2.2025)
חרף דברים נכוחים אלה הלחץ המצטבר עשה את שלו, ובמקום לדבוק בקו הראוי לפיו פרסומיו של מרצה מחוץ לאקדמיה אינם מעניינה, ולעצור את מחול השדים באיבו, פירסם ביום שלישי האחרון פרופ’ חיימוביץ פוסט, באנגלית ובעברית, שבו הוא מבשר כי דבריו “הפוגעניים והשקריים” של ד”ר בן דניאל פגעו עמוקות בקהילת האוניברסיטה, בפרט במשרתים בצבא, “בזמן שהמדינה עדיין מתאבלת”. פרופ’ חיימוביץ הוסיף, כי “לא נוכל – ולא נשתוק – מול אמירות מסוג זה”, וקבע ש”העניין עבר לגורמים הרלוונטיים באוניברסיטה להמשך טיפול”. יום למחרת נקרא המרצה לשיחה עם הרקטור והושעה מעבודתו.
האוניברסיטה רשאית כמובן להעביר את המסר, כי דבריו של ד”ר בן דניאל אינם על דעתה ואינם משקפים את עמדת העומדים בראשה. אולם השעייתו החפוזה, הלא חוקית, רחוקה מרחק ניכר ממושכלות יסוד בדבר הליך הוגן, והתנהלות האוניברסיטה חותרת תחת הזכות לביטוי. דברים אלה מהווים שלב נוסף בהתפרקות האקדמיה מערכי יסוד של חופש ביטוי ומחשבה להם היא מחויבת, וצעד נוסף לעבר רמיסתה המוחלטת על ידי גורמים ימנים, אנטי ליברלים ואני דמוקרטים, שבאמצעות מכבש לחצים מכתיבים את סדר יומה.
שנים ארוכות מפרסם ד”ר בן דניאל, בשם העט שלו, ביקורת חריפה ונוקבת על הממשלה ומוסדות המדינה. הם חוסים כולם תחת ההגנות כבדות המשקל שמעניק הדין לחופש הביטוי בכלל ולחופש הביטוי הפוליטי בפרט. הזכות לביטוי, פסק בית המשפט העליון זה מכבר, אינה מגנה רק על עמדת קונצנזואליות, נוחות לשמיעה ומסברות את האוזן. אלה אינן זקוקות להגנה.
חופש הביטוי חל בעיקר על דעות חריגות, מקוממות ומכעיסות, המושמעות על רקע מאורעות קשים. .7 כך הדברים בכלל, וכך ביתר שאת נוכח העובדה שדבריו נכתבים מחוץ לכתלי המוסד ואין להם כל נגיעה לעבודתו האקדמית. ד”ר בן דניאל, כמו כל אדם בישראל, רשאי להחזיק בעמדותיו ולבטאן בקול גם אם הן לצנינים בעיני רבים. קביעה זו הייתה נכונה לפני המלחמה, וממשיכה להיות נכונה גם במהלכה ולאחריה. השעייתו מעבודתו באוניברסיטה, בה הוא עובד כעמית הוראה מתמיד כבר 18 שנה, היא פגיעה אסורה בחופש הביטוי ובזכות החוקתית לחופש העיסוק.
רבבות בני אדם עוקבים אחר פרסומיו של המרצה ותומכים בהם, ודומה שיש להזכיר לפרופ’ חיימוביץ שאף חיילים וסטודנטים משתייכים לכל הקשת הפוליטית. הן בהתבטאויות הנשיא, והן בעצם ההשעיה, זנחה האוניברסיטה, במה שנדמה כפרץ פטריוטי רגשי וכניעה מוחלטת לזעם משיחי קדוש, את אלפי הסטודנטים וחברי הסגל הפלסטיניים הלומדים ועובדים בה, ולצדם סטודנטים ואנשי סגל יהודים רבים שאינם מחזיקים בעמדותיהם של תנועת “אם תרצו” וארגון “בצלמו”, שמיהרו לצהול בעקבות ההשעיה. חובתה של האוניברסיטה היא לאפשר לכל מרצה וסטודנט להביע את עמדותיהם בחופשיות ללא חשש מהתנכלות. כך בכלל, וכך בפרט כשמדובר בהתבטאויות מחוץ לכתליה. .9
אין זו הפעם הראשונה שבה חוטאת אוניברסיטת בן גוריון לחובותיה לביטוי, לפלורליזם ולחירות המחשבה ונוקטת בצעדים מפוקפקים, ובמקרה דנן אף בלתי חוקיים, בין בשל כניעה ללחץ ובין בשל עמדות שנויות במחלוקת של העומדים בראשה. למעשה, היא מתאפיינת בעבר עשיר של פגיעת בסטודנטים ובחברי סגל בשל ביטויים. כך, בינואר אשתקד המליץ הרקטור, פרופ’ היימס, לסטודנטית ערבייה לא להגיע לכתה וללמוד בספריות או “בכל מקום שבא לך” בעקבות סרטון שפרסמה ברשתות החברתיות, אף שוועדת המשמעת של המוסד לא השעתה אותה ובחרה להשית עליה נזיפה ושעות התנדבות בקהילה )שירה קדרי עובדיה, רקטור בן־גוריון המליץ לסטודנטית שהואשמה בהכחשת הטבח בעוטף לא להגיע לכיתה, הארץ, 7.1.2024).
במרץ ,2023 בעקבות תלונה של “אם תרצו”, העמידה האוניברסיטה לדין משמעתי את וטן מאדי, סטודנטית חברת תא חד”ש, שציטטה בעצרת ביום הנכבה חלק ממאמר של מחמוד דרויש, ובו המושג שאהיד. בית הדין המשמעתי לערעורים של האוניברסיטה ביטל את הרשעתה, וקבע שנפלו פגמים בשימוע )שירה עובדיה קדרי, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון ביטלה את ההליך המשמעתי נגד סטודנטית שאמרה שאהידים בקמפוס, הארץ, 8.3.2023(.
בשנת ,2013 קיבל בית המשפט העליון ערעור שהגיש האגודה לזכויות האזרח נגד צנזורה שהטילה האוניברסיטה על חלוקת כרוזים, שמחו נגד הצעות חוק גזעניות שבהן תמכו נתניהו וליברמן. בית המשפט מתח ביקורת קשה על טענתה המופרכת של האוניברסיטה, ששטחי המוסד הם קניינה הפרטי ומותר לה לעשות בהם כרצונה )ע”א 9505/11 צורף נ’ אוניבסיטת בן גוריון בנגב )25.4.2014((. שנים ספורות קודם לכן, הורה בית המשפט המחוזי למוסד לבטל סעיף בתקנון הפעילות הציבורית שלו, שאסר על קיום הפגות בנושאים פוליטיים ובנושאים שנויים במחלוקת )ה”פ )מחוזי ב”ש( 2085/07 דויטשר נ’ אוניברסיטת בן גוריון בנגב )16.4.2008((.
זכורה לרעה אף התנהלות האוניברסיטה והעומדת בראשה אז, פרופ’ רבקה כרמי, בעקבות פרסום מאמרו של ד”ר ניב גורדון בלוס אנג’לס טיימס, שבו קרא לחרם מדורג על ישראל. פרופ’ כרמי הביעה זעזוע, גינתה את הדברים, וקראה לד”ר גורדון לחפש אכסניה מקצועית אחרת. עם זאת, קבעה אז הנשיאה, “מפה ועד נקיטת צעדים קונקרטיים הדרך ארוכה. אנחנו מוסד אקדמי במדינה דמוקרטית ויש כללים וחוקי תעסוקה” )אילנה קוריאל, המרצה שחולל סערה “התכוונתי לחרם רגיש”, Ynet, 23.8.2009). .13
דברים אלה יפים אף היום, בעניינו של ד”ר בן דניאל.
בשל כל אלה, אנו קוראים לכם לבטל את השעייתו של המרצה ולהשיבו לאלתר לעבודה.
בכבוד בברכה, טל חסין, עו”ד
העתקים: עו”ד אבי ניסנקורן, יו”ר הוועד המנהל, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון עו”ד תמי מונד, היועצת המשפטית, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון
מעשה נתעב עשתה אוניברסיטת בן-גוריון בבאר-שבע והשעתה מהוראה את סבסטיאן בן דניאל, מרצה למדעי המחשב, בעוון דעותיו הפוליטיות. ההשעיה באה בעקבות קמפיין מהיר שהובילו אנשי “אם תרצו”. עליהם חבל להשחית מלים.
מי שעומד בראש מוסד אקדמי ופוגע בחופש הביטוי באופן הזה פוגע בעקרונות הדמוקרטיה הבסיסיים ביותר. הוא לא יוכל להניף את הסיסמה “בלי דמוקרטיה אין אקדמיה”.
אך לכל מעשה נבלה שעושים באוניברסיטה צריך שותפים מתוך האוניברסיטה.
צריך נשיא, במקרה זה ביולוג, ד”ר דניאל חיימוביץ. תחום מרכזי של מחקרו הוא ביטחון תזונתי (ובהקשר זה גם התוודעתי אליו). ד”ר חיימוביץ הוא מומחה לנושא שרבים האנשים הרעבים ברצועת עזה שיכולים לומר עליו דבר אחד או שניים.
צריך גם רקטור, שזימן את המרצה הסורר לשיחה. זה היסטוריון של ימי הביניים, ד”ר חיים היימס, שעסק רבות במפגשים בין נוצרים, מוסלמים ויהודים בימי הביניים. מי שחוקר מפגשים כאלה חושב על רדיפות ודיאלוגים, סובלנות והבנה.
נניח שעשיתם מה שעשיתם. האם תחשבו על ההשלכות של מעשיכם? הממשלה לא הכריחה אתכם. ערוץ 14 לא הניח סכין לצווארכם. האחריות כולה שלכם. האם תחזרו בכם?
אוניברסיטת בן גוריון החליטה להשהות עד להודעה חדשה את המרצה האורח, ד”ר סבסטיאן בן דניאל, בעקבות רשומות שפרסם ברשתות החברתיות נגד חיילי צה”ל, אותם כינה ‘’רוצחים”, השוואה של אנשי הציונות הדתית ל’נאצים’ ותושבי הפריפריה ל’פרימיטיביים’.
רקטור האוניברסיטה קיים שיחה עם ד”ר בן דניאל, בעקבותיה המרצה שיגר לתלמידיו מכתב הכולל התנצלות והבהרות. אמריות המרצה חוללו סערה בבאר שבע ולא רק בה: בוגרי אוניברסיטה ששוחחו עם חדשות באר שבע והנגב אמרו כי בכוונתם להחזיר את התואר אותו למדו במוסד הדרומי כצעד מחאה.
Ben-Gurion University announced on Wednesday that it has suspended Dr. Sebastian Ben Daniel indefinitely following a series of online statements criticizing IDF soldiers.
In recent years, Ben Daniel has used the alias “John Brown” to publish opinions critical of Israel.
The controversy erupted after Ben Daniel wrote online that IDF soldiers are “trained to kill.” His remarks sparked backlash, with some students at the university demanding his dismissal.
In a statement, the university confirmed that Ben Daniel would remain suspended until an inquiry into his conduct was completed.
“The university strongly condemns and rejects John Brown’s defamatory statements against IDF soldiers, particularly since many members of our academic community serve in the military. However, as reprehensible as his comments may be, they were not made in the context of Dr. Sebastian Ben Daniel’s academic work,” the university stated.
Following a meeting with the university rector, Ben Daniel issued a letter of apology to students, acknowledging the sensitivity of the current climate and expressing regret that the controversy surrounding his statements had affected students. He wrote that he understood how the issue had entered the academic space “against our will, even if for cynical reasons that I oppose.”
Ben Daniel maintained that his criticism had been taken out of context by political actors and insisted that his personal views were distinct from his professional role. “Despite my efforts to maintain a clear separation, certain elements have attempted to blur this distinction,” he said, emphasizing that this boundary is “both necessary and significant.”
“My intention has always been to keep these matters separate,” he continued. “Still, I recognize that my words carry consequences and that this separation is not absolute, regardless of how much I intended it to be. If my statements caused harm to anyone, I sincerely apologize and hope you understand that was never my goal.”
Although he issued an apology, Ben Daniel also criticized the university’s decision to suspend him, arguing that it was not a personal attack but rather part of a broader effort to suppress free speech.
“The people targeting me are not doing so to punish me personally, but rather to undermine freedom of expression in this country by harming academia, one of the last remaining bastions of independent thought,” he wrote.
Referencing his upbringing in Argentina during its military dictatorship, he warned that silencing dissent could have irreversible consequences. “Once this path is taken, there will be no turning back,” he cautioned.
He ended his letter with a message to students: “Again, I regret that you are the ones impacted by all this media attention. Hoping for better news and calmer days ahead.”
Reactions to dismissal
In response, the Im Tirtzu movement dismissed Ben Daniel’s apology, asserting that he had not retracted his statements and calling his response “embarrassing.” The group insisted that suspension was insufficient and called for his immediate dismissal.
The B’Tsalmo organization welcomed the suspension but argued it was not enough. “Anyone who incites against IDF soldiers and Israeli citizens belongs in the dustbin of history, not in academia. We will continue to fight against those who harm IDF soldiers and Israeli citizens,” the group stated.
Ben-Gurion University suspends lecturer who said IDF soldiers are ‘taught to murder’
School condemns remarks by Sebastian Ben Daniel, posted under his alias ‘John Brown’; in apology letter, he asserts ‘political actors’ are trying to stifle freedom of speech
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev suspended a lecturer on Wednesday over his criticism of the Israel Defense Forces, which includes asserting that soldiers are “taught to murder Palestinian children.”
The school said that Dr. Sebastian Ben Daniel, of the computer science department, would be suspended until the matter had been fully probed.
Ben Daniel, who posts to social media under the alias “John Brown,” has long published inflammatory criticism of the IDF.
Over a thousand students reportedly asked for his suspension after the posts were highlighted in media reports.
The university said in a statement that it “condemns and completely rejects the insulting remarks of John Brown that slandered IDF soldiers, particularly as many of the university community are themselves soldiers.”
It noted that published comments, “terrible as they were,” were not made as part of Ben Daniel’s academic role.
“חיילי צה”ל הם רוצחי תינוקות כי הם חונכו להיות רוצחי תינוקות”. את המשפט החמור, השקרי והמסית הזה שהוא לא פחות מעלילת דם אמר מרצה באוניברסיטת בן גוריון- “דוקטור” סבסטיאן בן דניאל. ה”דוקטור” הזה מרצה בפני סטודנטים ששירתו בצבא או משרתים במילואים וקורא להם רוצחי תינוקות! אנחנו נלחמים… pic.twitter.com/9xZc7fQB7V
— יוסף חדאד – Yoseph Haddad (@YosephHaddad) March 5, 2025
Earlier this week, Ben Daniel held a meeting with the university rector. On Wednesday, he published an apology letter that accused “political actors” of working to stifle freedom of speech.
“I regret that the witch hunt over what I wrote on the social networks is affecting you, and has entered the study hall by force, and against our will,” he wrote in a letter to the students, as reported by Hebrew media outlets.
He claimed that “political actors” had taken his remarks out of context and stressed that his criticism was “entirely separate” from my academic work.
“The goal is always to keep things separate,” he said. “With that, I know that my remarks have consequences for you and that the separation is not absolute, no matter how much I wanted it to be, and how much I intended it to be.
“If any of you were hurt by the things that have been publicized, I apologize for that here and hope you understand that that was not my intention.”
He criticized his suspension, saying the aim of the politicians “is not to harm me, but freedom of speech in Israel, and that by way of fatal harm to academia, which is the last fortress standing before them.” He drew a comparison to the days of dictatorship in his native Argentina.
Among the posts he has published, as reported in Hebrew media, are remarks that IDF soldiers “voluntarily” follow orders to “murder children,” that troops are “taught to murder Palestinian children,” and that IDF soldiers are “baby murderers, not because of orders, but because they were taught to murder babies.”
The right-wing Im Tirzu organization dismissed the apology letter, saying in a statement that “the lecturer did not retract his words and published an embarrassing apology.”
It said suspension was not enough and that Ben Daniel should have been dismissed. The group filed a complaint with police for suspected incitement against soldiers, Walla reported.
The right-wing Btsalmo nonprofit welcomed the suspension.
“Anyone who incites against IDF soldiers and Israeli citizens should be in the garbage bin of history and not in academia,” it said in a statement.
A new report on the conference at Brown University Cogut Institute for the Humanities, titled “Non-Zionist Jewish Traditions,” was published. Maya Rackoff offered her impressions. She is a student at Brown who is proud and open Jewish Zionist and also “deeply sympathetic to the plight of ordinary Palestinians.”
According to Rackoff, during a panel titled “Roundtable: Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the Stakes of the Debate,” Beshara Doumani, a professor of Palestinian studies at Brown, remarked that “Global Israel” has become “the north star of the rise of fascism all over the world.” Maya noted that the audience responded to this proclamation “with head nods and snaps.” Doumani made another remark in agreement with Adi Ophir, visiting professor of humanities and Middle East studies, asserting that “in order to pursue a liberatory imagination of what it means to be a Jew, the first move is to become an Anti-Zionist.”
Rackoff noted that “the anti-Zionist perspective monopolized the discussions that I attended. The characterization of Zionism as inherently racist and genocidal went unchallenged, creating a hostile environment… This hostility became clear to me during a question I posed about antisemitism. During the same panel, the speakers discussed how the pro-Israel lobby suppresses anti-Zionist speech, especially at universities. While I agree that some Zionist groups mischaracterize any criticism of Israel as antisemitic, I also know that antisemitism is often part and parcel of anti-Zionist activity. In response to the panelists’ points about free speech, I asked: How should administrators engage with the real concerns on behalf of Jewish students that anti-Zionist protests are often entangled with antisemitism? When I finished my question, many in the room laughed, and one of the panelists audibly scoffed.”
Rackoff pointed out that “This conference highlights the ever-deepening polarization surrounding conversations about Zionism and Israel. Professors did not merely criticize the Jewish state, they attacked the founders of Zionism and their adherents as genocidal, Jewish supremacists. The issue with this conference was not that academics spoke vehemently against Zionism but rather that no voices offered opposing perspectives. Brown is not lacking in Zionist professors, particularly in our outstanding Judaic Studies department, yet none of them were present at the event… If our mission is to examine Zionism, non-Zionism and anti-Zionism in a rigorous, academic manner, it is imperative to include professors who do not consider Zionism a fundamentally fascist, genocidal and Jewish supremacist movement, and who are willing to speak to this effect.”
As IAM noted before, Brown University has a serious problem, it recruits anti-Zionists. Last month, Dr. Jack Frank Sigman, an expert in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, wrote a critique titled “Simply Unbelievable: Holocaust Scholar Dr Omer Bartov comparing IDF soldiers to Hitler’s Wehrmacht.” Sigman discussed how Omer Bartov, an expert on the Holocaust at Brown University, asserts that “Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.” This is outrageous, according to Sigman, because in the current Israel-Gaza War, “there is a 99% Gazan civilian survival rate.”
In particular, Sigman discussed Bartov’s August 2024 article, titled “As a former IDF soldier and historian of genocide, I was deeply disturbed by my recent visit to Israel.” Published in the British paper, The Guardian, Bartov portrayed the IDF soldiers as being “the same, ideologically, as the men of Hitler’s army preparing to invade the Soviet Union, betraying the non-aggression pact Nazi Germany signed with the USSR that would eventually result in the deaths of 20-30 million Soviets.” According to Bartov, like Nazi soldiers, IDF soldiers are being fed “propaganda” and “incitement” by the Israeli political and military leaderships.
Responding to Sigman, Luis Fleischman, Professor of Sociology at Palm Beach State College, noted that “Bartov also complains about lack of sympathy with Palestinian victims in Israeli media. He does not mention lack of sympathy with Israeli victims at all among Palestinians. He does not mention the hatred with which young Palestinians have been indoctrinated. Either Bartov is anti-Zionist, or he is blinded by his contempt for the Likud Government. Some Israelis and Jews do not understand the magnitude of cruelty and ruthlessness of our enemies.”
But then, worth noting that Bartov contradicts himself. In his article, “He Meant What He Said,” published in the New Republic, in 2004, Bartov stated that “most explicit and frightening link between Hitler’s anti-Semitism and the contemporary wave of violence, hatred, paranoia, and conspiracy theories can be found, first, in the testimony given by the perpetrators of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and, second, in the official charter of the Palestinian Hamas movement.”
Bartov argued, “The charter of the Hamas movement, issued in 1988 as the fundamental document of this Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, must be read to be believed. It contains, among its fundamentalist Islamic preachings, the most blatant anti-Semitic statements made in a publicly available document since Hitler’s own pronouncements.” Hamas promises that “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.” The Islamic Resistance Movement has “raised the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors in order to extricate the country and the people from the [oppressors’] desecration, filth and evil.”
Bartov added that in Islamic teachings, the Prophet said “the time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!”
According to Bartov, the Hamas charter states that “the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion… The initiatives, proposals, and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.”
Bartov cited the Hamas charter, stating that Jews “accumulated a huge and influential material wealth… [which] permitted them to take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe, in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests.”
Concerning the Hamas Charter, Bartov stated that “Hitler could not have put it better. So Hitler is dead, but there is a Hitlerite quality to the new anti-Semitism,” Bartov ended his piece by stating, “If a self-proclaimed liberation organization calls for the extermination of the Jewish state, do not pretend that it is calling for anything else.”
But then, in a striking contrast, in an article titled “The Hamas attack and Israel’s War on Gaza: ‘a place where no human being can exist’,” which Bartov published on November 24, 2023, he wrote, “There were those who called the events of 7 Oct a pogrom. This is a false, misleading, and ideologically overdetermined use of the term. The term pogrom was initially applied to attacks on Jewish communities, especially in southern Russia and Ukraine, by incited mobs, sometimes with the support of the authorities. It has since been also used to denote mob attacks on other minorities in other places… Hence using this term for the terrorist attack by Hamas is entirely anachronistic. But the reason it is being employed now has to do with the intentional or subconscious evocation of anti-Jewish violence and specifically of the Holocaust, the very event which led most directly to the establishment of the state of Israel. By saying “pogrom,” one attributes to Hamas, and by extension to all other Palestinian organisations, or even Palestinians in general, an unrelenting antisemitism characterised by a vicious, irrational and murderous predilection to violence, whose only goal is to kill Jews.”
Moreover, Bartov also co-authored “An Open Letter on the Misuse of Holocaust Memory,“ where he stated, “comparisons of the crisis unfolding in Israel-Palestine to Nazism and the Holocaust—above all when they come from political leaders and others who can sway public opinion—are intellectual and moral failings.”
In response, Political Scientist and Historian Matthias Küntzel argued on Bartov, that “20 years later, however, in relation to October 7, Bartov has decided to forget what he once knew.”
As IAM noted, Brown has a policy of hiring anti-Zionist scholars. While some of the others, including Adi Ophir and Ariella Azoulay (who added an Arabic middle name Aysha), Bartov is a real winner among the hires; he is Israeli-American, a historian of the Holocaust, and an IDF veteran. Of course, Bartov flaunts this trifecta whenever he accuses Israel of waging a “genocide war” on the Palestinians in Gaza.
Brown needs to fix its antisemitic problem; hiring a bunch of Israeli delegitimizers that parrot the talking points of Hamas is shameful.
Last month, I attended the “Non-Zionist Jewish Traditions” conference hosted by the Cogut Institute for the Humanities. The conference consisted of five panels and two roundtable discussions across two days. I attended one each day. While I, unfortunately, did not experience the full program, the combined four hours I spent at the conference provided me with an eye-opening window into the world of anti-Zionist academia and the danger of an echo chamber. I remain convinced that to pursue truth and not ideology, anti-Zionist and Zionist academics must seriously engage with counter-narratives.
Before the conference, I naively believed the event would simply examine the fascinating stories of non-Zionist Jews through history. What I instead saw was an extreme portrayal of Israel as the pinnacle of evil in the world. Though I’ve encountered this position amongst my peers at protests, I have never heard it so explicitly stated by faculty members.
During the final panel titled “Roundtable: Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism and the Stakes of the Debate,” Beshara Doumani, a professor of Palestinian studies at Brown, remarked that “Global Israel” has become “the north star of the rise of fascism all over the world.” The room responded to this proclamation with head nods and snaps.
Doumani made another remark that prompted me to whip open my notebook. In agreement with Adi Ophir, visiting professor of humanities and Middle East studies, Doumani asserted “that in order to pursue a liberatory imagination of what it means to be a Jew, the first move is to become an Anti-Zionist,” a questionable characterization from someone who is not themselves Jewish.
I am wary of mischaracterizing this gathering as monolithic, given that the conference was open to everyone — apparently, some attendees identified as liberal Zionists. However, the anti-Zionist perspective monopolized the discussions that I attended. The characterization of Zionism as inherently racist and genocidal went unchallenged, creating a hostile environment for anyone inclined to “own up” to their Zionism, even if it included fierce criticism of contemporary Israeli policy. This hostility became clear to me during a question I posed about antisemitism.
During the same panel, the speakers discussed how the pro-Israel lobby suppresses anti-Zionist speech, especially at universities. While I agree that some Zionist groups mischaracterize any criticism of Israel as antisemitic, I also know that antisemitism is often part and parcel of anti-Zionist activity. In response to the panelists’ points about free speech, I asked: How should administrators engage with the real concerns on behalf of Jewish students that anti-Zionist protests are often entangled with antisemitism? When I finished my question, many in the room laughed, and one of the panelists audibly scoffed.
This conference highlights the ever-deepening polarization surrounding conversations about Zionism and Israel. Professors did not merely criticize the Jewish state, they attacked the founders of Zionism and their adherents as genocidal, Jewish supremacists.
The issue with this conference was not that academics spoke vehemently against Zionism but rather that no voices offered opposing perspectives. Brown is not lacking in Zionist professors, particularly in our outstanding Judaic Studies department, yet none of them were present at the event. Whether their absence is attributable to themselves or that of the conference organizers, I cannot know. But it was an absence that I felt poignantly.
The Cogut Institute received more than 1,500 emails in protest of the conference. Although many Zionist students and alumni pressured the administration to cancel the event, this would have been a mistake. Counteracting extreme distortions of Zionism does not require shutting down conferences. After all, suppressing false and skewed narratives does not eliminate the beliefs underlying them, and restricting the free exchange of ideas contradicts the University’s epistemic mission. An honest pursuit of truth demands that we allow for the expression of ideas that might be perceived by some as uncomfortable or even dangerous.
When I attended the “Non-Zionist Jewish Traditions” conference, I stepped into an echo chamber. Though I do not expect Zionist professors to sway their fellow academics, their mere presence at a conference like this would signify that anti-Zionism is not a mandate within the academy. If our mission is to examine Zionism, non-Zionism and anti-Zionism in a rigorous, academic manner, it is imperative to include professors who do not consider Zionism a fundamentally fascist, genocidal and Jewish supremacist movement, and who are willing to speak to this effect.
I am thankful that those who sought to cancel the conference failed; I am also hopeful that next time around, such gatherings will resemble more of a scholarly dialectic than a party convention.
Simply Unbelievable: Holocaust Scholar Dr Omer Bartov comparing IDF soldiers to Hitler’s Wehrmacht
Dr. Jack Frank Sigman, Ph.D., Holocaust and Genocide Studies
February 7, 2025
I have to admit, I was shocked when I saw Dr. Bartov’s two interviews with tabloid operations, Democracy Now and Busboys and Poets, wherein he took off the gloves and declared Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. This was the man who had taken on genocide scholar Dr. Martin Shaw in a legendary email debate, later published in The Journal of Genocide Research in 2010, wherein Dr. Bartov defended Israel against the absurd accusation it had committed genocide in 1948.
However, Dr. Bartov, now asserting that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, a war in which there is a 99% Gazan civilian survival rate, is minor when compared to his article published The Guardian in August of 2024 wherein he portrayed the men and women of the IDF as being the same, ideologically, as the men of Hitler’s army preparing to invade the Soviet Union, betraying the non-aggression pact Nazi Germany signed with the USSR that would eventually result in the deaths of 20-30 million Soviets and the murder of over a million Soviet prisoners of war.
Dr. Bartov wrote: “Having internalised certain views of the enemy – the Bolsheviks as Untermenschen; Hamas as human animals – and of the wider population as less than human and undeserving of rights, soldiers observing or perpetrating atrocities tend to ascribe them not to their own military, or to themselves, but to the enemy.” He also quoted a German Nazi soldier writing home, “The German people owe a great debt to our Führer, for had these beasts, who are our enemies here, come to Germany, such murders would have taken place that the world has never seen before.” This is the soldier Dr. Bartov said was like soldiers of the IDF after being fed “propaganda” and “incitement” By Israel’s political and military leadership. It gets worse.
Dr. Bartov continued, “Look at what happened to us in 1918, German soldiers said in 1942, recalling the propagandistic “stab-in-the-back” myth, which attributed Germany’s catastrophic defeat in the first world war to Jewish and communist treason. Look at what happened to us in the Holocaust, when we trusted that others would come to our rescue, IDF troops say in 2024, thereby giving themselves licence for indiscriminate destruction based on a false analogy between Hamas and the Nazis.” Is there really a false analogy between Hamas and Nazis other than the German Nazis’ concern for the safety and well being of its German citizens? Did Dr. Bartov really indicate he thinks the Holocaust was a “propagandistic ‘stab-in-the-back’ myth?” equivalent to just one of the ways the Nazis stoked antisemitism to a fever pitch?
Ilan Pappe made a similar comment in The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine regarding the nascent Israeli government’s need to use propaganda in 1948 in that “the attempt to portray Palestinians, and Arabs in general, as Nazis was a deliberate public relations ploy to ensure that, three years after the Holocaust, Jewish soldiers would not lose heart when ordered to cleanse, kill and destroy other human beings.” Despite Pappe’s compliment of the delicate nature of Jewish soldiers, three short years after the Holocaust, two short years after the subsequent Polish pogroms, and immediately following the “displaced persons” environment in German and Polish concentration camps and British Cyprus, is ridiculous. The Jews had no problem fighting for their freedom, the freedom and safety of their families, and believing the Arab leaders that threatened genocide should the Jews lose.
Ilan Pappe, a longtime critic of Israel, whose critique often borders on antisemitism, has a reputation that makes his criticism expected. On the other hand, Dr. Bartov’s accusations seem ludicrous and traitorous, as unlike Pappe, he is not an Israeli expatriate, nor does he routinely condemn Israel. However, his recent activity in print and in podcasts and Youtube comparing Israeli soldiers to German Nazis and accusing Israel of committing genocide with the flimsiest of evidence is simply unbelievable.
Apologies to Robert Palmer
How can it be permissible
He’s compromised the principle
That kind of hate is mythical
He’s anything but typical
He’s a craze some endorse, he’s a powerful force obliged to conform when there’s no other course
Bartov used to look good to me, but now I find him:
Bartov also complains about lack of sympathy with Palestinian victims in Israeli media. He does not mention lack of sympathy with Israeli victims at all among Palestinians. He does not mention the hatred with which young Palestinians have been indoctrinated. Either Bartov is anti-Zionist, or he is blinded by his contempt for the Likud Government. Some Israelis and Jews do not understand the magnitude of cruelty and ruthlessness of our enemies. I have zero understanding and zero love for people like these. The antisemites then say that the likes of Bartov and Pappe are the good Jews, and we should learn from them. An Argentinean intellectual once brought Spinoza as a good example to me not because of his contribution to universal philosophy but because he challenged the Jewish community, and the “bad” Jews excommunicated him. Try to imagine I began to make distinctions between good Christians and bad Christians, or between good gentiles and bad gentiles by stressing that those who are enemies of Christianity are the good Christians. Likewise with regard to Muslims, Arabs, Indians or any other group.
In an essay of 2004, renowned historian Omer Bartov described the Charter of Hamas as “the most explicit and frightening link between Hitler’s antisemitism and the contemporary wave of … conspiracy theories”. He emphasizes: “The charter of the Hamas movement … contains … the most blatant antisemitic statements made in a publicly available document since Hitler’s own pronouncements … There is a Hitlerite quality of the new antisemitism.”
20 years later, however, in relation to October 7, Bartov has decided to forget what he once knew. He criticized any attempt to compare Hamas‘ terrorism and the Holocaust as „false, erroneous, and ideologically driven“ and published – together with Christopher R. Browning and others – „An Open Letter on the Misuse of Holocaust Memory“ that calls such comparisons „intellectual and moral failings.“
Shortly afterwards, historians Jeffrey Herf and Norman J.W. Goda published (together with 29 other scholars) „An Open Letter on Hamas, Antisemitism and Holocaust Memory“ that criticized the dogma of discontinuity, i.e. the thesis that there is no connection between Hitler’s hatred of Jews and Islamist hatred of Israel. After a brief reply by Bartov et. al. this discussion fell silent.
My essay “October 7th and the Shoah” aims to continue this debate and, if possible, develop it further. It reports on lines of continuity between the anti-Jewish terror of the Nazis with that of Hamas and discusses what conclusions should be drawn from October 7th for Holocaust education.
I am grateful and pleased that Indiana University’s „Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism“, led by Prof. Alvin Rosenfeld and Prof. Günther Jikeli, have published my text as “ISCA Research Paper 2024-5”. You can find it here:
The Hamas attack and Israel’s War on Gaza: ‘a place where no human being can exist’
By Omer Bartov
24 Nov
Like many other people in Israel and across the world, my first reaction to the attack on 7 Oct was of shock and horror. But that initial reaction was accompanied by rage, not only at the massacre perpetrated by Hamas, but also at those who could have prevented this act of violence, many that preceded it and the brutal retaliation that has come in its wake.
Two months before the attack, several colleagues and I launched a petition titled “The Elephant in the Room.” Signed by close to 3,000 people, many of them distinguished scholars, religious leaders, and public figures, the petition came in response to the protests in Israel against the attempted legal “overhaul” – a governmental coup intended to weaken the judiciary and strengthen the executive branch. The “elephant in the room,” we warned, was the occupation of millions of Palestinians, and the alleged legal reform was being pushed by an extreme right-wing settler faction whose goal was to annex the West Bank. Yet the impressive protest movement that had sprung up in Israel against the judicial coup had almost entirely refused to confront this question.
On 7 Oct, the repressed reality of Palestinians under direct or indirect Israeli rule literally exploded in the country’s face. From this perspective, while I was shocked and horrified by the brutality of the Hamas attack, I was not surprised at all that it occurred. This was an event waiting to happen. If you keep over 2m people under siege for 16 years, cramped in a narrow strip of land, without enough work, proper sanitation, food, water, energy and education, with no hope or future prospects, you cannot but expect outbreaks of ever more desperate and brutal violence.
There were those who called the events of 7 Oct a pogrom. This is a false, misleading, and ideologically overdetermined use of the term. The term pogrom was initially applied to attacks on Jewish communities, especially in southern Russia and Ukraine, by incited mobs, sometimes with the support of the authorities. It has since been also used to denote mob attacks on other minorities in other places. One reason for the birth of Zionism, alongside the rise of ethno-nationalism, was precisely these pogroms, which began in the early 1880s and heralded the first secular settlements in Ottoman Palestine.
Zionism was intended to create a majority Jewish state where pogroms would by definition no longer be possible, since the political, military and police authorities would all be Jewish. Hence using this term for the terrorist attack by Hamas is entirely anachronistic. But the reason it is being employed now has to do with the intentional or subconscious evocation of anti-Jewish violence and specifically of the Holocaust, the very event which led most directly to the establishment of the state of Israel. By saying “pogrom,” one attributes to Hamas, and by extension to all other Palestinian organisations, or even Palestinians in general, an unrelenting antisemitism characterised by a vicious, irrational and murderous predilection to violence, whose only goal is to kill Jews. In other words, according to this logic, there is no room for negotiations with Palestinians. Either they kill us, or we kill them, or at least fence them off behind walls and barbed wire.
Another analogy has been made between the Hamas attack and the one 50 years earlier by the Egyptian and Syrian armies on 6 Oct 1973, in which I served as a soldier. There are similarities and differences between these two events. In both cases Israel was caught unprepared because of a strategic “conception,” according to which it could easily handle military threats without the need for any political and territorial concessions. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt had been trying to persuade Israel to hand back the Sinai Peninsula, captured in 1967, in return for peace. But Israel’s policy, as Defence Minister Moshe Dayan infamously put it at the time, was that “it’s better to keep Sharm el-Sheikh [the southern tip of the peninsula] without peace, than to have peace without Sharm el-Sheikh.” This euphoria of power, born of the stunning victory in the Six Days War, cost the lives of 3,000 Israeli soldiers, some of whom were my classmates.
No settlement with the Palestinians was possible
Similarly, before the Hamas attack, Israeli politicians and generals believed that they could “manage the conflict” with the Palestinians rather than try to resolve it. In Gaza, this would be accomplished by occasionally “mowing the grass,” that is, raining destruction from the air to keep Hamas in its place. Indeed, Netanyahu’s many administrations chose to maintain Hamas just strong enough, and keep the Palestinian authority in the West Bank weak and unpopular enough, so as to be able to argue that no political settlement with the Palestinians was possible; meanwhile settlements kept proliferating in the occupied territories, making any territorial compromise increasingly unfeasible.
In other words, in both cases, violence was the result of a political stalemate chosen by Israel in the belief of having overwhelming military superiority. The main difference between these two events is that in 1973 Israel was attacked by two major armies, complete with armour, artillery and fighter planes, whereas this time it was attacked by insurgents armed only with light weapons and rockets. Unlike in 1973, Israel faces no existential threat from Hamas. But because of its inability to envision a political resolution to the conflict of the sort that it was forced to accept after 1973, it is dragging itself into a regional conflict that may have major ramifications both for its security and for its internal stability.
Israel’s current incursion into Gaza, and the heavy fighting, destruction and population displacement that operation has entailed, may at any point bring about an even greater involvement of Hesbollah in the north than we have seen up to now. This Iran-supported Lebanese Shiite militia is a far more potent military force than Hamas, and is armed with some 150,000 rockets and missiles. Iranian militias in Syria may also get involved, and as we have seen recently, the Yemenite Shiite Houthis, also supported by Iran, have similarly begun engaging Israel with long-range missiles and seizure of a cargo ship.
Meanwhile, in the occupied West Bank, growing settler violence, often backed up by local military units, may ignite another Intifada, thereby accelerating Jewish settler attempts to ethnically cleanse those territories. This, in turn, may lead to growing violence in Israel’s “mixed” cities, where Jewish and Palestinian citizens live side by side, as already happened in May 2021. Israel will thus experience and employ long term violence and destruction on a scale not experienced since 1948, with unpredictable but surely profound regional and internal consequences.
American President Joe Biden has recently made yet another analogy, which Israel was happy to embrace, between the war in Ukraine and the events following 7 Oct. Allegedly, as he suggested, Israel and Ukraine are two democracies that the United States is obliged to support against dark, authoritarian or religiously fanatic forces. In fact, the two situations are reversed. Ukraine, an independent, sovereign, and democratic country, was invaded by its neighbour Russia, an autocratic state with an imperial history and expansionist goals. Conversely, while Israel is a democracy as far as its 7m Jewish citizens are concerned, on the eve of the Hamas attack it was undergoing an attempted judicial coup by its own government, intended to transform it into at best an illiberal democracy on the model of Hungary. Moreover, the country’s 2m Palestinian citizens have never enjoyed full democratic rights. As for the 3m Palestinians living under a 56-year-long Israeli occupation in the West Bank, they have almost no rights at all. And the 2m Palestinians in Gaza have lived under an Israeli siege for more than a decade and a half.
In other words, while parts of Ukraine have been occupied by Russia, Israel has been occupying the West Bank and Gaza since 1967 and has been a full democracy only for Jews since its foundation in 1948 (Palestinian citizens of Israel lived under military rule until 1966, facilitating the takeover by the Israeli authorities of much of their lands). Hence the analogy between the two situations is false. The attack by Hamas, horrifying and barbarous as it was, must be seen as a response to Israel’s policies of occupation and siege, and to the utter refusal for the last couple of decades by Netanyahu’s governments to find a political solution to the conflict. We should be able to condemn Hamas terrorism and to condemn Israeli intransigence and violence vis-à-vis Palestinians at the same time, and to grasp that the former is a response to the latter, even if Hamas, specifically, is an organisation dedicated to the violent replacement of Israel by an Islamic Palestinian regime.
Israel on a precipice of regional conflict
For me, as a historian, it is important to put the current events in the correct historical context and to diagnose as best we can their deeper causes. A misdiagnosis of such causes, or a denial of them altogether, will only make things worse. It would appear that precisely because of this misdiagnosis or denial, Israel is currently balanced on a precipice. The potential for a regional, if not worldwide conflict, is growing. Making things worse is Israel’s forced displacement of over a million civilians—the majority of whom are Palestinian refugees of the 1948 Nakba and their descendants—from their homes in the northern part of Gaza to the southern part, even as the IDF is now reducing much of that northern part to rubble. By most accounts it has already killed 10 times as many Palestinians, including numerous children (who make up 50 per cent of the overall population there), as those killed by Hamas. Most recently, displaced Gazans in the eastern part of the southern Strip have been ordered to move to its western part, adding even more to the congestion. This military policy is creating an untenable humanitarian crisis, which will only worsen over time. The population of Gaza has nowhere to go, and its infrastructure is being demolished.
In justifying these actions, Israeli leaders and generals have made terrifying pronouncements. On 7 Oct, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Gazans would pay a “huge price” for the attack by Hamas, and that the IDF would turn parts of Gaza’s densely populated urban centres “into rubble.” On 28 Oct, he added, citing Deuteronomy, “You must remember what Amalek did to you.” As many Israelis know, in revenge for the attack by Amalek, the Bible calls to “kill alike men and women, babes and sucklings.” Israeli President Yitzhak Herzog condemned all Palestinians in Gaza: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It is not true this rhetoric about civilians not being aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true.”
Israeli Minister of Energy and Infrastructure Israel Katz similarly stated: “No electrical switch will be turned on, no water hydrant will be opened and no fuel truck will enter, until the abductees return home.” Member of Knesset Ariel Kallner wrote on social media on 7 Oct: “Right now, one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of ‘48. Nakba in Gaza and Nakba to anyone who dares to join!” No one in the government denounced that statement. Instead, on 11 Nov, security cabinet member and Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter reiterated: “We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba.”
Israel’s defence minister, Yoav Gallant, stated on 9 Oct: “we are fighting human animals and we will act accordingly,” a statement indicating a dehumanisation of people that has genocidal echoes. He later announced that he had “removed every restriction” on Israeli forces, and that “Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything.” On 10 Oct, the head of the Israeli army’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Major General Ghassan Alian, addressed the population of Gaza in Arabic, stating: “Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water, there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell.” The same day, Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hagari announced that in the bombing campaign in Gaza, “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.” Also on 10 Oct, Major General Giora Eiland wrote in the mass circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth: “The State of Israel has no choice but to turn Gaza into a place that is temporarily or permanently impossible to live in,” adding that “creating a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza is a necessary means to achieving the goal,” and that “Gaza will become a place where no human being can exist.”
In another article in the same newspaper, on November 19, Eiland wrote: “Israel is not fighting against a terrorist organisation but against the state of Gaza.” Hamas, he argued, “managed to mobilise… the support of most of its state’s inhabitants… with full support of its ideology. In this sense, Gaza is very similar to Nazi Germany.” This led him to conclude that “the fighting should be conducted accordingly.”
To his mind, “the way to win this war faster and at a lower cost to us necessitates the collapse of the systems on the other side, not the killing of more Hamas fighters. The international community warns us of a humanitarian disaster in Gaza and of severe epidemics. We must not be deterred by that.” Indeed, “severe epidemics in the southern Strip will bring victory closer and diminish the number of IDF casualties.” Eiland insisted that “when senior Israeli officials say to the media ‘it’s either us or them,’ we should clarify who ‘they’ are. ‘They’ are not only the armed Hamas fighters but… all the Gazan population that enthusiastically supported Hamas and cheered the atrocities that occurred on 7 Oct.”
The ground is prepared for what may become genocide
Again, no army spokesperson or politician has denounced these genocidal statements. I could quote many more. When asked by Sky News “What about those Palestinians in hospital who are on life support and babies in incubators whose life support and incubator will have to be turned off because the Israelis have cut the power to Gaza?” former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett shouted back: “Are you seriously… asking me about Palestinian civilians? What’s wrong with you? Have you not seen what happened? We’re fighting Nazis.”
In brief, Israeli rhetoric and actions are preparing the ground for what may well become mass killing, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, followed by annexation and settlement of the territory. In that spirit, the Kohelet Policy Forum, an arch-conservative think-tank with deep roots in the United States, which was closely engaged in the judicial overhaul plans launched by Netanyahu’s government in February 2023, is now refashioning itself as part of a supposedly humanitarian effort to “relocate” Palestinian refugees from Gaza to other countries around the world where they will, it suggests, live much better lives, thereby leaving the Gaza Strip to Jewish settlers. In the same spirit, one IDF Captain was filmed on 9 Nov on a beach in Gaza proclaiming to young officers: “We returned, we were expelled from here almost 20 years ago [when Israel unilaterally evacuated its settlements in the Gaza Strip]. We started this battle divided and ended it united. We are fighting for the Land of Israel. This is our land! And that is the victory, to return to our lands.”
There are many other members of the government, the Knesset and the military who would like to see the Palestinian people, as such, disappear from the map and from consciousness. This has not happened yet and can be prevented. The United States is still pushing for a two-state solution. But under the circumstances, it is crucial to keep warning against the potential for genocide before it happens, rather than belatedly condemning it after it has already taken place.
Since the full-scale invasion of Gaza by the IDF, losses among the civilian population have constantly risen. And while the military has initially made faster progress than anticipated, the likelihood of it becoming bogged down in Gaza remains considerable. Hesbollah is using this as an opportunity to intensify its attacks in the north. This may mean that Israel will face not only a military but also a growing economic crisis with hundreds of thousands of men and women in reserve service rather than at their work places, and international support rapidly eroding.
While it is desirable to remove Hamas from Gaza as the political and military hegemon, it is far from certain that Israel will be able to entirely “root it out,” described as the main goal of the war. Hamas is both a militant organisation that uses terror against civilians for political ends, and a social organisation that runs the entire infrastructure of Gaza, from schools to health services to sanitation to law enforcement. But even if Hamas is removed from Gaza as the PLO was removed from Beirut, there is no known plan by the Israeli government as to what would happen next. Who would take over? The Israelis do not want to take care of the territory and even if they try, as they did in the past, they will not be able to do so for long. Egypt does not want to have direct responsibility for the Strip. And the Palestinian Authority has been greatly weakened by Israel and will be seen as its agent if it is brought to Gaza. In brief, Israel seems to have no political plan and a very hazardous military one. It can only blame itself – not least Netanyahu, but also the military leadership – for having arrived at this point.
As the great Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz wrote almost 200 years ago, war is the extension of politics by other means. War without clearly defined political goals will devolve into absolute war, which means a war of destruction and annihilation. In the case of Israel’s invasion of Gaza, a strict adherence by the IDF to the laws and customs of war as defined in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and subsequent protocols would have probably made military progress very difficult. That was not the chosen course, and available evidence indicates that the IDF is in serious breach of these agreements, of which Israel is a signatory. No wonder that it is encountering growing international censure and is rapidly losing support in the United States, a circumstance that is bound to be reflected eventually also in responses and actions by the American administration.
The only way out of this conundrum is for Israel to clearly declare that it has a political end in mind: a peaceful resolution of the conflict with an appropriate and willing Palestinian leadership. Making such a statement would instantaneously transform the situation and open up the way for intermediate steps to be taken on the ground, the first of which would be a halt to the killing and a return of all surviving hostages.
Yet such a policy course by Israel appears highly unlikely now, especially under the current political leadership, which is just as extreme as it is incompetent. At this point, not least because of the heated rhetoric in Israel, even from quite a few left-wing commentators appalled by the massacre of 7 Oct, it is crucial for moral pressure to be brought to bear on Israeli policymakers and the public to desist from ever more actions that are bound to result in war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide.
In the decades after World War II and the defeat of Nazism and fascism, historians and other intellectuals often berated their predecessors for having lacked the courage to stand up to their governments and popular sentiments and to have failed to warn against what they clearly saw was about to happen. As a historian of the Holocaust, I have called upon the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, and Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, to stand in the forefront of those warning against Israeli breaches of human rights and international law, currently being legitimised by Israeli political and military leaders, talking heads on television and social media. I have urged those who dedicate themselves to researching and commemorating the Holocaust to warn against the dehumanising rhetoric in Israel directed at the population of Gaza that literally calls for its extinction. I have also called upon them to condemn the escalating violence on the West Bank, perpetrated by incited settlers and IDF troops, which is similarly inclining toward ethnic cleansing under the cover of the war in Gaza. But for now, all we hear from these scholars is silence.
It must also be said that the current atmosphere on American campuses regarding the Palestinian question and Israel is another cause for concern. Some self-styled leftists and supporters of Palestine have praised the killings carried out by Hamas and have entirely rejected Israel’s right to defend its citizens by attacking Hamas, which is sheltering among civilians in the densely populated Gaza Strip. Others have shown a remarkable lack of empathy with the hundreds of Jewish victims and hostages. Indeed, condemnations of the Israeli bombing of Gaza often do not even mention the attack of 7 Oct.
Conversely, supporters of Israel, mostly Jews, while they feel deeply betrayed by liberal colleagues who show no sympathy for the victims of 7 Oct and may be ambivalent about the immense destruction being visited by Israeli forces on Gaza, generally refuse to recognise the deeper political causes of this state of affairs. Indeed, they often slip into familiar clichés, all too common in Israel, of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim barbarity, and of eternal and universal antisemitism, which they also detect among some of their own liberal colleagues.
What appears to be lacking is a conversation between these two groups, neither of which are, after all, directly impacted by the violence; instead, they appear to mirror the same inability to communicate that characterizes the region itself. Indeed, the general academic predilection to strike postures of supporting a just cause while paying a minimal price for it, a lamentable type of self-righteousness on the cheap, has reached new heights since the current breakout of violence. Rather than educating their students about the complex realities of the region, some professors appear to incite anger and rage, while the equivocations of university presidents, including my own, afraid to displease their donors or to enrage one side or another among faculty and students, have satisfied no one. It is a sad spectacle.
The beginning of the end of this conflict and the return of politics may actually start with negotiations to free the hostages, as seems to be happening at the moment. The argument that linking military strategy to the hostages would only encourage Hamas and others to keep them, or even to take others, is false on a number of counts. First, it is clear that Hamas wants to exchange hostages for its own prisoners, many of whom are elderly and have been kept in Israeli jails for decades, while others are very young. Second, it is unthinkable that Israel will simply ignore the fate of the hostages, who include elderly and ill people, children and even babies; the delay in negotiations to this point demonstrates a certain callousness in the Israeli government that has characterised it in other spheres as well.
Statements made by some military figures and other observers, that the hostage issue should be addressed only at the end of the war, by which point, of course, most of the hostages would almost certainly be dead, have already had a tremendously demoralising effect on the families of the hostages and the Israeli population as a whole, not least the many families whose sons and daughters would be sent to fight and might be captured. Even for this uniquely heartless and inept government, choosing such a policy can only be described as both inhuman and stupid. Every effort must be made to free the hostages right now. Moreover, such efforts may signal the beginning of negotiations on other aspects of the conflict, rather than a sign of defeat.
Despite the terrifying violence and the destructive intransigence of both sides and their supporters, the objective must be a peace settlement. There are equal numbers of Jews and Palestinians in the territory between the Jordan and the sea. Neither group is going away. They can either keep killing each other or find a way to live together. That must be the goal. All dreams of making the other side disappear or submit to being oppressed from one generation to another will only produce more violence and growing brutalisation of both groups. The very assertion of a will to reach an agreement has the potential to transform the paradigm. The ongoing killing will only make it worse. No internal governmental coup, and no external political deal – such as relations with the Gulf states or peace with Saudi Arabia – will succeed in pushing the need for a political settlement between Palestinians and Israelis under the rug.
For now, all we can do it to plead with our own governments to use this moment of deep crisis and horrifying bloodshed as a lever to compel Israel to end its policy of occupation and oppression of another people and to seek creative solutions for coexistence, be it in two states, one state or a federative structure, that will ensure human dignity, equality and liberty for all.
OMER BARTOV is Co-Chair, Genocide, Holocaust and Disaster Studies, CGC; and author ofGenocide, the Holocaust and Israel-Palestine: First-Person History in Times of Crisis.
Omer Bartov is one of the preëminent historians of the Third Reich. In the course of his four-decade career, he has written numerous books and articles examining Hitler’s regime, with a specific focus on how Nazi ideology functioned in institutions such as the German Army. Bartov was born in Israel, and served in the military during the country’s war in 1973, against several of its neighbors, including Egypt and Syria. He currently teaches at Brown University.
After the Hamas attacks of October 7th, Israel began its military campaign in the Gaza Strip, where more than thirty-eight thousand Palestinians have been killed. Bartov quickly became a vocal critic of the war: he accused Israel of committing crimes against humanity and raised the question of whether its conduct constituted genocide. I recently called Bartov, because I heard that he had visited Ben-Gurion University, in Beersheba, and met with a number of right-wing students who had returned from military service in Gaza. I wanted to learn about what exactly had occurred, and what he took away from the experience. Our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, is below. In it, we also talk about how he thinks Israeli society is refusing to face up to what’s happening in Gaza, and what he learned talking to former soldiers in the German Army after the Second World War.
Can you tell us about what you were doing at Ben-Gurion University?
A friend and a colleague of mine, a geographer named Oren Yiftachel, who teaches at Ben-Gurion, heard that I was coming to Israel to see my new grandkids, and he said, “Why don’t you come over to Ben-Gurion to give a talk?” He was interested in hearing more about what’shappeningonAmericancampuses, and all these allegations of antisemitism and the encampments and so forth. So I came, but about a day or two before that he got some information that there would be a protest by local students. I think most of them were from a movement called If You Want, which is a very right-wing student organization that is associated with the minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and his party.
I’m assuming that this is because, since October 7th, you’ve criticized the Israeli campaign in Gaza.
Correct. And, of course, these students hadn’t actually read any of this, but there was some kind of analysis that they received that I had signed some petition in which the possibility of genocide was mentioned. And there was a call there on President Biden to reconsider sending arms to Israel.
We informed security at the school, and then we arrived, and there were a few older professors sitting in the hall. Outside the hall, there were a few muscular security guys, and there was a group of students, and they were very excited.
I assume you do not mean excited to hear you speak.
That’s correct. Oren started to introduce the talk, and they began banging on the doors, banging on the walls, shouting that this should not happen at Ben-Gurion University, that it should not be allowed, that they’re being accused of genocide, and that they’re not murderers.
And the security people weren’t doing anything. Subsequently, they told us that they can’t arrest anybody. If we wanted that, we’d have to call the police. Obviously, nobody wanted to call the police, but the protesters were extremely disruptive. It was impossible to do anything. And that lasted for a while. And then Oren suggested, and I certainly agreed, that we ask the students if they want to come in as long as they agreed to actually talk with us. And most of them—I can’t say if it was all of them, but most of them—said, “O.K.,” and they walked in.
There was one who was extremely destructive, was standing at the door, and wouldn’t let anybody close the door. But eventually that fellow was persuaded to leave. It took a while. I mean, the whole thing took about three hours. So we are talking about a lengthy process and with a lot of tension in the air.
Finally, they sat down. But there was no way that you could lecture. They were too excited, too angry. It appeared like they actually wanted to ask questions and also to just say what they think, and so we sat down and we started talking with them, and that was, to me, in retrospect, quite interesting.
What can you tell us about the conversation?
Quite a number of the students, including at least two women, had served in Gaza. They had just come back from service. And my sense was that they felt that they were being accused of all kinds of crimes, and that the accusations were not true, and that they were doing the right thing. And one interesting point was that they shared photographs with me. One of them shared a photograph on his phone where he showed a bunch of Palestinian children, and he said, “Oh, you say that there’s hunger in Gaza. There’s no hunger in Gaza at all. And, look, here are a bunch of Palestinian kids. And we gave them all the food that our unit had.” This, of course, probably meant that the kids were hungry. But he wanted to show that they cared about these children.
Another told a story that, when he was there, he was approached by a girl, obviously a Palestinian girl, whose leg had been severely injured. He didn’t say how, he didn’t give the context, but one can imagine. He said, “And we immediately gave her all the medical help we could. Everything that we needed for our unit was used to take care of her.” So they were trying to say, “We really care about the children and we are not beasts.” But there were these contradictions.
I began talking about the I.D.F.’s use of these giant bombs, and that if you drop a bomb like this to kill some people in a tunnel beneath a school where there are many people sheltered because they were told that they should shelter there, you’re going to kill many of them. And one of them said, “Oh, no, no, no, that’s not at all true. That’s not true. We came to these schools. These schools are full of Hamas people.” And the interesting thing was that there was another fellow sitting there, and he said, “Well, we were also there. We didn’t see so many Hamas people.”
They got angry at me and were saying, “Well, what do you know? You just sit in your air-conditioned room in the United States.” At some point, I said to them, “Actually, I was also a soldier. I was a company commander. I was wounded. It was a different war and a different time, but it’s not like I don’t know anything about this.” That slightly calmed them down.
But then I told them that, for my dissertation, I investigated the crimes of the German Army and that, in subsequent years, I used to go to Germany and lecture about it. And usually the first two or three rows would be filled with Wehrmacht veterans. As I was talking, they would also become very excited. And one of them would get up and say, “Nothing like this happened in my unit.” And another guy would get up and say, “Maybe not in yours. But in mine it did.” So there was some parallel to what I was seeing there.
There was a young woman at Ben-Gurion—she jumped on the stage and started shouting. She was very angry, and said that they were fighting for the people who were murdered on October 7th, that comrades of theirs had been killed and friends of theirs had been killed. And, as she was talking and shouting, she started crying. I, at least, had a distinct feeling—not to excuse what they were doing, but I had a distinct feeling that many of them maybe had P.T.S.D.
You mentioned the contradictions, and one thing that I’ve really noticed just following the news from Israel is what I would characterize as a broad contradiction: Israelis are saying, “We’re not Hamas. We’re a democracy. We respect laws. We’re not terrorists,” and so on and so forth. And, at the same time, “We are fighting a horrible enemy. We have to do what needs to be done. We’re not even going to pretend that we care that much about things like allowing aid for starving civilians.” And various politicians have made really grotesque comments about Palestinians.
So, first of all, yes, I think that’s true. I think you could distill it by pointing out that, on the one hand, people call the I.D.F. the most moral Army in the world. You will actually hear people saying that. And, on the other side, they will say, “Well, Hamas are animals, look what they did to us, and we have to destroy them. They’re using these Palestinians as human shields. And, in any case, these Palestinians supported them. Why did they let them do that? And they were cheering. At the time of October 7th, they were so glad, and therefore they just have to be wiped out. And we don’t want to know too much about how this is being done.”
But there are two other things I would say. Much of this discourse is not by the soldiers. There are people in the media, but they’re not actually there. At Ben-Gurion, I was talking with young men and women who spent months in Gaza, so they see exactly what’s going on and they have to filter it somehow. And they are looking at things through a particular prism. They want to think that they’re doing the right thing. They want to think that it’s not just revenge, and that they’re fighting a just war, but they’re also seeing things and they can’t admit to themselves that they’re seeing. They’re seeing the vast destruction, the suffering there, the lack of food, the numbers of innocents who were killed. They see that and they have to somehow rationalize it. Some of them were rationalizing it by saying, “But we’re actually taking care of them. We care about them. It’s not that we are there to do that. We are there only to kill the Hamas people.”
Another thing I want to say is that it’s very difficult being in Israel right now. It’s a very strange experience. What sort of people do I know in Israel? They’re mostly, so to speak, left, liberal, however we define it. I don’t know too many right-wingers there. But even people on the left—they’re tense just about meeting you. You can feel there’s tension in the air.
And it’s not just me. They know that I’ve written various things, but it’s more that they feel that, because I did not experience it, I may say things that they can’t quite process.
October 7th, you mean?
Yes. They feel so traumatized and so confused that they have no way of speaking about it. They don’t actually want to speak in a reasonable, analytical manner about whathappenedonOctober7th. They don’t even want to speak about it at all. In a sense, they feel that your presence as someone who’s come from the outside is destructive to their understanding among themselves—that they have been terribly hurt and that somehow the only thing they can talk about is how they feel and what has happened to their society, what has happened to people they know. People were killed, people were displaced, and they have absolutely no ability to speak about people in Gaza. It’s absolutely striking.I don’t want to say too much about it, but I know a woman, an old friend, who had, in a different context, written and worked on issues of sexual abuse and exploitation and rape. And I met her and she spoke for about two hours with real rage about what she believed was the complete denial of the rape of Jewish women on October 7th. She had no room whatsoever to really think about anything else but that. Of course, violence against women is something that she’d worked on, and feels very strongly about, but it was also a kind of filter. If you say that thousands of kids were also killed since then, it doesn’t get through.
The Israeli media has been broadly very supportive of the war, and there has not been sufficient coverage of the situation in Gaza. I’ve heard lots of people say Israelis aren’t seeing the same war that everyone else is seeing. Did you sense that people you were talking to were having their views shaped by the Israeli media, or is it more that the Israeli media is just a reflection of how people feel?
Look, it’s hard to say, but I think it’s both. I think the media is catering to a particular sentiment in the public, yes. But I also think the media is just not doing its job. It’s not reporting about what’s going on in Gaza. And so people have to watch, say, Al Jazeera. And most people don’t. You can’t actually watch it now in Israel on TV anymore. [Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet voted to ban Al Jazeera broadcasts in Israel after a law passed by the Knesset, in April, gave the government the power to close news outlets that were deemed threats to national security.] You have a bunch of military correspondents on all the major news outlets, and they go all the time to Gaza. They’re attached to various military units, and they speak with generals. And they give you exactly the Army’s version of what’s going on. They rarely ask any critical questions.Now, there are, of course, a lot of people in Israel who are protesting. I went to a protest on a recent Saturday night. There are those who are protesting to change the government. There are those who want to stop the war. There are those who want to exchange the hostages. And so there are protests. I don’t think they’re going to make a difference, but there are protests by different groups—but they’re not really about what’s going on in Gaza. They are about the sense that this government is leading us nowhere (which is, of course, true), and that things can get much worse in a really big hurry in Lebanon. There’s a lot of fear in Israel about that. But there’s no talk about the situation in Gaza, specifically.
To return to the students who told you that they were in Gaza for the right reasons and acting ethically: Did you feel that they were sincere?
First of all, let’s say again that these people I met are not representative, of course, because they are members of a right-wing organization.
One of them said to me, “I’m going to be called up again and I really don’t want to go.” But they feel, first of all, that they’re doing the right thing, and it’s very important for them to stress that. My sense is that, underneath all of that, there was a lingering sense of guilt. These people had just stood outside and shouted that I was a traitor; but, at the same time, they actually wanted to come in and they wanted to talk. I think that they saw a whole lot [in Gaza] that they themselves have not processed. So I don’t think that they’re lying, but I think that, unfortunately, there is a distortion of reality.
They know what they’re seeing, but then they have to interpret it in a way that does not put them in a particularly bad light. And so they can say all kinds of things. They can say, “We took care of them.” They can also say, “But they’re animals.” And they can say, “They all support Hamas.” People who are in that state of mind will say a whole lot of things that are contradictory; I think they believe them, but there’s something underlying all of this, which is that they are in denial. They’re actually denying to themselves, and not just to me, some of what they saw and experienced.
Right, and, just to go back to the contradictions, you said that these students are from a political movement that is aligned with Ben-Gvir. People in that movement talk pretty openly about fighting essentially a religious war and repopulating Gaza with settlers, right?
Yes. I don’t know what the religious practices were for the students there, but they weren’t carrying any signs of religion. I don’t think there was a single one who even had a yarmulke. And they did not use that language. That doesn’t mean that they have not been exposed to it. It doesn’t mean that they don’t go to such rallies. I suspect they do. And it doesn’t mean that they don’t believe in all those things. But it’s curious why they weren’t speaking in that manner with me.
I’ve been saying a lot of very critical things about what Israel is doing in Gaza, and now I’ve met some of the people who are engaged in it. And I think it’s worthwhile trying to think through what this kind of war is doing to a generation of young men and women. It’s not at all to justify what they’re doing. On the contrary, it’s to say that this is a shattering psychological experience. When you’re at a rally and when you are in a battle, shooting a civilian—it’s different.
In 1930, the German Student Union was taken over by the National Socialists. That was three years before Hitler came to power, and German students had endorsed National Socialism. They were doing it, in large part, because of the memory of the First World War: how they lost the war and how they’d been betrayed and stabbed in the back, and all the Jews and the Socialists did not allow the Army to win. And now they were electing, promoting, fighting for someone who promised to make Germany great again. And he did. Germany became powerful, and Germany conquered all of Europe, and Germany killed millions of people. And then it launched a war and it was totally destroyed. And only then these young people started seeing the world through different eyes.
The majority of Jews in Israel right now are right-wing, and they support people like Ben-Gvir and [the finance minister, Bezalel] Smotrich and various other right-wing tendencies. And they are already beginning to pay the price for what they believe in.
How did the conversation end?
It went on for three hours. And, even as we were walking out, they were still talking with me. They were angry. It wasn’t friendly, but they wanted to talk.
I really felt that one problem we have—you can think back to various American wars too, of course—is that you need to talk with soldiers. We don’t do that. We talk about them. In Israel now, everybody’s a hero. Anybody who puts on a uniform or is killed or wounded—they’re a hero. This kind of language was not used to the same degree when I was a soldier. But, at the same time, nobody actually talks to them or listens to them. You just send them to do things, and you don’t want them to tell you exactly what they did, and then you don’t even provide enough psychological help. This will have really severe repercussions in the future.
Isaac Chotiner is a staff writer at The New Yorker, where he is the principal contributor to Q. & A., a series of interviews with public figures in politics, media, books, business, technology, and more
In this week’s MEMO in Conversation we speak to renowned historian Professor Omer Bartov, the author of Genocide, the Holocaust and Israel-Palestine: First-Person History in Times of Crisis, Professor Bartov offers invaluable insights into the ongoing genocide, challenging perspectives on Israel’s actions. We explore pressing questions including the impact of South Africa’s genocide proceedings at the ICJ.
Professor Bartov delves into the exploitation of the Holocaust in justifying policies, the role of international pressure for a just resolution and the potential future for Palestinians amidst annexation and forced displacement. Don’t miss this eye-opening conversation on accountability, power dynamics and the path to ending Israel’s illegal occupation.
Born in Israel and educated at Tel Aviv University and St. Antony’s College, Oxford, Omer Bartov’s early research concerned the Nazi indoctrination of the Wehrmacht and the crimes it committed in World War II. He is Samuel Pisar Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University in the US and has been published numerous times, including Israel-Palestine: Lands and Peoples.
Transcript
Conversation with the Middle East Monitor I spoke to Professor Omer Bartov heis an 0:05 Israeli born historian professor of Holocaust and genocide studies at Brown 0:11 University where he has taught since 2000 Bartov is the author of genocide the 0:18 Holocaust and Israel Palestine first person history in times of 0:23 Crisis during our conversation I asked Professor Bartov to share his insightson 0:29 Israel’s ongoing military operation in Gaza we discuss the recent legal 0:35 action against Israel at the IC filed by South Africa accusing 0:41 Israel of the crime of genocide we I get his views on that 0:48 we talk about the role of the Holocaust in shaping Israel’s policies and thepervasive demonization 0:56 of Palestinians within Israeli society and how that’s fueling the kind of 1:02 radical policies we see in Israel Bartov’s insight into the cost of impunity 1:09 in how to hold Israel accountable for its illegal occupation andsubjugation is also I think worth uh 1:16 listening to and also we spoke about the future how the conflict may end withan 1:25 eye on the future we look at what a positive Judgment at the Isis J could meanfor the Palestinians and Israel uh 1:33 while also considering the need for external pressure to change the 1:39 incentive structures which has allowed Israel to enjoy the level of 1:44 impunity it has and the cost preoccupation that he has enjoyed all thesedecades so I hope you enjoyed the 1:51 conversation and speak to you for another conversation with the Middle EastMonitor welcome to the show and 1:58 thank you for joining us Professor Bartov thank you very much for having meI’ll call you Omer if that’s okay 2:06 yeah please okay Omer so let’s just’s jump straight into your book actually um 2:12 what is your book about I mentioned it [Music] the Holocaust Israel andPalestine 2:19 first person history in times of Crisis what is your book about I think it waspublished last year and what do you 2:26 think are the most valuable insights from your book that can help inform ourunderstanding of what’s happening 2:33 over the last 3 weeks yes sorry three months yeah 2:39 thank you for this question you know the book was written 2:46 before all of this happened but in some ways at least for me it helps me 2:55 understand some of what we are watching right now it does several things he 3:01 tries to talk about the relationship between the Holocaust as a particular 3:07 event and the phenomenon of genocide more generally and we have heard as you 3:12 know now there been a great deal of talk about genocide and a great deal of 3:18 talk about the Holocaust and so what is the relationship between them that’sone discussion another discussion has to do 3:25 with the relationship between Jewish history in Eastern Europe and the 3:31 history of Zionism and of Palestinians in Palestine Israel and how those are 3:38 connected not only historically and not only by analogy but also by the fact 3:44 that many Jews came from Eastern Europe to Palestine and created what becamethe 3:51 state of Israel and were also among other things as a displaced 3:57 population themselves those who displaced others that is those who displacedPalestinians in vast 4:04 numbers in 1948 and finally the book talks about 4:10 what I am very interested in is the question of firsters history that when 4:16 you tell history from the level of individuals when you see it through 4:22 their eyes and when you listen to them carefully and empathize with what theysay whether you agree with them or not 4:29 but you just see them as human beings then you begin to understand histories ofconflict very differently you 4:37 begin to come to I would say a level of empathy that is possibly the first step 4:45 toward some kind of reconciliation so I I’d say that’s the three most importantinsights of that 4:53 book certainly as regards the current conflict I I was looking at a book today 5:01 I actually read it a number of years ago Arab and the Holocaust by a professorfrom s University I think he has since 5:08 retired actar I think his name is and it’s interesting how this book dispels a 5:15 lot of the myths about you know one of the common tropes about the Israeli 5:22 um Zionist narrative is that the Arab helped in the genocide and Holocaust of 5:27 Jews and Netanyahu went as far as to say that you know Hitler did not want to 5:32 kill the Jews it was Husseini who convinced him which was one of the mostshocking thing You’ ever hear from an 5:38 Israeli Prime Minister but there we go he said he said that and the book basicallyshows how the Arabs were very 5:47 sympathetic towards the plight of the Jews in Europe he covered all the majornewspapers all the Arab leaders by Li 5:54 they were all very sympathetic and hostile to Nazi Germany but that doesn’treally get shown within the 6:01 Israeli narrative so I was wondering is that story never told and are we it are 6:08 Israelis focused on simply one aspect of the genocide or Holocaust which isthat 6:13 the whole world’s kind of came together to you know kill the Jews or 6:21 align annihilate the Jews is that a story that’s is a beneficial for going 6:28 forward is that in in your point of view are we telling this wrong story of theHolocaust so to 6:35 speak you know that’s a very good question and it’s a very complicated questionthe I think that for many 6:44 Israelis the Holocaust is the main justification for the state of Israel uh 6:52 they understand the history of the Holocaust is one in which there were 6:58 Jews persecuted in Europe who were trying to get out and nobody would let themin so that sense of betrayal the 7:07 sense that when you don’t have your own country and you’re a minority in acontinent that is trying to either to 7:17 exterminate you or just to get rid of you in one way or another you’re notwanted but you cannot go anywhere else 7:24 uh that is very deep within an Israeli Collective sense of history of memory 7:32 and of identity and it’s not entirely false of course and so Israel sees 7:37 itself and presents itself as the safe haven for Jews soafter the 7:43 establishment of the state if Jews are persecuted anywhere they could alwayscome to Israel be protected by that 7:50 country so that’s one side of it the other side of it is that I would say 7:57 since especially the 1980s the Holocaust has become a kind of 8:02 instrument for Israeli politicians particularly on the right as a 8:09 toolto ward off any criticism of Israel claiming that any criticism of 8:18 Israeli policies policies of settlement of expansion of Oppression is by 8:24 definition anti-semitic and that any threat to is isi security be it the 8:32 first or the second or any other war is a threat to the existence of the very 8:38 state that is it is a threat of potential Holocaust and if you think 8:45 about your own history your own reality through that kind of prism you are 8:52 imprisoned by it that is you see your enemies not as people that you can 8:58 negotiate with that you can compromise with but rather as potential Genocidethere 9:03 as potential people who are commit genocide against you and therefore the 9:09 only way to deal with them is to fight them off or to kill them and that has 9:15 made I’d say the The View by Israelis of their own reality greatly 9:22 distorted and it has had since October 7th it has come up often that 9:30 sense that we have to do everything to protect ourselves from massacres and 9:35 therefore we have licensed to do whatever we need as we Define it and 9:41 nobody can tell us how to behave and we saw that playing out here in the UK aswell a number of 9:49 pro-israeli commentators were sympathetic to Israel like Douglas Murray they’vegone to Great Lengths to 9:56 make the argument that Hamas is worsethan the Nazis that’s another form of 10:01 genocide Denial in my point of view when you say something like that that Hamasis worse than Hitler to which kind of 10:09 as you said gives license to do and say anything you want With the Enemy 10:14 but on that conflict itself do you think I know you take slightly differentview to some of the other people I interviewed like rev seagull 10:24 who said that what we’re seeing in Gaza is a textbook case of genocide andother have mentioned that as well I 10:30 think you take a slightly different view to that so can you explain your viewon that and is it accurate to describe 10:37 what’s happening in Gaza what’s been happening over the last three months is 10:42 genocide look again this is a very complicated issue and I’m trying 10:49 to understand what is going on the ground as things evolve over time 10:56 based on whatever information we have and information is incomplete of course 11:02 um I warned already in early November that Israeli actions in Gaza could 11:09 develop into genocide I think that if we look atat what has happened since wecan 11:17 reach some conclusions they are of course you know dependent on facts 11:24 coming out but my sense is the following that the kind of policy that 11:30 the or tactics that the Israeli that the IDF has been using have caused uh 11:39 major destruction in Gaza and particularly Northern Gaza much of which has been 11:45 flattened has brought about enormous population displacement uh 11:53 that is about 85% of the population that’s been displaced and has beenconcentrated in a very small more part 11:59 of Gaza now this is not a coincidence this is part of a policy of a tactics by 12:06 the Israeli Army and that can be interpreted in two different ways it can 12:11 be interpreted as so to speak humanitarian actions that is you remove 12:17 the population from areas of operations of military operations so as to protect 12:24 them and that’s what the Israeli Army is claiming it is doing or or you can 12:29 say it is a policy of intentional displacement and destruction of the 12:34 areas from which the population is being displaced with the goal of neverletting them back in and potentially removing 12:42 them entirely from the Gaza Strip or from large parts of it which appears to 12:48 be what is actually going on so what does that mean in terms ofyou know 12:54 crime International crimes or crimes under international law I think there’s 12:59 good evidence that Israel has been involved the IDF has been involved in warcrimes and because of the very high 13:06 numbers of civilians killed it’s now around 23,000 at least 2third of whom are 13:14 civilians half of whom are children that it’s also crimes against 13:19 humanity whether it’s genocide as far as I can say right now it depends on the 13:27 next few weeks because if this policy that is carried out right now by theIsraeli military 13:34 and the state continues it means that there’s now a humanitarian crisis inthese camps where 13:41 now internal refugees internally displaced people find themselves the deathrate 13:48 may rise very quickly it is of course already very high and there may be anattempt to push them out that will look 13:55 like ethnic cleansing or forcible remove displacement of population which 14:02 comes under could come under crimes against humanity and or 14:08 genocide if that is stopped and things are 14:13 reversed which I don’t predict happening but may happen because of externalpressures especially 14:20 by the us then things will look different so I think we are right now 14:26 right on the verge of of this becoming a clear policy of ethnic 14:33 cleansing which can result in genocide and of course we know that 14:40 this is now has been handed over to the International court of justice and 14:48 will be deliberated by a panel of Judges there which may give us also some more 14:54 clarity at least as to how a group of distinguish jurist understand 15:02 this yeah we we we’ll speak about that the icj case that’s been lodged by 15:07 South Africa I mean it is interesting what you said I mean in 3 weeks time it’be more clarity I mean I myself at the 15:15 beginning I I observed my My Views as well of course we very critical of 15:21 Israel and I saw how my perspectives have changed based on what happened on theground I I did not envisage this 15:28 level of bombardment and to me it seemed like it was a clear intent to 15:35 ethnically cleanse or even commit genocide right from the beginning based onwhat the Israeli leaders were 15:40 saying and some of the figures that came out and I did a historical comparisonI found it quite shocking one of them 15:47 being you know Palestinians are being killed at a higher rate by the Israelis inthe so-called targeted 15:54 bombing of Gaza then Brits that were being killed by Germany during the um 16:00 during Nazi bombing and I found that quite shocking at that time in the eightmonths of bombing by the luta German 16:06 luta 40,000 civilians were killed during that war in eight months and if 16:14 Israel was to continue its current rate of Destruction on Gaza there would be 16:20 more than 880,000 Palestinians killed so even though Israel claims to be 16:27 carrying out its bombing a targeted way whereas the German bombing was seen asbeing indiscriminate so I I found those 16:33 kind of figures to be wow quite shocking and it kind of changed my view prettyquickly that let me say just you 16:40 know I mean I think that there’s no question by now that Israeli bombing 16:46 has been indiscriminate and not only indiscriminate but in quite a number 16:51 of cases intentional bombing of 16:57 civilians and intentional destruction of Civilian structures including schoolsand hospitals and so forth I don’t think 17:04 there’s any question about that the problem with the definition of 17:10 genocide is that it’s not a question of numbers now numbers of course matter 17:17 they matter a great deal and one should not you know dismiss that but 17:23 it’s not necessarily a matter of numbers the the Allied bombing of German 17:29 in World War II not the German bombingof Britain but the British and American bombing of Germany of Open 17:34 Cities intentional bombing of civilians killed about 600,000 German civilians butit would 17:43 probably not come under genocide because there was no intention to destroy theGerman people as such which is part of 17:51 the definition of genocide cause to show an intention to destroy a group assuch 17:58 it is possible that you could show now that what Israel is doing in Gaza 18:05 is the intention is already been expressed is an attempt to destroy thePalestinian people as such in whole or 18:12 in part so at least it’s part in Gaza if that can be shown then this would be 18:18 genocide and there have been statements by Israeli politicians and by 18:24 Israeli generals indicating that but that’s a difficult thing to show because 18:31 you can claim that many of these statements were done In the Heat of the Momentthey are for propaganda purposes 18:37 but the actual policies not that so unfortunately even if the numbers go up 18:45 that is not what would necessarily mean that it’s genocide but I think that we 18:51 are very close to that because the policy appears increasingly to be a 18:57 policy of removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and that could come 19:02 under genocide so talking about the I I was wondering if I can get your viewson 19:09 that the international court of justice case lodged by South Africa accusing 19:14 Israel of genocide and basically trying to get restraining order on Israel andtrying 19:22 to stop the current campaign as seems to be as you said it’s not a slum dunk 19:28 because there are 15 judges not all willbe U judging on the basis of the 19:33 Merit of the case there’ll be lots of political calculations there so just 19:38 give us your thought on that do you think this we could see or we could expecta positive judgment by the icj 19:45 judges in favor of Palestinians given difficulties you just mentioned and alsogiven how the judges are 19:54 representing their own specific countries and the politics of their country Ican’t can’t expect for example a German judge to judge in favor of 20:02 the Palestinian and say there is genocide or an American judge to do the sameso given the proportion of the 20:08 judges and what we know of the case what are your thoughts on that well listenI mean I’ve 20:17 thought a fair amount about this and I think first of all the move by South 20:22 Africa to file this with the icj was very important and as you know very 20:29 quite unique I mean this is a very rare case and there are two 20:38 levels to this one is whether the icj would umpronounce an injunction 20:46 on Israel to stop military action while it deliberates this question of jde 20:52 because the Deliberations themselves could take years but the call to stopIsrael 20:59 from continuing its campaign in Gaza and potentially from leaving Gaza that 21:06 can come quickly now the icj has no way to 21:13 enforce that so this would go to the security Council and the security 21:19 Council it is possible although not certain that the US would then veto this 21:27 uh however the very fact that you have the icj deliberating this question and 21:34 the potential that it would then that there would be a a call by the icj for a 21:40 at least a temporary h on operations and that it would go to the securityCouncil 21:46 all of that has major implications for what is going on it’s I think one 21:54 of the most important things is that Israel is highly dependent on both 21:59 diplomatic cover by Israel and other count by the US and other countries and 22:04 Military supplies and a huge amount of supplies streaming from the United 22:09 States to Israel many countries have their own laws that say you cannot 22:17 Supply arms to countries that are suspect of breaches of Human Rights uh 22:23 and Israel would be at least a suspect of that because would have been uh 22:29 lodged with the icj and therefore this this can have both a sort of in the 22:35 international arena in general and specifically regarding assistance to Israelthis can 22:43 and probably will have a major impact on whatever happens on the ground so 22:50 I think while it also shows that you know International humanitarian law is 22:56 international and therefore States decide and States decide according to theirown national interests the fact 23:04 that it has come to that will already have an impact will it change things 23:10 altogether I don’t know but I can tell you that in Israel people who 23:16 are in the military and in various politicians are very worried about this 23:22 and one indication of it is that Netanyahu has a point prime minister 23:28 nany has appointed Aharon Barak who he saw as his enemy the former Chief 23:35 Justice in the Supreme Court as the judge who would be the Israeli judge on 23:40 the icj according to the icj the country lodging the complaint that the country 23:46 that the complaint is against can have a judge of their own there and Barakwill be the Israeli judge there that means 23:53 that netan is very worried about what will become of that so I think it is an 23:59 important move it won’t be a game Cher but it will havean effect and 24:05 probably a substantial effect Yeah you mentioned it yah and a lot of 24:12 times it’s we’ve seen politicians here in in UK for 24:19 example it’s easy to blame Netanyahu from where I’m sitting and we know 24:26 that he had has been the longest serving Israeli Prime Minister and recentpolls 24:32 I’ve seen a number of polls coming out showing that israeli’s themselves theythink that the government is not 24:39 going hard enough on the Palestinians on Gaza so I think the question I’m 24:45 asking is going back to what we started off with the memory of the Holocaustand seeing your enemy constantly as the 24:53 Nazis is there something in the psyche which makes Israel feel that or 25:01 there’s a real ethos within Israel that sees enemies as something that 25:06 needs to be obliterated destroyed or at least section or 25:12 factions within the Israeli Society to view military conflict in such a 25:18 way because polls are say suggesting that Netanyahu is not going far 25:23 enough he should be more aggressive towards the Palestinians so it’s 25:29 doesn’t seem to be simply a case on Netanyahu’s problem Netanyahu is doing it’ssomething which is something 25:34 more ingrained within sections of Israeli Society so look I mean I think youcan 25:41 uh talk about this on three levels the first is we do have to remember 25:47 that what happened on October 7th was totally shocking to isra society uh 25:53 nothing like that had happened before not even in 1948 which Israeli certainly 25:59 remember as a kind of War of existence that close to a thousand 26:04 civilians were killed murdered old people babies children there were many 26:12 documented rapes and the Israeli Army didn’t show up for hours and hours and 26:18 hours took eight hours nine hours 12 hours that created both a sense of 26:26 deep insecurity that Hamas militants could just 26:31 walk into the country and take over an entire part of Southern Israel with 26:37 the IDF incapable of responding in time and a powerful urge for Revenge 26:46 revenge is never a good motivation foranything not for personal 26:52 Behavior not for war and not for politics but it does exist and an 26:58 urge by the IDF which let’s be clear screwed up big time to show 27:07 that it can win over again the Israeli public and its own honor and 27:13 there’s a lot of talk about honor there so that’s one thing and we have toremember that that’s very different from 27:19 anything else and the response to it therefore has also been very different thesecond thing is the issue with Nan n 27:28 is probably the most unpopular man in Israel today if there were electionstoday he he’s he would probably get 15% 27:36 of the vote or something like that if he’s lucky and not only because of 27:41 what happened on October 7th but because of what happened before October 7th uh 27:46 where he tried to carry out a Judicial coup to basically weaken the Supreme 27:52 Court and to expand the power of the executive meaning himself because 27:57 because he’s indicted and he’s known to be deeply involved in corruption and 28:02 because of the incredible incompetance of the Israeli government after October 28:08 7thmuch of you know about 150,000 Israeli citizens have been displaced in 28:15 the north and in the south on the Lebanon border and on the Gaza border and whowho is taking care of those 28:21 displaced people it’s mostly volunteers who were those who were protestingagainst Netanyahu before October 7 28:29 because the government can’t get its act together so Netanyahu is highlyunpopular 28:34 now the last issue I think yes I think right now in 28:40 Israel including in those who perceive themselves as being more liberal more inthe left there is a real strong 28:51 urge if not to for Revenge certainly as Israeli see it to destroy 28:58 whatever that means and whatever it takes and a kind of indifference to 29:05 what is happening in Gaza much of which is not being reported on the Israelimedia you’d be hard put to find any 29:11 actual reports on Israeli media about the mass killing of civilians in Gaza 29:16 they’re reporting about heroic soldiers but not about what they’re actuallydoing 29:22 there I think that is I mean to me of course it’s it’s 29:28 deeply saddening to see this but I think that that can and probably is 29:35 already changing and the reason it’s changing is that it it is becoming clear 29:42 that the IDF did not only have a fiasco on October 7th it’s 29:49 actual military operation it’s attempt to win over now a sense that it can 29:55 do things well has not worked the operation itself from the military point 30:02 of view from the point of view of how the Israeli government and the IDF definedtheir goals to release the 30:10 hostages and there’s still 136 hostages being held now for three months byHamas 30:17 uh has failed and the their the second stated goal of destroying 30:25 Hamas as a political military organization has also failed they’re still fightingthem and the 30:32 number of Israeli casualties is growing so I think that if the current 30:39 political leadership and one has to understand nany wants the war to continueas long as the war continues he 30:46 stays in power so he is a main obstacle not because Israelis like him or not 30:53 because Israelis don’t want revenge but he is a main obstacle because he wantsthe war to go on he and he doesn’t care 31:01 about the hostages or anything he wants this to continue and the war now may 31:06 well evolve into a war also in Lebanon and also with Iranian militias in Syria 31:12 and also with the Huthis it can become you know a regional War he doesn’t care 31:17 because he can stay in power if nany is removed and Israel has a more rational 31:23 it it won’t be a liberal government but a more rational government actuallylooks to the interest of the state of 31:31 Israel then that war will change its nature and the Israeli public will be 31:37 happy about it but right now under his leadership I think this kind of constant 31:44 incitement from the government itself is only making things worse so I 31:51 think you know I’m not optimistic I don’t know what the 31:57 mechanism will be to change the government but from my point of view if 32:03 major International pressure particularly American pressure is put on theIsraeli government it can eventually 32:10 also bring about the downfall of the Netanyahu 32:15 administration I think that’s what the Americans would want and I think netan 32:21 would not be able to make concessions which the Americans should insist on 32:26 without losing his Coalition going back to October 7th what 32:32 kind of what level of scrutiny from your course you follow the Israeli press 32:37 quite closely and you before October 7 you headed a group 32:44 to sign a letter public letter condemning Netanyahu’s attempt to overhaul theJudiciary and in that you 32:54 described Israel as being practicing the crime of aparthide and ethic cleansing 32:59 and you got a lot of support for that letter so there is of course 33:05 resistance and opposition to Netanyahu what kind of resistance and 33:10 scrutiny are we seeing on October 7 itself because one of the questions 33:16 lot of people are asking is how can Israel Army have taken 6 hours to respondto something like that 33:23 so are there more probing questions like that and also the Israeli allegations 33:28 the Israeli soldiers themselves shot down and killed Israelis in in some of 33:34 the settlements is that something that is being asked these kind of 33:40 questions probing questions within the society at the moment yes there are andagain you know 33:46 you you touching on two on two issues one is that you know a number of 33:54 colleagues and myself issued that statement on August 4th so two months 34:00 before the Hamas attack and what we said we see the elephant 34:08 in the room and what we said was that the attempted judicial 34:14 overhaul meaning judicial coup by the government was not simply to in order to 34:20 increase the power of the executive andweaken the Judiciary but actually it was about the occupation 34:29 that the occupation was the elephant in the room and most of the protest inIsrael at the time was not refused to 34:35 talk about that those who were protesting against the judicial overhaul did notwant to talk about the 34:41 occupation they said that’s another issue and we said no it’s not another issueit is the issue that the 34:48 government under nany and with the more even more radical settler ministers uh 34:54 to his right want to enhance the settlement in the West Bank want to 35:01 ethnically cleanse as much as they can the West Bank and want to Annex largeparts of the West Bank and that’s why 35:08 they want to remove any judicial oversight of these policies 35:13 that is what it was about and at the core of everything we are seeing now is 35:19 the occupation that is the main engine of everything we are seeing now without 35:25 dealing with that issue nothing can be resolved so that’s crucial to 35:31 understand now is the scrutiny of October 7th in Israel 35:37 there are two sides of it on the one hand October 7th is constantly 35:42 being recycled in the Israeli media every day there are different stories of 35:47 what happened there and that so triggers all the emotions in the Israeli public 35:53 about the horrors that occur there and that in a sense gives more sort 36:00 of time for operations in Gaza because it’s saying look what they did to us buton the other hand more and more 36:07 information is coming out about how badly the Army conducted itself how 36:13 unprepared he was there were of course many you know individual cases of heroic 36:20 actions and so forth as they’re reported in the Israeli media but also several 36:26 first of all the entire framework of the lack of response and secondly all kindof particular actions one of them is 36:33 an action that happened in a kibutz where I actually have relatives myself inkibutz 36:39 Beeri a tank was ordered by a commander by a general to 36:46 fire probably at least two tank shells at a house where there were both 36:52 Hamas militants and hostages and that now is known as has been reported theremay have been 36:58 some other cases I would say that shows incompetence a lack of preparation this 37:05 was reported also in the New York Times in a very important sort ofinvestigative journalism that they did I 37:11 don’t think it takes Hamas of the hook though and I don’t think that Hamas willbe taken off the hook and just as I’d 37:19 like to see Israeli generals and other officers and politicians put in 37:24 front of a an international Court I would like to see it’s unlikely that 37:29 it’ll happen some of these Hamas militants who raped and mutilated uh 37:35 also charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes but again we 37:40 have to think about the context of this to me the context is important it does 37:46 not condone what Hamas did but it’s important to understand the context of thisis that Gaza had been under Israeli 37:54 siege for 16 years that people are being brutalized by The Siege that Hamas inits own wayU 38:05 prepared to make a statement so that the Palestinian issue would not be swept 38:11 under the rug and it succeeded in doing that it succeeded in bringing back the 38:16 Palestinian issue to the four at a huge cost enormous cost to everyone but 38:22 especially to Palestinian civilians in Gaza and that leads us neatly to a final 38:30 question onon the on the context and the incentive structures let’s just say 38:36 that has created the cycle of violence that we’ve seen over the 38:41 decades and the occupation so given the situation given the power imbalance um 38:47 can you see Israel ending its occupation especially given that it has shifted 38:53 more and more to the right and you and Israel’s major allies the US and UK have 39:01 uh been almost indifferent and allowed this impunity to go on without sayinganything doing anything and on top of 39:08 that we’ve seen Arab regimes Arab countries who have normalized relationshipdespite the fact that you 39:14 know the occupation still exist Israel is illegally occupying West Bank andGazathere doesn’t seem to be any 39:21 push back against that so do you think that will we we’ll see the kind ofincentives that’s required to break the 39:27 status quo and create a situation an impetus for the ending of the occupation 39:35 and Palestinians given the right to self-determination I think we have now 39:43 um unfortunately under horrific circumstances we have now the best 39:48 opportunity to do so in decades and the question is whether this opportunity 39:54 will be seized so in Israel yes Israel has been moving to the right and 39:59 possibly it’s moved even more to the right since October 7th but Israel also isfilled with a huge sense of fragility 40:07 and insecurity no one feels secure in Israel right now this is a completely 40:13 different Israel from what he was before October 7th where people could simplyignore what was happening in Gaza what 40:19 was happening in the West Bank and live their own comfortable lives this haschanged it’s a completely different 40:25 world and chance of it getting even worse with you know 40:31 hundreds of thousands of reservist coming back from Reserve service and findingthat they don’t have their jobs 40:37 that the state is not helping them there is a sort of I would say a potential 40:44 political and social earthquake in itself so that is one thing that that 40:49 we have to take into account yes a sort of shift to the right but also a great 40:54 fragility in the society but the change will not come from 41:00 within it won’t come from within not among Israelis and unfortunately also 41:05 not from Palestinians it has to come from the outside and this is anopportunity now for the United States 41:13 together with its major allies with Germany with France with the UK to 41:18 understand what is happening now is that can spin out of control entirely the 41:24 entire Middle East now is is no one knows what’s going to happen and once 41:30 things start rolling they may get out of control entirely what the UnitedStates 41:36 has to do now is to devise a strategic plan which includes 41:41 negotiations toward a settlement of the conflict between Israel and Palestine 41:46 that has to happen now and they’re talking about it but they’re not actuallyfollowing up on their own 41:52 rhetoric which is weak and not quite decisive this is known by the way this isbeing 41:59 said by some circles in Israel itself that Anthony blinkin is traveling around 42:04 the Middle East with an empty suitcase he has nothing to provide what he has to 42:10 provide is force what he has to provide is sanctions Israel depends now more 42:17 than at any other time since 1948 on the United States it depends on it for 42:23 political cover it depends on it for war the United States has to use that not 42:29 simply to force its hands and not simply for a ceasefire because the ceasefirewould be good but it’s not is hardly 42:37 sufficient but to devise a plan which is not very hard to come up with reallyto 42:43 solve this issue once and for all it won’t happen from today to tomorrow but 42:49 there has to be a political Horizon toward it if that happens I think 42:55 Israeli Society because it is so fragile and insecure right now will be willing 43:03 to and in many ways forced to accept that and I think Palestinian society 43:10 which is undergoing horrendous suffering will also be open I’m hoping will be 43:17 open to looking at a positive political Horizon rather than an ongoing 43:24 intransigence on both sides and ongoing violence which each time there’s acycle 43:30 gets even worse I think it’s an opportunity and it has to be ceased thank youfor that Professor Bartov 43:37 and let’s end on that optimistic note I want to thank you and also the viewersat home for joining see you for 43:43 another conversation with the Middle East Monitor thank you very much bye-byethank you [Music] 43:55
Appealing to the memory of the Holocaust obscures our understanding of the antisemitism Jews face today and dangerously misrepresents the causes of violence in Israel-Palestine.
November 20, 2023
We the undersigned are scholars of the Holocaust and antisemitism from different institutions. We write to express our dismay and disappointment at political leaders and notable public figures invoking Holocaust memory to explain the current crisis in Gaza and Israel.
Particular examples have ranged from Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gilad Erdan donning a yellow star featuring the words “Never Again” while addressing the UN General Assembly, to US President Joe Biden saying that Hamas had “engaged in barbarism that is as consequential as the Holocaust,” while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that “Hamas are the new Nazis.” US Representative Brian Mast, a Republican from Florida, speaking on the House floor, questioned the idea that there are “innocent Palestinian civilians,” claiming, “I don’t think we would so lightly throw around the term ‘innocent Nazi civilians’ during World War II.”
Antisemitism often increases at times of heightened crisis in Israel-Palestine, as do Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism. The unconscionable violence of the October 7 attacks and the ongoing aerial bombardment and invasion of Gaza are devastating, and are generating pain and fear among Jewish and Palestinian communities around the world. We reiterate that everyone has the right to feel safe wherever they live, and that addressing racism, antisemitism, and Islamophobia must be a priority.
It is understandable why many in the Jewish community recall the Holocaust and earlier pogroms when trying to comprehend what happened on October 7—the massacres, and the images that came out in the aftermath, have tapped into deep-seated collective memory of genocidal antisemitism, driven by all-too-recent Jewish history.
However, appealing to the memory of the Holocaust obscures our understanding of the antisemitism Jews face today, and dangerously misrepresents the causes of violence in Israel-Palestine. The Nazi genocide involved a state—and its willing civil society—attacking a tiny minority, which then escalated to a continent-wide genocide. Indeed, comparisons of the crisis unfolding in Israel-Palestine to Nazism and the Holocaust—above all when they come from political leaders and others who can sway public opinion—are intellectual and moral failings. At a moment when emotions are running high, political leaders have a responsibility to act calmly and avoid stoking the flames of distress and division. And, as academics, we have a duty to uphold the intellectual integrity of our profession and support others around the world in making sense of this moment.
Israeli leaders and others are using the Holocaust framing to portray Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza as a battle for civilization in the face of barbarism, thereby promoting racist narratives about Palestinians. This rhetoric encourages us to separate this current crisis from the context out of which it has arisen. Seventy-five years of displacement, fifty-six years of occupation, and sixteen years of the Gaza blockade have generated an ever-deteriorating spiral of violence that can only be arrested by a political solution. There is no military solution in Israel-Palestine, and deploying a Holocaust narrative in which an “evil” must be vanquished by force will only perpetuate an oppressive state of affairs that has already lasted far too long.
Insisting that “Hamas are the new Nazis”—while holding Palestinians collectively responsible for Hamas’s actions—attributes hardened, antisemitic motivations to those who defend Palestinian rights. It also positions the protection of Jewish people against the upholding of international human rights and laws, implying that the current assault on Gaza is a necessity. And invoking the Holocaust to dismiss demonstrators calling for a “free Palestine” fuels the repression of Palestinian human rights advocacy and the conflation of antisemitism with criticism of Israel.
In this climate of growing insecurity, we need clarity about antisemitism so that we can properly identify and combat it. We also need clear thinking as we grapple with and respond to what is unfolding in Gaza and the West Bank. And we need to be forthright in dealing with these simultaneous realities—of resurgent antisemitism and widespread killing in Gaza, as well as escalating expulsions in the West Bank—as we engage with the public discourse.
We encourage those who have so readily invoked comparisons to Nazi Germany to listen to the rhetoric coming from Israel’s political leadership. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Israeli parliament that “this is a struggle between the children of light and the children of darkness” (a tweet from his office with the same phrase was later deleted). Defense Minister Yoav Gallant proclaimed, “We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.” Such comments, along with a widespread and frequently cited argument that there are no innocent Palestinians in Gaza, do indeed bring to mind echoes of historical mass violence. But those resonances should serve as an injunction against wide-scale killing, not as a call to extend it.
As academics we have a responsibility to use our words, and our expertise, with judgment and sensitivity—to try and dial down inciteful language that is liable to provoke further discord, and instead to prioritize speech and action aimed at preventing further loss of life. This is why when invoking the past, we must do so in ways that illuminate the present and do not distort it. This is the necessary basis for establishing peace and justice in Palestine and Israel. This is why we urge public figures, including the media, to stop using these kinds of comparisons.
Karyn Ball Professor of English and Film Studies, University of Alberta
Omer Bartov Samuel Pisar Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Brown University
Christopher R. Browning Professor of History Emeritus, UNC-Chapel Hill
Jane Caplan Emeritus Professor of Modern European History, University of Oxford
Alon Confino Professor of History and Jewish Studies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Debórah Dwork Director of the Center for the Study of the Holocaust, Genocide, and Crimes Against Humanity, Graduate Center—City University of New York
David Feldman Director, Birkbeck Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, University of London
Amos Goldberg The Jonah M. Machover Chair in Holocaust Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Atina Grossmann Professor of History, Cooper Union, New York
John-Paul Himka Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta
Marianne Hirsch Professor Emerita, Comparative Literature and Gender Studies, Columbia University
A. Dirk Moses Spitzer Professor of International Relations, City College of New York
Michael Rothberg Professor of English, Comparative Literature, and Holocaust Studies, UCLA
Raz Segal Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Stockton University
Stefanie Schüler-Springorum Director, Center for Research on Antisemitism, Technische Universität Berlin
Barry Trachtenberg Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History, Wake Forest University
I. Adolf Hitler’s so-called second book was not published in his lifetime. Written, as Gerhard Weinberg convincingly speculates, in late June and early July 1928, the book’s publication was postponed because Mein Kampf, Hitler’s first massive text, was selling very badly and could hardly stand competition with another publication by the same author. Later, after Hitler was appointed chancellor and Mein Kampf became one of the greatest (and allegedly most unread) best-sellers of all times, the second book was apparently seen as disclosing his foreign policy plans too explicitly to allow publication. It was locked away, only to be discovered by Weinberg in 1958. Published in German three years later, the second book came out in a pirated and unreliable English edition in 1962. It is only now that the public can read this text in an authoritative translation, accompanied by extensive and updated notes by Weinberg.
Must we read another ranting book by Hitler? This book is certainly as close to the heart of darkness as a book can be. But it should have been read in its time, and it should be read now. It was an explicit warning to the world of what could be expected from the Fuhrer of what was to become for twelve terrible years the Third Reich. When Hitler wrote it, no one could tell whether his plans and fantasies would ever be transformed into reality.Much of what Hitler put together in this book could already be found in Mein Kampf, if anyone had bothered to read it, and other ideas were expressed unambiguously in his speeches. Yet it was difficult to believe that anyone in his right mind would try to translate such rhetoric into policy. It was generally thought that in power Hitler would be constrained by the realities of diplomacy, the limits of Germany’s power, the national interests of the Reich, and the military, economic, and political partners with whom he had to make policy.
Today we know that this was a fatal misunderstanding, rooted more in wishful thinking than in the kind of realism on which contemporary observers prided themselves and expected would eventually keep Hitler, too, in his place. Today we know that Hitler said precisely what he meant to say. We can also note, with the benefit of hindsight, that Hitler was neither insane, nor irrational, nor a fool. Several decades ago A.J.P. Taylor wrote that Hitler may have been mad or criminal as far as his plans and policies for world conquest and genocide were concerned, but in the conduct of his diplomacy in the 1930s he acted very much like everyone else, seizing opportunities and moving gradually toward the goals he had set himself. Reading this second book, I tend to agree. Hitler’s rhetoric here is not more empty-headed than that of many of his contemporaries; his use of cliches hardly exceeds what one encountered in the newspapers; his knowledge of history, his psychological observations, his criticism of his rivals, are in many respects typical of his place and time.
But of course Hitler was about much more than this. He was also a pathological mass murderer who caused the death of millions and the destruction of Europe, and so it is important to know that he did precisely what he promised to do. For we still do not seem to have learned a simple crucial lesson that Hitler taught us more definitively than anyone else in history: some people, some regimes, some ideologies, some political programs, and, yes, some religious groups, must be taken at their word. Some people mean what they say, and say what they will do, and do what they said.
Most liberal-minded, optimistic, well-meaning people are loath to believe this. They would rather think that fanaticism is merely an “epiphenomenal” facade for politics, that opinions can be changed, that everyone can be corrected and improved. In many cases, this is true—but not in all cases, and not in the most dangerous ones. There are those who practice what they preach and are proud of it. They view those who act otherwise, who compromise and pull back from ultimate conclusions, as opportunists, as weaklings, as targets to be easily conquered and subdued by their own greater determination, hardness, and ruthlessness. When they say they will kill you, they will kill you–if you do not kill them first.
Reading Hitler’s second book is useful, of course, for students of Nazism. But they will have already read it in part or in whole, and nothing that Hitler says here will come to them as much of a surprise. This is a book that should be read, rather, by contemporary journalists, political observers, and all concerned people who have the stomach to recognize evil when they confront it. For one of the most frightening aspects of Hitler’s book is not that he said what he said at the time, but that much of what he said can be found today in innumerable places: on Internet sites, propaganda brochures, political speeches, protest placards, academic publications, religious sermons, you name it. As long as it does not have Hitler’s name attached to it, this deranged discourse will be ignored or allowed to pass. The voices that express these opinions do not belong to a single political or ideological current, and they are much less easy to distinguish than in the 1930s. They belong to the right and the left, to the religious and the secular, to the West and the East, to the rabble and the leaders, to terrorists and intellectuals, students and peasants, pacifists and militants, expansionists and anti-globalization activists. The diplomacy advocated by Hitler is no longer relevant, but his reason for it, his legitimization of his “worldview,” is alive and kicking, and it may still kick us.
II. HITLER NEVER HAD a particularly complicated ideology. He painted a clear picture of the world, distinguishing between the bad and the good, the sinful and the righteous, the guilty and the innocent, the dirty and the clean, the inferior and the superior. He articulated clear goals, as follows. The Aryan race needs domestic unity and freedom from polluting racial elements, and so it must expand into an undefined and likely limitless “living space” in the East. Germany’s most important short-term enemy is France, for historical reasons and because it has become “negroized.” Germany’s most likely allies are Italy and Britain, with whom the Reich should have no quarrel since they also seek to expand in different directions. The greatest long-term enemy is the United States, not least because it is made up of healthy Aryan stock that has turned its back on the fatherland. The Slav states and the nations to Germany’s east are to be taken over. The Slavs, and especially the Poles and Russians, are not worthy of ruling themselves, for whatever is great and worthy in the East was created by German colonizers and rulers. The greatest danger to the world are the Jews, who have taken control of the Soviet Union and are behind all the Marxist parties in Europe, and at the same time are the bosses and the manipulators of international capitalism. The Jews rule the world through a global conspiracy, and it is Germany’s duty to destroy them before they subjugate humanity forever.
Hitler made no bones about the direct link between his “analysis” of world history and his plans for Germany’s policies. For him, as he wrote,
politics is not just the struggle of a people for its survival as such; rather, for us humans it is the art of the implementation of this struggle.… Politics is always the leader of the struggle for survival—its organizer—and regardless of how it is formally designated, its effectiveness will determine the life or death of a people.… The two concepts of a peace policy or a war policy thus immediately become meaningless. Because the stake that is struggled for through politics is always life.…
Promoting economic autarky and opposing the ills of a global capitalistic economy, Hitler was similarly swift in identifying the agents of globalization whose goal it was to “kill the others through peaceful industry,” by way of depriving people of the necessary Lebensraum that would ensure their healthy development. The urban centers created by the global industrial economy were “hotbeds of blood-mixing and bastardization, usually ensuring the degeneration of the race and resulting in that purulent herd in which the maggots of the international Jewish community flourish and cause the ultimate decay of the people.” For Hitler, the “Jew” was directly identified with anything international, and internationalism was directly associated with the degeneration of the race, with immorality and corruption. Once a people loses its “genetically conditioned cultural expression of the life of its own soul,” he wrote, it will “descend into the confusion of international perceptions and the cultural chaos that springs from them. Then the Jew can move in, and not rest until he has completely uprooted and thereby corrupted such a people.”
WHILE HE STRENUOUSLY opposed “internationalism” as a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and to corrupt the nobler races, Hitler saw no limits to his own aspirations for expansion. As he noted, “Wherever our success ends, that will always be the starting point of a new battle.” And as Hitler never tired of emphasizing, he was opposed to a policy of returning to the borders of 1914—that is, of revising the Versailles agreement in which the Reich had been “robbed” of its territories. That restitution would hardly suffice. Hitler argues that
the foreign policy of the bourgeois world is in truth always only focused on borders, whereas the National Socialist movement, in contrast, will pursue a policy focused on space. The German bourgeoisie will, with its boldest plans, perhaps attain unification of the German nation, but in reality it usually ends in bungling border adjustments. The National Socialist movement … knows no Germanization … but only the expansion of our own people.… The national conception will not be determined by previous patriotic notions of state, but rather by ethnic and racial conceptions.… The German borders of 1914 … represented something just as unfinished as peoples’ borders always are. The division of territory on the earth is always the momentary result of a struggle and an evolution that is in no way finished, but that naturally continues to progress.
So much for the idea of appeasement, of letting Hitler have what he had already declared would never suffice. The racial state that Hitler outlined had certain duties. It could “under absolutely no circumstances annex Poles.” It would “have to decide either to isolate these alien racial elements in order to prevent the repeated contamination of one’s own people, or it would have to immediately remove them entirely, transferring the land and territory that thus became free to members of one’s own ethnic community.” Here again we hear Hitler saying quite clearly that he would undertake the kind of demographic re-structuring of Eastern Europe that was indeed managed by Heinrich Himmler after 1939. And whatever might have been the contributions of various German technocrats in the 1930s to molding this policy, as suggested by some historians, Hitler unequivocally and ruthlessly expressed it five years before he became chancellor.
Moreover, Hitler made it clear that in the distant future “the only state that would be able to stand up to North America will be the state that has understood how … to raise the racial value of its people.… It is, again, the duty of the National Socialist movement to strengthen and prepare our own fatherland to the greatest degree possible for this task.” If Hitler did not end up trying to conquer the United States, we now know that he made plans for producing the kinds of aircraft and ships that would have facilitated such aggressive action.
Ultimately, as Hitler saw it, there could have been only one worthwhile goal in World War I, and the same goal would eventually have to guide the conduct of any future war: the conquest of “living space.” The “only area in Europe that could be considered for such a territorial policy was Russia.” This was also the only kind of war aim that would motivate Germans and justify the sacrifices entailed in accomplishing it:
The only war aim that would have been worthy of these enormous casualties [in World War I] would have been to promise the German troops that so many hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of land would be allotted to the frontline soldiers as property or made available for colonization by Germans.
This is precisely what Hitler did upon the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.
The instrument of such a war would be a new German army, and in his second book Hitler outlines how he would use the Weimar Republic’s one hundred thousand-man Reichswehr as the framework for the creation of a massive new military machine based on universal conscription. By 1935 Hitler was already well on his way to accomplishing this task, having both purged the SA, which hoped to become an alternative military organization, and declared universal conscription in total defiance of the Versailles Treaty.
BUT GERMANY’S MOST pernicious enemies were the Jews and those who had collaborated with them in stabbing the army in the back and bringing about the collapse of the German Empire in November 1918. “No enemy,” declared Hitler, “had reviled the German army like the representatives of the November knavery defiled it.” Hence, he warned,
Anyone who today wants to act in the name of German honor must first announce the most relentless fight against the intolerable defilers of German honor … the representatives of the November crime. That collection [of] Marxist, democratic-pacifist, and Centrist traitors that pushed our people into its current state of powerlessness.… I admit most frankly that I could reconcile myself with every one of those old enemies, but that my hate for the traitors in our own ranks is unforgiving and will remain.
These traitors not only brought the old Reich crashing down, they were now plotting to establish a “global economy” and a pan-European movement whose consequences would be “a Jewishinstigated systematic bastardization with lower-quality human material.” The reason was obvious:
The Jew particularly welcomes such a concept; in its consistent observance it leads to racial chaos and confusion, to a bastardization and niggerization of civilized humanity, and finally to such a deterioration in its racial value that the Hebrew who keeps himself free from it can gradually rise to be masters [sic] of the world.
Most dangerously, the Jews had taken over Russia. Hitler opposed any “German-Russian understanding … as long as a government that is preoccupied with the sole effort to transmit the Bolshevist poison to Germany rules in Russia.” For “it goes without saying that if such an alliance were to materialize today, its results would be the complete dominance of Judaism in Germany, just as in Russia.” Interestingly, while the Jews dominated Russia, they were in Hitler’s view not true communists but greedy capitalists. Hence “it is precisely the Jewish press organs of the most noted stock market interests that advocate a German-Russian alliance in Germany. Do people really believe that” these Jewish papers “speak more or less openly for Bolshevist Russia because it is an anticapitalist state?” No, Hitler insisted, this was in fact nothing but a “Jewish-capitalist Bolshevik Russia”—Jewish-controlled capitalism posing as Russian communism.
HITLER DID NOT share the hope that he attributed to nationalist German circles that, if Russia were to be liberated from the Jews and reverted to “nationalist, anticapitalist communism,” it might be a good coalition partner for Germany. For Hitler, Germans and Russians constituted “two ethnic souls that have very little in common.” The Russian people could never rule themselves, but were rather first under the control of superior “Nordic-German elements” and, following the Revolution, under the Jews who successfully “exterminated the previous foreign upper class … with the help of the Slavic racial instinct.” But as Hitler saw it, this Jewish takeover would eventually serve Germany’s objectives, since “the overall tendency of Judaism, which is ultimately only destructive,” would in time lead to “the destruction of Jewry.” This in turn would facilitate the realization of “the goal of German foreign policy in the one and only place possible: space in the East.”
After explaining why the question of the German minority in South Tyrol, which came under Italian rule after World War I, was a minor issue compared with the need to “gain further space and feeding of our people” in the East, Hitler ended his second book with the same pronouncements that concluded the political testament that he dictated before his suicide seventeen years later. For Hitler’s entire political career was guided by a single central obsession with “the Jew.” Blaming those who criticized his policies toward Italy for ignoring the domestic “syphilitization by Jews and Negroes” of the Fatherland, and for persecuting those Germans who “resist the de-Germanization, niggerization, and Judaization of our people,” Hitler finally explained what had always been at the root of all evil and misfortune in the world.
Repeating much of the anti-Semitic verbiage of the previous decades, but giving it a much more threatening tone thanks to his position as a political leader on the verge of becoming a major figure on the world scene, Hitler summarized his views on the Jews in the following manner. First, this was “a people with certain essential particularities that distinguish it from all other peoples living on earth.” Second, while Judaism was not a religion but “a real state … the essence of the Jewish people lacks the productive forces to build and sustain a territorial state.” Third, because of this inability, “the existence of the Jew himself … becomes a parasitic existence within the life of other peoples.” Fourth, the “ultimate goal of the Jewish struggle for survival is the enslavement of productively active peoples.”
This goal is sought by fighting “for equality and then for superiority” in domestic policies, whereas in foreign policy the Jews will “hurl [other peoples] into wars with one another, and thus gradually—with the help of the power of money and propaganda—become their masters.” Ultimately, the Jew seeks “the denationalization and chaotic bastardization of the other peoples, the lowering of the racial level of the highest, and domination over this racial mush through the eradication of these peoples’ intelligentsias and their replacement with the members of his own race.” Tragically, “Jewish domination always ends with the decline of all culture and ultimately the insanity of the Jew himself. Because he is a parasite on the peoples, and his victory means his own end just as much as the death of his victim.” The allies of the Jew are “Freemasonry … the press … [and] Marxism.” Having accomplished the “economic conquest of Europe,” the Jew “begins with securing it politically … in the form of revolutions” and by “systematically agitating for world war.” The victims of Jewish “inhuman torture and barbarity” in Russia “totaled twenty-eight million dead,” and meanwhile the Jew “tore away all the ties of orderliness, morality, custom … and proclaimed … universal licentiousness.” But finally, declares Hitler, an end will be put to all this, for “the National Socialist movement … has taken up the fight against this execrable crime against humanity.”
It is truly astonishing to see how every sin that Hitler ascribed to “the Jew” became part of his own policies as he himself outlined them in his second book and later implemented them: the destruction of entire nations by the elimination of their elites, their mass deportation, and in the case of the Jews, their outright genocide. And it is just as mind-boggling to note that the endless depravity attributed by Hitler to the Jews became the reality of German conduct under his rule, which deprived the Reich of every remnant of moral constraint and finally drove it into an insane storm of self-destruction. What Hitler said would be done to Germany, he did unto others; and he and his people became victims of the nemesis that he prophesied for his enemies. When Hitler wrote his second book, he was staring into a mirror.
III. But those who have followed the current wave of anti-Semitism emanating from the most disparate sources in the last few years may sense that they, too, are staring into a mirror, a distorted mirror of a resurrected past, a mutilated, transplanted, transformed, contorted, monstrous specter whose allegedly exhausted powers seem to be increasing day by day.
Hitler is dead, as Leon Wieseltier rightly proclaimed in these pages. What alarmed Wieseltier was the frequent predilection to view every threat as the ultimate threat, every anti-Semitic harangue as the gateway to another Final Solution. Clearly we are not facing the danger of a second Auschwitz. The hysterics need to remember that Hitler and the Third Reich are history. Germany apologized and paid generous restitution. The Nazis were tried, or they hid, or they metamorphosed into good democrats. The state of Israel was established. The Jews have never been more prosperous and more successful and more safe than they are in the United States. (The same could even be said about the nervous Jews of Western Europe.) The last remnants of communist anti-Semitism vanished with the fall of that “evil empire.” Jews in our day have reasons to feel much more secure than their ancestors.
But all is not well, not by a long shot. Criticism of Israeli policies against the Palestinians has long been attached to anti-Americanism, and the United States was said already by the Nazis in World War II to be dominated by the Jews. And criticism of American imperialism is often associated with its support for Israel, allegedly a colonial outpost populated by Jews in the heart of Arab and Islamic civilization. Of course, one should never confuse the legitimate criticism of Israeli policies with what all reasonable people agree is the despicable ideology of anti-Semitism. The policies of the current Israeli government in the territories are indeed contrary to the strategic and moral interests of the Jewish state. So there is every reason in the world to reject attempts to justify objectionable Israeli policies by reference to the Holocaust.
But this does not mean that we should refuse to see the writing on the wall when anti-Israeli sentiments are transformed into blatant and virulent anti-Semitism. This was precisely the argument made in the report “Manifestations of anti-Semitism in the European Union,” as submitted by the Center for Research on Anti-Semitism in Berlin to the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia, which had originally commissioned it. The monitoring center tried to suppress its own report, because it gave a measure of anti-Semitic violence by Muslims in Europe, and because its definition of anti-Semitism included those who call for the destruction of Israel. And these grim truths were politically incorrect. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is stupid and destructive, and it should be ended through the creation of a Palestinian state, but those who preach the destruction of the Jewish state should not be allowed to hide behind Sharon’s unfortunate policies. It is one thing to support the cause of Palestinian nationhood, and quite another to deny the Jews the right to live in their own state.
WHAT WE ARE WITNESSING today is a broad front of opinion, spanning the entire spectrum of the political and religious scene, whose criticism of American and Israeli policies, and whose fears and phobias about present conditions, utopian dreams of a better future, and nostalgic fantasies of a mythical past, all converge in a bizarre and increasingly frightening way on a single figure, a single cause: “the Jew.” I have long believed that it is pointless, and dishonorable, to debate anti-Semites. Such an exchange of “ideas” only confers legitimacy upon them. But there are times when absurdities become political facts and cannot be ignored. They must, instead, be directly challenged—not by explaining their violent ideas and feelings away, but by putting limits to them through all available means, political, judicial, and, if necessary, by the use of legitimate force. For these are people who mean what they say. If you do not destroy them, they will destroy you. There are precedents for this.
Consider again what Hitler wrote in 1928. Yes, it is insane; but take out the word “race” and replace it, say, with “Zionism” or “American imperialism,” and replace the references to the Soviet Union with references to the United States, and suddenly the discourse is not only crazy but also quite common. The “soft core” of this poisonous rhetoric is to be found among some sectors of European and American intellectuals and academics. It tends to identify Israelis as culprits, and Jews as potential Israelis. It is obsessed with the influence of Jews on culture, politics, and economics around the world. The partially successful boycott of Israeli academics in recent years is a case in point, not least because it tends to affect precisely those who number among the most determined and articulate opponents of the current Israeli government’s policies. The divestment campaign, calling on American and European universities to desist from any investments in Israel, is another example; this campaign provides cover, and even immunity, for all the regimes around the world that have never recognized academic freedom. The sympathetic understanding expressed in academic settings, and in liberal and left-wing publications, for suicide bombers who blow up innocent civilians in Israel creates a climate of tolerance for murder that is cleverly couched in the righteous language of liberation and justice.
SOME ALLEGATIONS OF of an apparent takeover by Jews, or by Jewish themes, of this or that cultural sphere seem to have nothing to do with Israel. In October 2001, The Chronicle of Higher Education published an article by Mark Anderson, a professor of Germanic languages at Columbia University. Anderson expressed fears about “the way in which American scholars have distorted the study of German culture” by reducing “the canon of German literature to a tiny handful of teachable authors who often have a Jewish background.” This “excessive focus on German-Jewish authors,” he argued, “relied on the subtext of Jewish suffering.” This “has undermined intellectual freedom in American universities” and is “testimony to an ongoing intellectual paralysis that could and should be relieved.”
It is not clear from Anderson’s argument who is to blame, apart from an ill-defined “pressure from American culture to focus on minority issues, as well as our fascination with Hitler and the Holocaust.” It is also somewhat ironic that Anderson himself edited a volume called Hitler’s Exiles: Personal Stories of the Flight from Nazi Germany to America, which testifies to his own fascination with this topic, if not to his recognition of its importance. But one cannot help but detect here a clear connection between the alleged over-emphasis on Jewish authors and Jewish themes “identified” by Anderson and its distorting effects both on the study of German literature and on American intellectual freedom. Somehow the focus on Jewish victims seems to have that effect.
Sometimes this sort of intellectual-academic-journalistic obsession with Jews becomes intimately linked with antiAmericanism. Several best-selling books published in France and Germany by academics, politicians, and journalists have “confirmed” the already widespread belief (held by 19 percent of the German population according to a recent poll, and apparently by a majority in many Arab and Islamic countries) that the September 11 attacks on the United States were orchestrated by the CIA and the Mossad, and that the latter warned the Jews working in the World Trade Center not to come to work that day. Indeed, the United States, attacked by Europeans for its support of Israel, has been repeatedly depicted as controlled by the Jews, whose lobbies, financial and electoral levers of power, and key figures in the White House and Pentagon, are manipulating both the American public and world politics.
At the same time Israel has been portrayed as the perpetrator of Nazi-like crimes even as these very same portrayals carry echoes of the Nazi representation of Jews. Thus the European media, especially its more highbrow representatives, were as keen to portray the Israeli operation in Jenin last year as a war crime and a massacre as they were reluctant to admit that they had been fooled by Palestinian propaganda and in turn misinformed their publics about the nature of the operation, greatly inflating the number of Palestinian civilians killed in order to justify its description as a massacre. The Israeli prime minister was depicted in a cartoon published in The Independent in London in the shape of a bloody ogre devouring Palestinian children, his features eerily reminiscent of those popularized by Der Sturmer.
Anyone who has access (that is, anyone on the Internet) to racist, antiSemitic, and neo-Nazi publications in the United States and elsewhere will find almost precisely the same opinions and depictions. These hateful representations are normally not much remarked upon. But there are some important exceptions. Most striking was the speech made by Martin Hohmann, a parliamentary representative of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the German Bundestag, to an audience of one hundred thirty people, on October 3, 2003. Hohmann argued that one had no right to speak of the Germans as a “people of perpetrators” (Tatervolk) because the Jews–presumably those making that argument–were themselves a “people of perpetrators,” considering their high representation among the murderous Bolsheviks. This was the first time since the end of Nazism that a member of the Bundestag made an anti-Semitic argument based on the very logic of Hitler’s rationalization for war against the Soviet Union. And an elite Bundeswehr general expressed agreement with Hohmann’s speech. Under much public pressure, Hohmann was eventually ejected from the parliamentary fraction of the CDU–but 20 percent of his colleagues opposed his removal. And Hohmann knew, like so many fascists before him who said what he said, what many others were thinking. In a poll recently conducted by the University of Bielefeld, it was found that 70 percent of Germans resent being blamed for the Holocaust, and 25 percent believe that the Jews are trying to make political capital out of their own genocide (and another 30 percent say that there is a measure of truth in this assertion), and three-quarters believe that there are too many foreigners in Germany.
MUCH MORE PUBLICITY has been given to anti-Israeli protests on American campuses, and these have demonstrated a troubling trend. A group calling itself “New Jersey Solidarity: Activists for the Destruction of Israel” called for an “anti-Israel hate-fest” to be held on the campus of Rutgers University, New Brunswick, in October 2003. The group’s website declares itself “opposed to the existence of the apartheid colonial settler state of Israel, as it is based on the racist ideology of Zionism and is an expression of colonialism and imperialism.”
Richard McCormick, the president of Rutgers University and a former member of its history department, where I also taught during the 1990s, issued an open letter on the planned meeting. He stated that he found “abhorrent some elements of NJ Solidarity’s mission.” But he went on to say that “intrinsic to Rutgers’ own mission is the free exchange of ideas and discourse on a variety of issues, including those that are controversial. This university must remain a model of debate, dialogue and education … we encourage our students to express their beliefs and analyze the difficult issues of the day.” So some may think that destroying Israel is legitimate and some may think otherwise. Some may think that Israel is an apartheid colonial settler state based on a racist ideology, and some may have a different opinion. There are two sides to the question. Through such a “free exchange of ideas” we will all prosper intellectually. This brings to mind Hannah Arendt’s observation, when she visited Germany in 1950, for the first time since she fled the Nazis, that the Germans viewed the extermination of the Jews as a matter of opinion: some said it happened, some said it had not happened. Who could tell? The average German, she wrote, considered this “nihilistic relativism” about the facts as an essential expression of democracy.
Throughout campuses in the United States, students associated with Arab and Islamic organizations, Christian groups, and the left carried flags, banners, and posters that were mostly focused on one theme: the equation between Zionism, or Israel, and Nazism. Banners portrayed a swastika joined by an equal sign to a Star of David and an Israeli flag featuring a swastika instead of a Star of David. Placards issued the call to “End the Holocaust,” and proclaimed that “Zionism = racism = ethnic cleansing,” and that “Zionism is Ethnic Cleansing,” and that “Sharon = Hitler.” A particularly ingenious sign asserted: “1943: Warsaw 2002: Jenin.” While some summarized their views with the slogan “Zionazis,” others warned, “First Jesus Now Arafat.”
What makes this virulent antiSemitism respectable is that it presents itself as anti-Nazism. To accomplish this sinister exculpatory purpose it needs only to declare that Zionism equals Nazism, just as the old canard of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world is legitimized by its association with American imperialism, capitalism, and globalization. That the vocabulary of this rhetoric is taken directly (whether consciously or not) from Nazi texts is so clear that one wonders why there is such a reluctance to recognize it. In part this is owed to ignorance, which is as rampant today in journalism and political commentary as it always was. In part this is owed to the fact that those who would most readily identify the provenance of these words and ideas are largely liberals, some of whom also happen to be Jewish, and thus are likely to be most harmed, both personally and ideologically, by making this identification. By exposing the anti-Semitic underbelly of this phenomenon, they would expose themselves as Jews and friends of Jews, and would open themselves to the argument that precisely their opposition to this phenomenon is the best proof of Jewish domination in the world.
IV. WHICH, INCIDENTALLY, is precisely what Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia said following the Western protests against his warmly received pronouncement to the Organization of the Islamic Conference in October that the Jews control the world: “The reaction of the world shows that they [the Jews] control the world.” Mahathir’s speech was genuinely astonishing. This was the first time since World War II that a major head of state made a speech—to no fewer than fifty-seven other heads of state and well over two thousand journalists—whose fundamental argument was that the Jews are to blame for all the ills that have beset Islamic civilization. And not a single person left the room in protest.
For Paul Krugman, writing in The New York Times on October 21, Mahathir’s anti-Semitic remarks were both “inexcusable” and “calculated,” made by a “cagey politician, who is neither ignorant nor foolish.” Krugman did not elaborate on why such remarks are “inexcusable.” Instead he preferred to see them as reflecting “how badly things are going for U.S. foreign policy.” Mahathir may be “guilty of serious abuses of power,” but he is also, said Krugman, “as forward-looking a Muslim leader as we’re likely to find.” Hence he should be encouraged, not denounced. His anti-Semitism is merely “part of Mr. Mahathir’s domestic balancing act.”
Progressive modernizer that he is, in other words, Mahathir cannot possibly be stupid enough to believe what he spouts, and because he does not believe it, and uses it merely as a tool for the good cause of modernizing Malaysia and combating the Muslim clerics who oppose the acquisition of knowledge, his anti-Semitism is in some way understandable. This is reminiscent of what many said about Hitler’s anti-Semitism in the 1930s: it was inexcusable but calculated, and thus it was ultimately both excusable and in the service of a good cause, the modernization of Germany and its reintegration into the community of nations.
For Krugman, Mahathir’s “hateful words” serve only to “cover his domestic flank.” They do not tell you anything about his own thinking, but they tell you “more accurately than any poll, just how strong the rising tide of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism among Muslims in Southeast Asia has become.” And what is the cause of this tide? It is America’s “war in Iraq and its unconditional support for Ariel Sharon.” Just as Mahathir is not anti-Semitic, but merely a good reader of his people’s collective mind, so, too, his people are not antiSemitic, but merely outraged by the same things that outrage Krugman: Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush.
The Malaysian prime minister’s speech was both more offensive and more interesting than most commentators (including Krugman) have observed. In many ways it was a restatement of the urge to modernize, and the will to power, and the fantasies of destruction, that characterized fascism. Mahathir proposes to “disprove the perception of Islam as a religion of backwardness and terror.” He wants to “restore the honor of Islam and of the Muslims” and “to free their brothers and sisters from the oppression and humiliation from which they suffer today.” What sort of action does Mahathir propose? In part, as Krugman pointed out, he was indeed critical of the intellectual and political decline of Islam. He thus insisted that, although according to Islam “we are enjoined … to acquire knowledge,” it was due to “intellectual regression” that “the great Muslim civilization began to falter and wither,” causing it to miss entirely the Industrial Revolution. Yet other influences from the West actually subverted Islam, among which he counts “the Western democratic system” that “divided us.” Moreover, it was thanks to this democratically induced division that the Europeans “could excise Muslim land to create the state of Israel to solve their Jewish problem.” Thus the West both denied the Muslims the means to defend themselves through modern technology and industry and divided them by the introduction of democracy, all with the goal of solving a European “Jewish problem” at the expense of Islamic lands.
This “Jewish problem” is not at all peripheral to Mahathir’s argument, a sort of tithe to the masses and the clerics so as to push his program of modernization. It is central to his thinking. Modernization is justified, in his account, by the necessity of destroying the entity that has penetrated the Muslim world and polluted its soul. For, as he says, “we are all oppressed. We are all being humiliated.” And thus the numerical and economic strength of Muslims must be complemented by military prowess: “We are now 1.3 billion strong. We have the biggest oil reserve in the world. We have great wealth.… We control 57 out of 180 countries in world. Our votes can make or break international organizations.… [But] we need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defense.” Hitler used to mock those who were obsessed with obscure Germanic traditions, who were filled with rage at the defeat of 1918 and dreamed up all sorts of harebrained conspiracies in marginal militant fraternities. He wanted to build a powerful modern military. He was, in this way, a modernizer.
Mahathir, for his part, notes that
today we, the whole Muslim ummah are treated with contempt and dishonor.… Our only reaction is to become more and more angry. Angry people cannot think properly. And so we find people reacting irrationally. They launch their own attacks, killing just about anybody … to vent their anger and frustration.… But the attacks solve nothing. The Muslims simply get more oppressed.… The Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews.… Is there no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and kill people and invite the massacre of more of our own people?
This is the voice of the rational politician. This is not an Arab preaching an endless cycle of revenge, but an Asian Muslim calling for patience and calculation. Suicide bombers will never win the war. There must be another way. After all, “1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews.” Hence we need “to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategize and then to counter attack.… [To] devise a plan, a strategy that can win us final victory.… It is winning the struggle that is important, not angry retaliation, not revenge.” Is this merely a subtle way of calling on Muslims to focus on their own societies rather than waste their energies on the struggle with Israel? Perhaps. But it is just as possible that Mahathir, like so many before him, means what he says. And Mahathir paints the Jewish enemy in colors taken directly from Hitler’s diabolical palette:
The enemy will probably welcome these proposals and we will conclude that the promoters are working for the enemy. But think. We are up against a people who think. They survived 2000 years of pogroms not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also.
THE ISLAMISTS NEED none of the fancy extenuations offered by certain European and American intellectuals. For they have a direct link with anti-Semitism going all the way back to the Nazis. Mahathir’s anti-Semitic pronouncement was not simply triggered by frustration with the lack of development in Islamic countries, or by rage at American and Israeli policies, or by some deep-seated traditional Muslim anti-Semitism. The analysis that he presented reflects, rather, the continuing impact of a relatively new and pernicious phenomenon, whose roots can be traced back to the foundation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928 and its success in launching Islamism as a mass movement. As the German political scientist Matthias Kuntzel has recently shown in his book on “jihad and Jewhatred”, Islamism quickly became a primarily anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic movement that was greatly influenced by European anti-Semitism and directly influenced by Nazism. Indeed, as anti-Semitism lost its impetus as a revolutionary political movement in Europe in the wake of World War II, it was transplanted to the Middle East and from there to other parts of the Muslim world.
This development was responsible for the slaughter of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, which was explicitly anti-Semitic in its motivation. The reluctance of the Western media to concede that Pearl was not murdered as an American, a journalist, a “spy,” or as someone who might have uncovered connections between the Pakistani secret service and Al Qaeda, but first and foremost as a Jew—in what was after all a highly ritualized act of killing recorded on videotape—merely manifests the embarrassment that European and American observers feel upon discovering that one of the dirtiest “secrets” of Christian civilization has been so seamlessly transplanted into the Islamic world. After all, it is more difficult to empathize with the plight of those who are still largely victims of Western economic exploitation if they turn out to be led by murderous bigots flaunting slogans that recall Europe’s own genocidal past.
BUT THE MOST EXPLICIT and frightening link between Hitler’s anti-Semitism and the contemporary wave of violence, hatred, paranoia, and conspiracy theories can be found, first, in the testimony given by the perpetrators of the September 11 terrorist attacks, and, second, in the official charter of the Palestinian Hamas movement.
As Küntzel writes, citing the Reuters reporter Christian Eggers, during the trial of Mounir el Motassadeq, a core member of the Al Qaeda cell in Hamburg that planned the attacks of September 11, the motivation of the perpetrators was amply documented, but the media have not reported much of what was said at the trial, which took place in Hamburg, Germany, between October 2002 and February 2003. The witness Shahid Nickels, a member of Mohammed Atta’s core group, insisted that “Atta’s worldview was based on a National Socialist way of thinking. He was convinced that ‘the Jews’ are determined to achieve world domination. He considered New York City to be the center of world Jewry, which was, in his opinion, Enemy Number One.” Nickels said that Atta’s group was “convinced that Jews control the American government as well as the media and the economy of the United States… that a world-wide conspiracy of Jews exists… [that] America wants to dominate the world so that Jews can pile up capital.”
Similarly, the witness Ahmed Maglad, who participated in the group’s meetings, testified that “for us, Israel didn’t have any right to exist as a state. We believed … the USA … to be the mother of Israel.” And Ralf Gotsche, who shared the student dormitory with Motassadeq, testified that the accused had said: “What Hitler did to the Jews was not at all bad,” and commented that “Motassadeq’s attitude was blatantly anti-Semitic.”
THERE IS A HISTORY to such statements, which connects the anti-Semitism of Al Qaeda members planning mass murder in Hamburg in the 1990s to the anti-Semitism of Hitler fantasizing about mass murder in Munich in the 1920s. It is not difficult to find. The charter of the Hamas movement, issued in 1988 as the fundamental document of this Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, must be read to be believed. It contains, among its fundamentalist Islamic preachings, the most blatant anti-Semitic statements made in a publicly available document since Hitler’s own pronouncements. Citing an array of Islamic sources, Hamas promises that “Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors.” The Islamic Resistance Movement has “raised the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors in order to extricate the country and the people from the [oppressors’] desecration, filth and evil.” The Prophet, remember, said that “the time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” Here there is no talk of compromise or reconciliation. The document states plainly that “the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion.… The initiatives, proposals, and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.”
The opposition expressed by Hamas to any compromise over Palestine is also intimately linked with its view of the Jewish-Zionist enemy. These enemies, according to the charter,
have been scheming for a long time.… They accumulated a huge and influential material wealth … [which] permitted them to take over control of the world media such as news agencies, the press, publication houses, broadcasting and the like. [They also used this] wealth to stir revolutions in various parts of the globe, in order to fulfill their interests and pick the fruits. They stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein … they stood behind World War I … and took control of many sources of wealth. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world.… They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the United Nations and the Security Council … in order to rule the world.… There was no war that broke out anywhere without their fingerprints on it.… The forces of Imperialism in both the Capitalist West and the Communist East support the enemy with all their might, in material and human terms…
This international Jewish conspiracy to take over the world has also a moral goal.Zionism “stands behind the diffusion of drugs and toxics of all kinds in order to facilitate its control and expansion.” To be sure, Hamas has its own expansionist goals, for it plans to control the entire region of the Middle East, promising in turn “safety and security … for the members of the three religions” as long as they agree to live “under the shadow of Islam.” But Hamas “is only hostile to those who are hostile towards it, or stand in its way in order to disturb its moves or to frustrate its efforts” to dominate the region. Meanwhile “Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates.… Their scheme has been laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and their present [conduct] is the best proof of what is said there.” Hitler could not have put it better.
SO HITLER IS DEAD, but there is a Hitlerite quality to the new anti-Semitism, which now legitimizes not only opposition to Zionism but also the resurrection of the myth of Jewish world domination. And those who foolishly think that doing away with Israel, not least in a “one-state solution,” would remove anti-Semitism had better look more closely at the language of these enemies. For they—I mean the enemies—insist that the Jews are everywhere, and so they must be uprooted everywhere. Their outpost may be Israel, but their “power center” is in America, and their synagogues and intellectuals are in Germany and France, and their academics are in Russia and Britain. Since they are the cause of all evil and misfortune, the world will be a happier place without them, whether it is dominated by the Aryan Master Race or by the ideological soldiers of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Hitler taught humanity an important lesson. It is that when you see a Nazi, a fascist, a bigot, or an anti-Semite, say what you see. If you want to justify it or excuse it away, describe accurately what it is that you are trying to excuse away. If a British newspaper publishes an anti-Semitic cartoon, call it anti-Semitic. If the attacks on the Twin Towers were animated by anti-Semitic arguments, say so. If a Malaysian prime minister expresses anti-Semitic views, do not try to excuse the inexcusable. If a self-proclaimed liberation organization calls for the extermination of the Jewish state, do not pretend that it is calling for anything else. The absence of clarity is the beginning of complicity.
On February 20, 2025, the scientific KM3NeT Collaboration, a research infrastructure housing the next-generation neutrino telescopes, published evidence for the cosmic neutrino with the highest energy ever detected. This event is identified as KM3-230213A. In a set of dedicated studies, the Collaboration has investigated the possible sources of the event and the implications that may be derived from it. These studies are included in a set of articles that have recently been released, titled “The ultra-high-energy event KM3-230213A within the global neutrino landscape,” exploring the compatibility of the occurrence of KM3-230213A with the constraints placed by other experiments. The highly respected journal Nature recently published an article by the Collaboration on their findings.
According to KM3Net, once this research is completed, “the telescopes will have detector volumes between megaton and several cubic kilometers of clear sea water. Located in the deepest seas of the Mediterranean, KM3NeT will open a new window into our Universe and also contribute to the research of the properties of the elusive neutrino particles. With the ARCA telescope, KM3NeT scientists will search for neutrinos from distant astrophysical sources such as supernovae, gamma ray bursters, or colliding stars. The ORCA telescope is the instrument for KM3NeT scientists studying neutrino properties exploiting neutrinos generated in the Earth’s atmosphere.”
An Ariel University research team has joined the KM3Net Collaboration in recent years. In 2021, the team was admitted as an observer. In March 2023, the Collaboration reported that “The KM3NeT Collaboration met online” and has “reviewed the status of data taking and data analysis of ARCA and ORCA, and discussed the progress in detector construction and the plans for next sea campaigns.” They added that the “Collaboration continues to grow: a research team has joined as full member of the Collaboration from University of Hull in UK (team leader: Brad Gibson) and a team from Ariel University in Israel (team leader: Dafne Guetta) has been welcomed as observer.” Ariel University was an observer until January 2024. When it applied to become a full member, after student protests, KM3Net sent an email to Prof. Dafne Guetta, from the Physics Department at Ariel University and the Ariel University team leader in KM3Net, revoking its membership.
The email, dated February 27, 2024, stated:
“Dear Dafne, let me inform you about the results of the IB discussion on the Ariel membership in KM3NeT yesterday. Acknowledging that you had withdrawn the full membership application, we focused on the question on how to continue with the Ariel membership as an observer institute in KM3NeT. I apologize that during previous deliberations we had not been aware of the full picture of the international status of the settlement of Ariel, with all of the related legal matters arising and the potential negative impact on our support by the EU. Given these boundary conditions, substantial objections were raised against the membership of Ariel University, which the IB had to consider irrespective of the scientific qualification of you and your group. After discussion we held a secret vote, resulting in a 25:2 majority with 4 abstentions for suspending (i.e. terminating until further notice) the membership of Ariel University in KM3NeT. We also discussed possible options to continue cooperation with you and your group on an individual basis, if you’d wish so. In case you indicate that this is indeed the case, we will be ready to enter negotiations towards a solution that is considered viable by both you and a clear majority of the IB. Please note that a mention of Ariel University as affiliation of a KM3NeT author is seen very critical, even if it were explicitly clarified that there is no institutional relation between Ariel University and the KM3NeT Collaboration. Let me emphasize that this decision does not reflect in any way a valuation of you as a person or scientist.”
As stated, KM3NeT receives support from Europe.
Horizon Europe is the EU’s key funding program for research and innovation. The funding amount for Horizon Europe for the period of 2021 to 2027 is EUR 93.5 billion, aimed to boost the EU’s competitiveness and growth. Horizon Europe “facilitates collaboration and strengthens the impact of research and innovation in developing, supporting and implementing EU policies while tackling global challenges… It creates jobs, fully engages the EU’s talent pool, boosts economic growth, promotes industrial competitiveness and optimizes investment impact within a strengthened European Research Area. Legal entities from the EU and associated countries can participate.” Israel is one of the countries participating in these programs.
To recall, Horizon Europe added a clause in 2023 to their funding guideline stating that “entities covered by commission guideline no. 2013/C 205/05 are not eligible to participate in any capacity (including as beneficiaries, affiliated entities, associated partners, third parties giving in-kind contributions, subcontractors or recipients of financial support to third parties, if any).”
As opposed to the earlier commission guidelines, which were not too strict: No. 2013/C 205/05, from 2013, “on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards (OJEU C 205 of 19.07.2013 pp. 9-11).”
Quite clearly, the KM3NeT decision to withdraw Ariel University from the Collaboration was based on the internal deliberation of Horizon Europe.
Horizon Europe should learn something from the October 7 attack. Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 enabled the radical Islamist group Hamas to take over the Strip and launch the deadly attack on Israel in one day, resulting in the largest loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust.
While this type of “virtue signaling” against “occupation” is very popular in Europe, it is clear that the Palestinians so far have not demonstrated a serious interest in peacemaking. The Oslo peace process collapsed in 2000, followed by a bloody Second Intifada in which many Israeli civilians were killed and wounded. The Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip enabled the psychopathic leader of Hamas, Yahiya Sinwar, and its supporter, the theocratic regime in Iran, to turn Gaza into an enormous terror camp replete with hundreds of kilometers of tunnels and equipped with the latest in terror tools to wage a Jihad against Israel. No doubt that relinquishing control over the West Bank would encourage Hamas, the strongest group in the territories, to replicate Sinwar’s Jihadi “holy war” against Israel.
An Israeli withdrawal of settlements in Judea and Samaria would be a mistake unless a peace agreement is reached between the Palestinians and Israel. Until then, the Israeli settlements in the West Bank are essential to keep a relative calm in the region.
Horizon Europe should accept Israeli entities beyond the 1967 border, and KM3NeT should change its policy to include Ariel University in the Collaboration.
REFERENCES:
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 6:03 PM To: דפנה גואטה/Dafne Guetta
Subject: Ariel University and KM3NeT
Dear Dafne,
let me inform you about the results of the IB discussion on the Ariel memberhip in KM3NeT yesterday.
Acknowledging that you had withdrawn the full membership application, we focussed on the question on how to continue with the Ariel membership as an observer institute in KM3NeT. I apologise that during previous deliberations we had not been aware of the full picture of the international status of the settlement of Ariel, with all of the related legal matters arising and the potential negative impact on our support by the EU. Given these boundary conditions, substantial objections were raised against the membership of Ariel University, which the IB had to consider irrespective of the scientific qualification of you and your group.
After discussion we held a secret vote, resulting in a 25:2 majority with 4 abstentions for suspending (i.e. terminating until further notice) the membership of Ariel University in KM3NeT.
We also discussed possible options to continue cooperation with you and your group on an individual basis, if you’d wish so. In case you indicate that this is indeed the case, we will be ready to enter negotiations towards a solution that is considered viable by both you and a clear majority of the IB. Please note that a mention of Ariel University as affiliation of a KM3NeT author is seen very critical, even if it were explicitly clarified that there is no institutional relation between Ariel University and the KM3NeT Collaboration.
Let me emphasise that this decision does not reflect in any way a valuation of you as a person or scientist.
14 March 2023 – The KM3NeT Collaboration met online last week for the spring Collaboration meeting.
During the meeting we reviewed the status of data taking and data analysis of ARCA and ORCA, and discussed the progress in detector construction and the plans for next sea campaigns.
The Collaboration continues to grow: a research team has joined as full member of the Collaboration from University of Hull in UK (team leader: Brad Gibson) and a team from Ariel University in Israel (team leader: Dafne Guetta) has been welcomed as observer; furthermore, Marco Miceli of University of Palermo, Italy, has been accepted as associated member.
The plan for next Collaboration meetings was also finalized. A decision of the KM3NeT Collaboration, meant to reduce the carboon footprint on the planet, is that at least one of the general Collaboration meetings is organized online per year. The next Collaboration meetings will take place in person, in early June in Salerno and in mid-October in Paris.
Guidelines on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards
(2013/C 205/05)
Section A. GENERAL ISSUES
1. These guidelines set out the conditions under which the Commission will implement key requirements for the award of EU support to Israeli entities or to their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967. Their aim is to ensure the respect of EU 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. These guidelines are without prejudice to other requirements established by EU legislation.
2. The territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 comprise the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
3. The EU does not recognise Israel’s sovereignty over any of the territories referred to in point 2 and does not consider them to be part of Israel’s territory (1 ), irrespective of their legal status under domestic Israeli law (2) . The EU has made it clear that it will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders, other than those agreed by the parties to the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP) (3) . The EU’s Foreign Affairs Council has underlined the importance of limiting the application of agreements with Israel to the territory of Israel as recognised by the EU ( 4).
4. These guidelines do not cover EU support in the form of grants, prizes or financial instruments awarded to Palestinian entities or to their activities in the territories referred to in point 2, nor any eligibility conditions set up for this purpose. In particular, they do not cover any agreements between the EU, on the one hand, and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation or the Palestinian Authority, on the other hand.
Section B. SCOPE OF APPLICATION
5. These guidelines apply to EU support in the form of grants, prizes or financial instruments within the meaning of Titles
(1 ) On the territorial application of the EU-Israel Association Agreement see Case C-386/08 Brita [2010] ECR I-1289, paragraphs 47 and 53.
VI, VII and VIII of the Financial Regulation (5 ) which may be awarded to Israeli entities or to their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967. Their application is without prejudice to specific eligibility conditions which may be laid down in the relevant basic act.
6. These guidelines apply:
(a) for grants — to all applicants and beneficiaries, irrespective of their role (sole beneficiary, coordinator or co-beneficiary). This includes entities participating in the action on a no-cost basis ( 6) and affiliated entities within the meaning of Article 122(2) of the Financial Regulation. This does not include contractors or sub- contractors selected by grant beneficiaries in conformity with procurement rules. As regards third parties referred to in Article 137 of the Financial Regulation, in the cases where the costs of financial support to such third parties are eligible under a call for proposals the authorising officer responsible may, where appropriate, specify in the call for proposals and in the grant agreements or decisions that the eligibility criteria set out in these guidelines also apply to the persons that may receive financial support by the beneficiaries;
(b) for prizes — to all participants and winners in contests;
(c) for financial instruments — to dedicated investment vehicles, financial intermediaries and sub-intermediaries and to final recipients.
7. These guidelines apply to grants, prizes and financial instruments managed, as the case may be, by the Commission, by executive agencies (direct management) or by bodies entrusted with budget implementation tasks in accordance with Article 58(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation (indirect management).
8. These guidelines apply to grants, prizes and financial instruments funded from appropriations of the 2014
(2 ) Under Israeli law, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are annexed to the State of Israel, whereas the Gaza Strip and the rest of the West Bank are referred to as ‘the territories’.
(3 ) See inter alia the Foreign Affairs Council conclusions on the MEPP adopted in December 2009, December 2010, April 2011, May and December 2012.
(4 ) The Foreign Affairs Council conclusions on the MEPP adopted on 10 December 2012 state that ‘all agreements between the State of Israel and the EU must unequivocally and explicitly indicate their inapplicability to the territories occupied by Israel in 1967’.
(5 ) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p. 1).
(6 ) In which case the Israeli entity will finance its participation with funding from other sources, but will nonetheless be treated as a beneficiary and may therefore have access to know-how, services, networking and other opportunities developed by the other beneficiaries as a result of the EU grant.
financial year and subsequent years and authorised by financing decisions adopted after the adoption of the guidelines.
Section C. CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY OF ISRAELI ENTITIES
9. As regards the place of establishment of Israeli entities:
(a) In the case of grants and prizes, only Israeli entities having their place of establishment within Israel’s pre- 1967 borders will be considered eligible;
(b) In the case of financial instruments, only Israeli entities having their place of establishment within Israel’s pre- 1967 borders will be considered eligible as final recipients.
10. The place of establishment is understood to be the legal address where the entity is registered, as confirmed by a precise postal address corresponding to a concrete physical location. The use of a post office box is not allowed.
11. The requirements set out in section C:
(a) apply to the following types of legal persons: Israeli regional or local authorities and other public bodies, public or private companies or corporations and other private legal persons, including non-governmental not- for-profit organisations;
(b) do not apply to Israeli public authorities at national level (ministries and government agencies or authorities);
(c) do not apply to natural persons.
Section D. CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY OF ACTIVITIES IN THE TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL
12. As regards the activities/operations of Israeli entities:
(a) In the case of grants and prizes, the activities of Israeli entities carried out in the framework of EU-funded grants and prizes will be considered eligible if they do not take place in the territories referred to in point 2, either partially or entirely;
(b) In the case of financial instruments, Israeli entities will be considered eligible as final recipients if they do not operate in the territories referred to in point 2, either in the framework of EU-funded financial instruments or otherwise.
13. Any activity or part thereof (1) included in an application for an EU grant or prize which does not meet the requirements set out in point 12(a) will be considered as ineligible and will not be considered as part of the application for the purpose of its further evaluation.
14. The requirements set out in section D:
(a) apply to activities under point 12 carried out by the following types of legal persons: Israeli regional or local authorities and other public bodies, public or private companies or corporations and other private legal persons, including non-governmental not-for- profit organisations;
(b) apply also to activities under point 12 carried out by Israeli public authorities at national level (ministries and government agencies or authorities);
(c) do not apply to activities under point 12 carried out by natural persons.
15. Notwithstanding points 12-14 above, the requirements set out in section D do not apply to activities which, although carried out in the territories referred to in point 2, aim at benefiting protected persons under the terms of international humanitarian law who live in these territories and/or at promoting the Middle East peace process in line with EU policy ( 2 ).
Section E. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS
16. Each Israeli entity referred to in points 11(a) and (b) and 14(a) and (b), which applies for an EU grant, prize or financial instrument, shall submit a declaration on honour as follows:
(a) In the case of grants and prizes, the declaration will state that the application of the Israeli entity is in accordance with the requirements under points 9(a) and 12(a) of these guidelines, while also taking into account the applicability of point 15 thereof (3 ). For grants, this declaration will be drafted in accordance with Article 131(3) of the Financial Regulation;
(b) In the case of financial instruments, the declaration will state that the application of the Israeli entity as a final recipient is in accordance with the requirements under points 9(b) and 12(b) of these guidelines.
(1 ) For example, these could be nation-wide projects to be implemented in Israel, which involve both activities within pre-1967 borders and activities beyond pre-1967 borders (e.g. in settlements).
(2 ) For example, these could be activities under the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights, the Neighbourhood Civil Society Facility and/or the Partnership for Peace programme.
(3 ) In the case of Israeli public authorities at national level (ministries and government agencies/authorities), the declaration will contain an address for communication purposes that is within Israel’s pre-1967 borders and that complies with point 10.
17. The declarations under point 16 are without prejudice to any other supporting documents required in the calls for proposals, rules of contests or calls for the selection of financial intermediaries or dedicated investment vehicles. They will be included in the package of application documents for each concerned call for proposals, rules of contests and call for the selection of financial intermediaries or dedicated investment vehicles. Their text will be adapted to the requirements relevant for each EU grant, prize or financial instrument.
18. The submission of a declaration under point 16 that contains incorrect information may be considered as a case of misrepresentation or a serious irregularity and may lead:
(a) for grants — to the measures set out in Articles 131(5) and 135 of the Financial Regulation;
(b) for prizes — to the measures set out in Article 212(1)(viii) of the Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation ( 1 ) and;
(c) for financial instruments — to the measures set out in Article 221(3) of the Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation.
19. The Commission will implement these guidelines in their entirety, and in a clear and accessible manner. It will notably announce the eligibility conditions set out in Sections C and D in the work programmes (2 ) and/or financing decisions, calls for proposals, rules of contests and calls for the selection of financial intermediaries or dedicated investment vehicles.
20. The Commission will ensure that the work programmes and calls for proposals, rules of contests and calls for the selection of financial intermediaries or dedicated investment vehicles published by the bodies entrusted with budget implementation tasks under indirect management contain the eligibility conditions set out in Sections C and D.
21. In order to clearly articulate EU commitments under international law, taking into account relevant EU policies and positions, the Commission will also endeavour to have the content of these guidelines reflected in international agreements or protocols thereto or Memoranda of Understanding with Israeli counterparts or with other parties.
22. The award of EU support to Israeli entities or to their activities in the form of grants, prizes or financial instruments requires engagement with Israeli entities referred to in points 11 and 14, for example, by organising meetings, visits or events. Such engagement will not take place in the territories referred to in point 2, unless it is related to the activities referred to in point 15.
BDS activists have targeted Swedish universities. For instance, next week, on February 27, 2025, a group of academics and students from several Swedish universities will host an online event titled “Academic Boycott as an Act of Justice for Palestine.” The group is called Workers and Students in Swedish Universities (WASSAP), and they will release a 2024 report titled “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Report for Swedish Universities.” The report was first launched by The Multicultural Center, “an active resource for democracy, equality and socially sustainable development.”
The online invitation explains that “From its interim order on genocide prevention early on last year, to the advisory opinion last summer, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed what has been known for decades: Israel operates an apartheid regime and an illegal occupation and siege of Palestine. For decades, the United Nations General Assembly has systematically condemned Israel’s violence and the denial of Palestinians’ rights to self-determination and return. Now, orders have been issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the immediate arrest of Israel’s leaders. Despite clear directives put forth by the ICJ and the ICC, the Swedish state and its allies have chosen to ignore these bodies and have abandoned their responsibilities.”
For this, they urge a boycott. “An academic boycott is a crucial aspect of holding Israel and its institutions accountable. The case for the boycott would be clear if the Swedish state and its allies had not abandoned principles of justice and integrity for the sake of geopolitical power struggles. Within universities in both Sweden and Israel, this inaction can be explained through an increased securitization of academia, accompanied by repression and censorship of critical voices. The core contradiction of liberal academia has come acutely to surface: the clash between freely producing sound knowledge and safeguarding the state’s transnational economic and military interests.”
In their report, the WASSAP activists “map out the role Israeli universities play in supporting Israel’s genocide, apartheid, and occupation in Palestine. We argue that collaborations with Israeli universities make Swedish universities complicit in these crimes. It is time for our institutions to take their ethical guidelines seriously and end these collaborations and act in solidarity with Palestine. It now falls on Swedish universities – self-proclaimed bastions of openness and objective knowledge – to prove their autonomy and their claims of academic freedom.”
WASSAP was set up in October 2023, according to the group, “in response to the latest phase of Israel’s occupation of Palestine.” Its mission is to show “support for Palestine and the end to genocide, settler colonialism, and apartheid.”
WASSAP, Academics for Palestine and other groups, then “began demanding that Swedish universities assert disagreement publicly with the unimaginably destructive military campaign in Gaza that has killed tens of thousands and eradicated the entire educational infrastructure of the occupied territory, which has been under military blockade since 2007.”
Moreover, “We also appealed to universities to offer support to dispossessed Palestinian academics and students, as has been offered to Ukrainian academics since Russia’s invasion in February 2022. Despite the refusal of universities to listen to our demands, we have continued to invite students, academics, university staff, and the general public into conversations about colonization, genocide, and racism, with the intention of promoting antiracism. At campuses all over Sweden, we have set up reading groups, open lectures, poetry readings, protests, marches, food and goods exchanges, support services, petitions, and many specific campaigns for the end of colonization, genocide, and scholasticide. In most cases, we have done so alongside other local organizations that stand in solidarity with Palestine, including university staff and students.”
The WASSAP report “lays out our fundamental demands, the reasons for the necessity of satisfying these demands, and the complex bureaucratic blocks, dismissals, and distractions we have received from universities.”
WASSAP demands that “Swedish universities assert their autonomy by: 1. ending all formal collaborations with Israeli universities and other complicit institutions, in accordance with the PACBI guidelines; 2. establishing collaborations with Palestinian universities, including providing meaningful support to displaced Palestinian academics and students, offering them a place to study and work at Swedish universities.”
The Zoom-based event will hold a panel discussion on “the ethical responsibility of Swedish academia to participate in an academic boycott as an act of justice. The panel focuses on arguments for academic boycott, reactions to attempts to initiate one, and possible ways forward for taking action.”
As per the invitation, the speakers include Omar Barghouti, Co-founder of the global BDS and PACBI movement; Feras Hammami, Associate Professor at the Department of Conservation, Gothenburg University, an early organizer of academic BDS within Swedish academia; Anna Lundberg, Professor in Sociology of Law at Lund University, whose department board recently decided on a boycott but was requested to retreat; Diala Chahine, teacher student active in the BDS student movements in Gothenburg.
To recall, Barghouti was a postgraduate student of Ethics at Tel Aviv University for almost a decade. His supervisor was Prof. Marcelo Dascal. Dascal even included a chapter by Barghouti in his co-edited book. During those years, from 2000 to 2009, Barghouti developed the BDS movement. Barghouti is, in fact, Qatari-born who also lived in Egypt. He studied in the US, where he met his Israeli Arab wife. They got married and moved to live in Acre, Israel. Yet, according to the Zoom invitation, Barghouti is a “Palestinian human rights defender, co-founder of the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and recipient of the 2017 Gandhi Peace Award. He holds a B.Sc. and an M.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from Columbia University, NY, and is pursuing a PhD in Philosophy (ethics) at the University of Amsterdam.”
Speaking of personal ethics, his long-term study at Tel Aviv University is missing from his bio.
The second speaker is Palestinian Prof. Feras Hammami of the Department of Conservation, University of Gothenburg. In his research, he “investigated notions of resistance in neoliberal and colonized cities… I have examined cases in, among others, Palestine, Sweden, and Botswana, highlighting how cultural heritage is politicized within neoliberal urban governance and colonial practices. My work underscores the entanglement of cultural heritage with urban resistance, addressing critical issues of security, border, identity, memory, and sense of place. Currently, my research challenges Western-centric notions of peace, reconciliation, representation, and security, and search for new possibilities for socially just futures through innovative perspectives on cultural heritage.”
Hammami’s turgid prose bears all the hallmarks of the neo-Marxist, critical theory beloved by pro-Palestinian academic activists. It also stands out from the other courses offered by the Department, which are hands-on and technically oriented, such as Digital Technologies’ for Heritage Conservation, Advanced Tools for Heritage Concertation, Scientific Analytical for Conservation, Documentation of Cultural Artifacts and Paintings, etc. The fact that Hammami was allowed to politicize a technically oriented curriculum by inserting Palestinian advocacy in his research is a worrisome development. Like in the United States and Britain, such politicization does not stop with the delegitimization of Israel but takes on the West. Hammami is not shy about admitting it, declaring that he ”challenges Western-centric notions of peace, reconciliation, representation, and security.” Or, he reminds readers about the “entanglement of cultural heritage with urban resistance.” And how “urban culture is politicized within neoliberal urban governance and colonial practices.”
Sweden should be alerted to the implications of woke academic ideas. While Israel is the focus of the current WASSAP meeting, it is only a matter of time before the Swedish society and government become the target.
Academic Boycott as an Act of Justice for Palestine
Join the online release of the report Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Report for Swedish Universities written by Workers and Students in Swedish Academia for Palestine (WASSAP).
Date: 27th February
Time: 5-6.30 pm. (CET)
Location: online on zoom (the link will be sent out the same day to those registered)
From its interim order on genocide prevention early on last year, to the advisory opinion last summer, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed what has been known for decades: Israel operates an apartheid regime and an illegal occupation and siege of Palestine. For decades, the United Nations General Assembly has systematically condemned Israel’s violence and the denial of Palestinians’ rights to self-determination and return. Now, orders have been issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the immediate arrest of Israel’s leaders. Despite clear directives put forth by the ICJ and the ICC, the Swedish state and its allies have chosen to ignore these bodies and have abandoned their responsibilities.
An academic boycott is a crucial aspect of holding Israel and its institutions accountable. The case for the boycott would be clear if the Swedish state and its allies had not abandoned principles of justice and integrity for the sake of geopolitical power struggles. Within universities in both Sweden and Israel, this inaction can be explained through an increased securitization of academia, accompanied by repression and censorship of critical voices. The core contradiction of liberal academia has come acutely to surface: the clash between freely producing sound knowledge and safeguarding the state’s transnational economic and military interests.
In our report, we map out the role Israeli universities play in supporting Israel’s genocide, apartheid, and occupation in Palestine. We argue that collaborations with Israeli universities make Swedish universities complicit in these crimes. It is time for our institutions to take their ethical guidelines seriously and end these collaborations and act in solidarity with Palestine. It now falls on Swedish universities – self-proclaimed bastions of openness and objective knowledge – to prove their autonomy and their claims of academic freedom.
The panel will discuss the ethical responsibility of Swedish academia to participate in an academic boycott as an act of justice. The panel focuses on arguments for academic boycott, reactions to attempts to initiate one, and possible ways forward for taking action.
Join us for the online launch of the first edition of the report on academic boycott at Swedish universities, created by Workers and Students in Swedish Academia for Palestine, where we will hear from:
Omar Barghouti, Co-founder of the global BDS and PACBI movement,
Feras Hammami, Associate Professor at the Department of Conservation, Gothenburg University, an early organizer of academic BDS within Swedish academia
Anna Lundberg, Professor in Sociology of Law at Lund University, whose department board recently decided on a boycott but was requested to retreat
Diala Chahine, teacher student active in the BDS student movements in Gothenburg
The discussion will be moderated by Hossam Sultan, doctoral researcher at Linköping University and a member of Workers and Students in Swedish Academia for Palestine.
The Speakers:
Omar Barghouti is a Palestinian human rights defender, co-founder of the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, and recipient of the 2017 Gandhi Peace Award. He holds a B.Sc. and an M.Sc. in Electrical Engineering from Columbia University, NY, and is pursuing a PhD in Philosophy (ethics) at the University of Amsterdam. He is the author of BDS: The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights (Haymarket: 2011). His commentaries and views have appeared in the New York Times and the Guardian, among others.
Born and raised in Palestine, Feras Hammami developed a deep understanding of cultural heritage shaped by the realities of Israeli settler colonialism. After earning a Bachelor’s degree in Architecture in Palestine, Hammami pursued a PhD at Sweden’s Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), focusing on the transnational dynamics of heritage management in Palestine, Botswana, and Sweden. These themes were carried into his postdoctoral fellowship in Critical Heritage Studies, where he examined resistance in neoliberal and colonised cities.
Anna Lundberg is a Professor in Sociology of Law at Lund University. Her research focuses on local rights mobilisation and solidarity infrastructures in a contemporary context shaped by migration, heightened border controls, and economic austerity in welfare provision. Her department board recently decided on a boycott but was requested to retreat.
RELEASE: Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Report for Swedish Universities
Workers and Students in Swedish Academia for Palestine (WASSAP) are welcoming you to the release of the report ”Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Report for Swedish Universities”, detailing the ongoing collaborations between Israeli and Swedish universities. The report outlines the ways in whi…
2024-09-17 15:00 – 2024-09-17 18:00
Mångkulturellt centrum
Värdshusvägen 7, 145 50 Norsborg, Sverige
Workers and Students in Swedish Academia for Palestine (WASSAP) are welcoming you to the release of the report “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Report for Swedish Universities”, detailing the ongoing collaborations between Israeli and Swedish universities. The report outlines the ways in which Israeli universities and institutions have in various forms participated in legitimizing and upholding the illegal occupation of Palestine and the genocide of Palestinians. We also explore how Israeli universities have participated in silencing critical voices among students and staff, thus endangering academic freedom.
Samuel Girma will moderate the evening, which consists of the following program:
15:15-16:15 – Presentation of the Report + Q&A (moderated by Erik Lindman Mata)
16:15—16:30 – Break
16:30-16:50 – Scholars at Risk and Gaza: Presentation by the Swedish Representative of Scholars at Risk (SAR) and representative of SAR Sweden in the European Advocacy Committee (EAC), Claudia Tazreiter.
16:50-17:00 – Poetry reading by Judith Kiros
17:00-18:00: Moving forward: Collective dialogue on how to further the movement, asking where do we go from here and what have we been missing (Moderated by Hossam Sultan).
Note: there are limited spaces at MKC, please only register if you know you can make it and contact us if you’d be unable to make it so that we can give your spot to someone else.
Workers and Students in Swedish Academia for Palestine (WASSAP) Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Report for Swedish Universities August 2024 Workers and Students in Swedish Academia for Palestine (WASSAP)
Table of contents
Introduction: The Crisis of Academic Freedom in a Time of Genocide Section 1: Who Are We and What is a Boycott? 1.1. The Beginnings of WASSAP 1.2. The Call to Boycott Section 2: Ongoing Collaborations with Israeli Universities Section 3: Why Cut Ties with Israeli Institutions? 3.1. Universities’ Position 3.2. The Complicity of Israeli Universities 3.3. The General Problem of Israeli Educational Institutions Section 4: Swedish Universities’ Responsibility 4.1. Autonomy, Academic Freedom, and Research Ethics in Swedish and International Law 4.2. Autonomy, Academic Freedom and Research Ethics in University Policy and Practice 4.3. Coordinated University Responses 4.4. Vice Chancellor’s Lines of Argumentation 4.5. The Role of the Minister of Education 4.6. Autonomy at Risk: A Case of Ministerial Rule? 4.7. Concluding Remarks Conclusion: The Need for Swedish Universities to Stand for Academic Freedom List of works cited Appendix 4 Introduction: The Crisis of Academic Freedom in a Time of Genocide Academic freedom is currently in crisis due to the total eradication of all institutions of higher education in Gaza, alongside the murder of many thousands of university students and staff, which the United Nations has deemed “scholasticide” (OHCHR 2024). The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (20 May 2024)—specifically targeting the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant—has indirectly charged the Israeli government and military (IDF) with wilfully causing great suffering, using starvation as a method of warfare, murdering civilians, extermination, and other war crimes and crimes against humanity. In addition to the overwhelming destruction of life and social infrastructure in Gaza, all of the occupied Palestinian region’s twelve universities have been destroyed, leaving its 90,000 students with no place to study. It is not possible for Palestinians to leave Gaza, so there is no place of refuge for these displaced students, academics, and other members of university staff. There is now very limited food available and almost no clean water, with the polio virus having been found in Gaza’s suspended sewage system. The official death count in Gaza as a direct result of Israel’s military attacks stands—as of mid-August 2024—at over 40,000 people, with more than 91,000 people injured and well over 10,000 people missing. This figure, however, is calculated by experts to be a vast underestimation (Khatib 2024), with many thousands more presumed to be buried under the immense residue of destruction that now covers Gaza. The ways in which Sweden and Swedish academia are connected to these atrocities should be a concern for everyone- particularly for those who work in and around institutions of education. Nonetheless, the Swedish Education Minister, Mats Persson maintains that “Sweden has a long-term interest in deepening the relationship and cooperation with Israel” (our translation; Riksdagen 2024). He continues, Swedish “state universities and colleges have a high degree of selfdetermination over their activities, and it is not the government’s business to decide which international cooperation projects in education and research they should be part of.” Here, Persson relies on a presupposition of absolute academic freedom to argue that the government cannot and will not decide on the activities of universities. These institutions, in Persson’s statement, are understood as having sufficient autonomy to decide on the extent of their own collaborations. However, Swedish universities themselves have consistently argued that they cannot make any statement against Israel’s illegal military actions— especially in regard to the eradication of educational infrastructure and 5 access to study—because their position is synonymous with that of the Swedish state. As we detail in length within this report, the familiar response we and other groups have received to our requests for a denunciation of Israel’s destruction of universities in Gaza is that, since Swedish universities are funded and owned by the state, their position is equivalent to that of the government. When we argued that Swedish universities had taken a clear and immediate stance against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 when they severed all ties with Russian institutions and offered support to displaced Ukrainian academics and students, the spokespeople for the Swedish universities argued that the situation was different. In that case, the government itself opposed the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so the universities simply followed the official position of the state. On the other hand, in the case of Israel and Palestine, the state sides with Israel, despite Sweden’s historical ties with Palestine as the first European Union member to recognize Palestinian statehood (in 2014). Regarding both Russia and Israel, this means that Swedish universities either have fully given up their legally protected autonomy in matters of deciding on international collaborations in individual cases, or that Swedish universities have given up the responsibility to engage in ethical research and scholarship. As Persson and other government officials have made clear, though, universities are under no obligation to follow the line of the state (Riksdag 2024). Indeed, in autumn 2023, when the Swedish government proposed its controversial “whistleblower law [angiverilagen]”, which would require academics to report on any student they suspected of not having the appropriate visa to remain in Sweden, universities explicitly opposed it, and took a stance against the government. Again and again, in our appeals to Swedish universities, we have received contradictory and illogical refusals to condemn the scholasticide and genocide taking place in Gaza. This report lays out our fundamental demands, the reasons for the necessity of satisfying these demands, and the complex bureaucratic blocks, dismissals, and distractions we have received from universities. We are Workers and Students in Swedish Academia for Palestine (WASSAP), a network of university students and staff throughout Sweden who pursue support for Palestine and the end to genocide, settler colonialism, and apartheid. We demand that Swedish universities assert their autonomy by: 1. ending all formal collaborations with Israeli universities and other complicit institutions, in accordance with the PACBI guidelines; 2. establishing collaborations with Palestinian universities, including providing meaningful support to displaced Palestinian academics and students, offering them a place to study and work at Swedish universities. 6 Section 1: Who Are We and What is a Boycott? 1.1. The Beginnings of WASSAP WASSAP was set up in October 2023 in response to the latest phase of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. WASSAP, alongside Academics for Palestine and other groups, began demanding that Swedish universities assert disagreement publicly with the unimaginably destructive military campaign in Gaza that has killed tens of thousands and eradicated the entire educational infrastructure of the occupied territory, which has been under military blockade since 2007. We also appealed to universities to offer support to dispossessed Palestinian academics and students, as has been offered to Ukrainian academics since Russia’s invasion in February 2022. Despite the refusal of universities to listen to our demands, we have continued to invite students, academics, university staff, and the general public into conversations about colonization, genocide, and racism, with the intention of promoting antiracism. At campuses all over Sweden, we have set up reading groups, open lectures, poetry readings, protests, marches, food and goods exchanges, support services, petitions, and many specific campaigns for the end of colonization, genocide, and scholasticide. In most cases, we have done so alongside other local organisations that stand in solidarity with Palestine, including university staff and students. The immense and tireless work of these other organisations across Swedish universities has both directly and indirectly added to this report. 1.2. The Call to Boycott The fundamental drive of our program is boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS). BDS is a long-established international movement that seeks to challenge the international legitimacy of the Israeli military regime by encouraging institutions, nations, and companies to cut ties with Israel. During the South African apartheid, BDS movements had a profound effect on the legitimacy of the racist regime, forcing it into increasing isolation and weakening the possibility of the regime’s survival. While it was the struggle of Black South Africans for liberation from apartheid that ultimately ended the brutal regime, BDS campaigns drastically diminished the possibility of apartheid authorities finding international support. The same international campaign for boycotting Russia has resulted in its disappearance from all international cultural events, severely jeopardizing 7 its internal propaganda and contributing to a mounting disappointment among Russians with their corrupt governing regime. Following the unanimous position of critical academic research (Makdisi 2024; Butler 2024; Butler 2023; Loewenstein 2023; Fields 2020; Haugbølle 2024; Stop Wapenhandel et al. 2024; Bertov 2024) and humanitarian organizations (Amnesty International 2022; Al-Haq 2022; UN 2022; ICC 2024; ICJ 2024; B’Tselem n.d.), BDS movements today maintain that Israel is an apartheid state that is currently committing genocide in Gaza. On 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice deemed Israel’s prolonged military occupation of Palestinian territories violating international law, and thus is illegal. This is the first time since 2004 that the ICJ has made such a clear ruling on Israel’s illegal occupation, providing evidence that the illegality of Israel’s occupation of Gaza did not begin in response to the attacks committed by Hamas against Israel on 7 October 2023. Instead, Israel has been creating and maintaining the conditions of apartheid and illegal occupation for decades. The academic boycott of Israeli universities and institutions does not seek to boycott individual researchers, but rather to hold accountable Israeli academic institutions that actively support the ongoing oppression and occupation of Palestinians perpetrated by the Israeli state and army. In alignment with the guidelines for the academic boycott of Israel set up by the international Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), initiated in 2004, the boycott does not target individual researchers who are affiliated with Israeli academic institutions but is rather directed towards Israeli academic institutions themselves (PACBI n.d.). The boycott of academic institutions in Israel also subscribes to the definition of academic freedom adopted by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR, E/C.12/1999/10; Scholars at Risk 2023). In the following section, we detail the ongoing collaborations between Israeli and Swedish universities. Subsequently, we detail the ways in which Israeli universities and institutions have in various forms participated in legitimizing and upholding the illegal occupation of Palestine and the genocide of Palestinians. We also explore how Israeli universities have participated in silencing critical voices among students and staff, thus endangering academic freedom (Adalah 2024). 8 Section 2: Ongoing Collaborations with Israeli Universities Since October 2023, WASSAP has been seeking concrete information regarding ongoing collaborations between Swedish and Israeli universities. Students and staff have sent freedom of information requests to their respective universities, but often these requests have been met with silence or explicit refusal, despite universities’ legal requirement to fulfil these requests. We have nonetheless found many ongoing collaborations between institutions, both from those universities that did respond to requests and from our own investigations. Gothenburg University listed for us its ongoing EU-financed collaborations with Israeli universities as well as its ongoing student mobility programs. However, since the students and workers that requested this information received contradictory replies, we are not fully confident that this list is exhaustive. In April 2024, only one EU-financed collaboration, HRJUST, was listed by Gothenburg University. In separate correspondence in May 2024, the list of research collaborations was longer, however only one student mobility program was disclosed. Among the EU-financed projects are REDRESS (University of Haifa), IRISCC (Ben-Gurion University), HRJUST (University of Haifa), PANACEA (Weizmann Institute), and PRD (Ben-Gurion University). These EU-funded research projects reveal close ties between Swedish and Israeli institutions that span many disciplines. Apart from these projects, Gothenburg University maintains two student exchange programs with Israeli universities: one between the School of Business, Economics and Law and the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya (Reichman University), and one between Sahlgrenska Academy and Tel Aviv University. Karolinska Institute, meanwhile, has two active collaborations, neither of which involves an economic investment. The most recent is a student exchange agreement with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, signed in 2022. Since 2015, Karolinska has also had a research collaboration with the Weizmann Institute of Science (5-86/2014). Konstfack in Stockholm maintains a collaborative agreement with the Bezalel Academy of Art, despite the request of Konstfack students in April 2024 that they cut this tie in protest against the Bezalel Academy’s suspension of numerous Palestinian students in October 2023. Linköping University has an ongoing agreement with Tel Aviv University (agreement number HMV-2024-00140), despite its own code of research ethics (Dnr LiU 1021/04-60) stating (2.1) that the university will only collaborate with institutions that are “in harmony with democracy and human rights” and “promote sustainable development at global and local level.” Since 2007, Malmö University has had an extensive agreement with BenGurion University, spanning research collaborations and staff and student 9 exchanges, with the host university offering support to incoming staff and students (79-07/399). Stockholm University has an agreement of cooperation with Tel Aviv University, a student exchange program with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (renewed May 2023), a Memorandum of Understanding with Bert Berl College since 2021, a student exchange agreement (for up to 2 students per year) between the law departments and the University of Haifa, and an exchange agreement between Stockholm Business School and the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya. Additionally, the department of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies has an exchange agreement with the Faculty of Humanities at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, renewed on 10 February, 2023. Information from Uppsala University has been particularly difficult to attain, with administrators claiming the university does not have a centralized list of all collaborations, and that it is each department’s responsibility to provide a list of their own collaborations. However, many departments have not responded to our legally binding requests to disclose their ties. From the institutions that did respond, we discovered an Erasmus exchange program with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJI), a collaboration between the Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry and HUJI, a collaboration between the Department of Ecology and Genetics and Tel Aviv University, and a collaboration between the Department of Chemistry and Tel Aviv University. Lund University has active collaborations with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University, the Israeli Institute of Technology (Technion), and the Weizmann Institute of Science. There is a student exchange agreement with the Faculty of Humanities and Theology at HUJI, which is currently paused due to security concerns. The faculty of natural sciences has EU projects (Horizon Europe) with Ben-Gurion University. Lund Faculty of Engineering (LTH; part of Lund University) also has a Horizon Europe project with Technion Research and Development Foundation. The faculty of Law has a shared Erasmus+ project with HUJI. The Faculty of Medicine has an agreement with the Weizmann Institute of Science. Chalmers University of Technology is currently a part of the Integrated sensing and communications for future vehicular systems (ISLANDS) doctoral network, which is done in collaboration with Weizmann Institute of Science. Further, researchers from Chalmers work on the AutoPiM: Efficient Accelerator for Autonomous Vehicles project in an IsraeliSwedish Research Collaboration with researchers from the Engineering Faculty at Bar-Ilan University. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) has had numerous collaborations with Israeli universities. Currently, KTH is involved in the SoftEnable Horizon Europe project, which is done in collaboration with Technion Israel Institute of Technology, and has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Örebro University maintains a student mobility program with Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 10 Section 3: Why Cut Ties with Israeli Institutions? 3.1. Universities’ Position Many universities’ Vice Chancellors (VCs) have emphasized in their responses to WASSAP that research is by its very nature global, with the aim of advancing knowledge, without political boundaries. However, all Swedish universities immediately suspended research ties with Russian universities after the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. In this instance, even if the decision by universities in some cases seems to have been motivated mainly by government directive, the ethical stance that requires institutions not to directly support violent regimes took precedence over the global and neutral nature of research. In those instances in which collaboration is equivalent to support for a violent and, illegal invasion, the nature of research is no longer neutral, and decisions must be taken that limit the complicity of Swedish institutions in war crimes and crimes against humanity. Our research demonstrates that there is significant collaboration between Swedish and Israeli universities. Furthermore, the reluctance of some universities to fully disclose the collaborations is cause for concern. If collaboration agreements meet a university’s ethical guidelines, universities should have no reason to hide the existence, extent, and content of these agreements from its own inquiring researchers. Moreover, this information is public, and universities are under a legal obligation to disclose when requested. Given the extent of the collaborations we have uncovered, we are deeply troubled by Swedish universities’ absolute refusal to acknowledge the importance of cutting ties with institutions closely connected to illegal occupation, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. To emphasise the importance of cutting ties and maintaining an ethical stance towards international research—a stance that emphasises the right of all to live and to study without military occupation or scholasticide—in the rest of this section we detail the complicity of Israeli institutions in the violence and vast destruction committed daily by the Israeli military. 3.2. The Complicity of Israeli Universities As stipulated in several UN resolutions, Israel has been in breach of international law since the Nakba of 1948 (United Nations General Assembly 1949, 1976, 1980, 2002, 2004, 2017, 2014 and United Nations Security Council 1967). The Nakba, named after al-Nakba, which means “the Catastrophe”, refers to the ongoing displacement and dispossession 11 of Palestinians from historic Palestine, beginning in 1948 and continuing as the structural denial of Palestinian self-determination through military occupation, mass incarceration, and the explicit ideology of Jewish supremacy (Eghbariah 2024). In the latest phase of the Nakba, Israel is systematically destroying all conditions for Palestinian life in Gaza. On 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice found that there is a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza (Euro-Med Monitor 2024). Furthermore, Israel continues to break international law by denying Palestinian refugees their right of return as stipulated in UN resolution 194 (Quigley 2007) and continuing to illegally occupy the Occupied Palestinian Territories (the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip) and the occupied Golan Heights, breaking UN resolution 242 (Quigley 2007). These acts are directly supported by Israeli universities, which develop the technology and machinery for war, and contribute to juridical, operational, and technological support for the continued occupation of Palestine. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem supports “Operation Iron Sword” (the IDF’s code name for their current operation in Gaza) by “providing military units with logistics equipment” (HUJI 2023). It also suspended Palestinian professor Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, under the justification that the suspension would “preserve a safe climate on campus” (BRISMES 2023; Odeh 2024). Hebrew University has been pressuring Shalhoub-Kevorkian to resign since late October 2023, after she signed a call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Professor Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s research has provided invaluable insights into the psychological and social ramifications of living under prolonged conflict and oppression. While Hebrew University has since lifted her suspension, the threat of suspension nonetheless sends a clear message to scholars at the Hebrew University and worldwide, especially scholars critical of the Israeli genocide in Gaza and who call for a ceasefire (Sfard 2023; BRISMES 2023). Hebrew University is partly built in East Jerusalem, which is illegally occupied according to international law (Wind 2024). In 1967, when Israel occupied East Jerusalem, it annexed three quarters of the lands of the Palestinian village Issawiyeh to expand Hebrew University and to build Israeli settlements (Wind 2024). Today, Israel has expropriated over 90 percent of Issawiyeh’s lands (Wind 2024). Tel Aviv University has exceptionally close ties to the Israeli government and the military industry (Rapoport 2023). Tel Aviv University hosts the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), which aims to shape the “national security policies” of the regime. One of these was formulated during the 2021 attack on Gaza and argued for denying the entry of humanitarian aid to the Palestinian population as a military strategy (Riemer 2023), something we now see after 7 October 2023. Tel Aviv University also developed the Dahiya Doctrine in partnership with the Israeli military in 2008 (Rogers 2023), which calls for targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure with “disproportionate force” to inflict devastating destruction. This is a war crime. Nevertheless, this doctrine has been used in all subsequent military attacks on Gaza, including the current genocide. 12 Another academic institution that has deep ties to Israeli military is Technion. It helped develop the D9 remote-controlled bulldozer, which has been used throughout both historical Palestine before 1967 and the Occupied Palestinian Territories since to destroy and demolish Palestinian homes. In 2008 Technion opened a centre for the development of electrooptics with Elbit Systems, one of the largest Israeli weapons companies. It also developed “The Scream”, an acoustic weapon that creates sound levels unbearable to humans at distances of up to 100 metres. This weapon has been widely used to suppress Palestinian protests. It can cause a shock that could lead to a heart attack (Loewenstein 2023; Weizman 2017). The University of Haifa is responsible for training officers of the Israeli military since 2018, offering a master’s program in national security for members of the Israeli military and Israeli intelligence services such as Mossad and Shin Bet (Heights 2018). It hosts an “Ambassadors online” course that aims to provide students with “Hasbara” training in collaboration with the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, furthering the spread of pro-Israel propaganda. It also stated on its website that it stands with “IDF officers, soldiers and the entire state of Israel” in the current war on Gaza. University of Haifa hosts three Israeli military colleges comprising the Israeli Military Academic Complex, which the university states “form the backbone of the IDF’s elite training programs” (Heights 2018). The University of Haifa holds courses at the Israeli military base of Glilot. It has provided equipment to soldiers carrying out the genocide in Gaza and established an emergency fund to provide stipends to student soldiers. Relatedly, Bar-Ilan University’s Engineering Faculty has had “hackathons” in collaboration with the Israeli military and with the Israeli arms producer Elbit (Faculty of Engineering Bar-Ilan University 2023a, 2023b). Importantly, they established a college—now the independent Ariel University—on illegally occupied Palestinian land. Such settlements constitute war crimes under international law. The Weizmann Institute of Science has been a “military-scientific center of the Israeli state” (Wind 2024: 91). Faculty and senior administrators have led the development of Israeli military industries (Wind 2024). 3.3. The General Problem of Israeli Educational Institutions Israeli universities point to their Arab (Palestinian) students as proof of their plurality and diversity. However, Palestinian students have long been criminalized and targeted by their universities (Memo 2014; New Arab 2023; Adalah 2024; Gordon and Green 2024). This has only increased since Hamas’ attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. At the University of Haifa, over 90 percent of the students summoned to disciplinary committees between 2002 and 2010 were Palestinian. Between 2010 and 2015, Palestinian students were three times as likely 13 as Jewish students to be summoned before their committees (Gordon and Green 2024; Adalah UN Report 2024). What we have described here is only a very brief overview. As Israeli scholar Maya Wind (2024: 12) meticulously documented, all eight major public Israeli universities “operate in direct service of the state and serve critical functions in sustaining its policies, and thereby constitute central pillars of Israeli settler colonialism.” In this section, we have demonstrated the various ways in which Israeli universities contribute to the oppression of Palestinians, the current genocide in Gaza, and the breaking of international law. Continued collaboration with these institutions not only normalizes their actions but enables them. An academic boycott is necessary, both to protect scholars in Sweden from working on projects that break international law, and to enact positive change by helping to dismantle the system of oppression, destruction, and apartheid that the state of Israel maintains against Palestine and Palestinians. In the following section, we advocate for the academic boycott of Israeli institutions by examining the legal frameworks governing institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and responsibility, alongside the ethical standards upheld by Swedish universities. We also identify inconsistencies and contradictions in the public and internal communications from universities and the Swedish Ministry of Education. 14 Section 4: Swedish Universities’ Responsibility Guidelines for responsible internationalization clearly mandate that formal agreements with complicit Israeli institutions should be terminated. However, at the time of writing, no Swedish university has cancelled its formal collaborations with these institutions. The VCs of Swedish universities have not sufficiently addressed these contradictions in their communications with the public, students, and staff. Furthermore, the Minister of Education, Mats Persson, has maintained an inappropriate and strong political presence in university affairs throughout the ongoing genocide. In this section, we analyse the inadequacies and contradictions in the responses from VCs and the Minister of Education regarding the ongoing crisis, in light of their ethical and political responsibilities. In our study of communications with universities, we analyze patterns of argumentation to better understand this current moment of political and ethical impasse in the face of ongoing genocide. Our findings suggest that the inaction of Swedish universities is partly due to confusion regarding the extent of university autonomy in relation to the Swedish government and the Minister of Education. VCs across Swedish universities have consistently asserted a lack of autonomy from the government. At various times, Persson has publicly reinforced this argument, contributing to the ongoing confusion and political stalemate. However, following significant critique from the public, as well as from students and staff at Swedish universities, and after a formal complaint against Persson was lodged with the Swedish Constitutional Committee (Konstitutionsutskottet), the majority of VCs and the Minister of Education have refrained from these direct claims of lack of autonomy. Indirect claims of lack of autonomy nonetheless persist. It is clear that Swedish universities have the formal capacity to cancel institutional ties with Israeli universities. Despite this formal capacity, universities have failed to take action. As we show in this section, the justifications they offer for this inaction are inadequate. This ongoing failure suggests that VCs, constrained by bureaucratic caution and lacking the courage to act independently, are unwilling to uphold the principles of sound knowledge, ethical integrity, and academic freedom in the face of scholasticide and humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. 4.1. Autonomy, Academic Freedom, and Research Ethics in Swedish and International Law The autonomy of Swedish universities is safeguarded by multiple legal provisions. Notably, the freedom of research is enshrined in the Swedish Constitution (Regeringsformen, Chapter 2, Section 18) and the EU Charter 15 of Fundamental Rights (Article 13), which affirm that scientific research shall be free, and that academic freedom shall be respected. The Higher Education Act (Högskolelagen) (Chapter 1, Section 6) further mandates that promoting and safeguarding academic freedom is a fundamental principle guiding universities’ activities. Notably, the preparatory works for the Higher Education Act (Prop. 2020/21:60), which in the Swedish legal translation are of central importance to the interpretation of law, state clearly that: “It is the responsibility of each respective institution to determine how the university’s international activities should be conducted within the framework of its mission and based on the specific conditions prevailing at the institution” (our translation; 2020: 182), and that “the higher education institution is best suited to and should assess how its international activities contribute to high quality and sustainable development both nationally and globally” (183). Furthermore, the academic freedom and institutional autonomy of Swedish higher education institutions must be exercised within the boundaries of existing legal frameworks and value foundations. Specifically, the Higher Education Act (Chapter 1, Section 5) requires universities to promote sustainable development in their activities: “Universities shall, in their activities, promote sustainable development to ensure that present and future generations are guaranteed a healthy and good environment, economic and social welfare, and justice.” Specifically aimed towards responsible internationalization, the same section stipulates: “All international activities at each university should both enhance the quality of the university’s education and research, and contribute nationally and globally to the sustainable development referred to in the first paragraph.” As the section indicates, universities are bound to ensure a healthy and good environment, economic and social welfare, and justice for current and future generations, on both a global and a national level. The values underpinning all activities of the university are pivotal to the purpose and structure of academic freedom. If these values are not adhered to, one cannot be sure that academic freedom is sufficiently protected. Other than this general legal framework, the Swedish constitution and Swedish administrative law practice specifically prohibit ministerial rule. Additionally, the Administrative Procedure Act (Förvaltningslagen) (2017: 900; §22) mandates that all cases concerning university autonomy should be handled impartially and objectively, further safeguarding the independence of universities. Concerns about potential ministerial rule arose when allegations surfaced that the Minister of Education, Mats Persson, instructed university VCs not to take a stance on the ongoing conflict in Palestine. We will return to this issue later in this section. The prohibition of ministerial rule is clearly articulated in the Instrument of Government (Chapter 12, Section 2), which states that no public authority, including parliament or municipal decision-making bodies, may dictate how an administrative authority shall decide in a particular case concerning the exercise of public authority or the application of law. Authorities, including universities and colleges, are expected to act 16 independently in their decision-making, and principles of impartiality and the prohibition against ministerial rule are designed to ensure the independence and impartiality of authorities. 4.2. Autonomy, Academic Freedom and Research Ethics in University Policy and Practice State universities, which constitute the vast majority in Sweden, are often treated as administrative authorities, or förvaltningsmyndigheter. That said, the practice of academic freedom has historically been relatively strong in Sweden, with high levels of collegial co-determination (kollegialt medbestämmande). Nevertheless, universities are increasingly viewed and managed through an administrative-political lens. This shift increasingly formalizes the legal relationship of universities to the state as one of compliance, rather than autonomy (Ahlbäck Öberg 2023: 19). While Swedish universities are vigorously resisting these trends, their inaction regarding the genocide in Palestine represents a significant loss for academic freedom and integrity. The increasing bureaucratization of Swedish higher education, which threatens the core values of autonomy and integrity, was highlighted in a May 2024 report by the Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) (Swedish Higher Education Authority 2024). The report identified political and administrative control of universities as the greatest threat to academic freedom, closely followed by the increasingly privatized system of research funding, and by a tendency within collegial contexts toward uniformity and conformity. WASSAP understands these trends as creating a widespread fear within the university of publicly standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people. While the report suggests that half the faculty members at Swedish universities believe academic freedom is under serious threat, it found no evidence that so-called cancel culture is a significant issue. The alleged prevalence of cancel culture was a key motivation behind the report initiated by the current Minister of Education, Mats Persson. During his time in office, Persson has also increased political control over appointments to university boards, leading to criticism from the Constitutional Committee (KU) for overstepping his authority. Under the pretext of an increased risk to general university security and concerns about so-called cancel culture, the current government is rapidly undermining academic freedom and university autonomy. As we show in the following sections, this trend has exacerbated during the course of the genocide in Gaza. Universities, VCs, and The Swedish Association of Higher Education Institutions (SUHF), as the association representing these institutions, consistently emphasize the importance of defending academic freedom in public discourse and legislative processes. They also actively work to strengthen the formal protections for this freedom. A recent report by SUHF states: “The right of universities and colleges to self-determination needs clearer and stronger constitutional protection” (Ekberg 2024: 5). 17 The norm of minimal governmental influence on academia has been put forth as a guarantor of academic autonomy when new legislations to formalize autonomy have been proposed (Ahlbäck Öberg 2023). Moreover, on 28 April 2023, all VCs of Swedish universities rallied behind a protest letter against Persson’s decision to shorten the mandate period for university boards, arguing that this change undermines the autonomy and long-term stability of university governance (Gothenburg University 2023), calling it “an extremely dangerous development” (our translation). In signing a recent charter of academic principles—the Magna Charta Universitatum (2020: 1)—Swedish universities affirm that “intellectual and moral autonomy is the hallmark of any university and a precondition for the fulfilment of its responsibilities to society.” and that “independence needs to be recognised and protected by governments and society at large, and defended vigorously by institutions themselves.” Without intellectual, moral, and academic autonomy, the university cannot function as a university. The persistent stance that Swedish universities cannot independently manage and determine their own collaborations, and that they are absolved by government policy from taking responsibility for the ethical position of these collaborations, stands in direct opposition to the principles, values, and responsibilities outlined in the 2020 charter. This position not only contradicts the fundamental meaning of academic freedom and the autonomy of research but also fails to meet the ethical standards expected by staff and students. The universities’ reluctance to sever ties with institutions complicit in acts of scholasticide and genocide threatens the academic freedom of researchers in Sweden, who are left uncertain about their institutions’ moral autonomy to reject violence and advocate for the survival of academics and the independence of their research. On the notion of research ethics, the SUHF plays a crucial role in shaping policies and guidelines that govern the operations of higher education institutions in Sweden. One significant contribution from SUHF is the “Checklist for Global Responsible Engagement”, a document designed to guide Swedish universities in navigating the complexities of international collaborations. This checklist outlines ethical considerations, emphasizing the importance of aligning global engagements with the principles of human rights, academic freedom, and democratic values. The document is widely regarded as a key framework for ensuring responsible and sustainable internationalization within Swedish higher education. The majority of Swedish universities have adopted this checklist or have aligned their policies with the principles it outlines. This adoption underscores a collective commitment among Swedish higher education institutions to uphold ethical standards in their international partnerships. There are clear ethical issues regarding academic collaborations with Israeli universities when read in relation to SUHF’s “Checklist for Global Responsible Engagement”. According to the first indicator on the list, collaborations should not occur in countries “where democratic freedom and rights are restricted, or where violations of human rights or academic freedom are well documented” (SUHF 2023: 1). The second indicator in 18 the checklist encourages universities to consider potential ethical or reputational risks associated with their partners, asking, “What is the partner’s relation with the government and political parties in the partner country? Will the project, or any activity related to the project, be in conflict with your institution’s core values?” (2023: 2.) Since the adoption of this checklist by many Swedish universities in their ethical policy frameworks, several international authorities and courts of universal jurisdiction have clearly demonstrated that Israeli universities frequently operate against values of human rights and equality. These institutions include the ICJ, the ICC, and the United Nation General Assembly. Swedish universities often claim neutrality, yet their research, teaching, institutional funding, and pension ties with entities that support the illegal occupation and human rights violations in Palestine, and now particularly the genocide and scholasticide in Gaza, tell a different story. As we have shown, Israeli universities currently engage in direct, open, and partisan support of the Israeli state during the ongoing genocide. This raises serious ethical concerns that Swedish institutions must address, especially given their own ethical guidelines, as set out in the SUHF checklist. In March 2024, SUHF published a report titled Ställningstagande om Akademisk Frihet och Autonomi, or Statement on Academic Freedom and Autonomy, in which Swedish universities collectively emphasized the urgent need for greater autonomy from governmental control. However, in their public responses, all VC statements have consistently denied responsibility and rejected their capability to act, arguing that they lack autonomy in relation to the government. In their communications, VCs claim that universities are both (1) autonomously bound to the promotion of academic freedom according to democratic principles throughout the world, which is conducted through ethical research, and (2) bound to the decisions of the government, which it is their institutional duty to represent. Clearly, both cannot be the case. Either the university is a political public institution under an ethical obligation to promote and facilitate academic freedom, or it is entirely determined by the position of the government and the dictates of the current Minister of Education. To claim that the university cannot engage in the demands of students and staff without government direction contradicts the academic freedom and legal autonomy that SUHF has repeatedly emphasized. Universities cannot simultaneously claim to champion academic freedom and autonomy while also insisting that they are powerless to change or cancel formal international agreements without government direction. 4.3. Coordinated University Responses Over the course of the academic year 2023–2024, VCs have made numerous statements regarding their inability to act in relation to the 19 ongoing genocide. These statements are strikingly uniform, using almost exactly the same wording from university to university. During the earlier stages of the genocide, all university VCs in our data expressed an inability to take action, either by citing a lack of autonomy from the government, or by stating that academic boycott would fall outside the remit of their formal competences. However, as the genocide progressed, and especially following nationwide student protests and public criticism from university students and staff, VCs have shifted their stance. The most common argument centres on a particular understanding of academic freedom, founded on the freedom of individual researchers to engage in any collaborations of their choosing. However, the argument that foreign politics is the sole concern of the government, instead of academia, is still prevalent. In this way, universities absolve themselves of the responsibility to address the ongoing genocide, keeping with the official line of the Swedish government, while maintaining a stance of “apolitical neutrality”. Prevalent also is the trend to obscure and downplay the acute moral implications of the genocide by, for example, referring to it as the “war between Israel and Hamas”. In this and other ways, universities frame the genocide in alignment with the government’s narrative. WASSAP has collected and analysed communications from VCs of the following universities: Malmö University, Karlstad University, Umeå University, Stockholm University, Uppsala University, Södertörn University, Lund University, the University of Gothenburg, Linnaeus University (LNU), Linköping University, and the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH). The communications consist of statements in media directed at the general public, statements directed to students and staff, as well as communications between VCs and the negotiation teams at several student protest camps set up across Sweden. In order to keep this report concise, we are highlighting only a few responses from the huge number of emails, communications, and meetings that have taken place since October 2023. A consistent feature of all the responses we have received from VCs, especially in the more recent phases of the genocide, is—as Uppsala University’s VC Anders Hagfeldt wrote on 8 February 2024—that the University only considers making a statement when the issue concerns academia. We often express our opinion when the freedom of research is under threat and when the ability of our colleagues to pursue research and studies throughout the world is restricted – something I assume that everyone at the University endorses. In such cases, we have a voice and a natural commitment. The clear message here is that the university has sufficient autonomy to make decisions and take political positions regarding threats to academic freedom when they arise in the world. At the emergence of its necessity, the university takes a political position. Immediately, a central contradiction becomes clear. As we documented in Section 1 above, a more dire and drastic situation regarding academic freedom is scarcely imaginable than that currently taking place in Gaza specifically and Palestine generally. As mentioned already, the current situation has been described by numerous international authorities 20 as scholasticide, which adds to the many documented war crimes and crimes against humanity that international courts have found the state of Israel to be committing in its current offensive (Wind 2024). If this is not a situation in which the university has “a voice and a natural commitment” to condemn scholasticide, promote academic freedom, and offer support to displaced and dispossessed academics and students, then no such situation is imaginable. So far, insufficient information has been provided regarding the decisionmaking process or rationale behind Swedish universities’ alignment with the Swedish government’s position. The lines of argumentation of VCs demonstrate striking similarity among each other and with those of Persson, in what they express as well as in their silence. By the time of writing, no university has directly addressed the ethical concerns raised by university students and staff. Instead, they consistently deflect these arguments by invoking their own understanding of the principle of academic freedom. 4.4. Vice Chancellor’s Lines of Argumentation The analysis of the lines of argumentation presented by the universities in response to demands regarding the genocide reveals a consistent pattern: VCs frame their position through the lens of an institutional lack of autonomy and academic freedom, which they claim limits their ability to independently take a stance against genocide. Universities emphasize their role as neutral entities focused on education and research, rather than foreign policy. They justify their refusal to sever ties with Israeli institutions by stating that they are bound by the government’s lack of directives on the matter, using this as an excuse when confronted with their actions following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This narrative is reinforced by repeated references to their adherence to government guidelines and policies, particularly in relation to international collaborations and geopolitical conflicts. A significant aspect of the universities’ argumentation is that maintaining neutrality is essential to protect the diversity of opinions and the free exchange of ideas within academic spaces. Furthermore, they uphold a narrow and, as we will argue, counterproductive interpretation of academic freedom as allowing individual researchers to choose their collaborators without institutional interference. This position allows them to avoid direct engagement with the ethical implications of their formalized partnerships with Israeli institutions, framing such decisions as matters of individual academic judgement rather than institutional responsibility. By reframing institutional ties as the immaterial “exchange of ideas” or a matter of individual choice and judgement, VCs effectively make invisible the considerable economic and ideological ties to complicit Israeli higher education institutions that such collaborations entail on an institutional level. 21 In light of VCs definition of academic freedom, the question we are required to ask as critical researchers is: does “academic freedom” apply solely to the university itself in isolation from the world, or does it apply equally to all students, staff, and educational institutions? If it does apply to the latter—as we, alongside all humanitarian organizations for the preservation of access to education, believe it should—then Swedish universities are failing to safeguard academic freedom by way of their very appeal to safeguarding academic freedom, which they understand as applying solely to the isolated institution itself, without regard for the demands of its own students and staff, or the survival of students and academics elsewhere. Furthermore, the universities frequently cite their lack of autonomy from state directives as a reason for their inaction. Universities assert that as public institutions, they must remain neutral in foreign policy matters. For example, in response to student protests, the Gothenburg VC stated publicly, “the university follows the foreign policy positions established by the Swedish government” (Nenasheva 2024). Interestingly, in meetings with the negotiating team of the Gothenburg University protest camp, and when pushed on the matter of whether Mats Persson had instructed VCs to maintain a policy of inaction, the VC answered that this was “kind of” the case. Generally, VCs argue that any decisions regarding international collaborations or political stances should be guided by national government policies rather than independent institutional action. This deflection effectively distances the universities from the moral urgency of the situation, allowing them to position themselves as passive recipients of external constraints rather than as institutions capable of making ethical decisions in response to global events. In a statement on 16 May 2024, Umeå University similarly argued that, as a “public authority”, the university “is not supposed to pursue political issues”. The question that logically follows this assertion is whether acting against genocide and scholasticide is political per se, or whether it falls under the university’s own self-proclaimed intention to “safeguard academic freedom”. Academic freedom, by its very nature, cannot be safeguarded individually, in isolation from the world. One single university’s research is not “free” if it is surrounded by the military imposition of unfreedom, including the total destruction of educational infrastructure in Gaza. Importantly, VCs highlight that their decision to suspend collaborations with Russian institutions was made following clear directives from the Swedish government, in contrast to the lack of similar directives regarding Israel. This comparison is used to reinforce the argument that universities are bound by government policies and should not unilaterally make decisions that could be seen as engaging in foreign policy. In some cases however, VCs claim that their commitment to academic freedom would have prevented them from severing ties with Russian institutions, had it not been for the government’s directive. This assertion is curious, as such directives could be seen as encroachments on institutional autonomy and may violate Swedish administrative law, including the constitutional 22 prohibition against ministerial rule. In essence, if VCs would not have cut ties with Russian higher education institutions without government intervention, it suggests that the institutional autonomy of Swedish universities is indeed compromised. By framing the genocide as a complicated situation and a mere conflict, without clearly identifying an aggressor, or as a war “between Israel and Hamas”, VCs create the appearance of neutrality and political detachment. This contrasts sharply with their explicit identification of Russia as the aggressor in the Ukraine conflict, revealing a selective approach to ethical responsibility. Furthermore, while Russia is framed as totalitarian, Israel is described as a democracy. By deferring to the government to identify the responsible actor in the genocide, the VCs effectively abdicate their own ethical accountability, relying on a narrative that sidesteps the political realities of the longstanding illegal occupation and settlement of sovereign Palestinian lands. This framing, in line with that of the Swedish government, not only deflects responsibility but also aligns with a proIsraeli stance, as it overlooks the prevalence of political repression and apartheid, which constitute grave threats to democracy. The VCs’ framing of the genocide maintains an appearance of apolitical objectivity while supporting a specific political position. Through describing the genocide in a particular way, VCs are already making a statement which aligns them with the Swedish government. Their position stands in sharp contrast to the views expressed by international expert bodies, such as human rights organizations, the UN, and international courts. The conformism and uniformity in the VCs’ statements, both among themselves and in alignment with the Swedish government, is deeply troubling and cause for urgent concern. Another recurring theme in these responses is the emphasis on student and staff safety and the need to maintain a secure environment for all. Universities argue that taking a political stance or allowing demonstrations could jeopardize this safety by fostering an atmosphere of tension or hostility at the university. This concern for security is presented as a justification for the institutions’ refusal to engage in actions that could be perceived as taking a side in the genocide. Of course, this argument is not neutral; it aligns with rhetoric commonly found in discourses supporting Israel, i.e., that support of Israeli as “the only democracy in the Middle East” is neutral, while support for Palestine, or a refusal of the destruction of Palestine and Palestinians, is equivalent to terrorism. The argument deflects responsibility for the ongoing destruction of all conditions for life in Gaza, as well as the safety of Palestinian staff and students in Palestine and worldwide. Another trend has been that VCs are careless in handling factual relations in such a way that confuses negotiations between staff, students and the university, and public debate. The VC of Karlstad University, Jerker Moodysson, for example, argued in his university post on 17 May 2024 that since the pro-Palestine protestors have no demands, he has nothing to respond to, despite a clear list of demands having been sent to him and those demands printed on sheets at the campus protest. The VC of 23 Gothenburg appeared in the news of Swedish national television, shortly after students set up a protest camp outside the university premises, telling the public that to her knowledge, no formal ties between Gothenburg University and Israeli higher education institutions existed. This was in spite of the fact that several weeks earlier, a list of such agreements had been sent by the WASSAP Gothenburg group to the VC and all members of the university board. In these cases, VCs took clear advantage of their positions of authority in order to obscure factual relationships and delegitimize the efforts of students and staff. A refusal to engage with what VCs call “pressures from the outside” is also a trend in the responses. In the university post on 17 May 2024, Moodysson continued by saying that, even when and if demands were made, he would not respond to them, since the university “must not be influenced by pressure from the outside”. This disregards the obvious fact that these demands did not come from the outside, but rather from the university’s own students and staff. Moreover, the proposition for an insular and esoteric university, without concern for an outside world, is a profoundly disturbing remark that negates the very foundations of socially-engaged research. Following these statements that refuse to engage with internal protest, Umeå University and later Uppsala and Lund universities, too—called on the police to remove protestors, arguing that they did not have the required permit to protest. Given the university’s own refusal of “pressure from the outside”, this appeal to the police—an external institution—to remove and silence the university’s own students and staff seems contradictory. The universities often use broad, non-specific language when discussing their commitments to human rights or academic freedom. This vagueness helps them avoid committing to concrete actions or positions that might be politically contentious. When confronted with their own ethical guidelines, universities deflect responsibility by saying that sustainable development and ethical considerations must be weighed against the importance of academic freedom. As previously stated, academic freedom is framed by VCs as being jeopardized by taking political stances, implying that a neutral stance is necessary to protect this freedom. This is a powerful rhetorical strategy that positions any deviation from supposed neutrality as a threat to core academic values. However, there is an inherent contradiction in claiming to uphold academic freedom while also asserting that the university cannot take a stance due to governmental policies. Furthermore, the universities’ stance ignores the broader implications of academic freedom, which includes the responsibility to oppose state policies that violate human rights. By failing to take a stand, they may be undermining the very principles they claim to protect. One final trend we wish to criticize is universities’ empty promises. In its public response to WASSAP, Malmö University proclaimed that it “endeavours to develop collaborations with universities that promote democratic values and to support other universities in their efforts to safeguard democracy and academic freedom.” Israeli institutions’ failure to meet any of these demands has been amply documented in the 24 critical literature, as we referred to in the previous section, so presently the question of most concern to us in response to Malmö University’s statement is: what does endeavouring entail? Does endeavouring in the above statement mean trying without success, or does it denote a dedication to succeeding? Does it mean that the university generally desires its inter-institutional collaborations to be ethical according to democratic norms, or does it mean that it will actively maintain ethical collaborations and actively cut those collaborations that fail to meet its standards? If the university does indeed mean the active production of democratic ethics in collaborations, then there can be no excuse for maintaining ties with Israeli institutions that actively contribute to scholasticide and genocide. 4.5. The Role of the Minister of Education Mats Persson, the Swedish Minister of Education, has been deeply involved in guiding university responses to the ongoing genocide, particularly in shaping their public positions. Despite his assertion on 1 March 2024 that “state universities and colleges have a high degree of self-determination over their activities,” Persson argued in an article in Aftonbladet, published 29 May 2024, that universities lack the autonomy to act independently on issues related to foreign policy (Persson 2024). “The protests directed at the universities will also not lead to the breaking of any agreements,” he writes. “It is the government that governs and shapes foreign policy— not Sweden’s Vice Chancellors” (our translation). This assertion makes it clear that, despite the protests and demands from within the academic community, the government will not allow universities to sever ties with Israeli institutions or take a stand against genocide and scholasticide. In another article, dated 3 May 2024, Persson states that, “In close connection to the terrorist organization Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October, I took the initiative to meet with the vice-chancellors—to get an understanding and to urge that universities in Sweden do not conduct their own foreign policy” (our translation; TT 2024). Moreover, on 16 November 2023, Persson held a digital meeting with university VCs to discuss the spread of antisemitism across campuses and what he refers to as “the conflict between Israel and Hamas”. This last-minute meeting occurred just days before the SUHF assembly on 23 November, where it was decided that universities should not take action regarding the genocide in Gaza. This timing suggests Persson’s influence in shaping the non-interventionist stance that SUHF ultimately adopted. However, no minutes are available from the 16 November meeting, and the minutes from the SUHF meeting on 23 November provide no explanation of the discussions that led to the decision of inaction. 25 4.6. Autonomy at Risk: A Case of Ministerial Rule? As stated in section 4.2., the Higher Education Act (1992:1434) grants universities significant autonomy, allowing them to operate independently within the framework of laws and regulations set by the parliament and government. The Minister of Education can provide overarching policy guidance and influence through budgetary measures, but cannot issue directives on specific matters, such as political stances or individual university decisions on matters of responsible internationalization. Such actions would constitute an intrusion into the independence of universities and violate the principle of the prohibition of ministerial rule. It can however be difficult to assess whether statements or actions from a particular minister have had such undue influence on the decision making processes of authorities, as to constitute ministerial rule. It can also be challenging to determine whether the activities of the authority being critiqued are protected under the prohibition against ministerial rule. To understand these questions better, it is helpful to look at the praxis of the Constitutional Committee, i.e. the previous and similar cases. For example, Minister of Education Ibrahim Baylan was criticised by the Constitutional Committee (KU) for ministerial rule in 2005 after questioning a report produced by the Swedish National Agency for Education on television, which was subsequently withdrawn. In that case, the critique from the minister concerned activities other than official decisions with direct impact on individuals. The production of reports is seemingly a more explicit part of the agency’s administrative duties than political or ethical positions are for universities. However, it can certainly be argued that decisions on matters of responsible internationalisation and formal research ties on an institutional level, follows from the assignment description in the Higher Education Act, Chapter 1, Section 5, Paragraph 3, regarded above. In this light, Persson’s statements, documented above, could be seen as a form of ministerial rule: he surpasses the limitations of his position by publicly asserting authority over the decision-making processes of universities. 4.7. Concluding Remarks In communications from VCs, the discussion is often misframed: they understand students and staff as compelling them to express ideological positions on foreign issues. However, the demands are that universities actively support the production of knowledge that does not contribute to apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. The real concern is to protect researchers from becoming entangled in foreign conflicts and producing knowledge that may be used for harmful purposes, particularly in collaboration with universities complicit in Israeli warfare, which poses a significant ethical risk. 26 In short, the communications of VCs do not adequately legitimize their stance of inaction in the midst of an ongoing genocide. Given the striking similarity of all the responses we have received, what we are yet to discover is the source of universities’ refusals. At the time of writing, Mats Persson – the minister of education – is under review by the Constitutional Committee for allegedly attempting to influence university activities. Our findings suggest that Mats Persson’s statements and actions may constitute ministerial rule, which is prohibited under Swedish constitutional law. However this might be, and contrary to the claims of VCs, there is no legal basis for universities’ claims that they are mere representatives of the government’s position. Given the urgent need for the promotion of academic freedom and the offer of support to displaced and dispossessed academics in Palestine, especially in Gaza, we urge universities to clarify the source of their dismissals of our demands for a boycott of Israeli universities, and to explain exactly how they can account for these glaring contradictions between the abstract promotion of principles of academic freedom and the refusal to engage in the most pressing global need for academic freedom today. 27 Conclusion: The Need for Swedish Universities to Stand for Academic Freedom This report attempts to provide Swedish universities with the legal, ethical, and critical groundwork required for them to (1) cut all formal collaborations with Israeli universities and other complicit institutions, and (2) establish collaborations with Palestinian universities. As we have shown, there is no legal basis for universities’ consistent claims that they have insufficient autonomy to determine their own international collaborations. Universities would satisfy their own ethical duties by ceasing to maintain connections with Israeli institutions that we have shown to actively participate in the illegal occupation of Palestine. As students and staff at Swedish universities—internal to the institutions we criticize here—our own research is put at risk by the ongoing collaborations with complicit institutions. We rely on our universities to make institutional decisions that consider the global impact of research and that actively seek to make academic freedom a global possibility. Currently, our universities are failing us, putting Swedish students and academics at risk of complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity, and ignoring the vast suffering of students and academics in Palestine. Our demand is for Swedish universities to practise their critical autonomy and to engage ethically with the world by establishing collaborations with Palestinian universities and cutting ties with Israeli universities. The IDF is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, slaughtering students, academics, and the general public, while entirely eradicating the educational infrastructure of the region. No academic freedom is possible while these conditions remain. Israeli universities and the Israeli government are reliant on global support for their colonial and genocidal project of occupation and apartheid. As has been historically proven time and time again, the international refusal to accept these conditions as normal has a significant impact on those institutions that actively produce and encourage violent divisions in society. No university can exist in isolation. It is situated in a network of relations and collaborations, and, in order to maintain an ethical practice in the world, it must carefully decide who it validates through the generative network of global research. Israeli university training programs for apartheid and genocide are validated and normalized by international approval and unquestioned collaborations. Swedish universities have the opportunity to take a meaningful stand against the overwhelming destruction and violence that Israeli universities are contributing to. 28 So far, Swedish universities have failed at this task, instead condemning their students and staff, avoiding scrutiny, resorting to simplistic dismissals of legitimate protest, and deferring all critical responsibility to the government. It is not too late to remedy this failure by practising the intellectual autonomy and ethical conduct that universities claim to be constituted and guided by. We demand that Swedish universities assert their autonomy by: 1. ending all formal collaborations with Israeli universities and other complicit institutions, in accordance with the PACBI guidelines; 2. establishing collaborations with Palestinian universities, including providing meaningful support to displaced Palestinian academics and students, offering them a place to study and work at Swedish universities. WASSAP, Sweden, August 2024. 29 List of works cited Adalah 2024. “Repression of Palestinian Students in Israeli Universities and Colleges”, 9 May: < https://www.adalah.org/en/content/view/11116>. Adalah Report to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education 2024. “Israeli Academic Institutions Sanction Palestinian Students for Social Media Posts since 7 October, violating their Rights to Free Expression and Education”, 15 February: . Ahlbäck Öberg, Shirin 2023. “Om akademisk frihet”, SULF: < https://sulf.se/rapport/nysulf-skrift-om-akademisk-frihet/>. Al-Haq 2022. “Al-Haq Launches Landmark Palestinian Coalition Report: ‘Israeli Apartheid: Tool of Zionist Settler Colonialism”, 29 November: . Amnesty International 2022. “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians”, 1 February: < Amnesty International 2022>. B’Tselem no date. “Conquer and Divide”: . Bertov, Omer 2024. “As a former IDF soldier and historian of genocide, I was deeply disturbed by my recent visit to Israel”, The Guardian, 13 August: . Butler, Judith 2024. “After Pantin”, Verso Blog, 14 March: Butler, Judith 2023. “Palestinian Lives Matter Too: Jewish Scholar Judith Butler Condemns Israel’s ‘Genocide’ in Gaza”, Democracy Now, 26 October: . BRISMIS 2023. “Letter to David Yellin College Regarding Suspension of Professor Nurit Peled Elhanan”: . Eghbariah, Rabea 2024. “Toward Nakba as a Legal Concept.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 124, no. 5. Available at: <.https://columbialawreview.org/content/toward-nakba-asa-legal-concept/>. Ekberg, Tim 2024. “Den akademiska friheten: Ett bräckligt fundament för universitet och högskolor behöver förstärkas”. SUHF Report. Solna: SUHF. Euro-Med Monitor 2024. “Report: Israel continues to violate ICJ ruling on Gaza”, 25 March: Faculty of Engineering Bar-Ilan University 2023a. “The Faculty Of Engineering’s Annual Hackathon is Almost Here,”https://engineering.biu.ac.il/en/node/11822 Faculty of Engineering Bar-Ilan University 2023b. “Sign Up for the Biothon, the Biotech Hackathon,” https://engineering.biu.ac.il/en/node/11810 Fields, Gary 2020. “Lockdown: Gaza Through a Camera Lens and Historical Mirror”. Journal of Palestine Studies 49, no. 3: 41–69. Gordon, Neve and Penny Green 2024. “Israel’s Universities: The Crackdown”, New York Review of Books, 5 June: . Haugbølle, Sune 2024. “Global Palestine Solidarity and the Jewish Question”, Historical Materialism 32, no. 1: 267–295. Heights: University of Haifa Magazine 2018. “University of Haifa to Lead Israel’s Military Colleges”: < https://magazine.haifa.ac.il/index.php/winter-2018/113-university-ofhaifa-to-lead-israel4>. HUJI 2023 “Support & Assistance during Operation Iron Swords”, 17 October: International Court of Justice 2024. “Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024”, documented number 186-20240719-SUM-01-00-EN (summary): . International Criminal Court 2024. “Statement of ICC Prosecutor Karim A.A. Khan KC: Applications for arrest warrants in the situation in the State of Palestine”, 20 May: . Khatib, Rasha 2024. “Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential”, The Lancet, Vol. 404: 10449, 237–238. Loewenstein, Antony 2023. The Palestinian Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation around the World. London: Verso, 2023. Makdisi, Ussama 2024. “Overwriting Palestine”, Sidecar (New Left Review), 6 August: . Memo: Middle East Monitor 2014. “Haifa University prevents Nakba commemoration”, 15 may: . Nenasheva. L. (2024, 15 may). Propalestinska studenter tältar utanför Göteborgs universitet. SVT Nyheter New Arab 2023. “Israel’s Haifa University expels five Palestinian students over social media posts”, The New Arab, 10 October: . Odeh, Shahrazad 2024. “The orchestrated persecution of Nadera ShalhoubKevorkian”, +972 Magazine, 30 April: . OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) 2024. “UN experts deeply concerned over ‘scholasticide’ in Gaza”, 18 April: . PACBI no date: . Persson, Mats. “Gazaprotesterna har gått över gränsen.” Aftonbladet, 29 May 2024, https://www.aftonbladet.se/debatt/a/pPAO41/mats-persson-gazaprotesterna-hargatt-over-gransen. UN (United Nations) 2022. “Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, tantamount to ‘settler-colonialism’: UN expert”, 27 October: . Quigley, John 2007. “Security Council Resolution 242 and the Right of Repatriation. Journal of Palestine Studies”, 37(1), 49–61. Rapoport, Meron 2023. “‘It’ll turn campus into an army base’: Tel Aviv University to host soldiers’ program”, 4 October: . Riemer, Nick 2023. Boycott Theory and the Struggle for Palestine: Universities, Intellectualism and Liberation. London: Rowman & Littlefield. RIksdag 2024. “Samarbeten med israeliska lärosäten”, 1 March: . Rogers, Paul 2023. “Israel’s use of disproportionate force is a long-established tactic – with a clear aim”, 5 December: Scholars at Risk 2023. “Academic Freedom and Its Protection Under International Law”, 23 October: . Sfard, Michael 2023. “Israel Is Silencing Internal Critics”, New York Times, 2 November: . Stop Wapenhandel, The Rights Forum, and European Legal Support Center, “What ties do Dutch universities have to Israel?”, available online: . Swedish Association of Higher Education Institutions (SUHF). Ställningstagande om akademisk frihet och autonomi[Position on Academic Freedom and Autonomy]. 31 Adopted by SUHF, March 2024. Available at: https://suhf.se/app/uploads/2024/05/ Stallningstagande-om-akademisk-frihet-och-autonomi-Antaget-av-SUHFmars-2024.pdf SUHF, Global Responsible Engagement: Checklist, 2023, available online: https://suhf. se/app/uploads/2023/04/SUHF-Checklist-Global-Responsible-Engagement-REC.- 2023-4-230411-REVISED.pdf Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ). Akademisk frihet i Sverige [Academic Freedom in Sweden]. Report, May 2024. Available at: https://www.uka.se/ download/18.427c7de418f38533f7357/1715751054520/Akademisk%20 frihet%20i%20Sverige.pdf TT, “Ministern om Gazaprotesterna: ‘Borde skämmas.'” Göteborgs-Posten, 3 May 2024, https://www.gp.se/nyheter/sverige/ministern-om-gazaprotesterna-borde-skammas. fa8c43ce-f78b-5d0d-a2b6-6daf4b928775. United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 181 (II). Future government of Palestine. A/RES/181(II), 29 November 1947. Available at: https://www.un.org/unispal/ document/auto-insert-181367/ United Nations General Assembly. RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL RELATING TO THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE, 1947-1975, A/AC.183/L.2, 1976 United Nations General Assembly. RESOLUTIONS AND DECISONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL RELATING TO THE QUESTION OF PALESTINE 1976-1979, A/AC. 183/L. 2/Add. 1, 1980 United Nations General Assembly. Palestine question/Mideast situation – Compilation of resolutions and decisions adopted in 2002 (English and French), A/AC.183/L.2/ Add.24, 2002 United Nations General Assembly. Palestine question/Mideast situation – Compilation of resolutions and decisions adopted in 2004 (English and French), A/AC.183/L.2/ Add.26, 2004 United Nations General Assembly. Compilation of Resolutions and Decisions Adopted in 2017 (English and French) – DPR publication – A/AC.183/L.2/Add.39, 2017 United Nations General Assembly. Compilation of UN Resolutions and Decisions on Question of Palestine Adopted in 2023 – DPR publication (A/AC.183/L.2/Add.45). February 2024 United Nations Security Council. Resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967. S/ RES/242 (1967), 22 November 1967. Available at: https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/SCRes242%281967%29.pdf University of Gothenburg. Brev till regeringen med anledning av förkortad mandatperiod för styrelserna [Letter to the Government Regarding the Shortened Mandate Period for Boards]. 2023. Available at: https://www.gu.se/nyheter/brev-tillregeringen-med-anledning-av-forkortad-mandatperiod-for-styrelserna Weizman, Eyal 2017. The Least of All Possible Evils: A Short History of Humanitarian Violence. London: Verso. Wind, Maya 2024. Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom. London: Verso. Appendix See the following documents for full reports and data regarding our communications with universities and the Minstry of Education. Data: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B70hKXltLvhNoMQX4Mx1PF3QcmG1Iu0/edit#heading=h.9lyjuhc5nore
PhDs in Sweden for Palestine has been established by PhDs in Sweden in order to organise and show solidarity with Palestine. The group brings together scholars from diverse disciplines and universities to form a network to organise nationwide action and coordinate locally. The group is open to students and people not affiliated with Swedish universities. We declare our solidarity with the people of Palestine – of Gaza, the West Bank, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and globally – and all those who oppose the settler colonialism and dispossession by the Israeli State and its allies. We call for an immediate ceasefire and the end to the genocide and ethnic cleansing.
I. We are united in a shared understanding that:
A. The current siege of Gaza and the unfolding massacre are a continuation of the Nakba and 75 years of Israeli occupation and apartheid, which has been historically supported by British settler colonialism and now by American imperial interests.
Palestinians are being denied their right to their land, shelter, and safety.
B. The ongoing genocide in Palestine unifies the struggle against imperialism, settler colonialism and dispossession globally.
C. We mourn the loss of all victims without any caveats.
D. We recognise the right of Palestinians to resist the Israeli occupation and settler colonization, which is funded financially and militarily by Western imperial actors. While Israel is quick to label any form of Palestinian resistance as an “act of terrorism” and/or anti-semitic, we recognize that the struggle for self determination, sovereignty, and the defense of human dignity is in fact a struggle for liberation. This is in accordance with international lawthat affirms “the legitimacy of the struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity, and liberation from foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle” (Additional Protocol I, §1(4), Geneva Conventions, 1977; UNGA Resolution 37/43, 1982).
E. While we highlight the protection of people from genocide as an imperative enshrined in international law, we equally recognise that legal frameworks have been co-opted and largely serve imperial interests or the “axis of genocide,” where countries like the U.S. have historically threatened to occupy the Hague if their military personnel were to be tried.
F. An immediate ceasefire is necessary to stop the genocide and ethnic cleansing. It is the minimal first step towards durable peace and reconciliation that must include the end of apartheid and occupation. Simultaneously, we call for an active divestment from the Israeli, American, and British war machine on the part of our institutions.
G. While we recognize that universities have largely been captured by state imperatives and private actors, we would like to remind our institutions of their historical commitment to academic freedom and how it is critical at this juncture.
H. We condemn all forms of racism, including antisemitism and islamophobia.
II. The goals of our group are:
A. Providing space for opposition to and knowledge production on the unfolding genocide, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid in Palestine.
B. Centering Palestinian voices through actively working on making space for Palestinian narratives and inviting Palestinian scholars.
C. Raising consciousness on the historical and current conditions of the occupation of
Palestine and the anticolonial struggle of the Palestinian people.
D. Working with and supporting other Palestinian solidarity groups from our position in academia.
E. Opposing the systemic censoring and underfunding of pro-Palestine groups both in academia and in general.
F. Demanding an appropriate response from Swedish universities and other higher education institutions regarding the ongoing genocide, ethnic cleansing, and occupation of Palestine.
III. Swedish universities should respond by:
A. Calling for an immediate ceasefire, for the implementation of international law, and the entrance of life-sustaining aid into Gaza.
B. Reviewing and ending all collaboration with academic institutions that are complicit in the occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians with the goal of ensuring that these institutions, and by extension Swedish universities, are not complicit in breaches of international law.
C. Providing support for all students and staff at Swedish universities that are affected by the genocide.
D. Extending solidarity and practical support to the affected academics and students in
Palestine.
E. In accordance with the universities’ commitment to democratic values and academic freedom, providing the space and resources for the production of critical knowledge on settler colonialism, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.
F. Take concrete steps in the struggle against antisemitism, islamophobia, and other forms of discrimination fueled by the current crisis.
Notes
This statement was inspired by statements put forth by the International Peoples’ Assemblyand the Uppsala Academics for Palestine.
Please treat this statement as organic; it will likely change and grow as our network continues its efforts. This statement was last updated on February 23, 2024.
In mid-January, IAM reported about an upcoming conference titled “Non-Zionist Jewish Traditions,” hosted by Brown University’s Cogut Institute for the Humanities and Brown’s Departments of History and Religious Studies. The conference scheduled for early February questioned the “contemporary conflations of Judaism and Zionism” and examined “non-Zionist Jewish traditions throughout history and across different regions.”
On the surface, the conference’s initiative was strictly academic: “contemporary conflations of Judaism and Zionism by exploring a rainbow of non-Zionist Jewish traditions throughout history and across different regions. Speakers at the conference will address the changing relation to Zionism and the State of Israel in various Orthodox communities, in socialist and communist Jewish traditions, in the U.S. and Europe, among Ottoman and Arab Jews critical of the Zionist idea before 1948, among those who refused to immigrate to Israel or who lived there as dissidents, and among disillusioned Zionists in Israel and abroad. Together they will give an account of the spectrum of non-Zionist forms of Jewish thinking, activism, and organizing in their historical, ideological, theological, and theoretical contexts.” However, the real goal of the conference was essentially propagandist, aimed at showing that Zionism was not an essential movement in Jewish history.
Before the conference, the Cogut Institute received over 1,500 emails protesting the event. The main complaint was that the conference was “antisemitic, racist” and that it “erases Zionism from history.” Although many requested that the conference would be canceled, the conference went ahead, albeit with heavy security.
Questioning Zionism’s rights to exist at Brown University is hardly surprising. Brown Divest is a group running campaigns to compel Brown University to divest its endowment from the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” It has been active since 2011.
Moreover, Brown has received money from the Palestinian Territories. This was revealed in a 2023 article by a local news outlet named GoLocalProv, operating in New England. It reviewed federal data on Brown University and found that Brown University received over $11 million of funding from the Palestinian territories, including money for the endowment of the professorship of Beshara Doumani, former President of the Palestinian Bir Zeit University. IAM reported before how Doumani recruited Prof. Ariella Azoulay, an anti-Israel activist and art specialist, to teach at Brown University’s Middle East Center.
Brown University Middle East Studies is a longtime host of anti-Israel activism. So much so that Willis J. Goldsmith, a former Brown University student, launched a blog four years ago titled “Middle East Studies at Brown,” which discusses “Developments on campus related to Middle East Studies.” In one of his latest posts, “Brown Heads Sink Deeper Into The Sand,” he discussed the anti-Zionist Conferences that Adi Ophir hosted.
The Middle East Center excels in the tactic of hiring anti-Israel Israeli activists such as Ariella Azoulay, Adi Ophir, and others. As IAM wrote before, the cadre of radical pro-Palestinain professors in Israel has been successful in parlaying their ideology for cushy jobs in American, British, and other universities. Using neo-Marxist critical jargon, they are rewriting history or imagining life without Zionism and Israel. These tactics have paid off, making Azoulay quite popular, even though her prose is quite convoluted, to say the least.
Last week, VIAD, a Research Centre at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa, hosted an online event, “RADICAL | OTHERS,” in collaboration with Verso Books. It curated a book launch for The Jewelers of the Ummah: A Potential History of the Jewish Muslim World, writtenby أريئيلا أزولاي Ariella Aïsha Azoulay. It aims to “bring Azoulay’s latest book into proximity with other anticolonial thinkers and artmakers.” According to VIAD, Azoulay “argues for the reclamation of indigenous worlds to re-make the world and unlearn imperialism.” VIAD adds that, in 2023, Azoulay received the Infinity Award for Critical Writing, Research and Theory.
In her new book Azoulay wrote, “In 1962 when I was born under the supremacy of the white Christian world, Jewish belonging and tradition could continue within the catastrophic project of the Zionist colony in Palestine, or among disconnected and blank individual citizens naturalized in other imperial countries. Claims to Jewish belonging within the Muslim world are still seen as an interference in the work of global imperial technologies tasked with accelerating their disappearance: most of North Africa was already emptied of its Jews, and the European imperial powers mandated the Zionists establish a nation-state for the ‘Jewish people’ in Palestine. That Jews had been part of the ummah since its very beginning, part of what shaped it and defined Muslims’ commitment to protect other groups, had to be forgotten by Jews and Muslims so that the Judeo-Christian tradition could emerge as reality rather than invention and be reflected in the global geographical imagination.”
These are the people the Middle East Center hires and these are the conferences they host.
IAM has repeatedly stated that there is no problem hosting controversial topics on campus as long as balanced views are also presented. Brown University repeatedly failed to do so.
This week, the Cogut Institute for the Humanities hosted a two-day academic conference discussing the prevalence of non-Zionist Jewish traditions throughout history.
The Non-Zionist Jewish Traditions Conference, held between Feb. 3 and 4, included a variety of panels and roundtables featuring 21 speakers and moderators from Brown, Princeton, Cornell and other universities. The conference aimed to address the evolving relationship that Zionism and the State of Israel have with different Orthodox communities and various ideological traditions.
Prior to the conference, the Cogut Institute received over 1,500 emails in protest of the event, according to conference organizers.
The main complaint voiced in the emails sent to the Cogut Institute was that the conference was “antisemitic, racist” and that it “erases Zionism from history,” said Visiting Professor of Humanities and Middle East Studies Adi Ophir, a conference organizer.
While the emails’ origins are unclear, some were sent by the Rhode Island Coalition for Israel, according to Ken Schneider, a RICI board member. RICI also protested outside of Andrews House on both days of the event.
Ophir noted that events hosted at Andrews House typically don’t feature any security. But in response to the emails, this event had a “heavy” security presence, Ophir said.
The email campaign prompted engagement from the University’s Office of Event Strategy and Management, the University’s Multi-Partial Team and the Department of Public Safety to ensure that the conference would “proceed smoothly,” Cogut Institute Director Amanda Anderson, a professor of English and humanities, wrote in an email to The Herald. The new security protocol included three DPS staff, two external security guards and one additional event staff.
On the first day of the conference, eight protestors from RICI stood outside the building. The second day saw three protestors, including Schneider. RICI members held up signs that read, “Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism,” “We stand with Israel” and “Free Hugs” while playing Jewish folk songs.
Schneider said that RICI “tried very hard” to get the conference canceled.
On Monday, DPS asked the protestors to move across the street because they were on “Brown’s property,” according to Schneider. On Tuesday, a DPS officer approached the protestors and asked them to lower the volume of their music.
But the protestors “didn’t bother us,” Ophir said. “They bothered other classes.”
“In a certain sense, the resistance is a sign that (the conference) is actually needed,” said Shaul Magid, a visiting professor at Harvard who was a member of the conference convening committee.
“A lot of people felt that we needed to convene and think of alternatives to the reality we live in,” Magid added.“There are non-Zionist traditions within the Jewish tradition that have somehow been marginalized, erased and it’s worth it to rethink again about what those are.”
The event was co-sponsored by the Department of History and the Department of Religious Studies and convened by Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies Omer Bartov, Professor of European History Professor Holly Case and Professor of Comparative Literature Peter Szendy, as well as Ophir and Magid.
Last February, Ophir attended a speaker event hosted by Jonathan Greenblatt, where some students walked out in protest. Ophir recalled that Greenblatt started his lecture by saying, “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism.” Ophir began planning the conference soon after.
The conference began with a panel held by Magid, Bartov and Sarah Hammerschlag, a religion and literature professor at the University of Chicago. Harry Merritt MA’14 PhD ’20, who spoke at a later panel, found the introduction “thought-provoking.”
“As a Brown alumnus, this interdisciplinary conference felt like an exemplary manifestation of the Cogut Center’s mission,” Merritt said. “The tendency by this conference’s detractors to conflate non-Zionism with anti-Zionism and anti-Zionism with antisemitism only points to the urgent need to define and analyze these terms theoretically and to contextualize them historically.”
Prior to the conference, Hammerschlag received an email which read, “Why do you hate Jews?” While many of Hammerschlag’s colleagues received similar emails, the majority of emails sent in protest were sent to the Cogut Institute.
The event was initially advertised to the public via Events@Brown and various on-campus email publications. The Cogut Institute did not advertise the event on social media.
But “word-of-mouth was far-reaching,” Anderson said. Spots filled up ten days before the event, shortly after the promotion began.
Jeremy Gold ’26 came to the event after hearing about the conference from friends.
“I’ve been thinking a lot about my relationship with Zionism and the State of Israel,” Gold said. He added that non-Zionist traditions in history are very “polarizing” and “hard to talk about.”
Eitan Zemel ’26, another attendee, said that his “main takeaway is that there are a lot more histories to learn, and there are so many different frameworks for understanding the political situation in the land as well as the history of divergent Jewish ideologies.”
David Litman, a conference attendee and a Senior Analyst for the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis, thought the conference lacked Zionist representation. He continued that non-Zionist teachings are becoming increasingly popular in academia, a trend he says is not reflected in “mainstream Judaism.”
The events of the conference made two things “very clear,” Ophir concluded in his closing statement: “This conversation must continue and must expand.”
Hadley Carr
Hadley Carr is a university news editor at The Herald, covering academics & advising and student government.
Brown President Christina Paxon was reportedly booed at the vigil on Monday for Palestinian student Hisham Awartani who was shot over the weekend.
Brown University has received millions in funding from sources in “Palestinian Territories,” according to a review of federal data by GoLocal.
The United States Department of Education “requires institutions of higher education that receive Federal financial assistance to disclose semiannually to the U.S. Department of Education any gifts received from and contracts with a foreign source that, alone or combined, are valued at $250,000 or more in a calendar year.”
According to the “College Foreign Gift and Contract Report” — Brown University has received $11,692,251 from sources in “Palestinian Territories” over an indeterminate amount of time.
Federal records show that the biggest gifts include separate $2,000,000 donations — including one to “support an assistant professorship at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, with preference for Security Studies.”
In addition, records show two entries from “Palestinian Territories” of $643,000 which state “the purpose of the Fund is to provide support for a Professorship in Palestinian Studies within Middle East Studies.”
The professor who those gifts supported is Beshara B Doumani, the Mahmoud Darwish Professor of Palestinian Studies at Brown. He also simultaneously has served as the President of Birzeit University from 2021 to 2023, located in the Palestinian West Bank territory. His Brown University bio does not mention his role heading the Palestinian University, but his Birzeit bio features his role at Brown.
When Doumani was named to the Presidency at Birzeit, the American conservation publication the American Spectator wrote, “Palestine’s ‘Terrorist University’ Picks Ivy League Prof as New President.”
The Birzeit University was raided in September of 2023, and eight students were arrested by Israeli Defense Forces for suspected ties to a terror plot.
The Times of Israel reported in September, “The students, from Birzeit University near Ramallah, were nabbed following an investigation into Hamas cells in Palestinian educational institutions, the Israel Defense Forces and Shin Bet said. They were allegedly recruited by Hamas operatives in Gaza, receiving weaponry intended for the attack.”
Doumani was the featured speaker at the Brown University vigil on Tuesday — an event closed to the press.
According to the federal database, Brown reported gifts and contracts from countries including England, Spain, Thailand, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and more.
It did not report any donations from Israel to Brown.
Foreign Funding — and Campus Activities — in Focus
In total, Brown reported 484 entries for foreign gifts, restricted gifts, and contracts in the federal database.
The most recent dated entries were from June of 2023; the earliest dated entry was 2015.
There were dozens of entries with no dates, however, which included the twenty contributions from “Palestinian Territories.”
According to the entries, none of the funding was from the Palestinian government.
SLIDES: See Reported Funding From “Palestinian Territories” to Brown University BELOW
“What are Arab donors to universities buying for $10 billion?” wrote Mitchell Bard in the Jewish News Syndicate in June 2023.
“Out of more than 10,000 donations, only three were identified with a political purpose—two $643,000 contributions to Brown in 2020 from a giftor in ‘The State of Palestine’ to provide support for a professorship in Palestinian Studies within Middle East Studies and one for $67,969 for the same purpose from the UAE,” wrote Bard.
“The report did not identify the donors, but an official from Brown acknowledged the Palestinian contributor was the Munib and Angela Masri Foundation. Beshara Doumani, a supporter of the anti-Semitic BDS campaign, was named the first occupant of the position. Doumani has since also become the president of Birzeit University, which is known for the activism of students associated with terror groups such as Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP),” he continued.
Latest at Brown
At the November 8, 2023 rally at Brown, more than a hundred protesters turned out — and called the United States and Israel “complicit” in what they allege is genocide in Gaza. The groups have repeatedly called on the university to divest its endowment from Israel.
On Monday, Brown University blocked the press from attending a vigil for Palestinian-American student Hisham Awartani, who was shot along with two other Palestinian students in Vermont over the weekend.
“The vigil is intended as a space where our students, faculty and staff can have the comfort of community with hopes of encouraging healing. It’s considered a private University event for this reason,” said Brown. “Reporters are not permitted to film or conduct interviews on campus.”
Late Monday afternoon, Brown announced that it dropped charges against 20 Brown students arrested for trespassing on November 8.
“Dismissing the charges against the students certainly won’t heal the rising tensions on campus from the ongoing violence in the Middle East – or the hurt and fear from Islamophobia, antisemitism and acts of anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian violence – but perhaps it can help refocus attention on other issues that are important for the Brown community,” reported Brown.
“Section 117 of the Higher Education Act establishes the requirements for universities to disclose foreign gifts and contracts. We adhere to those requirements and submit our disclosures annually. All of that information is accessible publicly on the U.S. Department of Education website. If you look at the entries for Brown, you will see that we have no government funding related to Palestine. We do of course have alumni and donors all over the world, many of whom give Brown in support of our annual fund or other campaigns,” said Brown University Spokesperson Brian Clark in a statement to GoLocal. “
We have a detailed set of policies and practices in place to guide our work with donors, including written gift agreements that formalize all commitments made by both the donor and the university – in no case do we accept gifts that impinge on academic freedom or obligate Brown in any way to act counter to its values,” he added.
This was first published 11/28/23 12:00 PM
________________________________
Related Slideshow: Brown Funding From Palestinian Territories—U.S. Department of Education
The following information on contributions to Brown University was obtained from the “College Foreign Gift and Contract Report” at the U.S. Department of Education in November 2023.
Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) requires institutions of higher education that receive Federal financial assistance to disclose semiannually to the U.S. Department of Education any gifts received from and contracts with a foreign source that, alone or combined, are valued at $250,000 or more in a calendar year. The statute also requires institutions to report information when owned or controlled by a foreign source.
The data reflects foreign gifts and contracts that institutions of higher education reported to the Department through its updated reporting portal, which became available for data entry on June 22, 2020. It therefore displays all foreign gifts and contracts reported between April 6, 2023, and October 13, 2023, no matter when the underlying transaction took place.
Additionally, in accordance with 20 U.S.C. 1011f(e), certain foreign gift and contract information reported to the Department constitute public records – all data, new and historic, is self-reported by institutions.
(1) On February 5, the Brown Daily Herald (“BDH”) reported that Brown’s Cogut Institute for the Humanities’s (“Cogut”) February 3rd and 4th, 21-speaker “academic” conference drew “over 1500” emails complaining that the event was “antisemitic, racist” and that it “erases Zionism from history”. It was perfectly obvious from its published program, attached to my post of January 10, that the Cogut carnival was destined to be all of that and worse.
In covering this circus, the BDH spoke to Brown professor Adi Ophir. Ophir is arguably the leader of the lunatic fringe among Brown faculty when it comes to full-throated support for the martyrdom-seeking Islamic murderers, rapists, and hostage takers of Hamas who perpetrated the October 7, 2023 barbarism in Israel. (He is only “arguably” so because the number of competitors for that position on the Brown faculty is large, and the competition fierce.) Apparently traumatized by the prospect of protesters showing up at the Cogut show, Ophir, according to the BDH, noted that “events hosted at Andrews House typically don’t feature any security”. But, in his view, the Cogut undertaking necessitated a “heavy”security presence.
Cogut Director Amanda Anderson leapt into action. According to the BDH, “the email campaign prompted engagement from the University’s Office of Event Strategy and Management, the University’s Multi-Partial Team [whatever that is] and the Department of Public Safety to ensure that the conference would proceed smoothly”.
Apparently Anderson believed supporters of Israel would conduct themselves like the hundreds of Brown students and faculty who support the terrorists of Hamas. That adolescent crowd wasted countless student and university hours and irreparably torched the university’s reputation beginning on October 8, 2023. They spent months weeping, wailing and whining about divestment, blind to the factual absurdity of their position, and non-existent “Islamophobia” at Brown while taking over buildings and threatening and otherwise terrorizing Jewish students. Anderson must have anticipated a repeat of masked cowards showing up at Andrews House, but this time threatening and terrorizing Muslim students, shouting profanities, banging on cars and pitching tents to spend the night between the first and second half of what could be described as Cogut’s and Brown’s Center for Middle East Studies (“CMES”) anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic Super Bowl. What did happen by way of the much-feared protest by those who believe anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic as many scholars have so persuasively argued? According to the BDH:
“On the first day of the conference, eight protesters from RICI [“Rhode Island Coalition for Israel”] stood outside the building. The second day saw three protesters, including RICI [board member] Schneider. RICI members held up signs that read “anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism,” “We stand with Israel” and “Free Hugs” while playing Jewish folk songs.”
The BDH article concluded by reporting that, to Ophir, “The events of the conference made two things ‘very clear’… This conversation must continue and must expand”. What kind of “conversation” is Ophir talking about? The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (“CAMERA”) reported that, in May, 2021, for example, Ophir:
“Engaged in antisemitic blood libel, Holocaust inversion, and accused Israel of being a “Jewish supremacist” state; glorifed the terrorist organization Hamas; “prayed” for the end of “Jewish supremacy” in Israel; and declared that the American Jewish community is “complicit” in the “colonization” of “Palestine.”. (“There are Jews, including Israeli Jews – how many only God knows – who pray with all their heart for the end of Jewish supremacy in Palestine. I’m speaking as one of them. The last few weeks in Palestine were especially devastating for these Jews. Despair, depression, anxiety, not because of the Hamas rockets – regardless of how frightening they are. Anxiety, because they have found themselves living in the midst of a Jewish mob thirsty for Palestinian blood. A Kristallnacht mob…”) (“Hamas is fighting for the residents of Jerusalem and those who pray in al-Aqsa.”) (“Only God knows how many Jews pray for the end of Jewish supremacy. But in in Palestine, there are certainly too few of them. For them, there is no possible win in sight. The colonization of Palestine, the process of destruction and extraction, go on relentlessly all over the land and the irreversible changes and irredeemable losses are fast and widespread. All this happens with the full support of the former, recent, and current American administration, and with the complicity of much of the American Jewish community. It is the latter that is most painful for a Jew who prays for the end of Jewish supremacy. It is for this reason that the Jewish part of my heart is broken, looking for a new book of lamentation to cry over not the fall of Jerusalem, but its rise to relentless, draconian powers and to wail the total perversion of its soul. We Jews who pray for the end of Jewish supremacy need these lamentations, not only to express our grief, but also to complete the process of parting from Zionism.”)”
It bears repeating that this unhinged, hair-on-fire rant took place two and 1/2 years before October 7, 2023. Ophir claimed to the BDH that he began planning the Cogut show after a February, 2024 appearance at Brown by Anti-Defamation League President Jonathan Greenblatt where Greenblatt said “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism”. Maybe that sequence is true. Odds are, though, that it is not. After all, there can be no doubt that Ophir has been playing the anti-Zionist game for a very, very long time as the CAMERA website and other sites make perfectly clear.
Ophir was of course an active participant in the Cogut show. His speaking topic was “Jewish Anti-Zionism: Reflection on its Context, Meaning and Political Imagination”. Ophir plainly is incapable of rational reflection. But equally plainly his capacity for blinkered, anti-intellectual, illiberal political imagination knows no bounds.
Another performance artist who participated in Cogut’s faux academic exercise was Brown professor Ariella Azoulay. Azoulay first came to public prominence, and well-deserved derision, following her appearance at Cornell in 2020. There she showed photos of the founders of the Jewish state of Israel, but with their faces blacked out. Her explanation? “I can’t bear to look at them.” If she had said anything in my sixth grade social studies class as childish as what she said at Cornell, my teacher would have made her stand in the corner. Azoulay is pawned off as an “educator” at Brown. But neither she nor Ophir is an educator; both are, however, propagandists and embarrassments to the university.
The February 5 BDH article noted that David Litman of CAMERA “thought that conference lacked Zionist representation. He continued that non-Zionist teachings are becoming increasingly popular in academia, a trend he says is not reflected in mainstream Judaism”. Litman is, of course, correct.
At Brown, the Zionist perspective is occasionally presented, but almost always when Brown is pressured to do so, and never on a panel or program with Ophir or Azoulay or any of their ilk. Ophir, Azoulay and the other anti-Semitic “anti-Zionists” are free to ramble on without regard to facts, law, judgment or common sense. But to let them get away with it without ever being challenged is shameful, especially by a university that was once a respected and proud liberal institution.
In a January, 2020 article in The Algemeiner, republished by Campus Watch, Tehilla Katz commented on Azoulay’s pathetically juvenile Cornell comments. Katz concisely and perfectly summarized the problem at that conference, and at Brown now for many years: “Their fear of engaging in dialogue and refusal to hear another side is the antithesis of academia, and a clear example of censorship.” Nothing could be more obvious. But nobody at Brown has the backbone, or is principled enough, to recognize and state the obvious. This includes, sadly, nobody in Brown’s Judaic Studies Department.
(Notably, Azoulay’s Wikipedia entry lists her “partner” as Adi Ophir. All couples argue from time to time. One can imagine Ophir and Azoulay arguing over which of the two hates Jews and Israel – or perhaps themselves – more. Maybe someone will write a comedy script for Netflix based on these two. But what is not at all funny is that some combination of tuition dollars, financial support from Brown graduates and others and U.S. taxpayers are funding this dynamic duo as well as Cogut and CMES. That is unconscionable.)
Given the foregoing, and what follows, it bears noting that on January 29, the President signed an Executive Order that states, in part:
“It shall be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.”
Ophir, Azoulay, Cogut, CMES and Brown would be well advised to give careful thought to the meaning, and potential application, of those words before, e.g., caving to Ophir’s desire to continue and expand the “conversation” of February 3rd and 4th or otherwise following the path laid out by Brown professor Beshara Doumani. See, e.g., Anti-Israel Extremism and Corrupt Scholarship at Brown University: How Middle East and Palestinian Studies Fuel Antisemitism (CAMERA, December, 2023). Reflexively trotting out old chestnuts misrepresenting the meaning of academic freedom in defense, as most certainly will be the case if Brown ever acknowledges the CAMERA reports, won’t wash.
Relatedly, the BDH reported on February 6 that on February 3, “the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights notified the University that they will be investigating the Warren Alpert Medical School for alleged antisemitic incidents that occurred during its May 2024 commencement ceremony.” Brown spokesperson Brian Clark trotted out the university’s oft-used, tired boilerplate response, including nonsensically implying an equivalence, and an equivalent concern, over both antisemitism and Islamophobia at Brown. It is an article of faith at Brown that anti-Semitism cannot be mentioned without taking a knee to moan about imagined Islamophobia on campus. Actual facts? Irrelevant.
And on February 7, the BDH reported that Brown professor of Africana and American Studies Matthew Guterl was named to head the university’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion, formerly Brown’s Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity. According to Brown President Paxson, the newly titled department will “focus on sustaining a thriving, diverse community where all community members feel welcome”. Guterl is a great choice to head a department whose continued existence is questionable. Brown’s Jewish students, and all in the Brown community who support Israel and do not support Hamas, will surely “feel welcome” and take comfort from the fact that on or about November 2, 2023 – less than a month after October 7 – Guterl signed a petition demanding a ceasefire in the Hamas-initiated war against Israel. The first sentence of that petition read “We, the undersigned faculty at Brown University, are deeply aggrieved by the catastrophic events unfolding in Israel and Palestine, especially but not limited to Gaza.” The rest of the petition is empty political grandstanding without regard to actual facts, much less rational analysis.
At some point heads will have to come out of the sand at Brown. That said, there is no evidence that that will soon take place.
(2) On January 8, 2025, CAMERA published its fourth report on Brown: “Ivy League Propaganda: How Brown University Radicalized Students After October 7”. This lengthy, heavily footnoted document was a follow up to two of its previous and equally lengthy and heavily documented reports published in December, 2023 – “Anti-Israel Extremism and Corrupt Scholarship at Brown University: How Middle East and Palestinian Studies Fuel Antisemitism” and “Brown University’s Choices Curriculum: Platform for Anti-Zionist Narrative”. The latter described the Brown History Department’s effort to indoctrinate K-12 students in anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic bias. On January 25, 2024, CAMERA published “Brown University’s Middle East Studies Faculty: Profiles in Extremist Anti-Israel Bias”. All can be found by searching Brown University on the CAMERA website: camera.org. Brown’s response? None. Moreover, not once has any of the intrepid “journalists” of the BDH dared mention the CAMERA studies.
(3) Given the cavalier, but demonstrably incorrect and dangerous usage by Brown faculty and students of terms like “genocide” and “apartheid”, last May I wrote Brown professor Wendy Schiller, interim director of Brown’s Watson Institute, suggesting that Watson/CMES sponsor Eli Rosenbaum as an outside speaker. I wrote Schiller again on January 22, this time asking that Samuel Estreicher be invited as a Watson/CMES-sponsored speaker.
Rosenbaum, a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania (B.S. and MBA) and Harvard Law School, devoted 40 years to the investigation and prosecution of Nazi and other war criminals and human rights violators on behalf of the U.S. government. He led the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Special Investigations from 1995-2010. He ultimately was named Director of Human Rights Enforcement Strategy and Policy at the Justice Department; in June of 2022 he was appointed by then Attorney General Garland to serve as Counselor for War Crimes Accountability and to investigate possible war crimes committed by the Russians in Ukraine. He has written and spoken extensively on the laws of war including as to why, as a matter of fact and law, Israel has not committed genocide in Gaza.
Estreicher is the Dwight D. Opperman Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law. He received his undergraduate degree from Columbia, a masters degree from Cornell and his law degree from Columbia Law School where he was Editor-In-Chief of the Columbia Law Review. He served as a Law Clerk to Judge Leventhal of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. (1975-76) and to Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. of the Supreme Court of the United States (1977-78). He, like Rosenbaum, has written and spoken extensively on the laws of war and genocide – including as to why Israel is not committing genocide in response to Hamas’s terrorism – and the jurisdiction and rulings of the International Court of Justice.
Brown has no problem importing Hamas acolytes from Birzeit University in Israel’s West Bank, aka “Terrorist U”, not just to speak at Brown but, incredibly enough, to “teach” at the university and opine about “genocide”. Brown also has no problem with well-known anti-Semites like U.N. hack Francesca Albanese, condemned as such by the U.S., Germany and France, speaking at Brown to offer, unchallenged, her hopelessly biased views on how Israel has responded to Hamas’ barbarism. But has either Rosenbaum or Estreicher yet been invited to speak at Brown? Of course not. Why would Brown invite speakers who actually know something about, e.g., genocide and apartheid, when students can be fed pro-Hamas/Palestinian propaganda by Brown faculty and outside speakers who haven’t the remotest idea what they’re talking about?
At what point will the Brown administration and the Brown Corporation take their collective heads out of the sand? When will they recognize that, for example, propagandizing is not education and that enabling anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism are completely contrary to what a liberal education is supposed to be?
REMINDER: BOOK LAUNCH Friday, 31 January 11h00 EST, 18h00 SAST Online, via Zoom 🔗 RSVP to link in bio
VIAD’s RADICAL | OTHERS in collaboration with Verso Books, curate a global, online book launch to bring Azoulay’s latest book into proximity with other anticolonial thinkers and artmakers. “The Jewelers of the Ummah: A Potential History of the Jewish Muslim World” by أريئيلا أزولاي Ariella Aïsha Azoulay argues for the reclamation of indigenous worlds to re-make the world and unlearn imperialism.
In 2023, Ariella Aïsha Azoulay received the Infinity Award for Critical Writing, Research and Theory. The International Center of Photography’s Infinity Awards honour outstanding achievements in photography and visual arts to recognize artists working in photojournalism, contemporary photography, new media, and critical writing, research and theory.
📸: This film is by MediaStorm and the video is courtesy of the International Center of Photography.
Ariella Aïsha Azoulay examines the disruption of Jewish Muslim life across North Africa and the Middle East by two colonial projects: French rule in the Maghreb and the Zionist colonization of Palestine.
In her latest work, Ariella Aïsha Azoulay pens open letters to her ancestors — her father, mother, and great-grandmothers, and to her elected kin — Hannah Arendt, Frantz Fanon, Houria Bouteldja, and others. In these letters, she reintroduces Muslim Jews to the violence of colonization and traces anticolonial pathways to rebuild the rich world of the jewelers of the ummah.
In 1962 when I was born under the supremacy of the white Christian world, Jewish belonging and tradition could continue within the catastrophic project of the Zionist colony in Palestine, or among disconnected and blank individual citizens naturalized in other imperial countries. Claims to Jewish belonging within the Muslim world are still seen as an interference in the work of global imperial technologies tasked with accelerating their disappearance: most of North Africa was already emptied of its Jews, and the European imperial powers mandated the Zionists establish a nation-state for the “Jewish people” in Palestine.
That Jews had been part of the ummah since its very beginning, part of what shaped it and defined Muslims’ commitment to protect other groups, had to be forgotten by Jews and Muslims so that the Judeo-Christian tradition could emerge as reality rather than invention and be reflected in the global geographical imagination. Despite the dramatic change, this is never called a “crusade,” but it sought to make Jews foreign to Africa, transfer them elsewhere to serve Western interests, and make them Zionists by fiat.
Objections to this crusade incurred a high risk, for it was (and is) in the interests of those in power to keep the Jews away from the liberatory idea that Muslims and Arabs were never their enemies. To ensure that this idea would stay suppressed, the involvement of non-Jewish European Zionists in devising plans to colonize Palestine with Jews from Europe and to empty Europe of its Jews, including through collaboration with Nazi actors during the war, had to be diminished and construed as a Jewish liberation project.
In this way, the Zionists were tasked by Euro-American powers with conscripting Jews from across the globe as settlers. Jews were trained in the European school of racialized nationalism to become operators of imperialist, colonial, and capitalist technologies—though some were disguised at the time as socialists. Despite the fact that the tiny Zionist movement was unappealing to most Jews worldwide, at the end of WWII the Euro-American new world order included the accelerated colonization of Palestine as yet another “solution” for the Jews. The French colonization of Algeria facilitated the forced inclusion of those Jews from the Jewish Muslim world in re-birthing the Jewish people in Palestine as European colonizers.
The settler-colonial grammar that deracinated Jews from Muslim countries had to adopt was given to me as my “mother tongue.” For years, it forced me to say that though my ancestors were Algerians, I was not. For how could one belong to a world made nonexistent?
To be an Algerian Jew is to revolt. In 1962, with the forced departure of Jews from Algeria, the existence of a Jewish Muslim world turned into history, the stable past that can never re-emerge. To be an Algerian Jew is to resist this idea of history, to rebel against the settler identity that was assigned to me in the Zionist colony where I was born, and to open a door into the precolonial worlds where such identities can be possible again.
To be an Algerian Jew is to reclaim an ancestral world, to free ourselves from the “progress” imperialism forced upon us and from the new identities imperial nation-states imposed in every domain of our life. However, the refusal extends further. To be an Algerian Jew is to repair. It is to refuse to inhabit the “Jewish” identity invented by the secular imperial state, an identity bereft of the rich heritage of nonimperial world building of which it had been a part. To be an Algerian Jew is to inhabit Jewish Muslim conviviality. It is also a commitment to imagining that conviviality’s repair and renewal on a global scale.
To be an Algerian Jew is to acknowledge that I have been inhibited for more than fifty years from saying the obvious: that I’m not a child of empire but the descendent of a world that empire aims to destroy.
The force of this question. “Who am I?”—entangled with “who are we?”—surprised me when it presented itself to me more than a decade ago. It felt as if the weight of an entire world were at stake in the answer. The question imposed itself just after the death of my father, which coincided with my departure from the Zionist colony in Palestine and with my arrival into a Christian world, one where I felt more Jewish than ever.
I felt more Jewish than ever, I came to realize, because I had parted from the “Israeli” identity assigned to me at birth, and once I shed my national (Israeli) identity, I felt myself at once a “Jew” and robbed of being a Jew, a Muslim Jew, whose ancestors had once been part of the ummah. The national identity, I saw, had destroyed and subsumed diverse kinds of Jewish life.
Moreover, in the Euro-American world in which I now live, Jews are understood to have come from Europe, and their history is understood as a European one. I am often marked as a European Jew or Ashkenazi Jew, regardless of the fact that my ancestors are Arab Jews, Berber Jews, Muslim Jews. Simple statements like “I am an Arab Jew” or “I am a Muslim Jew” require long explanations because the concept of a Muslim Jew disturbs the fiction of Jewishness as a primarily European identity. The fiction of Jewishness also obscures the fact that asking diverse Jews to become simply “Jewish” was part of the European “solution” to the “Jewish problem” Europe had created on the continent and in its colonies.
Refusing this fiction is an unpopular thing to do, I have found. I looked for others who were refusing this fiction, so that we might refuse together. Reading the work of Katya Gibel Azoulay, Samira Negrouche, or Hosni Kitouni triggered letters from me about our shared investment in the realities of diverse Jews, those Jews whose experiences and worlds are eclipsed by the fictive construction of a cohesive Jewish people. This fictive border had also separated Muslims and Blacks from Jews.
February 3 – 4, 2025 Andrews House 110, 13 Brown St.
This academic conference sets into question contemporary conflations of Judaism and Zionism by exploring a rainbow of non-Zionist Jewish traditions throughout history and across different regions. Speakers at the conference will address the changing relation to Zionism and the State of Israel in various Orthodox communities, in socialist and communist Jewish traditions, in the U.S. and Europe, among Ottoman and Arab Jews critical of the Zionist idea before 1948, among those who refused to immigrate to Israel or who lived there as dissidents, and among disillusioned Zionists in Israel and abroad. Together they will give an account of the spectrum of non-Zionist forms of Jewish thinking, activism, and organizing in their historical, ideological, theological, and theoretical contexts.
Free and open to the public, but registration is required. Registration for this event is now closed. The event is full to capacity.
For questions or to request special services, accommodations, or assistance, please contact humanities-institute@brown.edu or (401) 863-6070.
The event is cosponsored by the Cogut Institute for the Humanities, the Departments of History and Religious Studies, and the Center for Middle East Studies. It is convened by Omer Bartov, Holly Case, Shaul Magid, Adi M. Ophir, and Peter Szendy.
Speakers and Moderators
Ariella Aïsha Azoulay (Brown University)
Aslı Ü. Bâli (Yale Law School)
Omer Bartov (Brown University)
Orit Bashkin (University of Chicago)
Daniel Boyarin (University of California, Berkeley)
Jonathan Boyarin (Cornell University)
Michelle Campos (Penn State University)
Holly Case (Brown University)
Mari Cohen (Jewish Currents)
Beshara Doumani (Brown University)
Sarah Hammerschlag (University of Chicago)
Jonathan Judaken (Washington University, St. Louis)
Geoffrey Levin (Emory University)
Shaul Magid (Harvard Divinity School)
Harry Merritt (University of Vermont)
David Myers (University of California, Los Angeles)
Adi M. Ophir (Brown University)
Maru Pabón (Brown University)
Michael Steinberg (Brown University)
Peter Szendy (Brown University)
Max Weiss (Princeton University)
Schedule
Monday, February 3
8:30 am – 9:00 amOpening Remarks9:00 am – 10:50 am
Panel: In Europe
Shaul Magid, “Zionism as Assimilation: Aaron Shmuel Tamares on the Hypnosis of Nationalism”
Omer Bartov, “Yankel, Victor, and Manfred: Antisemitism and Zionism Before the Holocaust — Lived Reality and the Literary Imagination”
Sarah Hammerschlag, “The Post-war Irremissibility of Being Jewish: Non-Zionist possibilities beyond Diasporism”
Moderator: Adi M. Ophir
10:50 am – 11:10 amBreak11:10 am – 1:00 pm
Panel: Non-Zionists, Old and New
Harry Merritt, “Jewish Sons of Latvia: Latvian Jews and Non-Zionist National Identity in War and Peace”
Geoffrey Levin, “American Jewish Non-Zionism: A History — and a Future?”
Jonathan Boyarin, “The Making of a Non-Zionist”
Moderator: Omer Bartov
2:30 pm – 4:20 pm
Panel: In the Wake of the Ottoman World
Michelle Campos, “Anti-Zionism in an Ottoman Turkish Key: David Fresko between Empire and Republic.”
Orit Bashkin, “Zionism, Arabism, and MENA Jews, 1846–1956”
Ariella Aïsha Azoulay, “Ima, Why Didn’t You Love Me in Ladino?”
Moderator: Max Weiss
4:20 pm – 4:40 pmBreak4:40 pm – 6:30 pm
Roundtable: On Recently Published Books
Shaul Magid on Jonathan Judaken’s Critical Theories on Anti-Semitism
Daniel Boyarin on Shaul Magid’s The Necessity of Fate
Jonathan Judaken on Daniel Boyarin’s The No-State Solution
Moderator: Peter Szendy
Tuesday, February 4
8:45 am – 10:35 am
Panel: On and Over the Margins
Michael Steinberg, “The Confederative Imagination”
David Myers, “A Taxonomy of Jewish Anti-Zionisms: From the ‘Lost Atlantis’ to the New Jerusalem”
Jonathan Judaken, “Judith Butler, Hannah Arendt, and the Tradition of the Conscious Pariah”
Moderator: Maru Pabón
10:55 am – 12:10 pm
Panel: Disillusioned Zionists
Daniel Boyarin, “Eretz-Yisroel [Is] Wherever You Are: Zionism Against the Jews”
Adi M. Ophir, “Jewish Anti-Zionism: Reflection on Its Context, Meaning, and Political Imagination”
Moderator: Holly Case
1:30 pm – 3:45 pm
Roundtable: Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and the Stakes of the Debate
In November 2024, a group called “Volunteer Middle East Scholars” published an Appeal. It expressed “concern over the worsening Gaza crisis and the escalation of the Israeli war and called for action from the Japanese government and the international community.”
The group stated, “The situation in Gaza, Palestine, is catastrophic. As a result of Israel’s all-out attack and indiscriminate killing of civilians, at least 43,000 people have died since October last year. (According to an estimate published in the British medical journal The Lancet based on data up to June this year, the death toll, including bodies still buried in rubble and related deaths, is more than 180,000.) 90% of the residents have lost their homes. Supplies of food, water, fuel, and medicine have also been cut off, and hunger is spreading. Hospitals, schools, and refugee camps have also been subject to relentless attacks, and currently, particularly in northern Gaza, horrific scenes are emerging, such as the siege, massacre, and forced relocation of residents. Furthermore, the Israeli parliament has passed a law that effectively bans the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which has supported the lives of the Palestinian people in Gaza and elsewhere, and extreme situations are occurring in which the right to life itself is openly denied.”
For the group, “The recognition that this is an unmistakable case of ‘genocide’ (mass annihilation) is spreading, and in response to a lawsuit filed by South Africa and other countries alleging that the situation in Gaza is a violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued provisional measures (orders) in January 2024 calling for the “taking of all measures to prevent genocide.” In response, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution in April of the same year calling for an arms embargo on Israel. Furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank have been under Israeli occupation since 1967, and have continued to control the area for 57 years, ignoring successive UN resolutions calling for Israeli withdrawal. The world is beginning to share the view that the root of the situation is the problem of ‘occupation’.”
They continued, “In parallel with the Gaza crisis, violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has also intensified. In July 2024, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion calling for an end to Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as illegal, and in September of the same year, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution (supported by Japan) calling for an end to the occupation within one year. Although international criticism is growing, Israel continues to slaughter and destroy in Gaza without heeding it, and more recently, it has even shown signs of ‘expanding the front line’ by invading Lebanon again, which it once invaded and occupied parts of, and by provoking and attacking Iran. In particular, in Lebanon, indiscriminate attacks have resulted in many civilians being killed and forced to flee, and there is even a danger that Lebanon will become ‘a second Gaza’ (as expressed by the UN Secretary-General).”
According to the group, “As in the case of Gaza, Israel’s military operations are based on ‘self-defense,’ but these wars, which are being waged under the name of ‘the struggle of civilization against barbarism’ (Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech at the US Congress), can also be said to be an attempt to create a ‘new Middle East’ order in which Israel will bring the entire Middle East under its influence, backed by its powerful military and the support of the United States. If such outrageous and expansionist actions, which use force to invade neighboring countries under the pretext of self-defense and ensuring security, are permitted, the countries surrounding Israel will lose both their sovereignty and peace in the future. The Netanyahu government’s stance of continuing massacres and war in disregard of international law — the same path Japan walked in the 1930s that led to the world war — destroys the very order based on the UN Charter and international law, and ultimately brings not only the Middle East but the entire world to the brink of destruction.”
They argued, “Regarding the situation in Gaza, when citizens, intellectuals, or politicians in the West speak out against the war, they are criticized and attacked as ‘anti-Semitism,’ but as shown by Jewish citizens in the United States and other countries who say, ‘This is not our war,’ and by the fact that there is also a movement of citizens in Israel who criticize the government and call for an end to the war, it is a mistake to equate the Israeli government with the Jews. Rather, we need to be aware of the problematic nature of the label ‘anti-Semitism’ being used as a device to silence international public opinion against the war.”
The group urged the following:
“1. An international arms embargo against Israel. Respect the provisional measures of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the resolutions of the United Nations Human Rights Council and refrain from exporting or providing arms to Israel.
2. Increasing international pressure to give effect to UN General Assembly and UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire, including the UN “Unite for Peace” initiative against Israel’s continued expansion of the war.
3. Implement and expand humanitarian assistance to Gaza as soon as possible. Strengthen international criticism and pressure against the outrageous decision to ban the activities of UNRWA, a UN agency, and demand that it be revoked. Condemn the fact that UN agencies and personnel have been targeted for attack and killing, and that their activities are being hindered.
4. End the Occupation: Increase international pressure to end the Israeli occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and to remove settlements, in accordance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and UN General Assembly resolutions.
5. The international community should clearly support the realization of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and its membership in the United Nations, in order to show the way to a fundamental, peaceful and comprehensive resolution of the issue.
6. Consider imposing sanctions (economic and diplomatic) if Israel does not comply with international demands for abiding by international law, a ceasefire and an end to the occupation.”
In addition, the group requested from their government the following:
“7. The Japanese government should request the above measures 1 to 6 from other foreign governments, especially the US and other governments that continue to provide military aid and weapons to, and support, Israel.
8. Suspension of exchanges and cooperation between defense (military) authorities between Japan and Israel, including cessation of arms procurement from Israel, sharing of military technology, and joint development of weapons.
9. Review economic cooperation with Israel. Do not enter into an economic partnership agreement.
10. Review of diplomatic relations with Israel. The Japanese government has already mentioned the possibility of reconsidering its policy toward Israel if Israel does not comply with its demands for withdrawal from the 1967 occupied territories and respect for the rights of the Palestinian people, but the current situation of Israel’s violations of international law and human rights violations has become far more serious than it was then. The international community bears a grave responsibility for ignoring and condoning the ongoing situations in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, etc.”
The 16 participants behind this call are: Masato Iizuka (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies), Satoshi Ukai (Hitotsubashi University), Akira Usuki (Japan Women’s University), Tetsuya Ohtoshi (Waseda University), Mari Oka (Waseda University), Tadashi Okanouchi (Hosei University), Yoshiko Kurita (Chiba University), Hidemitsu Kuroki (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies), Keiko Sakai (Chiba University), Eiji Nagasawa (University of Tokyo), Misako Nagasawa (writer), Eisuke Naramoto (Hosei University), Shuji Hosaka (Institute of Energy Economics, Japan), Toru Miura (Ochanomizu University), Tomoko Yamagishi (Meiji University), Kaoru Yamamoto (Keio University).
According to the group, a total number of supporters was 1,380, as of December 22, 2024. “Of these, 1,175 individuals can have their names made public, and 205 individuals cannot have their names made public.”
This appeal is the third, the first was published in October 2023, and the second in December 2023.
These scholars are also behind a new Japanese book, Gaza Nakba 2023–2024: Background, Context, Consequences, published by Springer in January 2025. Profs. Hiroyuki Suzuki and Keiko Sakai are the editors.
The Preface, written by the editors in May 2024, states, “Japan voted in favor of Palestine’s full membership in the UN. Despite the government’s passive and somewhat slow reaction to this crisis, NGO activists and academics in Japan were quick to respond—the Middle East Institute of Japan held online workshops on the current situation on October 16 and November 7; the Japan Institute for International Affairs and Japan’s Institute of Energy Economics did so on October 19, as did the Japan International Volunteer Center (JVC) and Human Rights Now on October 20, independently from each other. On October 17, several prominent scholars specializing in the Middle East, including current and former presidents of the Japan Association of Middle East Studies, issued an appeal to stop the War. They urged an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian support for Gaza, and asked ‘the international community, including the Japanese government,’ to commit to ‘the solution of the present crisis by peaceful and political means.’ Their appeal attracted about 5000 supporters by the first half of January 2024.”
The editors of the book, Suzuki and Sakai, held a workshop “Considering the Gaza conflict: What will happen to Israel, Palestine, and the international community?” on November 16 at the University of Tokyo. “The one-day workshop was attended by more than 100 participants in person, and 200 online. A keynote presentation by Suzuki was followed by presentations from the following young scholars: Hiroshi Yasui, Kensuke Yamamoto, and Koji Horinuki, all of whom specialize in Area Studies on the Arab region, with a contribution also from senior scholars in International Relations, namely, Ai Kihara-hunt and Kiichi Fujiwara, Professor Emeritus at the University of Tokyo.”
According to the editors, “NGO activists were also with us, such as Yoshiko Tanaka from Campaign for the Children of Palestine. This workshop was the impetus for the publication of this volume. Kaoru Yamamoto, who played the role of moderator in the workshop, agreed to contribute a chapter on Palestinian hip-hop culture. Yasuyuki Matsunaga joined the discussion from the floor, and added perspectives from Iran and other anti-Israeli networks. Ryoji Tateyama, a leading scholar on Israel/Palestinian conflicts during the past 40 years, kindly accepted our invitation to contribute his paper. From out of Japan, Rawia Altaweel, who has been witnessing the daily escalation of conflicts in Beirut since the conflict occurred, contributed a chapter.”
The book editors stated, “We owe a great deal of acknowledgment to many of our colleagues in Middle East studies, among them Eiji Nagasawa, Professor Emeritus at the University of Tokyo, and Akifumi Ikeda, former president of Toyo Eiwa University, who provided valuable comments and helpful advice on our book project. Support and assistance from scholars of Palestinian issues, such as Aiko Nishikida, Akira Usuki, Eisuke Naramoto, Mouin Rabbani and Ronni Shaked are also gratefully acknowledged, not to mention the scholars in International Relations such as AtsushiIshida, Larbi Sadiki,and Layla Saleh, as well as historians such as Hidemitsu Kurokiand Ussama Makdisi. Our work was supported not only by academic scholars but also by humanitarian aid workers: Mai Namiki, former staff member of JVC Palestine, cooperated with us and worked very hard to make a strong appeal to the Japanese government to support Gaza. Lastly, but not the least, a big, special thanks goes to Ms. Juno Kawakami, a senior editor of Springer, who encouraged us to edit this volume. Without her constant support, it would not have been possible to publish this book within less than a year after the conflict occurred. We also owe financial and logistic support to JSPS Kakenhi Kiban A Project and the University of Tokyo Centre for Middle Eastern Studies.”
The book editors added, “At this last moment of editing this volume (May 23, 2024), the latest mediation efforts have failed due to Israel’s refusal of a ceasefire, and Israel has further escalated military attacks on Rafah, the last refuge of the people of Gaza. As the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People held a commemorative Panel Discussion under the title of “1948-2024: The Ongoing Palestinian Nakba” on May 17, it is now widely recognized that the Nakba, the expulsion and annihilation of the Palestinians from the land of Palestine in 1948, has not yet been completed, but continues and is increasing in cruelty till this moment. The foreseeable future is very bleak; the only hope is to believe that after such serious destruction fundamental reform will come and, with it, a genuine and comprehensive transformation of the international order.”
Not surprisingly, the anti-Israel History Professor Juan Cole endorsed the book. “This book is essential for anyone who wants a fresh and expert consideration of the Israel-Palestine-Gaza issue, which avoids the often-parochial stereotypes that attend it in the West, and which views it through a global lens.”
These anti-Israel sentiments in Japan are worrisome. The group of Japanese Middle East scholars allowed Palestinian and Iranian propaganda to infiltrate their field without providing a balanced view. They even received a government grant to publish the book. While anti-Israel activism in Western academic circles has recently received heightened scrutiny, the role of the Middle East Study Accusation (MESA) and allied groups in mobilizing anti-Israel non-Western scholars has been overlooked.
The Japanese scholars do not mention Hamas‘s heinous attack on Israeli citizens, including murder, rape, and hostage-taking. The scholars have nothing to say about Hamas’s radical embedding within the civilian population, including hospitals, mosques, schools, and other public spaces, turning non-combatants into human shields. Embedding is forbidden by international humanitarian law, something that the Japanese scholars chose to ignore.
Concerned about the situation in Gaza and calling for an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian assistance
Appeal from Middle Eastern researchers
Statement expressing concern over the worsening Gaza crisis and the escalation of the Israeli war, and calling for action from the Japanese government and the international community ( third report)
The situation in Gaza, Palestine, is catastrophic. As a result of Israel’s all-out attack and indiscriminate killing of civilians, at least 43,000 people have died since October last year. (According to an estimate published in the British medical journal The Lancet based on data up to June this year, the death toll, including bodies still buried in rubble and related deaths, is more than 180,000.) 90% of the residents have lost their homes. Supplies of food, water, fuel, and medicine have also been cut off, and hunger is spreading. Hospitals, schools, and refugee camps have also been subject to relentless attacks, and currently, particularly in northern Gaza, horrific scenes are emerging, such as the siege, massacre, and forced relocation of residents. Furthermore, the Israeli parliament has passed a law that effectively bans the activities of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which has supported the lives of the Palestinian people in Gaza and elsewhere, and extreme situations are occurring in which the right to life itself is openly denied.
The recognition that this is an unmistakable case of “genocide” (mass annihilation) is spreading, and in response to a lawsuit filed by South Africa and other countries alleging that the situation in Gaza is a violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued provisional measures (orders) in January 2024 calling for the “taking of all measures to prevent genocide.” In response, the UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution in April of the same year calling for an arms embargo on Israel.
Furthermore, Gaza and the West Bank have been under Israeli occupation since 1967, and have continued to control the area for 57 years, ignoring successive UN resolutions calling for Israeli withdrawal. The world is beginning to share the view that the root of the situation is the problem of “occupation.” In parallel with the Gaza crisis, violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has also intensified. In July 2024, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion calling for an end to Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem as illegal, and in September of the same year, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution (supported by Japan) calling for an end to the occupation within one year.
Although international criticism is growing, Israel continues to slaughter and destroy in Gaza without heeding it, and more recently, it has even shown signs of “expanding the front line” by invading Lebanon again, which it once invaded and occupied parts of, and by provoking and attacking Iran. In particular, in Lebanon, indiscriminate attacks have resulted in many civilians being killed and forced to flee, and there is even a danger that Lebanon will become “a second Gaza” (as expressed by the UN Secretary-General). As in the case of Gaza, Israel’s military operations are based on “self-defense,” but these wars, which are being waged under the name of “the struggle of civilization against barbarism” (Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech at the US Congress), can also be said to be an attempt to create a “new Middle East” order in which Israel will bring the entire Middle East under its influence, backed by its powerful military and the support of the United States. If such outrageous and expansionist actions, which use force to invade neighboring countries under the pretext of self-defense and ensuring security, are permitted, the countries surrounding Israel will lose both their sovereignty and peace in the future. The Netanyahu government’s stance of continuing massacres and war in disregard of international law — the same path Japan walked in the 1930s that led to the world war — destroys the very order based on the UN Charter and international law, and ultimately brings not only the Middle East but the entire world to the brink of destruction.
Regarding the situation in Gaza, when citizens, intellectuals, or politicians in the West speak out against the war, they are criticized and attacked as “anti-Semitism (= anti-Semitism),” but as shown by Jewish citizens in the United States and other countries who say, “This is not our war,” and by the fact that there is also a movement of citizens in Israel who criticize the government and call for an end to the war, it is a mistake to equate the Israeli government with the Jews. Rather, we need to be aware of the problematic nature of the label “anti-Semitism” being used as a device to silence international public opinion against the war.
Since the outbreak of the crisis in October of last year, we, a group of Middle East researchers, have already issued appeals for an immediate ceasefire, release of hostages, relief for Gaza, and compliance with international law, and have made recommendations for a peaceful resolution to the problem. However, a year has passed and the situation has become even more serious. With the war now spreading across the entire Middle East, it is now urgent for the international community to take determined action to stop the killing and war, and we believe that Japan itself must play its role in this process. Therefore, we once again make the following appeals.
1. An international arms embargo against Israel. Respect the provisional measures of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the resolutions of the United Nations Human Rights Council and refrain from exporting or providing arms to Israel.
2. Increasing international pressure to give effect to UN General Assembly and UN Security Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire, including the UN “Unite for Peace” initiative against Israel’s continued expansion of the war.
3. Implement and expand humanitarian assistance to Gaza as soon as possible. Strengthen international criticism and pressure against the outrageous decision to ban the activities of UNRWA, a UN agency, and demand that it be revoked. Condemn the fact that UN agencies and personnel have been targeted for attack and killing, and that their activities are being hindered.
4. End the Occupation: Increase international pressure to end the Israeli occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem and to remove settlements, in accordance with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and UN General Assembly resolutions.
5. The international community should clearly support the realization of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and its membership in the United Nations, in order to show the way to a fundamental, peaceful and comprehensive resolution of the issue.
6. Consider imposing sanctions (economic and diplomatic) if Israel does not comply with international demands for abiding by international law, a ceasefire and an end to the occupation.
Additionally, we request the following, in particular, from the Government of Japan:
7. The Japanese government should request the above measures 1 to 6 from other foreign governments, especially the US and other governments that continue to provide military aid and weapons to, and support, Israel.
8. Suspension of exchanges and cooperation between defense (military) authorities between Japan and Israel, including cessation of arms procurement from Israel, sharing of military technology, and joint development of weapons.
9. Review economic cooperation with Israel. Do not enter into an economic partnership agreement.
10. Review of diplomatic relations with Israel. The Japanese government has already mentioned the possibility of reconsidering its policy toward Israel if Israel does not comply with its demands for withdrawal from the 1967 occupied territories and respect for the rights of the Palestinian people (Chief Cabinet Secretary Nikaido’s statement in 1973), but the current situation of Israel’s violations of international law and human rights violations has become far more serious than it was then.
The international community bears a grave responsibility for ignoring and condoning the ongoing situations in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, etc. We, Middle East researchers, would like to work in solidarity and cooperation with the citizens of Japan and around the world to stop the bloodshed as soon as possible, restore humanity, and achieve a just peace.
November 7, 2024
Caller:
The 16 participants are: Masato Iizuka (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies), Satoshi Ukai (Hitotsubashi University), Akira Usuki (Japan Women’s University), Tetsuya Ohtoshi (Waseda University), Mari Oka (Waseda University), Tadashi Okanouchi (Hosei University), Yoshiko Kurita (Chiba University), Hidemitsu Kuroki (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies), Keiko Sakai (Chiba University), Eiji Nagasawa (University of Tokyo), Misako Nagasawa (writer), Eisuke Naramoto (Hosei University), Shuji Hosaka (Institute of Energy Economics, Japan), Toru Miura (Ochanomizu University), Tomoko Yamagishi (Meiji University), Kaoru Yamamoto (Keio University)
—————————-
Total number of supporters: 1,380
Of these, 1,175 individuals can have their names made public, and 205 individuals cannot have their names made public.
On October 5, 2023, Hiroyuki Suzuki and Keiko Sakai, editors of this book, organized a memorial workshop for the 50th anniversary of the “Oil Shock” caused by the Arab oil embargo as a result of the October War in 1973.[1]This had been, at the time, a turning point for Japan’s diplomatic policy as it shifted toward taking a pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian stance. This was clearly expressed in the Statement by Chief Cabinet Secretary Susumu Nikaido on November 22, 1973 that “the government of Japan, deploring Israel’s continued occupation of Arab territories, urges Israel to comply with the principles of: the inadmissibility of acquisition and occupation of territory by force, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the territories occupied in the 1967 war, respect for the integrity and security of territories of all countries in the region and the need of guarantees to that end, the recognition of and respect for the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (UN) in bringing about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”[2]Though Japan’s pro-Arab shift was mocked by media as “Pro-Arab means Pro-‘Abura’ (‘oil’ in Japanese),”3 the result was not only a strengthening of JapanArab diplomatic relationships but also a vast increase in business opportunities for Japanese private companies in the Arab market.
The workshop in October 2023 included several academic presentations on the impact of “Oil Shock” on the world economy and global politics, and a heated discussion on Japan’s role in the Middle East during the past half-century. ExAmbassador to UAE, Iraq and Egypt, Kunio Katakura, one of the Arabist diplomats who were fully involved in the diplomatic mission to oil-producing Arab countries, reflected on those days and how hard and painstaking the negotiations were, especially given the pressure from the US administration.
OurdiscussionsrevolvedaroundwhetherJapanpayssufficientconcerntotherisks related to oil supply and whether it is serious enough about maintaining positive and constructive relations with the Arab countries.
Two days after we were considering the importance of the lessons learnt from the “shock” half a century ago, we were suddenly given another “shock”: Hamas’ attack on Israel and Israel’s acts of reprisal against Gaza. It was a more serious and fundamental “shock” not only for the region but for the whole world.
The Japanese government was quick to express its concern about the escalation of the conflict, condemning Hamas’ acts of abduction and violence. Nevertheless, of more than 50 messages and statements, none included any positive proposals for securing a ceasefire or eternal peace in this region. It did not give a supportive vote to the UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions for the ceasefire proposed by Russia on October 16 and 25, 2023 and it abstained from the UN General Assembly ( UNGA ) resolution on October 27, 2023 that called for a humanitarian truce. Moreover, Japan suspended its contributions to UNRWA after allegations of UNRWA staff being involved in Hamas activities. It wasn’t until April 2, 2024 that Japan announced that it would resume funding to UNRWA. In the April UNSC and the May UNGA, Japan voted in favor of Palestine’s full membership in the UN.
Despite the government’s passive and somewhat slow reaction to this crisis, NGO activists and academics in Japan were quick to respond—the Middle East Institute of Japan held online workshops on the current situation on October 16 and November 7 ; theJapanInstituteforInternationalAffairsandJapan’sInstituteofEnergyEconomics did so on October 19, as did the Japan International Volunteer Center (JVC) and Human Rights Now on October 20, independently from each other. On October 17, several prominent scholars on the Middle East, including current and former presidents of the Japan Association of Middle East Studies, issued an appeal to stop the War, calling for immediate ceasefire and humanitarian support for Gaza,[3]and asked “the international community, including the Japanese government,” to commit to “the solution of the present crisis by peaceful and political means.” Their appeal attracted about 5000 supporters by the first half of January 2024.
Given such a critical situation, the editors, Hiroyuki Suzuki and Keiko Sakai, held a workshop “Considering the Gaza conflict: What will happen to Israel, Palestine, and the international community?” on November 16 at the University of Tokyo.[4]The one-day workshop was attended by more than 100 participants in person, and 200 online. A keynote presentation by Suzuki was followed by presentations from the following young scholars, Hiroshi Yasui, Kensuke Yamamoto, and Koji Horinuki, all of whom specialize in Area Studies on the Arab region, with a contribution also from senior scholars in International Relations, namely, Ai Kihara-hunt and Kiichi Fujiwara, Professor Emeritus at the University of Tokyo. NGO activists were also with us, such as Yoshiko Tanaka from Campaign for the Children of Palestine.
This workshop was the impetus for the publication of this volume. Kaoru Yamamoto, who played the role of moderator in the workshop, agreed to contribute a chapter on Palestinian hip-hop culture. Yasuyuki Matsunaga joined the discussion from the floor, and added perspectives from Iran and other anti-Israeli networks. Ryoji Tateyama, a leading scholar on Israel/Palestinian conflicts during the past 40 years, kindly accepted our invitation to contribute his paper. From out of Japan, Rawia Altaweel, who has been witnessing the daily escalation of conflicts in Beirut since the conflict occurred, contributed a chapter.
We owe a great deal of acknowledgment to many of our colleagues in Middle East studies, among them Eiji Nagasawa, Professor Emeritus at the University of Tokyo, and Akifumi Ikeda, former president of Toyo Eiwa University, who provided valuable comments and helpful advice on our book project. Support and assistance from scholars of Palestinian issues, such as Aiko Nishikida, Akira Usuki, Eisuke Naramoto, Mouin Rabbani and Ronni Shaked are also gratefully acknowledged, not tomentionthescholarsinInternationalRelationssuchasAtsushiIshida,LarbiSadiki, andLaylaSaleh,aswellashistorianssuchasHidemitsuKurokiandUssamaMakdisi. Our work was supported not only by academic scholars but also by humanitarian aid workers: Mai Namiki, former staff member of JVC Palestine, cooperated with us and worked very hard to make a strong appeal to the Japanese government to support Gaza.
Lastly, but not the least, a big, special thanks goes to Ms. Juno Kawakami, a senior editor of Springer, who encouraged us to edit this volume. Without her constant support, it would not have been possible to publish this book within less than a year after the conflict occurred. We also owe financial and logistic support to JSPS Kakenhi Kiban A Project (21H04387; 2021–2024) and the University of Tokyo Centre for Middle Eastern Studies ( UTCMES ).
At this last moment of editing this volume (May 23, 2024), the latest mediation efforts have failed due to Israel’s refusal of a ceasefire, and Israel has further escalated military attacks on Rafah, the last refuge of the people of Gaza. As the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People held a commemorative Panel Discussion under the title of “1948-2024: The Ongoing Palestinian Nakba” on May 17, it is now widely recognized that the Nakba, the expulsion and annihilation of the Palestinians from the land of Palestine in 1948, has not yet been completed, but continues and is increasing in cruelty till this moment.
The foreseeable future is very bleak; the only hope is to believe that after such serious destruction fundamental reform will come and, with it, a genuine and comprehensive transformation of the international order.
[2] Originally from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan (MOFA) (1975) Chuto Hunso Kankei Shiryo Shu [Documents on Conflicts in the Middle East], vol. 1, pp. 54-55, quoted by Eisuke Naramoto (1991) “Japanese Perceptions on the Arab-Israeli Conflict,” Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 79–88. 3 Yomiuri Newspaper, Nov. 22, 1973.
[4] It was organized by the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Tokyo, with support from the JSPS Research Project “Protest on the Street, and Reconsider the Nation: from the view points of space, violence and resonance” led by Sakai. See:http://www.shd.chiba-u.jp/glblcrss/act ivities/activities20231101.html#article
Culmination of six decades of Japanese area studies on Middle East, with a focus on peace-building in Palestine/Israel
Includes analysis which reflect the actual voices and sentiments of the Israeli/Palestinian society
Interdisciplinary approaches by scholars, many in their thirties, from Japan
About this book
This book is one of the first edited volumes on the current Israel/Palestine conflict—the Gaza Nakba 2023–24. It contains contributions from both young post-doctoral researchers and more seasoned scholars from Japan. These authors, with their rich experience of field work in the region and their interdisciplinary approaches, are able to provide critical analyses on the current breakdown of humanitarian norms, the dysfunctional state of international organizations, and the breakdown of conflict management and peace-building. The unique viewpoints of Japanese scholars are shared regarding their understanding of the critical developments in Gaza since October 7, 2023. Further, these chapters analyze the background of the conflict, focusing on popular sentiments, national identity, and historical memory in Israel/Palestine, and the importance of space and land as national and cultural symbols, using rich and updated written and visual data from the region.
This work significantly challenges prevailing arguments, as it avoids stereotyped understandings of the persistence of religious and ethnic hatred, the proxy relationships of global powers (e.g., USA) and regional ones (Iran), and regional rivalries over geopolitical and economic interests in the Middle East. Such arguments as these provide no more than a quick divide-and-rule type of solution, encouraging merely superficial diplomatic coordination among the major global powers rather than a real solution. Alternatively, this book provides a new framework for understanding the structure of the conflict, making way for solving the problem from the popular level, and delving deeply into reconsideration of the durability or non-durability of the state system in the Middle East and a Western originated liberal international order and norm in general. The book also discloses the severe reality that human rights in the Global South are often neglected. In this sense, the purpose of this work is to disclose the significance of the Gaza War as an iconic event which reveals all the contradictions, inequalities and injustices in a global historical context.
This book is essential for anyone who wants a fresh and expert consideration of the Israel-Palestine-Gaza issue, which avoids the often parochial stereotypes that attend it in the West, and which views it through a global lens.
Juan Cole, Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, University of Michigan
Centre for Middle Eastern Studies (UTCMES), Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, JapanHiroyuki Suzuki
Institute for Advanced Academic Research, Chiba University, Chiba, JapanKeiko Sakai
About the editors
Hiroyuki Suzuki: Project Associate Professor, The Sultan Qaboos Chair in Middle Eastern Studies, the University of Tokyo Centre for Middle Eastern Studies (UTCMES)
Hiroyuki Suzuki is one of Japan’s leading young scholars in Middle Eastern studies (modern history). He obtained an M.A. in March 2012 and a Ph.D. in July 2017 from the University of Tokyo’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. His Ph.D. thesis (in Japanese) titled Hōki <Intifada>: Senryōka no Paresuchina 1967-1993 (The Mass Uprisings—“Intifada”—and Occupied Palestine (1967–1993)), is highly regarded by many researchers and scholars of Palestine Studies. It was awarded the 9th Shigeru Nambara Memorial Award for Publication by the University of Tokyo Press in 2019. The text was published, using this fund, under the same title by the University of Tokyo Press in 2020. He and his colleagues (Kensuke Yamamoto, the author of Chapter 4 of this volume, and Miyuki Kinjo) completed their translation of Rashid Khalidi’s book The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917–2017 (2023, Housei University Press) just after the Gaza War broke out.
Suzuki’s research is replete with rich and rare primary data from his repeated field research work in Palestine/Israel. He was a visiting scholar at the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for 17 months, beginning in April 2018, with the financial support of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). He assumed his current position as project associate professor of the Sultan Qaboos Chair in Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Tokyo in September 2019. He has played an active leadership role managing young researchers and students in academic associations, including the Japan Association for Middle East Studies and the Japan Association of International Relations, and for promoting young scholars’ research activities in the region.
Other activities include attending and making presentations at international academic associations, such as the Eurasian Peace Science Conference (Jerusalem, 2019), the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) (San Antonio USA, 2018), the Korean Association of Middle Eastern Studies (KAMES) International Conference (Seoul, 2017), the Cairo University International Symposium (Cairo, 2017), and the International Sociological Association (ISA) (Vienna, 2016).
Since October 7, 2023, he has frequently been asked to appear in the media (TV, radio, SNS, and web magazines) for commentary on the current situation—comments that are highly valued by Japanese audiences. He has quickly organized workshops and conferences on this issue at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Tokyo (UTCMES) and given lectures on the current situation not only for students and researchers but also for NGO activists and supporters, as well as public audiences.
Keiko Sakai: Professor, Institute for Advanced Academic Research; Director, Center for Relational Studies on Global Crises, Chiba University
Keiko Sakai is a leading figure in the promotion of Middle East area studies and International Relations. She joined the Institute of Developing Economies (IDE) in Tokyo in 1982 as a researcher on Iraq, after graduating from University of Tokyo. From 1986 until 1989 she served as a research attaché in the Embassy of Japan in Iraq, and served as the overseas researcher at the American University in Cairo from 1995–87. Since mid-2005, Sakai held the position of Professor at the Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, where, for seven years, she taught modern history and conflict analysis in the Middle East. She moved to Chiba University in October 2012 and received her Ph.D. in Area Studies from Kyoto University (2019).
She served as a board member of the Japan Association for Middle Eastern Studies for more than 10 years during the 2000s and was the president of the Japan Association of International Relations (2012–2014) as the first scholar of Middle Eastern Studies to serve in that position. She served as dean of the Faculty of Law, Politics and Economics at Chiba University from 2014 to 2017.
She has actively conducted collaborative research with academic and research institutions in Iraq since 2005 and has organized joint symposiums with the University of Baghdad and Mustansiriya University a number of times.
She has published various academic works on contemporary Iraq and the Middle East in Japanese, such as the following: Iraq and the U.S. (2002), which received the Asia Pacific Research Award: Grand Prize; Structure of the Ruling System of the Regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq(2003) which was given the Daido Seimei Area Studies Award: Prize for encouragement in 2009; Middle EastPolitics (2012); Modern History after 9.11 (2018), and Wherehas “Spring” gone? (2022). Her publications in Japanese include the recent seven-volume series on global relational studies (Iwanami, 2020) for which she received the Consortium of Area Studies Award in 2022.
She is a co-author of Iraq Since Invasion (Routledge, 2020) and has contributed a chapter to Tribes and Power: Nationalism andEthnicity in the Middle East (Faleh A. Jabar and Hosham Dawood, eds., Saqi, 2003), along with contributions to the Routledge Handbook of Middle East Politics (Larbi Sadiki, ed., Routledge, 2020). Her M.A. thesis (University of Durham, UK, 1995), namely, Al-Thawra al-Ashrin (2020), is available in both Japanese and in Arabic, the latter under the title of Iraq wa wilayat al-mutahhida al-Amirikiya(2023), both of which are available from Adnan Bookshop, Baghdad, Iraq.
Abstract
The Gaza War, or the second coming of the Nakba in 2023, has exposed a serious breakdown in global normative structures and mechanisms of conflict resolution, not only in bilateral and intra-regional relations, but also in the international community. This chapter examines what the Gaza war has revealed, focusing on the end of the two-state solution, the return of settler colonialism, the malfunctioning of international organisations, the dysfunctioning of regional solidarity among state actors, the myth of the liberal international order, and the growing role of the Global South, non-state actors, and civil society protest movements. In order to understand the situation, it is essential to introduce a framework to analyse the Gaza war holistically from different angles. This book aims to shed light on the complex dynamics of the conflict situation and how political and security developments in Israel/Palestine reflect socio-economic, cultural, and psychological changes in the lives of the people there. The authors of this book can offer readers unique and original perspectives on Israeli-Palestinian problems, reflecting a long tradition of Middle East studies in Japan, which has trained scholars in language skills and provided extensive experience in research activities in the field
On Sept. 27, Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Lebanese Islamist group Hezbollah, was killed in an Israeli airstrike. Israeli forces fired 2,000 pounds of bombs into southern Lebanon and the capital Beirut, causing extensive damage not only to Hezbollah-related facilities but also to civilians. In the early hours of Oct. 1, the Israeli army invaded Lebanese territory, starting a ground war. The same day, Iran, which saw a high-ranking general killed alongside Nasrallah, launched a retaliatory attack on Israel in solidarity with Hezbollah, and there are concerns that Israel will respond militarily. In Lebanon, about 1,600 people have been killed and more than 1 million people have been displaced since Sept. 20, according to the United Nations.
Let me first discuss changes in the scope of Israel’s war. Israel, which has been concentrating on attacking the Palestine enclave of Gaza for a year, opened a front in Lebanon targeting Hezbollah, and the war has entered a new phase. There are fears that the front will expand further.
The attack on Gaza, which began on Oct. 7 last year in retaliation for cross-border raids and abductions by the Islamist group Hamas, was aimed at freeing the hostages and destroying Hamas. Therefore, the target of the attack was, in principle, in the Israeli-occupied territory of Gaza.
But the inclusion of Hezbollah as one of Israel’s targets has expanded the front into Lebanon. Hezbollah is a political organization in Lebanon that was not directly involved in last October’s Hamas’s attack on Israel. The main aim of Hamas is resistance against Israel within the occupied territory.
From ‘self-defense’ to ‘intimidation’
What this change means is that Israel has decided to go beyond retaliation for last year’s events and thoroughly destroy the forces that oppose it. All anti-Israel forces, public or unofficial, domestic or external, are now the targets of fierce military attacks. Fear over this Israeli posture is not only felt in Lebanon but is spreading throughout the region. The new operations go beyond “exercising the right to self-defense” and are nothing less than “intimidation by force.”
The second change worth noting is Israel’s almost complete abandonment of a peaceful solution to regional conflicts. Hezbollah is a non-state actor that was originally established as a resistance group against Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, but it has played important roles in regional and international politics as a state within a state. The organization is said to have a certain unofficial tacit understanding with Israel about their relations, and Nasrallah was supposed to be a “negotiable” partner. His killing means that Israel has given up the possibility of negotiating with Hezbollah.
The same can be said of the murder of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyah. In early July, U.S. President Joe Biden agreed with both Israel and Hamas on a framework for a ceasefire and the release of hostages. But after Haniyah’s murder later that month, Hamas’s new leadership shifted from a pragmatic to a militaristic one, and Israel added terms for a ceasefire, derailing the negotiations.
In other words, it is none other than Israel that is closing the path to peace and actively expanding the war.
Deflecting domestic discontent
Why did Israel turn its arrows of attack toward Lebanon? In addition to the more than 40,000 deaths directly from military operations in Gaza, 180,000 deaths have been caused by extreme deterioration in the sanitary and food situation in the enclave, according to an article in the medical journal The Lancet, highlighting Israel’s inhumanity in its war conduct.
More than 60 percent of respondents in a June poll by the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in Israel said they were concerned about their country being regarded as a “rogue state” by the West. This result shows that there is a strong sense among the Israeli people that they don’t want to be seen by Western countries as “inhumane,” even if they do not mind criticism from the United Nations. It can be said that the government began attacking Hezbollah in a bid to defect the people’s discontent toward the impasse over the Gaza war.
Imitating the logic of the United States
More seriously, Israel’s shift is covering up the core of the issue of the country’s occupation of Palestine and making it seem as if the focus is on a dichotomy between “moderate Arab states” and “anti-Israel Islamist forces.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a speech to the U.S. Congress in July and at the United Nations General Assembly in September, emphasized that the Middle East is divided into two groups — one comprising moderate and pro-American Gulf oil-producing states as well as Jordan and Egypt, and the other, “the axis of resistance” formed by Iran and other players in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen — and that Israel will work with the former to promote peace. This is exactly the same logic that the U.S. administration of George W. Bush used to justify its military action following the 9/11 terrorist attacks — dividing the world in two with the ultimatum “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
This rhetoric, however, obscures the root cause of the conflict, which is that Israel is occupying Arab lands, expelling Palestinians, and settling its own people in those lands in violation of international law.
Lastly, I would like to point out that Israel’s armed crushing of the opposition will bring about the end of democracy in the Middle East, which was already in its death throes.
It was not until the 1980s that Islamist groups began to take up arms in the Middle East in opposition to Israel’s occupation policies, taking the place of nationalist forces such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Since the 1990s, countries in the region have been struggling with how to control the Islamist forces that have emerged in the resistance movement against Israel domestically and how to make them comply with the rules. Those efforts in part led to the process of democratization, which invited the participation of those forces in the elections.
Both Hamas and Hezbollah have gained ground in domestic politics through elections. They gained dominance over Israel in Gaza and southern Lebanon around 2006, when Hamas won a majority and Hezbollah won just over 10 percent of the seats in their respective elections. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt came to power thanks to election results after the “Arab Spring,” the popular movements against dictatorships in 2011.
These Islamist groups are being eliminated by force by Israel, and by Arab authoritarian states that Israel describes as “moderate.” In reality, the dichotomy in the Middle East on which Israel bases its policy is one between states and Islamist groups that have promoted a certain level of democracy (with the exception of Syria), and those that want to eliminate democracy by force.
Indeed, these Islamist organizations have not been spared from criticism over their oppression or from the loss of popular support. Still, one cannot ignore the will of the people those groups have represented. How will the backlash against Israel erupt in the future, with no organization representing the voices of the people?
Profile: Keiko Sakai
A graduate of the University of Tokyo, Sakai earned her Ph.D. in area studies from Kyoto University. After working as a researcher at the Institute of Developing Economies and as a researcher attache at the Embassy of Japan in Iraq, she then taught at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies as a professor, and assumed her current position in 2012. A specialist in Middle Eastern politics and Iraq affairs, she is the recipient of the Asia Pacific Prize Grand Prize in 2003, and was the chairperson of the Japan Association of International Relations from 2012 to 2014.
Global Perspective: Generous support for Palestine vital as Gaza faces unprecedented crisis
April 23, 2024 (Mainichi Japan)
By Keiko Sakai, Professor, Chiba University
Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian territory, began on Oct. 7 last year, triggered by an attack on Israel from the Islamist group Hamas, but the fighting has shown no signs of abating even after six months. At the time of this writing, more than 33,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, and the death toll has reached nearly 400 in the West Bank. In Israel, about 1,200 people were killed in the Hamas attack. Since the start of the war in Gaza, nearly 260 Israeli soldiers have died.
As many as 1.7 million people, or three-quarters of Gaza’s population, have been forced to flee their homes to Rafah in the south of the strip. But due to Israeli restrictions, not enough humanitarian supplies are reaching the refugees, and one-third of the residents are severely starved. In March, the U.S. military and other forces airdropped food supplies, but there was an incident in which residents were crushed to death by the dropped aid.
In the early stages of the war, it was said that the Israeli military action would last about three months. The prediction assumed that people would soon become weary of the war due to government moves such as the callup of reservists.
However, Israelis’ support for the war is strong due to the heightened sense for the need of national defense. According to a March poll by The Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI), there was a slight increase in opinion that Israel’s military action was too aggressive compared to the figure recorded at the start of the war, but there is no disagreement about extending the military action to Rafah, where displaced people are concentrated. This is despite U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator Martin Griffiths warning that “Military operations in Rafah could lead to a slaughter in Gaza.”
No intention of ceasefire
The reason for the prolongation of the war is that Israel has no intention of ordering a ceasefire, but there is also the problem that the international community has been unable to restrain Israel’s actions. The United Nations Security Council tried several times to pass a ceasefire resolution but failed due to vetoes by the United States or Russia. Although a resolution was finally adopted on March 25, the U.S. government abstained and made it clear that it would not be bound by the resolution.
As for humanitarian aid activities, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which has been largely responsible for humanitarian assistance, was accused by Israel of involvement in terrorist acts at the end of January, and as a result, major donor countries such as the United States and Germany suspended funding.
Passive response by Europe and the United States
In addition to Washington’s reluctance to support a ceasefire, Europe has also shown strong hesitancy toward providing humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. This is especially true in Germany, where pro-Palestinian rhetoric at home is considered antisemitic and civil society activists and intellectuals supporting the cause come under pressure. Prominent Arab scholars have been forced out of their jobs, raising the risk of undermining freedom of thought and belief over the war in Gaza.
The founding of the State of Israel and, by extension, the Jewish problem, originated in European society (1). As is well known, the founding of the State of Israel is a culmination of a movement by Jewish intellectuals in Europe who thought that a state for Jews was necessary because of the repeated persecution of their people in Europe.
The idea of creating a Jewish state in Israel was a way for European society to impose its own failure in multicultural coexistence on the Middle East, and to force Palestine, a place outside Europe, to tackle the problem. For Europe, to question the establishment of Israel is to admit its own failure to coexist with multiple cultures.
The challenge that Israel has faced since its founding has been the contradiction of pursuing a state for Jews while aiming for a Western-style democracy. How can Israel provide democracy to peoples equally, regardless of their religious or ethnic differences, while limiting itself as a state for Jews? The impediment was the presence of the Palestinians.
It might have been easy for Jews to settle in a no-man’s land and build a democratic state. But Palestinians have long lived there. To build a democratic country with only Jews, all the natives had to be eliminated.
In 1948, when Israel was founded, some 750,000 Palestinians were forced out of their homeland and became refugees. Yet it was not possible to expel all of them. Palestinians who remain in Israeli territory have been granted citizenship as “Arab Israelis” but have been made second-class citizens. They now make up over 20 percent of Israel’s population.
The danger of accepting Palestinians, whom Israel didn’t want to include in its democracy, increased as Israel expanded the territories it occupied. Palestinians in the occupied territories, who were the lowest level of labor needed for the Israeli economy, had to be made invisible and separated from Israel by walls.
The decision that it was impossible to expel all non-Jews from Israel and its occupied territories led to the “Two Peoples, Two States” plan (2) represented by the Oslo Accords of the 1990s. However, the recent Hamas attack has clearly shown that this awkward plan for coexistence will not solve the problem.
Even though the Palestinians in the uninclusive occupied territories are separated by walls, voices are raised repeatedly from the other side of the wall denouncing the contradictions of the Israeli state. The Oct. 7 attack was an incident in which the accusations were delivered in a violent way.
Isn’t Israel’s inclination to conclude that the Palestinians must be eliminated in the end the reason why Israel’s attack on Gaza has not stopped? Aren’t the Israelis considering all Palestinians — not only those in Gaza, but also those in the West Bank and in Israel — as others who they failed to expel at the time of the founding of the country, and thinking about resuming the implementation of the founding principles? One Israeli parliamentarian said: “Now we have one goal: Nakba.” Nakba is an Arabic word meaning “calamity” suffered by the Palestinians because of the establishment of the State of Israel.
What Japan can do
Japan does not have a history of persecuting Jews like Europe does. Even if the West cannot criticize Israel, Japan can distance itself from such historical constraints. Until now, Japan has provided generous assistance to Palestine. One example is the development of infrastructure in Gaza through UNRWA. The resumption of support for UNRWA on April 2 demonstrates the continuity of Japan’s diplomacy.
The world cannot afford to sit idly by in the face of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Now is the time for Japan to play its role.
Profile: Keiko Sakai
A graduate of the University of Tokyo, Sakai earned her Ph.D. in area studies from Kyoto University. After working as a researcher at the Institute of Developing Economies and as a researcher attache at the Embassy of Japan in Iraq, she then taught at Tokyo University of Foreign Studies as a professor, and assumed her current position in 2012. A specialist in Middle Eastern politics and Iraq affairs, she is the recipient of the Asia Pacific Prize Grand Prize in 2003, and was the chairperson of the Japan Association of International Relations from 2012 to 2014.
[ICU Peace Research Institute] Open Lecture Series on “The Israel-Gaza crisis: Historial Background to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Regional Perspectives”
Part 1 “The Israeli-Palestine Conflict and Regional Perspectives” Date: Nov. 9 (Thu.) 13:50-16:20 Venue:Online(Zoom) Please pre-register using the link below. https://forms.gle/nEPiM4Ud9hc5U4cq7
Zoom link will be sent to you by auto-reply.
Chair:Prof. Giorgio Shani (ICU; Chair RC43 Religion and Politics, IPSA) Speaker: Prof. Joshua RICKARD (Kumamoto University) Prof. Keiko SAKAI (Chiba University; IPSA) Prof. Yasuyuki MATSUNAGA (TUFS, IPSA)
Part 2 “The Assymetry of Conflict” Date: Nov. 9 (Thu.) 17:50-19:00 Venue:Online(Zoom) The Zoom link is the same as for Part 1. Participants from Part 1 can continue to attend. Please pre-register using the form above even if you are only attending Part 2.
Chair:Prof. Giorgio Shani (ICU; Chair RC43 Religion and Politics, IPSA) Speaker: Dr. Hani ABDELHADI (Senior Assistant Professor, Meiji University)
This event is co-hosted by PRI, SSRI, IACS, and IPSA.
Please feel free to contact us at icupri@icu.ac.jp if you have any questions.
Date: November 14, 2023 (Tue.) 12:50-13:50 Lecturer: NAMBU Makiko (Tokyo University of Foreign Studies) Venue: Troyer Memorial Arts & Sciences Hall (T-kan) 328 Language: English Host: Institute of Asian Cultural Studies Co-Hosts: Peace Research Institute, Social Science Research Institute Registration: https://forms.gle/x2UJyrs9Gw9v8Ecz9
This event hopes to welcome students and anyone one who are currently witnessing the situation unfolding in Gaza and Palestine with deep concerns and are interested in engaging with further learning. The talk will provide crucial historical context to understand the present day colonial occupation, siege and the systems of apartheid, and to learn about some critical global responses and actions in the service of freedom and justice.
More than 60 years have passed since the conflict broke out in Palestine/Israel, and the current problems of occupation and refugeeization began. The Palestine Student Fund was established in April 2010 by volunteers who have been involved in research and activities in these regions and neighboring countries. → Click here for the organizational structure . In the course of our research and activities, we hope to deepen our understanding of the people who we usually learn from and who help us by exploring what Japan can do for them. We hope that by continuing to provide even small support, as many refugee students as possible will be able to become economically independent and play an active role in society. The Palestine Student Fund’s main activity is the Gaza Refugee Scholarship Project.
About the support recipients
The Gaza Refugee Scholarship Project is a project that supports Gaza refugee students living in Jordan to receive higher education. It provides free scholarships for them to attend university through UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East).
What are Gaza refugees?
Due to government policy, the majority of Palestinians currently living in Jordan have Jordanian nationality and enjoy the rights of Jordanian nationals. However, Palestinians who moved to the Gaza Strip during the 1948 war (the First Arab-Israeli War) and then to Jordan during the 1967 war ( known as “Gaza refugees” ) are exceptional cases in which they are not allowed to acquire Jordanian nationality. They are currentlyBeing stateless means they face strict restrictions on employment. At the same time, because they have no nationality, they must pay high tuition fees to universities as foreigners. It is generally said that Palestinians in Jordan are in a more favorable environment than Palestinian refugees living in other countries. However, the existence of Gaza refugees, who are a minority, is not well known. Their existence can be seen as a microcosm of the long-running conflict in the region and the problems surrounding it. → Click here
for more detailed explanation .
Organization
The Palestine Student Fund was formed by university researchers and graduate students who work in Israel/Palestine and neighboring countries, and members of international cooperation NGOs. We hope to make new contacts with the regions and people we are involved with and receive cooperation from through our support activities, mainly scholarship projects, and to contribute in some small way to them. We also hope to deepen our understanding of the impact and deep roots of the conflict in this region through our support, and to shed light on one aspect of the structural problems.
director
Eiji Nagasawa (Chairman, Professor at the Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo) Akira Usuki (Vice Chairman, Professor at the Faculty of Letters, Japan Women’s University and Graduate School of Letters) Aiko Nishida (Director/Secretary-General, Associate Professor at the Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies) Ryoji Tateyama (Director, Professor Emeritus at the National Defense Academy of Japan) Rika Fujiya (Director, Full-time Lecturer at the Faculty of Nursing and Medical Care, Keio University)
監事
Manabu Shimizu (former professor at Teikyo University)
賛同人
Masato Iizuka (Professor, Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies ) Satoshi Ukai ( Professor, Graduate School of Language and Society, Hitotsubashi University) Mari Oka (Professor, Graduate School of Human and Environmental Studies, Kyoto University) Yasunori Kawakami (Editorial Board Member, Asahi Shimbun) Yoshiyuki Kitazawa (Professor, Faculty of Foreign Studies, Kyoto Sangyo University) Masatoshi Kimura (Professor, Faculty of Law, Hosei University) Yasushi Kosugi (Professor, Graduate School of Asian and African Area Studies, Kyoto University) Nobuaki Kondo (Associate Professor, Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies) Jun Shimazaki (Cairo Bureau Chief, Kyodo News) Hirofumi Tanada (Professor, Faculty of Human Sciences, Waseda University / Secretary General, Japan Association for Middle East Studies) Eisuke Naramoto ( Professor, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University ) Kentaro Hirayama (Former NHK Commentator / Visiting Professor, Hakuoh University Research Institute) Kunio Fukuda (Director, Institute for Disarmament and Peace, Meiji University) Nozomi Yamazaki (Full-time Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Komazawa University) Takeshi Yukawa (Professor, Institute for Islamic Area Studies, Waseda University)
Two cases of Antisemitism in academia deserve attention.
In August 2024, B’nai B’rith International, a staunch defender of the State of Israel, global Jewry, and human rights, sponsored a three-day exhibition in City Hall Plaza in Boston. The exhibition simulated the experiences of Israeli hostages in the Hamas tunnels in Gaza. It included audio footage from body cameras worn by Hamas terrorists. Douglas Hauer-Gilad, a human rights lawyer and adjunct professor at the Boston University School of Law, organized the exhibition. He told Jewish media, “We wanted to increase awareness and amplify visibility of the hostages… Time is of the essence… We need to bring the hostages home now.”
This was not Hauer-Gilad‘s foray into the Gaza War. In February 2024, the Boston University Students for Justice in Palestine led a march in protest, calling for a cease-fire in Gaza and the divestment of BU funding from companies supporting Israel. When one of the pro-Israel students wrote a complaint about hearing threatening chants from protesters, Hauer-Gilad came to help him and asked, “is that chanting From the River to Sea going on still and where? Please contact me at dhauer@bu.edu if it occurs. I am adjunct faculty at the Law School. If there is any threatening chanting, please be in touch with me and I will personally raise it with President Freeman. All dialogue must remain civil despite any passions.”
However, earlier this week, Hauer-Gilad published a post on Facebook stating, “On January 5, 2025, I was forced to resign from adjunct teaching at Boston University School of Law. I was the target of antisemitism- driven by the very top – on account of my Israeli nationality and because I spoke out against violent social media targeting Jews. I wish Boston University School of Law well. My hope is that leadership across BU engages in a genuine way with antisemitism. In my case, the degree to which I was singled out for especially aggressive treatment by people involved in ‘Inclusion’ at BU is indicative of a culture that does not want Jews around, unless the buy into an anti-Israel narrative. No matter that I helped at-risk students all the time. Irrelevant that for 8 years I taught without any student complaint. I was stripped of all rights, and statements were made to me implying I was violent for merely speaking out about a BU insider who teaches at another school, for her violent tweets (attached). I was exonerated but the damage is done. We are at the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. This is a solemn marker for humanity. The fact that I faced targeted, aggressive, and damaging antisemitism at Boston University School of Law, 80 years after Auschwitz’s liberation, is astounding. I was targeted for refusing to be silent. I will never be silent (as all of my friends of course know).”
Hauer-Gilad explained he was speaking out about a BU insider who teaches at another school, for her violent tweets, which he attached. The two tweets by Sahar Aziz, who wrote on January 18, 2024, “Three Palestinian American college students were shot because Zionists are flaming Islamophobia by accusing Muslims Arabs and Palestinians of supporting terrorism. Blood is on their hands.” Her second tweet was from October 2023, “Enough! Turns out she wasn’t ‘paraded naked’ but was taken to hospital! Turns out there were no rapes or ‘beheaded babies’! Israel & its MSM accomplices are making up so many outrageous lies to distract from its carnage in Gaza! 900 Gazans killed, inc 260 kids & 230 women!”
IAM will report on the Hauer-Gilad case in due course.
The second antisemitic incident occurred in Australia when Jewish professor Yoni Nazarathy, a lecturer in artificial intelligence at the University of Queensland, attended a “National Symposium on Unifying Anti-Racist Research and Action” at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). Nazarathy said that many fellow attendees stood up during the symposium and yelled “shame” in his direction. “It was a coordinated humiliation. All I could do is sit there and try to exit respectfully.” The abuse happened after attendees were shown an image titled “Dutton’s Jew” at a “comedy debate” hosted by Sarah Schwartz, the executive officer of the pro-Palestinian Jewish Council of Australia. Ms Schwartz accused Peter Dutton, the Opposition Leader, of “hiding behind the Jewish community to promote a right-wing agenda.” In response, QUT vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil apologized for the “significant offense” caused by an anti-racism conference that ridiculed “Dutton’s Jew.”
Antisemitism in Australia is growing fast. Recently, the government has held an “Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities.” Hugh de Kretser, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, spoke to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights on January 22, 2025. He said, “Antisemitism is an insidious form of racism and hatred. It has no place in Australia. Antisemitism harms individuals and communities… The focus of this inquiry is on responding to the rise in antisemitism at Australian universities. Antisemitism in universities is connected to broader antisemitism in our communities and neighborhoods. Universities exist to promote learning and thinking, the exchange of ideas and the development of people and communities. Essential to these objectives is fostering a culture of respect and inclusion and ensuring safety and freedom from discrimination for all students and staff. Also essential is ensuring universities are places where ideas can be questioned and different views can be respectfully shared.” He said they released an Interim Report last month, but the final report is due in June.
IAM will report a follow-up on these two cases in due course.
On January 5, 2025, I was forced to resign from adjunct teaching at Boston University School of Law. I was the target of antisemitism- driven by the very top – on account of my Israeli nationality and because I spoke out against violent social media targeting Jews.
I wish Boston University School of Law well. My hope is that leadership across BU engages in a genuine way with antisemitism.
In my case, the degree to which I was singled out for especially aggressive treatment by people involved in “Inclusion” at BU is indicative of a culture that does not want Jews around, unless the buy into an anti-Israel narrative.
No matter that I helped at-risk students all the time. Irrelevant that for 8 years I taught without any student complaint.
I was stripped of all rights, and statements were made to me implying I was violent for merely speaking out about a BU insider who teaches at another school, for her violent tweets (attached).
I was exonerated but the damage is done.
We are at the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. This is a solemn marker for humanity.
The fact that I faced targeted, aggressive, and damaging antisemitism at Boston University School of Law, 80 years after Auschwitz’s liberation, is astounding.
I was targeted for refusing to be silent.
I will never be silent (as all of my friends of course know).
Student protesters called for a cease-fire in Gaza and the divestment of BU funding from companies supporting Israel.
Boston University Students for Justice in Palestine led the protest, which marched from Marsh Chapel to 1 Silber Way.
“This protest is mainly directed towards increasing the call for divestment from our university endowment from companies or investments that are complicit in supporting the Israeli government or the State of Israel,” said Faisal Ahmed, a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences and member of BU Students for Justice in Palestine.
BU SJP recently wrote a letter to Jon Webster, director of dining, and Paul Riel, associate vice president for auxiliary services, demanding that the university divest from Sabra products.
“Serving Sabra’s products on campus contributed to their monetary support of colonial violence in occupied territories as Sabra’s profits go directly to Israeli settler oppression,” BU SJP wrote in the letter.
In an Instagram post, BU SJP said the protest Friday also came in response to Israel’s recent bombardment of the city of Rafah, where more than 1.3 million Palestinians are seeking refuge, according to CNN.
Israel’s defense minister announced that Israel is planning a military offensive in Rafah, despite concerns among the international community regarding the safety of the Palestinians currently residing in the southern Gaza city, according to the Associated Press.
“Boston University is complicit in the genocide through investments, entanglements with the Israeli financial system and Israeli companies on campus,” said Steven Macawili, a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. “Boston University should immediately divest [from] any financial connections with Israel and the apartheid regime.”
Macawilli said he believes BU should “take active steps” in protecting the free speech of students.
“We’re protesting the response by Boston University [and] the lack of support for Palestinian, Arab and Muslim students,” Macawili said.
BU Students for Israel Co-President David Kotton, a junior in CAS, said “there are a limited number of pockets of hope” regarding the student dialogue on campus. He said that to him, the political climate of campus is “one of exhaustion and frustration” for Jewish and pro-Israel peers who are “tired of hearing these things.”
“I’m certainly hoping that the working groups on antisemitism and Jewish life, as well as Islamophobia, hopefully come up with something productive,” Kotton said.
Ahmed claimed there is a lack of “direct ways” for Palestinian, Muslim and Arab students to get support at BU.
“The protests have enabled us to have conversations and demonstrate,” Ahmed said. “They’re also incredibly effective for the population that feels kind of powerless right now.”
BU Student Health Services began the Arab & Muslim Students Support Group this February which was promoted in an Instagram post by BU SJP as “a safe space for students identifying as Arab, Arab-American, Biracial, and Muslim to discuss their experiences related to their ethnic, racial, cultural, and religious identities.”
Some protesters said BU should be more explicit in their support for Palestinians.
“I don’t feel like we’re setting the bar really high,” Ahmed said. “We’re just saying internationally recognized human rights … those things ought to be respected.”
Sophia Pinto Thomas, a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences, said it is critical to help “people all over the world whose voices are not being heard or who are suffering.”
“I think it’s really important that campuses and college students show up to things like this and know about things like this,” Pinto Thomas said. “This is the world that we are young leaders in and it’s important to show commitment and solidarity for people everywhere.”
2 Comments
David Kotton CAS ’25February 22, 2024 at 2:30 pmThanks for reporting on this. I want to add some context to my claim that Jewish and pro-Israel students are “tired of hearing these things.” By “these things,” I mean SJP’s deeply troubling chants, specifically:“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” “Globalize the intifada” “We don’t want a two state, we want ’48”So many students across campus are frustrated by the “river to the sea” chant, a call for the elimination of the Jewish state. “Globalize the intifada” promotes a globalization of the violence of the First and Second Intifadas.“We don’t want a two state, we want ’48” is the most troubling chant yet. SJP wants the Jewish state to be wiped off the map and return to a pre-1948 world. Any student of history knows what a pre-1948 world looked like for world Jewry.Thank you for this article, Leia and George. Just wanted to add some context to my claims.
Douglas HauerFebruary 25, 2024 at 1:37 pmDavid is that chanting From the River to Sea going on still and where? Please contact me at dhauer@bu.edu if it occurs. I am adjunct faculty at the Law School. If there is any threatening chanting, please be in touch with me and I will personally raise it with President Freeman. All dialogue must remain civil despite any passions. Doug Hauer
Multimedia tunnel exhibit in Boston offers ‘glimpse’ of experiences of hostages in Gaza
Some 1,200 people signed up to see the installation, B’nai B’rith International said.
David Swindle A B’nai B’rith International-sponsored exhibition in Boston simulating the experiences of hostages in Gazan tunnels in August 2024. Credit: B’nai B’rith.
(Aug. 22, 2024 / JNS)
Some 1,200 people signed up to visit a multimedia tunnel exhibition on City Hall Plaza in Boston that simulates the experiences of hostages whom Hamas continues to hold underground in Gaza.
The exhibit, which ran for three days earlier this week and which B’nai B’rith International sponsored, was previously presented in Washington, D.C., and across Europe. Organizers plan to bring it to other cities.
The show was developed in “close coordination” with the Hostages and Missing Families Forum and hostages released from Gaza in November. It “aimed to raise awareness of the suffering of the 109 who still remain in captivity, including eight Americans,” according to B’nai B’rith.
Daniel Mariaschin, CEO of B’nai B’rith International, at a B’nai B’rith-sponsored exhibition in Boston simulating the experiences of hostages in Gazan tunnels in August 2024. Credit: B’nai B’rith.
“The hostages were quickly forgotten. The posters of these hostages were quickly torn down as soon as they were put up,” said Daniel Mariaschin, CEO of B’nai B’rith whose cousin was kidnapped from Kibbutz Nir Oz by Hamas, at the exhibit opening. “These hostages have been held in unimaginable deplorable conditions.”
“The objective of Hamas is to destroy the State of Israel,” Mariaschin added. “That glimpse that we had in the beginning on Oct. 7, similar to what was seen every day for six years in the Holocaust, was indeed reminiscent of all the other attempts in history that have been made to erase our people and to erase the State of Israel.”
“We wanted to increase awareness and amplify visibility of the hostages,” Douglas Hauer-Gilad, an organizer of the exhibit, told JNS.
“Time is of the essence,” the Boston lawyer added. “We need to bring the hostages home now.”
The exhibit includes audio footage from body cameras worn by Hamas terrorists.
“Visitors were given a glimpse of the roughly 300 miles of underground tunnels beneath Gaza and gained insight into the horrors of Hamas captivity,” per B’nai B’rith. “For a moment, they experienced the terror that hostages have endured over the past 10 months.”
Ed Flynn, a member of the Boston City Council, recognized the exhibit’s significance in a resolution, and Latvian, German, Japanese and Israeli diplomats and Boston Jewish and Catholic leaders visited the show.
“I joined with many members of the greater Boston Jewish community to visit the exhibit due to its importance in understanding the horrors of Hamas captivity, as well as the recognizing the dignity and humanity of the hostages and their families,” Flynn told JNS.
“I also had the opportunity to visit Israel earlier this year in January and witness the aftermath of the Oct. 7 terrorist attack by Hamas,” the councilman added. “Boston City Hall Plaza is the epicenter of civic life in Boston, where local, state and federal responsibilities overlap. This made City Hall Plaza the appropriate location to amplify the visibility of the hostages.”
Flynn added that “we must continue to stand with our Jewish American neighbors and call out and denounce antisemitism when we see it.”
A Jewish academic who attended an “anti-racism” conference at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) was left in tears after enduring “a co-ordinated humiliation”, allegedly at the hands of other delegates.
The university this week hosted the National Symposium on Unifying Anti-Racist Research and Action, an event that has outraged Australia’s Jewish community after attendees were shown an image titled “Dutton’s Jew” at a “comedy debate” hosted by executive officer of the pro-Palestinian Jewish Council of Australia, Sarah Schwartz, on Wednesday.
During the presentation, Ms Schwartz accused the Opposition Leader of hiding behind the Jewish community to promote a right-wing agenda. After footage of her talk was shared on social media, Ms Schwartz said in a statement the clip had been taken out of context, and that was pillorying “Peter Dutton’s racist, ignorant and monolithic conception of Jewish people”.
“Only opportunists could wilfully misrepresent my point, which is that Peter Dutton is exploiting the rise in anti-Semitism for political gain,” she said.
QUT vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil has apologised for the “significant offence” caused.
On Friday, however, University of Queensland Associate Professor Yoni Nazarathy, said his fellow attendees stood and yelled “‘shame’ in unison” in his direction during the symposium, which he alleged was motivated by the leaking of the Dutton cartoon.
The ‘Dutton’s Jew’ cartoon was shown during a ‘comedy debate’ at the symposium on Wednesday. Picture: Supplied
“It was a co-ordinated humiliation. All I could do is sit there and try to exit respectfully,” Professor Nazarathy, a lecturer in artificial intelligence, said.
He became emotional when speaking to The Australian about his “public humiliation”.
“Maybe it was a lesson in racism,” he said, fighting back tears. “So maybe I got my money’s worth.
The Queensland University of Technology (QUT) is facing mounting backlash after an image deemed antisemitic was presented at its recent National Symposium on Unifying Anti-Racist Research and Action.
Intended as a platform to tackle systemic racism, the symposium instead sparked accusations of enabling hate speech under the guise of anti-racism.
The controversy centres on a slide titled “Dutton’s Jew,” presented by Sarah Schwartz, a representative of the anti-Zionist Jewish Council of Australia.
The image, which allegedly caricatured a Jewish figure alongside a list of stereotypes, referenced Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. It was widely condemned by Jewish leaders, sparking national outrage and reigniting debates on antisemitism in Australian universities.
Daniel Aghion KC, President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), labelled the image a disgraceful trope. “It is ironic that such blatant racism was showcased at an anti-racism symposium,” he said.
“The caricature demonises Jewish Australians who support the Coalition. It’s offensive and unacceptable.”
Jason Steinberg, President of the Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies (QJBD), echoed these sentiments, revealing his organisation had warned QUT about the risk of antisemitic content ahead of the event. “We wrote to the university asking for assurances that the symposium would not promote hate speech,” Steinberg said.
“To see this unfold—it’s upside down. A conference supposedly dedicated to anti-racism instead vilified Jewish people. It’s disgraceful.”
Critics argue that the event’s speaker lineup reflected an anti-Israel bias, with Steinberg describing many as “anti-Israel extremists.”
Sarah Schwartz defended her presentation, stating it was satirical and targeted Peter Dutton’s political exploitation of the Jewish community. However, her justification failed to placate Jewish leaders who saw the caricature as crossing the line into hate speech.
The backlash extended beyond Jewish organisations, with Liberal MP Andrew Wallace calling for decisive action. “Public universities should be spaces for learning and inquiry, not platforms for antisemitism,” he said. Wallace urged the Federal Education Minister to withhold funding from QUT until the university takes firm steps to address antisemitism.
The incident has highlighted the growing hostility Jewish students and faculty face on Australian campuses. A submission by the Australian Union of Jewish Students to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism in Universities described an alarming rise in incidents of hate and exclusion.
QUT’s Vice-Chancellor, Margaret Sheil, defended the symposium, stating it aimed to foster diverse perspectives. However, Jewish leaders dismissed this response, accusing the university of prioritising free speech over combating hate speech. “Freedom of expression cannot excuse racism,” Steinberg said.
“QUT leadership has failed to uphold this principle.”
The incident has now reached the federal level, with ECAJ forwarding details to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Aghion stated,
“We expect QUT leadership to explain their actions before the inquiry. Universities must not be allowed to become propaganda factories instead of spaces for learning.”
The episode has sparked wider conversations about antisemitism in Australia. Liberal MP Julian Leeser called for a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on campus, while Zionist Federation of Australia President Jeremy Leibler warned that unchecked rhetoric is “recklessly dangerous,” especially following recent domestic terror attacks targeting Jewish Australians.
The fallout also included reports of targeted humiliation. University of Queensland Associate Professor Yoni Nazarathy described being publicly shamed by attendees at the symposium after the controversial slide leaked. “It was a coordinated attack,” Nazarathy said. Fighting back tears, he added,
“As a Jewish Australian, I don’t feel safe. This is not what Australia needs right now.”
As the uproar continues, many are demanding stronger national leadership to combat antisemitism. QUT has apologised for the offence caused but is yet to announce concrete measures to address the situation.
Queensland University of Technology vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil apologises for anti-racism symposium
David Johns The Nightly
25 Jan 2025
Queensland University of Technology vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil has apologised for an anti-racism symposium that has come under fire for anti-Semitism. Credit: AAP
The head of an Australian university has been forced to apologise after anti-Semitism claims were made during a two-day symposium on racism.
The National Symposium on Unifying Anti-Racist Research and Action, organised by Queensland University of Technology, ran from January 23-24 at the Brisbane Convention Centre.
A speaker at a pre-symposium event used a slide depicting what they called “Dutton’s Jew”, a concocted profile of a Jewish person the speaker reportedly said would fit Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s political motivations.
Another cartoon shown at the conference reportedly encouraged audience members to “throat punch a racist today”.
In a video posted on news.com.au, University of Queensland Associate Professor Yoni Nazarathy said he was “publicly shamed” at the event for calling out the one-sided nature of the speakers.
“I’m a member of the Australian Academic Alliance Against anti-Semitism, called 5A, and together with other colleagues from 5A, we called out this conference with concerns that it only presents speakers from one side.
“This comes at a time where synagogues, cars, childcare centres and more are graffitied and burned in Melbourne and Sydney with other anti-Semitic attacks taking place here in Brisbane as well.
“It is a shame that the organisers for the conference did not use this moment to bring together all communities, including Jews like me, that identify as Zionists.
The “Dutton’s Jew” slide at the conference. Credit: Supplied
“If the organisers of the conference think that the solution to anti-racism is to single out the one person in the room that actually holds a different view that comes and listens respectfully, listens to the elders, listens to the First Nations people, and yes, even listens to the Palestinian speakers — of which there were many.
“If the conference organisers think that anti-racism is putting me there and in a coordinated manner shaming me, well, I think that another conference on anti-racism should be organised sooner rather than later.”
QUT vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil issued a statement apologising for the “hurt and offence” caused at the symposium.
“Seeing the slide, I understand why the presentation has caused significant offence, and I am sorry for the hurt caused to anyone within, and outside, the QUT community,” she said.
“I will undertake to review the circumstances of this presentation and take any action necessary.
“As for the appropriateness of the speakers on the main symposium program, it is important that universities continue to engage in rigorous discussion and debate about the issues so important to our time.
“It is equally important that this is done in a way that is respectful and safe.
“I expect that this event will be subject to further scrutiny in the upcoming parliamentary inquiry into anti-Semitism in Australian universities and we will fully cooperate with that inquiry.”
A QUT spokesperson said the symposium was “an opportunity for leading anti-racist researchers and practitioners to explore strategies for addressing systemic racism, locally and globally”.
The spokesperson said the slide shown at the pre-symposium event “caused significant concern”.
Statement: Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities
Opening Statement by President Hugh de Kretser to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities, delivered on 22 January 2025
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and for the work of this committee on this important issue. I acknowledge we are meeting on the lands of Ngunnawal and Ngambri people.
Antisemitism is an insidious form of racism and hatred. It has no place in Australia.
Antisemitism harms individuals and communities. It affects people’s identity and self-esteem, their sense of belonging and inclusion, their participation in public life and their wellbeing and safety.
There is an alarming and intensifying nationwide rise in antisemitism including arson attacks on synagogues, a parliamentarian’s office and now a childcare centre. There has been racist violence, racist graffiti on schools and homes and racist abuse and threats.
The purpose of these vile attacks is to instil fear and division. The targeting of the Australian Jewish community impacts all of us. The strength of any community lies in its ability to defend others. If we fail to protect any minority group from harm, we fail as a nation.
The focus of this inquiry is on responding to the rise in antisemitism at Australian universities. Antisemitism in universities is connected to broader antisemitism in our communities and neighbourhoods.
Universities exist to promote learning and thinking, the exchange of ideas and the development of people and communities.
Essential to these objectives is fostering a culture of respect and inclusion and ensuring safety and freedom from discrimination for all students and staff. Also essential is ensuring universities are places where ideas can be questioned and different views can be respectfully shared.
The Australian Human Rights Commission is strongly focused on addressing antisemitism and all forms of racism.
We provide expert advice on laws and policies to address racism, discrimination and hate speech including by identifying changes needed to make our national discrimination and vilification laws more effective.
Our National Anti-Racism Framework launched late last year outlines a comprehensive approach for eliminating racism in Australia. We are also undertaking community engagement and awareness raising about racism to support safety in Jewish, Palestinian, Muslim and Arab communities in Australia.
Perhaps most importantly given the terms of reference of this inquiry, we are conducting a landmark national study on the prevalence, nature and impact of racism at universities and how to address it. Eliminating antisemitism at universities is a focus of this work. The Commission’s legislation has strong provisions to protect confidential information shared with us through the study. We released our Interim Report last month and our final report is due in June this year.
Our work will complement the work of this inquiry and also that of the inquiry last year by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We thank those who have shared their experiences with these inquiries. The many submissions of students and staff bear witness to the human impact of antisemitism at universities.
Issues around the intersection between freedom from discrimination and vilification and freedom of expression and peaceful assembly are at the heart of this inquiry into antisemitism.
Human rights principles provide practical guidance on how to balance human rights when they intersect and maximise intersecting rights to the greatest extent possible. They require that any limitation on a human right must be for a legitimate purpose and must be no wider than is necessary to achieve that purpose.
Applying these principles will help universities to address antisemitism and promote the human rights of all students and staff.
******
Hugh de Kretser, President Area: Commission – General
In early January, the General Assembly of the American Historical Association (AHA) debated a resolution against Israel. The resolution was titled “Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza,” and stated: “Whereas the US government has underwritten the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) campaign in Gaza with over $12.5 billion in military aid between October 2023 and June 2024; Whereas that campaign, beyond causing massive death and injury to Palestinian civilians and the collapse of basic life structures, has effectively obliterated Gaza’s education system; Whereas in April 2024, UN experts expressed “grave concern over… an action known as scholasticide.” The group Historians for Peace and Democracy were the driving force behind the resolution.
According to the resolution, the bases for such charges include the following: “The IDF’s destruction of 80 percent of schools in Gaza, leaving 625,000 children with no educational access; The IDF’s destruction of all 12 Gaza university campuses; The IDF’s destruction of Gaza’s archives, libraries, cultural centers, museums, and bookstores, including 195 heritage sites, 227 mosques, three churches, and the al-Aqsa University library, which preserved crucial documents and other materials related to the history and culture of Gaza; The IDF’s repeated violent displacements of Gaza’s people, leading to the irreplaceable loss of students’ and teachers’ educational and research materials, which will extinguish the future study of Palestinian history.”
The resolution concluded that “Whereas the United States government has supplied Israel with the weapons being used to commit this scholasticide; Therefore, be it resolved that the AHA, which supports the right of all peoples to freely teach and learn about their past, condemns the Israeli violence in Gaza that undermines that right; Be it further resolved that the AHA calls for a permanent ceasefire to halt the scholasticide documented above; Finally, be it resolved that the AHA form a committee to assist in rebuilding Gaza’s educational infrastructure.”
ָAfter the debate and the vote in favor; the resolution was forwarded to the AHA Council for the final examination. However, the AHA Council vetoed the resolution on January 17, 2025, stating: “After careful deliberation and consideration, the AHA Council has vetoed the Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza.” They explained that “The AHA Council deplores any intentional destruction of Palestinian educational institutions, libraries, universities, and archives in Gaza. The Council considers the ‘Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza,’ however, to contravene the Association’s Constitution and Bylaws, because it lies outside the scope of the Association’s mission and purpose, defined in its Constitution.”
According to the AHA constitution, “the promotion of historical studies through the encouragement of research, teaching, and publication; the collection and preservation of historical documents and artifacts; the dissemination of historical records and information; the broadening of historical knowledge among the general public; and the pursuit of kindred activities in the interest of history.” The Council ended by stating, “The AHA Council appreciates the work of Historians for Peace and Democracy and recognizes the diversity of perspectives, concerns, and commitments among AHA members.”
Upon hearing the news, the Steering Committee of Historians for Peace and Democracy (H-PAD) was very upset. It published a response to the AHA veto on behalf of Historians for Peace and Democracy. It stated, “The American Historical Association Council’s decision to veto our resolution is a shocking decision. It overturns an unprecedented landslide vote at the January 5 Business Meeting, where 82% of the 520 members present voted for our resolution. Given that Council itself was clearly divided, with four of the sixteen members opposing the veto and one abstaining, Council should have allowed the entire membership to vote, as was the case with the 2007 resolution opposing the war in Iraq. Instead, the Council majority have arrogated the decision to themselves in a profoundly undemocratic way.”
They argued, “This veto is also in bad faith: if Council believes this resolution violates the AHA’s Constitution, it should not have let it come to a vote in the first place. To decide that after the fact—and after Council put considerable effort into structuring a democratic process for handling resolutions—is just wrong. It suggests that the actual reasons for overturning the members’ decision are unstated, and the continuing weight of the ‘Palestine exception’ to free speech, as we have seen on campuses across the U.S. in the past year, is also inside our own Association.”
They further argued, “if this resolution violates the Constitution, then so do the following: The 2007 decision to censure the war in Iraq, which the membership approved overwhelmingly after Council sent it out for a vote; Council’s March 2022 statement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine; Other statements Council has made in recent years, including criticisms of the governments of China and Poland.”
They ended their protest by stating, “We do not accept in any way the false argument that our resolution lies outside of the AHA’s purview and mission. We are defending the right of Palestinians and people everywhere to study their own history. We are denouncing the crime of Israel’s scholasticide— the deliberate destruction of universities, schools, libraries, archives and cultural sites. We believe Council’s majority has acted in this way because they have good reason to believe the membership as a whole would support our resolution, and therefore they suppressed a democratic decision-making process. Let us hope this is not a foretaste of the ‘anticipatory obedience’ to the current wave of authoritarianism that is sweeping our campuses. We will urge our members to write Council directly calling for an immediate reconsideration. In the next week we will also convene an online mass meeting of our 1,950 members to discuss further action.”
Interestingly, the mission of Historians for Peace & Democracy, under the banner of “Organizing for Justice and Honest History,” is to “stand up for peace and diplomacy internationally, and for democracy and human rights at home. We mobilize activists on campuses and in communities across the United States of America, create educational resources for students, teachers and parents, and network with other organizations working for peace and democracy at home and abroad.”
This is quite surprising; for a group that promotes peace and democracy, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas do not serve as good examples.
Clearly, the H-PAD and other activists turned the AHA meeting into a pro-Palestinian rally, with participants wearing kaffiyehs and chanting “Free Palestine.” This opened the AHA to criticism that, like liberal arts in general, it became politicized and lost its legitimacy. Indeed, Van Gosse, a retired historian who serves as H-PAD’s Co-Chair, claims, it is “my work to understand and combat US imperialism.”
Already in 2014, Haaretzpublished an article on BDS, where Gosse was mentioned as the co-organizer of a roundtable discussion at the AHA meeting by historians “critical of Israeli policy.” His group proposed two resolutions condemning Israel. Their resolutions reprimand Israel for “acts of violence and intimidation by the State of Israel against Palestinian researchers and their archival collections, acts which can destroy Palestinians’ sense of historical identity as well as the historical record itself,” for “refusing to allow students from Gaza to travel in order to pursue higher education abroad, and even at West Bank universities” and its “policy of denying entry to foreign nationals seeking to promote educational development in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,” He said. “If you move a large body like the AHA, which has real standing, that changes consciousness and opinion… If we stimulate debate on these issues, that’s what we’re seeking to do.” Gosse personally donated money to JVP.
There are more cases. On July 21, 2024, Stone Peterson, a history doctoral student posted a request on Facebook on behalf of the Israel Palestine Working Group of Historians for Peace and Democracy, urging “Stop AIPAC and its influence over US politics. Boycott Netanyahu’s visit to Congress.”
Not unexpectedly, the resolution bears the hallmarks of academic activism. First, there are the double standards; the AHA has to charge even the most brutal dictatorship that erased the history and scholarship of ethnic, religious, and class groups deemed to be enemies of the regime. The list is very long, but the historians would be well-advised to look at the eradication of entire parts of history and scholarship of Iran and respiting other parts to fit the worldview of the theocratic regime in Tehran.
Second, the fact that Hamas, which has practiced radical embedding in schools, universities, and other public venues, turning civilians into human shields – a clear violation of the laws of war – was not mentioned in the proposed resolution. IAM has repeatedly noted that this type of omission is deliberate. It presents the Palestinians as lacking in agency, that is, not responsible for their own acts and decisions, the “forever victims” of the “nefarious Israelis and Jews.” Leaving out Hamas is essential to preserving the long-standing moral perversion that Israelis (and Jews) can do nothing right and the Palestinians can do nothing wrong. While this approach is wrong in any academic discourse, it is most galling when used by historians whose authority and legitimacy lie in the careful pursuit of facts.
Update as of January 17, 2025: After careful deliberation and consideration, the AHA Council has vetoed the “Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza.” More information can be found here.
Update as of January 17, 2025: The AHA Council deplores any intentional destruction of Palestinian educational institutions, libraries, universities, and archives in Gaza. The Council considers the “Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza,” however, to contravene the Association’s Constitution and Bylaws, because it lies outside the scope of the Association’s mission and purpose, defined in its Constitution as “the promotion of historical studies through the encouragement of research, teaching, and publication; the collection and preservation of historical documents and artifacts; the dissemination of historical records and information; the broadening of historical knowledge among the general public; and the pursuit of kindred activities in the interest of history.” After careful deliberation and consideration, the AHA Council vetoes the resolution. The AHA Council appreciates the work of Historians for Peace and Democracy and recognizes the diversity of perspectives, concerns, and commitments among AHA members.
The American Historical Association Council’s decision to veto our resolution is a shocking decision. It overturns an unprecedented landslide vote at the January 5 Business Meeting, where 82% of the 520 members present voted for our resolution. Given that Council itself was clearly divided, with four of the sixteen members opposing the veto and one abstaining, Council should have allowed the entire membership to vote, as was the case with the 2007 resolution opposing the war in Iraq. Instead, the Council majority have arrogated the decision to themselves in a profoundly undemocratic way.
This veto is also in bad faith: if Council believes this resolution violates the AHA’s Constitution, it should not have let it come to a vote in the first place. To decide that after the fact—and after Council put considerable effort into structuring a democratic process for handling resolutions—is just wrong. It suggests that the actual reasons for overturning the members’ decision are unstated, and the continuing weight of the “Palestine exception” to free speech, as we have seen on campuses across the U.S. in the past year, is also inside our own Association.
Further, if this resolution violates the Constitution, then so do the following:
The 2007 decision to censure the war in Iraq, which the membership approved overwhelmingly after Council sent it out for a vote;
Council’s March 2022 statement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine;
Other statements Council has made in recent years, including criticisms of the governments of China and Poland.
We do not accept in any way the false argument that our resolution lies outside of the AHA’s purview and mission. We are defending the right of Palestinians and people everywhere to study their own history. We are denouncing the crime of Israel’s scholasticide— the deliberate destruction of universities, schools, libraries, archives and cultural sites. We believe Council’s majority has acted in this way because they have good reason to believe the membership as a whole would support our resolution, and therefore they suppressed a democratic decision-making process. Let us hope this is not a foretaste of the “anticipatory obedience” to the current wave of authoritarianism that is sweeping our campuses.
We will urge our members to write Council directly calling for an immediate reconsideration. In the next week we will also convene an online mass meeting of our 1,950 members to discuss further action.
Steering Committee of Historians for Peace and Democracy
Update as of January 6, 2025: The “Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza” was passed by members attending the business meeting. As per the AHA’s Constitution, article 7(3–5), all measures passed by the business meeting shall come before the AHA Council for acceptance, nonconcurrence, or veto. The AHA Council has begun a thoughtful and vigorous conversation and will make a decision at its next meeting, which will take place within the month.
RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE JANUARY 2025 BUSINESS MEETING
The following resolution, signed by 252 AHA members in good standing as of October 1, 2024, was submitted to the executive director for consideration at the January 5, 2025, business meeting. A full list of signatories can be viewed online at historians.org/business-mtg.
Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza
Whereas the US government has underwritten the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) campaign in Gaza with over $12.5 billion in military aid between October 2023 and June 2024; Whereas that campaign, beyond causing massive death and injury to Palestinian civilians and the collapse of basic life structures, has effectively obliterated Gaza’s education system; Whereas in April 2024, UN experts expressed “grave concern over the pattern of attacks on schools, universities, teachers, and students in the Gaza Strip” including “the killing of 261 teachers and 95 university professors . . . which may constitute an intentional effort to comprehensively destroy the Palestinian education system, an action known as scholasticide.”
The bases for this charge include:
• The IDF’s destruction of 80 percent of schools in Gaza, leaving 625,000 children with no educational access;
• The IDF’s destruction of all 12 Gaza university campuses;
• The IDF’s destruction of Gaza’s archives, libraries, cultural centers, museums, and bookstores, including 195 heritage sites, 227 mosques, three churches, and the al-Aqsa University library, which preserved crucial documents and other materials related to the history and culture of Gaza;
• The IDF’s repeated violent displacements of Gaza’s people, leading to the irreplaceable loss of students’ and teachers’ educational and research materials, which will extinguish the future study of Palestinian history;
Whereas the United States government has supplied Israel with the weapons being used to commit this scholasticide; Therefore, be it resolved that the AHA, which supports the right of all peoples to freely teach and learn about their past, condemns the Israeli violence in Gaza that undermines that right; Be it further resolved that the AHA calls for a permanent ceasefire to halt the scholasticide documented above;
Finally, be it resolved that the AHA form a committee to assist in rebuilding Gaza’s educational infrastructure.
The mission of Historians for Peace &Democracy (H-PAD) is to stand up for peace and diplomacy internationally, and for democracy and human rights at home. We mobilize activists on campuses and in communities across the United States of America, create educational resources for students, teachers and parents, and network with other organizations working for peace and democracy at home and abroad. First formed in 2003 as Historians Against the War, we reorganized as H-PAD in 2018.
Every year historians from the U.S. and abroad gather for the annual meeting of the American Historical Association. In January of 2025 Historians for Peace and Democracy asked their colleagues to join with us to pass a resolution condemning the ongoing Israeli destruction of the Palestinian education system, and the killing of its staff and students.
Our colleagues responded with overwhelming support, voting 428 to 88 in favor of the resolution. This was the culmination of a lot of work by H-PAD members and many others outraged by the destruction of the education system in Gaza, and the death of thousands of its teachers and students. Since the passage of the resolution there has been coverage in Haaretz, in The New York Times, Inside Higher Education, on Democracy Now!, and elsewhere. If you support the resolution but weren’t able to attend the meeting, we urge you to help us prepare for what comes next.
495 views Oct 30, 2024This slideshow is a visual representation of the “Resolution to Oppose Scholasticide in Gaza” presented by Historians for Peace and Democracy to the American Historical Association. The text of this resolution is available at historiansforpeace.org: https://historiansforpeace.org/2024/0… If you are a member of the AHA come to the Business Meeting on Sunday January 5, 2025, from 5:15-6:30PM in the Mercury Ballroom (New York Hilton, Third Floor) and vote to pass this resolution. This slideshow was produced by the The Israel Palestine Working Group of Historians for Peace and Democracy.
The Israel Palestine Working Group of H-PAD has been working since October 2023 to promote a ceasefire and humanitarian aid to Gaza. We also oppose U.S. military aid to Israel, which only serves to prolong the war and increase the suffering of Palestinians and the destruction of Gaza.
To get our message across we have written letters to elected legislators, to the editors of the Chicago Tribune, the Orlando Sentinel, and the Daytona Beach News-Journal, and published articles in The Nation and El Espectador (Bogota, Colombia).
We have also produced two short videos (designed to be shared!) on why people should support the ceasefire, and another on why criticism of Israeli policy is NOT anti-Semitic.
You can view (and share!) them on youtube or other social media platforms:
We hope you will join us in our work! If you think you can contribute, please Margaret Power at cochairs@historiansforpeace.org.
Watch the new video produced by the Israel Palestine Working Group of Historians for Peace and Democracy, Stand Against AIPAC
Stop AIPAC and its influence over US politics. Boycott Netanyahu’s visit to Congress.The Israel Palestine Working Group of Historians for Peace and Democracy…
Stop AIPAC and its influence over US politics. Boycott Netanyahu’s visit to Congress. To support Cori Bush, contact Seed the Vote at https://www.mobilize.us/seedthevote/e… The Israel Palestine Working Group of Historians for Peace and Democracy produced this video. Let us know what you think of it. And please share!
IAM reported several times on Brown University Center for Middle East Studies and its head, Professor Beshara Doumani. Among others, Doumani, a known anti-Israel activist, recruited anti-Israel Israeli academics, such as Prof. Ariella Azoulay, to espouse anti-Israel themes. He later took time out to lead Bir-Zeit University in the West Bank but recently resumed his Brown position.
One of his latest ventures is a February conference co-sponsored by Brown University’s Cogut Institute for the Humanities and the Departments of History and Religious Studies. Titled “Non-Zionist Jewish Traditions,” the conference will question the “contemporary conflations of Judaism and Zionism.” It will examine “non-Zionist Jewish traditions throughout history and across different regions.”
According to the conference invitation, the speakers are going to address the “changing relation to Zionism and the State of Israel in various Orthodox communities, in socialist and communist Jewish traditions, in the U.S. and Europe, among Ottoman and Arab Jews critical of the Zionist idea before 1948, among those who refused to immigrate to Israel or who lived there as dissidents, and among disillusioned Zionists in Israel and abroad.” The conference intends to look at “the spectrum of non-Zionist forms of Jewish thinking, activism, and organizing in their historical, ideological, theological, and theoretical contexts.”
The conference features a large number of themes: Shaul Magid, “Zionism as Assimilation: Aaron Shmuel Tamares on the Hypnosis of Nationalism.” Omer Bartov, “Yankel, Victor, and Manfred: Antisemitism and Zionism Before the Holocaust — Lived Reality and the Literary Imagination.” Sarah Hammerschlag, “The Post-war Irremissibility of Being Jewish: Non-Zionist possibilities beyond Diasporism.” Geoffrey Levin, “American Jewish Non-Zionism: A History — and a Future?” Jonathan Boyarin, “The Making of a Non-Zionist.” Michelle Campos, “Anti-Zionism in an Ottoman Turkish Key: David Fresko between Empire and Republic.” Orit Bashkin, “Zionism, Arabism, and MENA Jews, 1846–1956.” Ariella Aïsha Azoulay, “Ima, Why Didn’t You Love Me in Ladino?” Harry Merritt, “Jewish Sons of Latvia: Latvian Jews and Non-Zionist National Identity in War and Peace.” Michael Steinberg, “The Confederative Imagination.” David Myers, “A Taxonomy of Jewish Anti-Zionisms: From the ‘Lost Atlantis’ to the New Jerusalem.” Jonathan Judaken, “Judith Butler, Hannah Arendt, and the Tradition of the Conscious Pariah.” Daniel Boyarin, “Eretz-Yisroel [Is] Wherever You Are: Zionism Against the Jews.” Omri Boehm, “Beyond Zionism and Anti-Zionism.” Adi M. Ophir, “Jewish Anti-Zionism: Reflection on Its Context, Meaning, and Political Imagination.” Roundtable: “Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and the Stakes of the Debate,” Aslı Ü. Bâli, Omer Bartov, Mari Cohen, Beshara Doumani. Moderator: Shaul Magid.
Even if these offerings look somewhat confusing, the conference’s sole purpose is propagandists, notably to prove that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. As the organizers stated: the goal is to question the “contemporary conflations of Judaism and Zionism.” The reason is quite obvious. After the October 7 attack of Hamas on the Jewish communities bordering Gaza, campuses erupted in violence against Jews, which was clearly antisemitic in nature according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Definition that was adopted by many countries. In the United States, it has been adopted by several states, counties, and cities, and the State Department uses it. Most consequentially, as a result of the disturbances, scores of colleges and universities have been sued for failing to protect Jewish students against antisemitic attacks.
No one has ever claimed that Jews throughout the ages were universally Zionists. There still exist Jews who do not identify with Zionism, and some, like some extreme ultraorthodox groups, do not recognize Israel. But, during its seven decades of existence, the majority of Jews have supported the state of Israel, and, according to repeated opinion surveys, Zionism and its embodiment, the State of Israel, has been an important part of Jewish identity.
Not unexpectedly, a considerable number of scholars who appear on the panels are known as prominent critics of Israel. Some, like Adi Ophir and Ariella Azulay, have been profiled numerous times by IAM. In his book The Necessity of Exile: Essays from a Distance, Shaul Magid, a professor of Jewish studies at Dartmouth College,argues that Jews “should consider anew the benefits of living in exile.” It is bitterly ironic that the powerful anti-Zionist Jewish elite in America made the same argument before WWII. Maybe Magid needs to be reminded that there are perils of living in exile, as the tremendous increase in violent attacks on Jews in Europe and the United States illustrates.
A second conference at Brown University also needs attention. Organized by New Directions in Palestinian Studies (NDPS), with equally propagandist goals. It took place in March 2024, and was titled “Palestine and the Palestinians After October 7.” The conference was advertised as intending to “bring together three generations (emerging, established, senior) of engaged scholars to envision how to move forward conceptually and practically as a community. Roughly two dozen attendees will discuss, in a closed seminar setting, twelve short think pieces. In line with the NDPS mission, which centers Palestinians in research projects, the think pieces—diverse in terms of topic, themes, disciplines, and theoretical approaches—are expected to focus on the internal landscape of the Palestinian body politic within regional and global contexts.”
The two-day program, introduced by Beshara Doumani, covered a number of issues. Sherene Seikaly “Ruins and Abundance”; Ruba Salih, “Palestinian Refugees: Reflecting on a Politics of Return”; Beshara Doumani “Rebuilding from the Rubble Yet Again: Towards the Fourth Phase of Palestinian Collective Action”, Nada Elia “Uplifting Palestine’s Indigenous Feminism” Amahl Bishara , “A New Nakba, and Reconstituting Collectivities” Sarah Ihmoud “I will weep for my beautiful city”: Palestinian Women’s Testimonies of Genocide in Gaza: Leila Farsakh, Noura Erakat, “Nakba Peace: Israel’s Demand for Exception to the Prohibition on Genocide,” Nasir al-Masri The “Day After” and Palestinian Self-Determination,” Abdel Razzaq Takriti “Genocide and the National Unity Question,” Ali Musleh, “Seeing the World From the Mouth of a Tunnel,” Bassam Haddad, “Only the Most Important Thing,”: Loubna Qutami, Nasser Abourahme, “In Tune with Their Time,” Mjriam Abu Samra, “New Horizons in Struggle: The Role of Transnational Palestinian Youth in Decolonial Politics,” Samar Al-Saleh, and Tamar Ghabin, “Reflections on the Post October 7 Era: The University, Labor and the Need for Engaged Intellectuals.”
Several factors are worth noting. First, there is a strong emphasis on the alleged “genocide” in Gaza. As IAM repeatedly demonstrated, Palestinians and their supporters have made a tremendous effort to propagate the idea that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. As the previous IAM post stressed, the war in Gaza is not a case of genocide per the international humanitarian convention. Second, there is a conspicuous omission of the Hamas brutal attack on the Jewish communities on October 7, which featured extraordinary violence, including murder, rape, and kidnappings of innocent civilians. The failure to mention Hamas and its misdeeds is crucial to the “genocide” narrative spun by pro-Palestinian activists. For that matter, the speakers shy away from commenting on the brutal rule of Hamas in Gaza, which became clear after the IDF uncovered the terror group’s documents in the tunnels. For decades, Hamas oppressed the population with a combination of punitive economic policies and imprisoned and tortured those who complained. The contents of the international aid tracks have been stolen by Hamas terrorists and sold on the black market for huge profits. Third, there is no mention of the fact that Hamas is embedded in public places, turning civilians into human shields.
The participants in this conference, like others before them, are probably aware that the brutal Islamist ideology of Hamas and its sponsor, Iran, did Palestinians no good. But they cannot admit to any of it because it would hurt the image of Palestinians as the innocent victims of Jewish “genocidal and apartheid policy.” To sustain this paradigm, history and reality have to be denied.
The Brown University leadership should be alerted.
This academic conference sets into question contemporary conflations of Judaism and Zionism by exploring a rainbow of non-Zionist Jewish traditions throughout history and across different regions. Speakers at the conference will address the changing relation to Zionism and the State of Israel in various Orthodox communities, in socialist and communist Jewish traditions, in the U.S. and Europe, among Ottoman and Arab Jews critical of the Zionist idea before 1948, among those who refused to immigrate to Israel or who lived there as dissidents, and among disillusioned Zionists in Israel and abroad. Together they will give an account of the spectrum of non-Zionist forms of Jewish thinking, activism, and organizing in their historical, ideological, theological, and theoretical contexts.
Free and open to the public, but please register. For questions or to request special services, accommodations, or assistance, please contact humanities-institute@brown.edu or (401) 863-6070.
The event is cosponsored by the Cogut Institute for the Humanities and the Departments of History and Religious Studies. It is convened by Omer Bartov, Holly Case, Shaul Magid, Adi M. Ophir, and Peter Szendy.
Speakers and Moderators
Ariella Aïsha Azoulay (Brown University)
Aslı Ü. Bâli (Yale Law School)
Omer Bartov (Brown University)
Orit Bashkin (University of Chicago)
Omri Boehm (New School for Social Research)
Daniel Boyarin (University of California, Berkeley)
Jonathan Boyarin (Cornell University)
Michelle Campos (Penn State University)
Holly Case (Brown University)
Mari Cohen (Jewish Currents)
Beshara Doumani (Brown University)
Sarah Hammerschlag (University of Chicago)
Jonathan Judaken (Washington University, St. Louis)
Geoffrey Levin (Emory University)
Shaul Magid (Harvard Divinity School)
Harry Merritt (University of Vermont)
David Myers (University of California, Los Angeles)
Adi M. Ophir (Brown University)
Michael Steinberg (Brown University)
Peter Szendy (Brown University)
Max Weiss (Princeton University)
Schedule
Monday, February 3
8:30 am – 9:00 am
Opening Remarks
9:00 am – 10:50 am
Panel: In EuropeShaul Magid,“Zionism as Assimilation: Aaron Shmuel Tamares on the Hypnosis of Nationalism”Omer Bartov, “Yankel, Victor, and Manfred: Antisemitism and Zionism Before the Holocaust — Lived Reality and the Literary Imagination”Sarah Hammerschlag, “The Post-war Irremissibility of Being Jewish: Non-Zionist possibilities beyond Diasporism”Moderator: Adi M. Ophir
10:50 am – 11:10 am
Break
11:10 am – 1:00 pm
Panel: Non-Zionists, Old and NewHarry Merritt, “Jewish Sons of Latvia: Latvian Jews and Non-Zionist National Identity in War and Peace”Geoffrey Levin, “American Jewish Non-Zionism: A History — and a Future?”Jonathan Boyarin, “The Making of a Non-Zionist”Moderator: Omer Bartov
2:30 pm – 4:20 pm
Panel: In the Wake of the Ottoman WorldMichelle Campos, “Anti-Zionism in an Ottoman Turkish Key: David Fresko between Empire and Republic.”Orit Bashkin, “Zionism, Arabism, and MENA Jews, 1846–1956”Ariella Aïsha Azoulay, “Ima, Why Didn’t You Love Me in Ladino?”Moderator: Max Weiss
4:20 pm – 4:40 pm
Break
4:40 pm – 6:30 pm
Roundtable: On Recently Published BooksShaul MagidDaniel BoyarinJonathan JudakenModerator: Peter Szendy
Tuesday, February 4
8:45 am – 10:35 am
Panel: On and Over the MarginsMichael Steinberg, “The Confederative Imagination”David Myers, “A Taxonomy of Jewish Anti-Zionisms: From the ‘Lost Atlantis’ to the New Jerusalem”Jonathan Judaken, “Judith Butler, Hannah Arendt, and the Tradition of the Conscious Pariah”
10:40 am – 12:40 pm
Panel: Disillusioned ZionistsDaniel Boyarin, “Eretz-Yisroel [Is] Wherever You Are: Zionism Against the Jews”Omri Boehm, “Beyond Zionism and Anti-Zionism”Adi M. Ophir, “Jewish Anti-Zionism: Reflection on Its Context, Meaning, and Political Imagination”Moderator: Holly Case
2:00 pm – 4:00 pm
Roundtable: Anti-Zionism, Anti-Semitism, and the Stakes of the DebateAslı Ü. BâliOmer BartovMari CohenBeshara DoumaniModerator: Shaul Magid
The ninth annual workshop of New Directions in Palestinian Studies (NDPS) is to be held at Brown University on March 8–9, 2024, on the theme, “Palestine and the Palestinians after October 7.”
The workshop will bring together three generations (emerging, established, senior) of engaged scholars to envision how to move forward conceptually and practically as a community. Roughly two dozen attendees will discuss, in a closed seminar setting, twelve short think pieces. In line with the NDPS mission, which centers Palestinians in research projects, the think pieces—diverse in terms of topic, themes, disciplines, and theoretical approaches—are expected to focus on the internal landscape of the Palestinian body politic within regional and global contexts.
Venue: Joukowsky Forum, Watson Institute By invitation
LETTER OF INVITATION
The 2024 NDPS theme, “Palestine and the Palestinians after October 7,” simply asks: How did we get here? And where are we going?
The workshop will bring together three generations (emerging, established, senior) of engaged scholars to envision how to move forward conceptually and practically as a community. Roughly two dozen attendees will discuss, in a closed seminar setting, ten short think pieces that will be circulated at the end of February 2024. In line with the NDPS mission which centers Palestinians in research projects, the think pieces –diverse in terms of topic, themes, disciplines, and theoretical approaches– are expected to focus on the internal landscape of the Palestinian body politic within regional and global contexts.
Some of the general questions for discussion include: How does this moment challenge dominant paradigms – nationalist, relational, settler colonial, and indigeneity—and their associated conceptual vocabularies? How can we critically re-evaluate our visions for Palestinian futures both beyond and between the interstices of the state-centric and human rights approaches? What are the horizons and priorities for knowledge production, intra-Palestinian activism, and intersectional solidarities? What Palestinian institutions and networks, existing or imagined, can constitute scaffolding for these futures? As the first day of the workshop falls on March 8, International Women’s Day, the afternoon panel on that day will focus on feminist approaches to rethinking Palestine and the Palestinians.
Last September, a group of members of the Modern Language Association (MLA), an international association of scholars, submitted a BDS resolution against Israel titled “Resolution to Endorse the 2005 Palestinian BDS Call.” They included supporting documentation to the Resolution. Among the supporters of the BDS resolution was Prof. Mona Baker, who, in 2002, dismissed from her publications two scholars because they were Israelis.
The authors of the Resolution come from a number of American universities. Anthony Alessandrini, Professor of English and Middle Eastern Studies at the City University of New York; Raj Chetty, Associate Professor of English at St. John’s University; Cynthia Franklin, Professor of English at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa; Hannah Manshel, Assistant Professor of English at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa; David Palumbo-Liu, Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor of Comparative Literature at Stanford University; Neelofer Qadir, Assistant Professor of English at Georgia State University; S. Shankar is Professor of English at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa.
As a rule, the MLA’s Delegate Assembly (DA), representing all members, debates a resolution at the annual convention and votes for or against it. The MLA’s Executive Council (EC), an elected governing body, reviews all resolutions for any legal, financial, or similar issues.
This year, however, upon receiving advice from MLA counsel, the EC decided not to forward the BDS Resolution to the DA for the likelihood of damages to the MLA and its partners from anti-BDS legislation in various states.
Blocking the debate on the Resolution spurred anger among members. The authors of the Resolution protested the decision by writing “A Call to the Modern Language Association to Let Members Decide About BDS.” They declared, “We are seven of the dozens of Modern Language Association members who came together to write a resolution in support of the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. Some of us have been involved in organizing around that call since it was issued by 170 Palestinian civil society organizations in 2005; others have come to Palestine solidarity work more recently. All of us feel the urgency imposed by the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza, funded and supported in every way by the U.S. government. It’s crucial for the Modern Language Association, the world’s largest association for humanities students, teachers, and researchers, to take a clear and meaningful stance against this genocide. We were heartened by the fact that an increasing number of academic and professional organizations have voted to stand with the Palestinian BDS call.”
The authors gave examples of the various professional associations that endorsed BDS. They then explained how they created the resolution, “we spoke with Palestinian scholars who have faced forms of repression those of us in North America can only imagine, and were continually inspired by their courage, resourcefulness, and steadfastness. Recognizing that we came to this work as educators, we compiled extensive documentation in support of the resolution. This meant poring over expert sources enumerating the horrors of the ongoing genocide in Gaza. It meant engaging with the work of Palestinian, Israeli, and international scholars who have documented the decades-long Israeli campaign of scholasticide—the systematic attempt to destroy the Palestinian education system—that has most recently involved destroying every university in Gaza. And it meant coming to terms with the workings of the apartheid system that affects every Palestinian, as documented by the International Court of Justice, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B’Tselem.”
The authors argued that the right to boycott is based on the MLA’s mission statement, which states that the MLA “supports and encourages… justice throughout the humanities ecosystem.”
The authors accused the MLA leadership of succumbing to the fear that the penalty for passing the Resolution would result in a loss of revenue. “Instead of repressing a resolution against genocide—and setting a precedent by which any democratic deliberation over ‘unpopular’ political issues can be suppressed in the name of maintaining the profit margin—perhaps we need to re-think the priorities of the MLA, and of our academic institutions more generally. Perhaps the MLA doesn’t need a slew of upper-level administrators earning six-figure salaries while the majority of those teaching in the humanities—our adjunct and graduate student worker colleagues—don’t even earn a living wage. Perhaps we don’t need lavish conferences with massive carbon footprints, or shiny data-driven reports that tell us that the humanities are in crisis. Perhaps this is exactly why the humanities are in crisis. The MLA can choose a different path…. the MLA is today actively silencing those who wish to take a stand against genocide and scholasticide in Palestine.”
They ended by stressing, “Nevertheless, the organizers of this resolution will continue to push for what it represents: taking a stand with our Palestinian colleagues against genocide and scholasticide, and ending the institutional complicity that enables them. The results of the recent U.S. elections will make the organizing environment for MLA members, and for our students and colleagues everywhere, much more difficult. That’s all the more reason for our professional organizations to show some backbone, rather than responding with anticipatory obedience. Most important, at the upcoming convention and beyond, we will center the voices of Palestinian scholars and students who continue to resist their erasure.”
The authors concluded, “Some of us became teachers of literature because we believe it helps keep us human, even in a world of genocide, of schoolchildren targeted by snipers and poets murdered by missiles, of unjust laws and profit motives and complicity where there should be courage. It’s not too late for the world’s largest organization of professional humanists to find its voice, stand against genocide alongside our Palestinian colleagues, and recall what it means to be human.”
The MLA annual convention is taking place on January 9-12, 2025, in New Orleans. The framers of the Resolution already announced their plans to “protest the anti-democratic practices of Krebs and the MLA, and will highlight over 40 panels at the convention devoted to Palestine.” The authors of the Resolution also disclosed that “over 100 MLA members have signed a pledge to quit the association to protest the repression of the BDS resolution, and some members have taken to social media to announce they are boycotting the convention.” The framers of the Resolution urged, “Supporters of the resolution who plan to attend are being asked to read a solidarity statement expressing their support.”
Interestingly, these scholars who feel so passionately about the Palestinians, fail to understand the hypocrisy that they practice when dealing with Israel. First, they neglect to mention that the current war in Gaza started because of the horrific attack on October 7, 2023, with the atrocities perpetuated by Hamas on innocent civilians, including murder, rape, and kidnapping. More so, since the Israeli military left Gaza in 2005, Hamas shelled Israeli communities with an ever-improving arsenal of rockets and missiles supplied by its patron, Iran. Second, accusations of genocide are false. After the Holocaust, Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer, defined genocide as “the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group.” His work was key in creating the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948. What has happened in Gaza is not the destruction of all Palestinians. Rather, it is an outcome of Hamas’s decision to radically embed themselves among the civilian population, notably in hospitals, schools, mosques, and other public venues, effectively turning civilians into human shields to make it harder for the IDF to operate. Characteristically, both Hezbollah and Hamas have refused to release separate death counts for terrorists and noncombatants. According to the IDF, about half of the more than 40.000 killed in Gaza were terrorists. While the death of the human shields is tragic, it does not amount to genocide based on the Geneva Convention.
Also, in a BBCinterview in April 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) then-president Joan Donoghue said that the purpose of the ICJ genocide ruling was to declare that South Africa had a right to bring its case against Israel and that Palestinians had “plausible rights to protection from genocide.” She said the judges did not need to say for now whether a genocide had occurred.
Third, the MLA scholars, as well as other professional associations in humanities and social sciences who push for BDS, have never criticized any of the brutal dictatorships that commit horrific abuses against their populations. Judging Jews by a different standard is the quintessential characteristic of antisemitism as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which has been widely accepted in Europe and the United States. The countries and organizations that follow the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism explain that it is their moral obligation to correct the historical wrong against the Jews.
As IAM stated before, pro-Palestinian activists hijack professional academic associations to promote their agenda at the expense of members.
Report to the MLA Delegate Assembly from the Executive Council on Resolution 2025-1
16 December 2024
The MLA’s Executive Council, like many of its members, is appalled by the continued attack on Gaza. The council hopes that this document will help members understand its recent inability to forward a resolution on the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement to the Delegate Assembly (DA) for a vote and help members to consider other methods of responding to Israel’s destruction in Palestine.
The MLA’s Executive Council met twice this fall to consider the proposed Resolution 2025-1 endorsing the 2005 Palestinian BDS call. After serious deliberation, the council acknowledged that for legal and fiduciary reasons, supporting a BDS resolution was not a possible way forward for the association to address the crisis in Gaza, and that therefore it could not forward Resolution 2025-1 to the Delegate Assembly for a vote in January. A number of our members, including a group of former MLA presidents, have expressed their puzzlement and distress over this decision, both on substantive and procedural grounds. They ask, is the council bowing to political pressure, overly concerned with possible financial harms? Are we retreating from a commitment to advocacy on pressing public issues affecting scholars and scholarship, keeping our members from taking a collective stand against the destruction, including that of academic institutions, in Gaza? Procedurally, in acting on this resolution prior to the Delegate Assembly’s January meeting, has the council gone against prior practice and stifled debate by the assembly? Regardless of the timing of the council’s review, should the council have consulted with the resolution’s proposers before reaching a negative decision?
In what follows, we hope to address these questions. Importantly, too, we propose some concrete steps that our members, and the MLA itself, can take to further debate and advocacy on matters of great concern to all of us.
Look for these four main points in the explanation below:
The MLA Constitution was changed in 2019, after a full membership vote, so that all resolutions must now pass a legal and fiduciary review before they can be voted on in the DA. This was not the case the last time the DA debated BDS. At that time, the council’s legal and fiduciary review happened after the DA discussion and vote.
The laws in many states have changed in recent years, and these laws directly affect the MLA’s ability to do business in those states, business that enables us to serve members by carrying out the mission of the organization.
The MLA Constitution is clear that a resolution is an official statement from the organization, not simply a statement by its members. A BDS resolution would put the organization into conflict with state laws.
A vote on a resolution supporting BDS is not the only way to discuss the tragedies in Palestine; not having a vote is not the same as forbidding discussion. The convention, including the Delegate Assembly meeting, and the association offer many spaces for discussing Palestine, Israel, the situation in Gaza, and the content of this resolution, and the governance process offers options for motions calling for statements, as happened with Emergency Motion 2024-1, about pro-Palestinian protests on campuses.
The council met in person on 25 October to consider the resolution and all the documentation surrounding it and decided at that point that the council couldn’t move the resolution forward for a vote. After receiving feedback on this decision, we met again, over Zoom, on 25 November for further discussion. We reluctantly concluded once again that we couldn’t advance this resolution, and we made this decision even though individually the council’s members are horrified by the level of violence employed by the Israeli government in Gaza during the conflict, including the destruction of the education infrastructure and the severe restriction or outright denial of basic services like food, medical attention, electricity, and water. The council encourages a robust discussion about this topic both during the Delegate Assembly meeting and across multiple planned sessions at the convention, and we remain as concerned as ever with promoting academic freedom in difficult times. As those who attended the MLA’s Delegate Assembly in 2024 in Philadelphia will recall, the DA voted to change the agenda of its meeting to allow more time for discussion of the motions on the floor. The extended discussion of Emergency Motion 2024-1 focused on protecting the rights of students, faculty, and staff to express their academic freedom and individual rights to free speech to protest, teach, and inform about the Israeli attacks on Gaza and the region’s history. The DA debated, refined, and passed Emergency Motion 2024-1, and the Executive Council issued a response and commissioned an issue of Profession to address the topic of campus protest and academic freedom. The council’s response affirmed the following:
As an organization, our support of academic freedom is unwavering. We also support our members’ right to protest and their right to feel safe on their own campuses. The current political climate in the United States has resulted in restrictions on free speech and on the right to protest on campus, especially restrictions directed at opponents of the actions of Israel against civilians in Gaza. Many MLA members have reported suffering harassment, doxing, and threats related to their teaching, writing, and speech on issues related to Palestine. US campuses must defend all faculty members, staff members, and students, particularly those who have been targeted for speaking out against the actions of Israel in Gaza, from these threats, which often originate outside the university.
This statement continues to reflect our views. Resolution 2025-1, on the other hand, is a specific call for the MLA to support the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement aimed at Israel. This focus on BDS makes it substantively different from Emergency Motion 2024-1. Moreover, the wider legal landscape in the US has changed considerably since 2017, when the Delegate Assembly voted against a BDS resolution. Since then, many states have instituted laws and regulations forbidding any state-funded entity from entering into commercial relationships with companies or organizations that support BDS. If the MLA, or its collective membership, issued a statement in support of a boycott, that statement would breach existing contracts for services that are central to our mission and would prevent us from signing future contracts with colleges and universities and their libraries in those states.
The amount of revenue loss that would be caused by the passage of Resolution 2025-1, and thus loss of ability to operate, is substantial. As of now, the MLA has contracts for the current year that include clauses in which we have affirmed that our association is not supporting BDS. If the membership were to pass a resolution to the contrary, we would be unable to renew these contracts. This would deny faculty members and students access to things like the MLA Bibliography and scholarship we all value, and endanger our ability to serve our members and users of our services. The services provided by the MLA, most of which are not provided by any other humanities organization, include the publication of twenty books by members per year, focusing on pedagogy; the publication of the MLA International Bibliography; summer seminars, online institutes, and year-round resources for department chairs and program leaders; the publication of the MLA Job List; grants and fellowships for graduate students and contingent faculty members as well as for departments working on recruitment, retention, or career readiness, especially for students of color, first-generation students, and Pell Grant recipients; MLA style resources for teachers and students; and many more professional development offerings such as Public Humanities Incubators, Sit and Write sessions, and one-on one job counseling. It would also directly impact our advocacy efforts to help campuses sustain academic programs in literature, languages, and culture, which are under continued attack. The known direct cost to the MLA would already be considerable.
The board members of any nonprofit corporation are by law, among their other duties, required to act as fiduciaries for the organization, charged with reviewing policies and procedures, motions and resolutions, to ensure that they do not either violate laws or endanger the ability of the association to meet its mission or maintain its 501(c)3 status. As fiduciaries, they are responsible for carefully stewarding the resources that allow the association to meet the needs of its members and other users of its services, now and in the future. The council is elected by the membership to fulfill the role of fiduciary in the governance process and cannot cede that role to the members of the Delegate Assembly or the membership at large.
Some Governance History and Context
Traditionally, the Executive Council only conducted a legal and fiduciary review of a resolution once it had actually been passed by the Delegate Assembly. Members who recall this process have seen the council’s action this fall as a breach of our established process. The present procedure, however, was put in place in 2019 by vote of the membership, on the grounds that it would be better to first determine a proposal’s viability before debating and voting on it. So this is a change since the Delegate Assembly voted on the BDS resolution in 2017. The process in effect in 2017 meant that resolutions went to the Delegate Assembly straight from the Delegate Assembly Organizing Committee, only proceeding to the Executive Council for its legal and fiduciary review if they passed a vote in the Delegate Assembly. Because the BDS resolution didn’t pass the DA vote in 2017, it wasn’t subject to council review.
After the 2017 Delegate Assembly meeting, an Ad Hoc Committee on Advocacy Policies and Procedures was commissioned. The new resolutions process designed by that committee was voted on and approved by the membership in 2019. It situates the Executive Council’s legal and fiduciary review of a resolution before the Delegate Assembly meeting, to ensure that no resolution can go for a vote to the DA if passing that resolution would cause the association to be in violation of the law or would endanger the association’s ability to carry out its work. In deciding not to forward Resolution 2025-1 for a vote, the Executive Council fulfilled its constitutional role as the body charged with legal and fiduciary responsibility for the association and ensured that the governance processes of the MLA were followed in relation to this resolution.
Under current rules, once a resolution is submitted it can’t be modified, and so we didn’t see any basis for further consultation at that point, particularly as the proposal was clearly and carefully worded, and seemed fully ready for our legal and fiduciary review. The resolution’s proposers had discussed the resolution with MLA staff and revised its wording prior to submitting it for consideration by the Executive Council. When communicating with the proposer of the resolution, MLA staff members were unaware of the legal and fiduciary effects of the resolution and advised the proposer in good faith. The MLA staff did not learn about the laws’ direct applicability to the operations of the MLA until the legal opinions came in, just before the council meeting. We address below the question of whether the current process could be improved for the future; doing so will take further discussion and then a vote by our membership. When Resolution 2025-1 was originally submitted, with supporting materials that did not contain information about the anti-boycott legislation, we anticipated that it would go to the DA for a vote until we received the review from the association’s attorneys. However, the day before the council meeting, the attorneys warned us that contracts we had already signed, which affirmed that the MLA did not participate in or support boycotts, were in danger of cancellation if Resolution 2025-1 were to pass. Further, no future contracts in states with anti-boycott laws could be signed in good faith.
Legal Considerations
As noted above, a fundamental difference between the situation in 2017 and the situation now is that the legal landscape has significantly changed during the past eight years. No fewer than twenty-seven states now have laws or regulations forbidding any state entity from purchasing goods or services from any company that engages in or that merely supports boycotts around the world. These include blue as well as red states.
These laws and regulations are in the process of being challenged by the ACLU and other organizations, and several federal courts have struck down some of them, while others have been upheld. Appeals are currently making their way through the system. In the only case that has yet reached the Supreme Court, in February 2023, the court declined to review a ruling by the Eighth Circuit that upheld a law in Arkansas. It is possible that the Supreme Court will revisit the issue in the event that a different appeals court upholds a lower-court ruling striking down such a law, but as of now, these laws are widely in force, and there is no reason to expect that a further decision by the Supreme Court will differ in effect from their (non)action in the Arkansas case.
In any event, the Executive Council is guided by our lawyers’ assessment, which is that these statutes have been carefully crafted to withstand any challenges that assert that they restrict free speech. These laws focus not on speech but instead on a state’s right to contract only with the vendors of their choice for the purchase of goods and services. The laws thus don’t openly restrict anyone’s speech; any organization can choose to support boycotts against Israel or any other country. However, no company has a constitutional right to a contract with a state-funded entity. If a state has forbidden dealings with boycott-supporting companies, then a state agency, including a university or a library, must not contract with such a company. In addition to these state laws, some private institutions and major library consortia have prohibitions against doing business with organizations that have enacted BDS resolutions.
Fiduciary Considerations
The MLA has a very different financial profile than most of the other humanities member organizations. While we, like they, collect dues and conference registrations, these funds are only a small portion of the revenues on which the MLA relies to pursue its mission in publishing, convening, professional development, and advocacy for humanities teaching and research. Fully two-thirds of the operating budget of the MLA comes from sales of resources to universities and libraries, including the MLA International Bibliography. States with anti-BDS laws have already begun requiring their contractors to affirm in writing that they do not participate in or support boycotts, and the MLA has signed such contracts. Universities, colleges, libraries, and consortia purchase MLA books and subscription resources. In addition, the MLA does business with states in other ways, including the annual convention, on-site summer seminars, and MLA memberships, which are often funded by institutional resources. Losing the ability to engage with members in those ways or to distribute our resources in those states would also mean that students and teachers in those states would lose access to these resources. If we lose subscription income, our very ability to produce these resources for anyone would be in jeopardy.
The proposed Resolution 2025-1 sought to mitigate these dangers by phrasing the resolution such that it focused on the members of the MLA as distinct from the organization. However, in conducting its review the council noted that the MLA Constitution itself, in section 9.C.10, indicates that “It is understood that resolutions are not intended to limit the conduct of MLA members acting in their individual capacities but are statements that reflect the views of the organization, as voted on by the membership.” The MLA Constitution is clear that a resolution is a statement from the organization.
Paths Forward for Advocacy and Debate
The Executive Council wrote last year in support of our members’ academic freedom, their right to protest, and their right to feel safe on their own campuses. We have shown and continue to show that members can debate, challenge, and speak out against difficult topics. The council commits to creating spaces through events and publications for scholars, teachers, and students to discuss these and other important issues, as we have in the past. We will continue to advocate for the important perspectives from our constituents who bring deep historical and cultural knowledge to timely and necessary topics.
There are ways in which the MLA membership might wish to express its sentiments about the events in Gaza that would not endanger the association’s ability to provide publications and services. Could not a motion calling for a statement protesting scholasticide in Gaza, while not focusing on BDS, be a powerful expression of solidarity? In addition, if members would like to move Executive Council legal and fiduciary review to take place after DA discussion of resolutions, so that resolutions can be debated whether or not they meet legal or fiduciary standards, they can propose a constitutional amendment to that effect. If members would like to propose any other changes in the consideration process for resolutions, such as a pre-submission legal and fiduciary conversation with members of council while the wording on resolutions can still be changed, they can do so as well.
We acknowledge that phrases such as “fiduciary review” and conversations about revenue can sound callous in the face of atrocity, especially when framed as though our aim is to protect revenue alone. But as the Executive Council, we witness daily the work of the MLA on behalf of vulnerable programs and scholars, supporting graduate students, advancing research and supporting teachers, and creating opportunities for scholars, teachers, and students to learn from and teach one another on topics of crucial importance. Although we cannot engage in boycott, we invite you to explore the many ways that we can daily engage in advocacy together.
Resolution to Endorse the 2005 Palestinian BDS Call
Whereas, international law experts, including UN officials, describe the Israeli war on Gaza as a genocide;
Whereas, human rights organizations and the International Court of Justice have determined that Israel is maintaining a system of apartheid;
Whereas, in April 2024 the United Nations documented that Israel’s campaign of scholasticide has destroyed every university in Gaza and killed at least 5,479 students and 356 educators;
Whereas, the complicity of Israeli academic institutions in denying Palestinian human rights has been comprehensively documented;
Whereas, in 2005, 170 Palestinian civil society organizations called for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel;
Whereas, that call is to boycott institutions, not individual Israeli academics, and to support academic freedom;
Whereas the American Association of University Professors declared academic boycotts “legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education”;
Whereas, the MLA’s commitment to “justice throughout the humanities ecosystem” requires ending institutional complicity with genocide and supporting Palestinian colleagues; therefore
Be it resolved that we, the members of the MLA, endorse the 2005 BDS call.
Resolution to Endorse the 2005 Palestinian BDS Call: Supporting Documentation
1. Whereas, international law experts, including UN officials, describe the Israeli war on Gaza as a genocide;
From United Nation’s Human Rights Council, Anatomy of a Genocide: Report of the SpecialRapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967(March 25, 2024), p. 24.
“93. The overwhelming nature and scale of Israel’s assault on Gaza and the destructive conditions of life it has inflicted reveal an intent to physically destroy Palestinians as a group. This report finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating the commission of the following acts of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza has been met: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to groups’ members; and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part. Genocidal acts were approved and given effect following statements of genocidal intent issued by senior military and government officials.
“94. Israel has sought to conceal its eliminationist conduct of hostilities sanctioning the commission of international crimes as IHL-abiding. Distorting IHL customary rules, including distinction, proportionality and precautions, Israel has de facto treated an entire protected group and its life-sustaining infrastructure as ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorist-supporting’, thus transforming everything and everyone into either a target or collateral damage, hence killable or destroyable. In this way, no Palestinian in Gaza is safe by definition. This has had devastating, intentional effects, costing the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians, destroying the fabric of life in Gaza and causing irreparable harm to its entire population.
“95. Israel’s genocide on the Palestinians in Gaza is an escalatory stage of a long-standing settler colonial process of erasure. For over seven decades this process has suffocated the Palestinian people as a group – demographically, culturally, economically and politically – seeking to displace it and expropriate and control its land and resources. The ongoing Nakba must be stopped and remedied once and for all. This is an imperative owed to the victims of this highly preventable tragedy, and to future generations in that land.
“96. The Special Rapporteur urges member states to enforce the prohibition of genocide in accordance with their non-derogable obligations. Israel and those states that have been complicit in what can be reasonably concluded to constitute genocide must be held accountable and deliver reparations commensurate with the destruction, death and harm inflicted on the Palestinian people.”
From University Network for Human Rights, Genocide in Gaza: Analysis of International Law andits Application to Israel’s Military Actions since October 7, 2023 (May 15, 2024), p. 105
[co-signed by International Human Rights Clinic, Boston University School of Law; International
Human Rights Clinic, Cornell Law School; Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria;
Lowenstein Human Rights Project, Yale Law School]
“263. This report has demonstrated that actions—past and continuing—taken by Israel’s government and military in and regarding Gaza following the Hamas attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, constitute breaches of the international legal prohibitions on the commission of genocide, incitement to genocide, and failure to prevent and punish genocide.
“264. This report has shown that Israel has committed the genocidal acts of killing, causing serious harm to, and inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians in Gaza, a protected group that forms a substantial part of the Palestinian people. These genocidal acts have been motivated by the requisite genocidal intent, as evidenced in this report by the statements of Israeli leaders, the character of the State and its forces’ conduct against and relating to Palestinians in Gaza, and the direct nexus between them.
“265. Israel’s violations of the international legal prohibition of genocide and other related crimes amount to grave breaches of peremptory norms of international law that must be ceased immediately. Furthermore, these violations give rise to obligations by all other States: to refrain from recognizing Israel’s breaches as legal or taking any actions that may amount to complicity in these breaches; and to take positive steps to suppress, prevent, and punish the commission by Israel of further genocidal acts against the Palestinian people in Gaza.”
From Amnesty International, “Israel Defying ICJ Ruling to Prevent Genocide by Failing to AllowAdequate Humanitarian Aid to Reach Gaza” (February 26, 2024):
“One month after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ordered ‘immediate and effective measures’ to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services, Israel has failed to take even the bare minimum steps to comply, Amnesty International said today.
“The order to provide aid was one of six provisional measures ordered by the Court on 26 January and Israel was given one month to report back on its compliance with the measures. Over that period Israel has continued to disregard its obligation as the occupying power to ensure the basic needs of Palestinians in Gaza are met.
“Israeli authorities have failed to ensure sufficient life-saving goods and services are reaching a population at risk of genocide and on the brink of famine due to Israel’s relentless bombardment and the tightening of its 16-year-long illegal blockade. They have also failed to lift restrictions on the entry of life-saving goods, or open additional aid access points and crossings or put in place an effective system to protect humanitarians from attack.
From Center for Constitutional Rights, “U.S. Court Concludes Israel’s Assault on Gaza IsPlausible Case of Genocide” (January 31, 2024):
“After a federal court heard arguments and testimony in the case Defense for Children International – Palestine v. Biden on Friday, January 26, charging the Biden administration with failing in its duty to prevent, and otherwise aiding and abetting, the unfolding genocide in Gaza, a federal judge found that Israel is plausibly engaging in genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza and that the United States is providing ‘unflagging support’ for the massive attacks on Palestinian civilians in contravention of international law. The court’s decision follows a historic ruling by the International Court of Justice last Friday, which also found the Israeli government was plausibly engaged in a genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, and which issued a series of emergency measures Israel must take to end its genocidal campaign….
“Delivering a historic rebuke of Israel and the United States for its flouting of the Genocide Convention, the court wrote:
Both the uncontroverted testimony of the Plaintiffs and the expert opinion proffered at the hearing on these motions as well as statements made by various officers of the Israeli government indicate that the ongoing military siege in Gaza is intended to eradicate a whole people and therefore plausibly falls within the international prohibition against genocide.
The court recognized the substantial role of the United States in furthering the genocide and noted that ‘as the ICJ has found, it is plausible that Israel’s conduct amounts to genocide’ and, therefore, the ‘Court implores Defendants to examine the results of their unflagging support of the military siege against the Palestinians in Gaza.’”
We note also that scholars of international law warned about the commission of genocide by Israeli forces against Palestinians in Gaza as early as October 2023:
From “Public Statement: Scholars Warn of Potential Genocide in Gaza” (October 17, 2023), signed by more than 800 scholars of genocide studies, international law, and international studies:
“As scholars and practitioners of international law, conflict studies and genocide studies, we are compelled to sound the alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide being perpetrated by Israeli forces against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. We do not do so lightly, recognizing the weight of this crime, but the gravity of the current situation demands it….
“Statements of Israeli officials since 7 October 2023 suggest that beyond the killings and restriction of basic conditions for life perpetrated against Palestinians in Gaza, there are also indications that the ongoing and imminent Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip are being conducted with potentially genocidal intent. Language used by Israeli political and military figures appears to reproduce rhetoric and tropes associated with genocide and incitement to genocide. Dehumanizing descriptions of Palestinians have been prevalent. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declared on 9 October that ‘we are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.’ He subsequently announced that Israel was moving to ‘a fullscale response’ and that he had ‘removed every restriction’ on Israeli forces, as well as stating: ‘Gaza won’t return to what it was before. We will eliminate everything.’ On 10 October, the head of the Israeli army’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), Maj. Gen. Ghassan Alian, addressed a message directly to Gaza residents: ‘Human animals must be treated as such. There will be no electricity and no water, there will only be destruction. You wanted hell, you will get hell.’ The same day, Israeli army spokesperson Daniel Hagari acknowledged the wanton and intentionally destructive nature of
Israel’s bombing campaign in Gaza: ‘The emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.’[…]
“The Palestinian people constitute a national group for the purposes of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention). The Palestinians of the Gaza Strip constitute a substantial proportion of the Palestinian nation, and are being targeted by Israel because they are Palestinian. The Palestinian population of Gaza appears to be presently subjected by the Israeli forces and authorities to widespread killing, bodily and mental harm, and unviable conditions of life – against a backdrop of Israeli statements which evidence signs of intent to physically destroy the population….
“Palestinian human rights organizations, Jewish civil society groups, Holocaust and genocide studies scholars and others have by now warned of an imminent genocide against the Palestinian population in Gaza. We emphasize the existence of a serious risk of genocide being committed in the Gaza Strip.”
Raz Segal, Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Stockton University [From “A Textbook Case of Genocide,” Jewish Currents (October 13, 2023)]:
“…the assault on Gaza can also be understood in other terms: as a textbook case of genocide unfolding in front of our eyes. I say this as a scholar of genocide, who has spent many years writing about Israeli mass violence against Palestinians….
“The UN Genocide Convention lists five acts that fall under its definition. Israel is currently perpetrating three of these in Gaza: ‘1. Killing members of the group. 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group. 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.’ The Israeli Air Force, by its own account, has so far dropped more than 6,000 bombs on Gaza, which is one of the most densely populated areas in the world—almost as many bombs as the US dropped on all of Afghanistan during record-breaking years of its war there. Human Rights Watch has confirmed that the weapons used included phosphorous bombs, which set fire to bodies and buildings, creating flames that aren’t extinguished on contact with water. This demonstrates clearly what Gallant means by ‘act accordingly’: not targeting individual Hamas militants, as Israel claims, but unleashing deadly violence against Palestinians in Gaza ‘as such,’ in the language of the UN Genocide Convention. Israel has also intensified its 16-year siege of Gaza—the longest in modern history, in clear violation of international humanitarian law—to a ‘complete siege,’ in Gallant’s words. This turn of phrase that explicitly indexes a plan to bring the siege to its final destination of systematic destruction of Palestinians and Palestinian society in Gaza, by killing them, starving them, cutting off their water supplies, and bombing their hospitals….
“Indeed, Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza is quite explicit, open, and unashamed. Perpetrators of genocide usually do not express their intentions so clearly…Israel’s goal is to destroy the Palestinians of Gaza. And those of us watching around the world are derelict in our responsibility to prevent them from doing so.”
In a November 2023 guest editorial for the New York Times, “What I Believe as a Historian of
Genocide,” Israeli-American scholar Omer Bartov, the Samuel Pisar Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University, warned of an impending genocide: “while we cannot say that the military is explicitly targeting civilians, functionally and rhetorically we may be watching an ethnic cleansing operation that could quickly devolve into genocide.” In August 2024, after further study, he asserted that Israeli forces are in fact committing genocide in Gaza:
From Omer Bartov, “As a Former IDF Soldier and Historian of Genocide, I Was Deeply Disturbedby My Recent Visit to Israel,”The Guardian (August 13, 2024):
“On 10 November 2023, I wrote in the New York Times: ‘As a historian of genocide, I believe that there is no proof that genocide is now taking place in Gaza, although it is very likely that war crimes, and even crimes against humanity, are happening. […] We know from history that it is crucial to warn of the potential for genocide before it occurs, rather than belatedly condemn it after it has taken place. I think we still have that time.’
“I no longer believe that. By the time I travelled to Israel, I had become convinced that at least since the attack by the IDF on Rafah on 6 May 2024, it was no longer possible to deny that Israel was engaged in systematic war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocidal actions. It was not just that this attack against the last concentration of Gazans – most of them displaced already several times by the IDF, which now once again pushed them to a so-called safe zone – demonstrated a total disregard of any humanitarian standards. It also clearly indicated that the ultimate goal of this entire undertaking from the very beginning had been to make the entire Gaza Strip uninhabitable, and to debilitate its population to such a degree that it would either die out or seek all possible options to flee the territory. In other words, the rhetoric spouted by Israeli leaders since 7 October was now being translated into reality – namely, as the 1948 UN Genocide Convention puts it, that Israel was acting ‘with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,’ the Palestinian population in Gaza, ‘as such, by killing, causing serious harm, or inflicting conditions of life meant to bring about the group’s destruction.’”
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:
• John Quigley, “The Lancet and Genocide By ‘Slow Death’ in Gaza,” Arab Center Report (July 12, 2024)
• “UN Experts Declare Famine Has Spread Throughout Gaza Strip,” UN Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council Report (July 9, 2024)
• Emma Farge, “UN Expert Says Israel Has Committed Genocide in Gaza, Calls for Arms Embargo,” Reuters (March 26, 2024)
• MESA Board Joint Statement with CAF Regarding the Ongoing Genocidal Violence against the Palestinian People and Their Cultural Heritage in Gaza (March 11, 2024)
• International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishmentof the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (January 26, 2024)
• Defense for Children International – Palestine v. Biden (November 13, 2023)
2. Whereas, human rights organizations and the International Court of Justice have determined that Israel is maintaining a system of apartheid;
From International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices ofIsrael in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem (July 19, 2024):
“223. For the reasons above, the Court concludes that a broad array of legislation adopted and measures taken by Israel in its capacity as an occupying Power treat Palestinians differently on grounds specified by international law. As the Court has noted, this differentiation of treatment cannot be justified with reference to reasonable and objective criteria nor to a legitimate public aim (see paragraphs 196, 205, 213 and 222). Accordingly, the Court is of the view that the régime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes systemic discrimination based on, inter alia, race, religion or ethnic origin, in violation of Articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the ICCPR, Article 2, paragraph 2, of the ICESCR, and Article 2 of CERD.
“224. A number of participants have argued that Israel’s policies and practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory amount to segregation or apartheid, in breach of Article 3 of CERD.
“225. Article 3 of CERD provides as follows: ‘States Parties particularly condemn racial segregation and apartheid and undertake to prevent, prohibit and eradicate all practices of this nature in territories under their jurisdiction.’ This provision refers to two particularly severe forms of racial discrimination: racial segregation and apartheid.
“226. The Court observes that Israel’s policies and practices in the West Bank and East Jerusalem implement a separation between the Palestinian population and the settlers transferred by Israel to the territory.
“227. This separation is first and foremost physical: Israel’s settlement policy furthers the fragmentation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and the encirclement of Palestinian communities into enclaves. As a result of discriminatory policies and practices such as the imposition of a residence permit system and the use of distinct road networks, which the Court has discussed above, Palestinian communities remain physically isolated from each other and separated from the communities of settlers (see, for example, paragraphs 200 and 219).
“228. The separation between the settler and Palestinian communities is also juridical. As a result of the partial extension of Israeli law to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, settlers and Palestinians are subject to distinct legal systems in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (see paragraphs 135-137 above). To the extent that Israeli law applies to Palestinians, it imposes on them restrictions, such as the requirement for a permit to reside in East Jerusalem, from which settlers are exempt. In addition, Israel’s legislation and measures that have been applicable for decades treat Palestinians differently from settlers in a wide range of fields of individual and social activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (see paragraphs 192-222 above).
“229. The Court observes that Israel’s legislation and measures impose and serve to maintain a nearcomplete separation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem between the settler and Palestinian communities. For this reason, the Court considers that Israel’s legislation and measures constitute a breach of Article 3 of CERD. […]
“279. Moreover, the Court considers that, in view of the character and importance of the rights and obligations involved, all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. They are also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It is for all States, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure that any impediment resulting from the illegal presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to the exercise of the Palestinian people of its right to self-determination is brought to an end. In addition, all the States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention have the obligation, while respecting the Charter of the United Nations and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention.” (p. 64-65, 73-74, 74-76)
From Amnesty International, Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Dominationand Crime Against Humanity (February 1, 2022), p. 266-67, 271
“The totality of the regime of laws, policies and practices described in this report demonstrates that Israel has established and maintained an institutionalized regime of oppression and domination of the Palestinian population for the benefit of Jewish Israelis – a system of apartheid – wherever it has exercised control over Palestinians’ lives since 1948. The report concludes that the State of Israel considers and treats Palestinians as an inferior non-Jewish racial group. The segregation is conducted in a systematic and highly institutionalized manner through laws, policies and practices, all of which are intended to prevent Palestinians from claiming and enjoying equal rights with Jewish Israelis within the territory of Israel and within the OPT, and thus are intended to oppress and dominate the Palestinian people. This has been complemented by a legal regime that controls (by negating) the rights of Palestinian refugees residing outside Israel and the OPT to return to their homes.
“Israel has ensured that the Palestinian people are segmented into different geographical areas and treated differently with the intention and effect of dividing the population while consistently preventing its members from exercising their fundamental human rights. Thus, the legal fragmentation of the Palestinian population between Israel, East Jerusalem, the rest of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the refugee communities serves as a foundational element of the regime of oppression and domination of Palestinians. This legal fragmentation denies Palestinians the possibility of realizing equality within Israel and the OPT….The outcome of these legal regimes has been the prolonged and cruel violation of the human rights of individual Palestinians wherever Israel exercises control over their enjoyment of these rights.
“Israel’s system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination against Palestinians, as a racial group, in all areas under its control amounts to a system of apartheid, and a serious violation of Israel’s human rights obligations. Almost all of Israel’s civilian administration and military authorities, as well as governmental and quasi-governmental institutions, are involved in the enforcement of a system of apartheid against Palestinians across Israel and the OPT and against Palestinian refugees and their descendants outside the territory. The intention to maintain this system has been explicitly declared by successive Israeli political leaders, emphasizing the overarching objective of maintaining Jewish Israeli domination by excluding, segregating and expelling Palestinians. The intention was clearly crystallized in the 2018 nation state law, which constitutionally enshrined racial discrimination against non-Jewish people in Israel and the OPT. Senior civilian and military officials have also issued numerous public statements and directives over the years that reveal, maintain and enforce the institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination of Palestinians, being fully aware of, and therefore fully responsible for, the atrocious consequences the regime has for the lives of the Palestinian population…. “Amnesty International has examined specifically the inhumane acts of forcible transfer, administrative detention and torture, unlawful killings and serious injuries, and the denial of basic freedoms or persecution committed against the Palestinian population in Israel and the OPT. The organization has concluded that the patterns of proscribed acts perpetrated by Israel form part of a systematic as well as widespread attack directed against the Palestinian population, and that the inhuman or inhumane acts committed within the context of this attack have been committed with the intention to maintain this system and amount to the crime against humanity of apartheid under both the Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute….
“Without taking any meaningful action to hold Israel to account for its systematic and widespread violations and crimes under international law against the Palestinian population, the international community has contributed to undermining the international legal order and has emboldened Israel to continue perpetrating crimes with impunity. In fact, some states have actively supported Israel’s violations by supplying it with arms, equipment and other tools to perpetrate crimes under international law and by providing diplomatic cover, including at the UN Security Council, to shield it from
accountability. By doing so, they have completely failed the Palestinian people and have only exacerbated Palestinians’ lived experience as people with lesser rights and inferior status to Jewish Israelis.”
From Human Rights Watch, A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheidand Persecution (April 27, 2021), p. 203-04
“Israeli authorities have deprived millions of people of their basic rights by virtue of their identity as Palestinians. These longstanding policies and systematic practices box in, dispossess, forcibly separate, marginalize, and otherwise inflict suffering on Palestinians.
“In the OPT, movement restrictions, land expropriation, forcible transfer, denial of residency and nationality, and the mass suspension of civil rights constitute ‘inhuman[e] acts’ set out under the Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute. Under both legal standards, inhumane acts when carried out amid systematic oppression and with the intent to maintain domination make up the crime against humanity of apartheid. Collectively, these policies and practices in the OPT severely deprive Palestinians of fundamental human rights, including to residency, private property, and access to land, services, and resources, on a widespread and systematic basis. When committed with discriminatory intent, on the basis of the victims’ identity as part of a group or collectivity, they amount to the crime against humanity of persecution under the Rome Statute and customary international law.
“Separately from the inhumane acts carried out in the OPT, the Israeli government violates the rights of Palestinians inside Israel on account of their identity, including measures that have made it virtually impossible for tens of thousands of Palestinian Bedouins living in the Negev to live lawfully in the communities; the denial to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians of the ability to access or use land confiscated from them historically; the effective bar on citizens and residents obtaining long-term legal status to and thereby living permanently together in Israel with spouses from the West Bank and Gaza, which deprives them of the ability to live together permanently in Israel; and the denial of residency rights to Palestinians who fled or were expelled from their homes in the events around the establishment of the state.
“These abuses continue and there is no indication that authorities have investigated, much less held accountable, anyone involved in their commission.”
From B’Tselem, A Regime of Jewish Supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea:
This Is Apartheid (January 12, 2021), p. 7
“The Israeli regime, which controls all the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, seeks to advance and cement Jewish supremacy throughout the entire area. To that end, it has divided the area into several units, each with a different set of rights for Palestinians – always inferior to the rights of Jews. As part of this policy, Palestinians are denied many rights, including the right to self-determination.
“This policy is advanced in several ways. Israel demographically engineers the space through laws and orders that allow any Jew in the world or their relatives to obtain Israeli citizenship, but almost completely deny Palestinians this possibility. It has physically engineered the entire area by taking over of millions of dunams of land and establishing Jewish-only communities, while driving Palestinians into small enclaves. Movement is engineered through restrictions on Palestinian subjects, and political engineering excludes millions of Palestinians from participating in the processes that determine their lives and futures while holding them under military occupation.
“A regime that uses laws, practices and organized violence to cement the supremacy of one group over another is an apartheid regime. Israeli apartheid, which promotes the supremacy of Jews over Palestinians, was not born in one day or of a single speech. It is a process that has gradually grown more institutionalized and explicit, with mechanisms introduced over time in law and practice to promote Jewish supremacy. These accumulated measures, their pervasiveness in legislation and political practice, and the public and judicial support they receive – all form the basis for our conclusion that the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met.”
From Yesh Din, The Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and the Crime of Apartheid: Legal Opinion (Septemember 7, 2020), p. 57-58
“It is a difficult statement to make, but the conclusion of this opinion is that the crime against humanity of apartheid is being committed in the West Bank. The perpetrators are Israelis, and the victims are Palestinians.
“The crime is committed because the Israeli occupation is no ‘ordinary’ occupation regime (or a regime of domination and oppression), but one that comes with a gargantuan colonization project that has created a community of citizens of the occupying power in the occupied territory. The crime is committed because, in addition to colonizing the occupied territory, the occupying power has also gone to great lengths to cement its domination over the occupied residents and ensure their inferior status. The crime of apartheid is being committed in the West Bank because, in this context of a regime of domination and oppression of one national group by another, the Israeli authorities implement policies and practices that constitute inhuman acts as the term is defined in international law: Denial of rights from a national group, denial of resources from one group and their transfer to another, physical and legal separation between the two groups and the institution of a different legal system for each of them. This is an inexhaustive list of the inhuman acts.
“The alibi used by successive Israeli governments that the situation is temporary and there is no desire or intent to maintain the domination and oppression of Palestinians in the area or preserve their inferior status falls apart in the face of the clear evidence that the separate policies and practices Israel applies in the occupied territory are designed to maintain and cement the domination and oppression of Palestinians and the supremacy of the Israelis who migrated to the area.
“That is not all. As described in this opinion, the government of Israel is carrying out a process of ‘gradual annexation’ in the West Bank. From an administrative perspective, annexation means the revocation of military rule in the annexed area and the territorial extension of powers held by Israeli authorities deep into the West Bank.
“Continued creeping legal annexation, let alone official annexation of a particular part of the West Bank through legislation that would apply Israeli law and administration there, is an amalgamation of the regimes. This could mean strengthening the argument, which already is being heard, that the crime of Apartheid is not committed only in the West Bank. That the Israeli regime in its entirety is an apartheid regime. That Israel is an Apartheid state.
“That is distressing and shameful. And even if not all Israelis are guilty of the crime, we are all responsible for it. It is our duty, each and every one of us, to take resolute action to stop the commission of this crime.”
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:
• Human Rights Watch, West Bank: New Entry Rules Further Isolate Palestinians (January 23, 2023)
• Dania Abul Haj and Ilora Choudhury, Fenced Off: Israel’s 2022 Rules of Entry of ForeignNationals into the West Bank. London: International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, 2023.
• The Israeli Government’s New Restrictions of Entry for Foreigners into the West Bank. Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem Report (September 2022).
3. Whereas, in April 2024 the United Nations documented that Israel’s campaign of scholasticide has destroyed every university in Gaza and killed at least 5,479 students and 356 educators;
From UN Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council, “UN Experts Deeply Concerned Over ‘Scholasticide’ in Gaza” (April 18, 2024):
“UN experts today expressed grave concern over the pattern of attacks on schools, universities, teachers, and students in the Gaza Strip, raising serious alarm over the systemic destruction of the Palestinian education system.
“‘With more than 80% of schools in Gaza damaged or destroyed, it may be reasonable to ask if there is an intentional effort to comprehensively destroy the Palestinian education system, an action known as “scholasticide”,’ the experts said.
“The term refers to the systemic obliteration of education through the arrest, detention or killing of teachers, students and staff, and the destruction of educational infrastructure.
“After six months of military assault, more than 5,479 students, 261 teachers and 95 university professors have been killed in Gaza, and over 7,819 students and 756 teachers have been injured – with numbers growing each day. At least 60 per cent of educational facilities, including 13 public libraries, have been damaged or destroyed and at least 625,000 students have no access to education. Another 195 heritage sites, 227 mosques and three churches have also been damaged or destroyed, including the Central Archives of Gaza, containing 150 years of history. Israa University, the last remaining university in Gaza was demolished by the Israeli military on 17 January 2024….
“Even UN schools sheltering forcibly displaced civilians are being bombed, including in Israeli military-designated ‘safe zones.’
“‘These attacks are not isolated incidents. They present a systematic pattern of violence aimed at dismantling the very foundation of Palestinian society,’ the experts said….
“‘Attacks on education cannot be tolerated. The international community must send a clear message that those who target schools and universities will be held responsible,’ the experts said, adding that accountability for these violations includes an obligation to finance and rebuild the education system.”
From Emergency Committee of Universities in Gaza, “Unified Emergency Statement by Palestinian
Academics and Administrators of Gaza Universities” (May 29, 2024)
“We have come together as Palestinian academics and staff of Gaza universities to affirm our existence, the existence of our colleagues and our students, and the insistence on our future, in the face of all current attempts to erase us. The Israeli occupation forces have demolished our buildings but our universities live on. We reaffirm our collective determination to remain on our land and to resume teaching, study, and research in Gaza, at our own Palestinian universities, at the earliest opportunity.
“We call upon our friends and colleagues around the world to resist the ongoing campaign of scholasticide in occupied Palestine, to work alongside us in rebuilding our demolished universities, and to refuse all plans seeking to bypass, erase, or weaken the integrity of our academic institutions. The future of our young people in Gaza depends upon us, and our ability to remain on our land in order to continue to serve the coming generations of our people.
“We issue this call from beneath the bombs of the occupation forces across Occupied Gaza, in the refugee camps of Rafah, and from the sites of temporary new exile in Egypt and other host countries. We are disseminating it as the Israeli occupation continues to wage its genocidal campaign against our people daily, in its attempt to eliminate every aspect of our collective and individual life. Our families, colleagues, and students are being assassinated, while we have once again been rendered homeless, reliving the experiences of our parents and grandparents during the massacres and mass expulsions by Zionist armed forces in 1947 and 1948. Our civic infrastructure – universities, schools, hospitals, libraries, museums and cultural centres – built by generations of our people, lies in ruins from this deliberate continuous Nakba. The deliberate targeting of our educational infrastructure is a blatant attempt to render Gaza uninhabitable and erode the intellectual and cultural fabric of our society. However, we refuse to allow such acts to extinguish the flame of knowledge and resilience that burns within us….
“We emphasize the urgent need to re-operate Gaza’s education institutions, not merely to support current students, but to ensure the long-term resilience and sustainability of our higher education system. Education is not just a means of imparting knowledge; it is a vital pillar of our existence and a beacon of hope for the Palestinian people.
“The fate of higher education in Gaza belongs to the universities in Gaza, their faculty, staff, and students and to the Palestinian people as a whole. We appreciate the efforts of peoples and citizens around the world to bring an end to this ongoing genocide. We call upon our colleagues in the homeland and internationally to support our steadfast attempts to defend and preserve our universities for the sake of the future of our people, and our ability to remain on our Palestinian land in Gaza. We built these universities from tents. And from tents, with the support of our friends, we will rebuild them once again.”
From Birzeit University Right to Education Campaign, “Statement to the American Federation of Teachers” (July 22, 2024)
“Today, in what the International Court of Justice has ruled is plausibly genocide against 2.3 million Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, depriving Palestinians of their rights to exist and live, the Israeli assault on Palestinian education persists. The entire higher education system in Gaza has been disrupted or destroyed. Universities have been bombed, resulting in the deaths of over 100 professors and thousands of university students. More than 88,000 students have been deprived of their education since the beginning of this aggression. In the West Bank, escalating violations and fear of Israeli settler attacks have forced all 34 higher education institutions to switch to distance learning for months, impacting over 138,800 students.
“The Israeli occupation imposes severe restrictions on movement, with 645 permanent blockades across the West Bank, hindering accessibility and fragmenting Palestinian society. These blockades force students and faculty to navigate dangerous and obstructed routes daily, threatening their lives and educational pursuits. Moreover, the criminalization of Palestinian education extends to the harassment and arrest of students and faculty members. Additionally, the isolation of Palestinian universities through directives restricts academic freedom and undermines the autonomy of our educational institutions and the Palestinian intellectuals who shape them….
“In this dire context, we call upon the AFT to support the resolution to divest from Israel State bonds. This act of divestment is not only a financial decision but a moral imperative. It aligns with the legacy of solidarity shown by US teachers and unions during the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. Ending the funding for Israel’s crimes against Palestinians is an essential form of solidarity that we urgently need.
“We hope you will heed our call and act with the urgency and moral clarity that this situation demands. Stand with us, stand with our Palestinian colleagues, and help put an end to these egregious violations of human rights. Together, as workers and educators, we can make a difference.”
From Palestinian Feminist Collective, “A Feminist Praxis for Academic Freedom in the Context ofGenocide in Gaza” (April 11, 2024)
“As members of the Palestinian Feminist Collective and scholars at North American universities, we are steadfast in our commitment to the intellectual pursuit of knowledge, truth, and justice in environments free from systemic oppression….escalated genocide in Gaza has meant the annihilation of intellectual and cultural sources of wisdom, or sophicide.
“Sophicide refers to the…deliberate annihilation of Indigenous knowledge traditions inspired by the land itself, as well as the carriers of that knowledge, including elders and women. It involves the crushing of Palestinian life and learning through the systematic murder of Palestinian students, mentors, teachers, researchers, scholars, academics, writers, librarians, archivists, spiritual leaders,
historiographers, creatives, poets, interns, lecturers, professors, staff, and lab technicians. Such attacks on these Indigenous knowledge carriers impacts entire generations of learners, crushing their aspirations and dreams.
“Sophicide also includes scholasticide, a Palestinian concept that refers to the physical destruction of centers of knowledge, educational resources, infrastructures, and archives as well as the silencing, censorship, and repression of Palestinian history, epistemology, scholarship, and subjectivity….
“The obliteration of Palestine’s schools, universities, and libraries furthers the settler-colonial project of erasure because these are spaces that nurtured the creation and transmission of knowledge. Since October 2023, the IOF have destroyed over 378 schools, public libraries, laboratories, classrooms, and research facilities, depriving Palestinians of the histories and knowledges housed in these institutions. Understanding this form of genocide as sophicide elucidates how schools, universities, and learning spaces are not just physical structures; they are ‘the fabric of life.’ These were places of realizing the aspirations of Palestinian youth who had been under siege in Gaza their entire lives….
“The IOF’s calculated killings of knowledge producers and destruction of spaces of teaching and learning deprives Palestinians in Gaza, one million of whom are children under eighteen, of their ‘past, present, and future,’ by attacking their education and their dreams, hopes, and ambitions. One clear example is the martyrdom of Dr. Refaat Alareer, a prominent Palestinian writer and teacher of medieval literature, whose lyrical genius was expressed through his poetry as well as his non-profit ‘We Are Not Numbers,’ which aimed to bring dignity to the people of Gaza and Palestine. Alareer was killed by an Israeli airstrike in northern Gaza on December 7, 2023, alongside his brother, sister, nephew, and three nieces. We mourn the profound loss and honor the martyrdom of Dr. Alareer as a valuable mentor and knowledge producer whose final poem ‘If I Should Die’ has come to mark the precarity of Gazan life….
“Similarly, in the West Bank, the IOF are systematically attacking Palestinian universities and other educational spaces. On November 8, 2023, they stormed Birzeit University in Ramallah with six military vehicles, raiding the Student Council and shooting a young Palestinian. Also in November, settlers set fire to two classrooms in Khirbet Zanuta, depriving dozens of Palestinian children of their schooling. These assaults on academic infrastructure extend beyond physical buildings, affecting the foundations that support learning and intellectual growth throughout Palestine
“In the occupied West Bank, the systematic murder of teachers, mentors, and students, as well as the deliberate destruction of learning infrastructure is also upheld by the silencing, censorship, harassment, desecrating, devaluing, intimidation, sabotage, and repression of educators and learners. In these ways, sophicide functions to destroy and erase Palestinian histories, intellectual memory, and wisdom.” We note that Israel’s campaign of scholasticide did not begin in 2023; it has been ongoing for decades.
From Riham Barghouti, “The Struggle for an Equal Right to Academic Freedom,”International Institute of Social Studies (June 7, 2011)
“The term ‘scholasticide’ has been coined to describe the systematic destruction by Israeli forces of centers of education…. These attacks on civilians and buildings, including educational institutions, should not be seen as isolated occurrences. Rather, the attacks reflect a systematic policy by Israel to target the Palestinian education system, persisting throughout the history of the occupation.… Attacks against education have come in the form of closure of institutions, denial of access to education, the killing and injuring of students and teachers, arrests and deportations, and the destruction of academic institutions.
“Starting in 1967, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip resulted in severe travel restrictions. This denied Palestinians the right to travel to pursue higher education in neighboring Arab countries or further abroad. These restrictions spurred the emergence of a number of universities in the Occupied Territories, including Hebron (1971), Bethlehem (1973), Birzeit (1973), Al Najah (1977) and the Islamic University (1978).
“However, almost immediately after their establishment, these Palestinian institutions of higher education came under attack by the Israeli occupation. For example, in 1973, just as Birzeit was nearing completion as a fully-fledged university, the Israeli authorities closed down the campus by military order, a measure that was repeated on several other occasions. A year later, in 1974, the president of Birzeit University, Dr. Hanna Nasir, was arrested by the Israeli authorities and deported to Lebanon….
“Within weeks of the start of the first Intifada in December 1987, Israel closed down all six Palestinian universities, 13 colleges and five training centers. On 2 February 1988, the Israeli Army ordered the closure of all 1,194 schools in the West Bank until further notice. Less than a year later, the kindergartens were also closed down by military order. Despite these disturbances, the effort to maintain continuity in the education system persisted. For example, Palestinian education went underground with classes being held in churches, mosques and living rooms. However, the Israeli army frequently raided these makeshift classes, arresting those in attendance….
“All six universities mentioned earlier remained closed under military order for four years. As always, the Israeli justification was ‘security.’ The authorities argued that schools and universities were sites of student demonstrations and unrest, so therefore all educational institutions had to be closed down. This security rationale was invoked time and again by Israel, despite its illegal use as a form of collective punishment, and more so, its wholesale violation of the human right to education provided under international law. In fact, Israeli military and security officials defended the bombing of the Islamic University in Gaza on 29 December 2009 by stating that ‘universities historically have been breeding grounds for radical thought, free speech and protest.’”
“In addition to the attacks and closures of academic institutions, Israel continuously violates Palestinian academic freedom by impeding access to academic institutions and isolating the entire Palestinian academic community. First, Palestinian students from Gaza have been denied permission to travel abroad to continue their education, even when awarded international scholarships. Second, Gaza students have been denied permission to travel to the West Bank to study since 2005. Due to the existence of several hundred checkpoints and closures and the Israeli separation wall, it has become increasingly difficult for Palestinian students living in one area of the West Bank to travel to another area of the West Bank to attend university. Furthermore, Palestinian citizens and residents of Israel are threatened with withdrawal of their residence rights in Israel if they are found in the West Bank or Gaza Strip, prohibiting them from studying at Palestinian universities. At the same time, Palestinian citizens of Israel who choose to study at Israeli universities face numerous discriminatory practices including being denied scholarships, housing opportunities or admission to certain programs based on failure to serve in the military.
“Beyond aspiring students, Palestinian academics are also regularly denied the right to travel abroad to attend conferences or to carry out joint projects with international institutions. International academics are routinely denied visas and, as such, are unable to travel to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to attend conferences, give lectures, or teach at these institutions. Foreign passport holders of Palestinian and non-Palestinian origin living in Palestinian territories and working at Palestinian universities are often denied re-entry visas or threatened with deportation.”
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:
• Samar Saeed, “Scholasticide in Gaza: Israel’s Continued Colonial Policy of Eradicating Palestinian Knowledge,” Center for Contemporary Arab Studies Newsletter (Spring 2024)
• Ashley Smith, “Resisting Israeli Scholasticide and Academic Apartheid: Interview with Maya Wind,” Spectre Journal (July 9, 2024)
• Marcy Newman, “Academic Institutions in the West Can No Longer Remain Silent on Gaza.” Truthout (3 March 2024).
• Chandni Desai, “The War in Gaza Is Wiping Out Palestine’s Education and Knowledge Systems” (The Conversation, February 8, 2024)
• Patrick Jack, “Academia in Gaza ‘Has Been Destroyed’ by Israeli ‘Educide,’” Times Higher Education Supplement (January 29, 2024)
• Chris Havergal, “Gaza University President Killed in Israeli Air Strike,” Times Higher Education Supplement (December 4, 2023)
• Pula Lem, “Palestinian Campuses Head into Abyss as Israeli Retaliation Grows.” Times Higher Education Supplement (26 October 2023).
• Joint Statement against the Military Targeting of Cultural Sites: Targeting Cultural Sites Is a War Crime (2020) [Endorsed by MLA Executive Council]
• Ameera Ahmad and Ed Vulliamy, “In Gaza, the Schools Are Dying Too” (Guardian, January 10, 2009)
• Karma Nabulsi, “The Role of Palestinian Intellectuals,” in Waiting for the Barbarians: A Tributeto Edward W. Said, ed. Basak Ertür and Müge Gürsoy Sökmen (New York: Verso, 2008)
4. Whereas, the complicity of Israeli academic institutions in denying Palestinian human rights has been comprehensively documented;
In this document, we can only begin to hint at the enormous body of work documenting the active complicity of Israeli academic institutions in denying Palestinian human rights, including the rights to life, liberty, security of person, and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention; the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; the right to hold opinions without interference; the right to freedom of expression; the right to participate in public affairs; the right to equal protection and effective protection against discrimination; the right to freedom of association; the right to peaceful assembly; the right to work; the right to participate in cultural life; the right to education; and the rights to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one’s residence. We note that Palestinian scholars, academic organizations, and human rights groups have been documenting this complicity for decades. Detailed reports can be found on the websites of the Right to Education Campaign at Birzeit University; Adalah Legal Center for ArabMinority Rights in Israel; Al-Haq; and Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association.
Most recently, we note the publication of Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny
Palestinian Freedom (2024), by the Israeli-American scholar Maya Wind. It is impossible to summarize Wind’s almost 200 pages of evidence, or her wealth of sources, many of them in Arabic or Hebrew, and we recommend those interested in the basis of this resolution read her book, along with the many other sources we provide below. What follows is a fraction of the evidence of complicity by Israeli universities.
From Maya Wind, Towers of Ivory and Steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian Freedom (New York: Verso, 2024)
“Tel Aviv University announced in July 2023 that it is embarking on another partnership with the Israeli military. The university had won the Ministry of Defense bid to house the prestigious ‘Erez’ BA program for officers in combat military units….In the Erez program, the military explains, ‘military and academic training are intertwined,’ wherein the cadets are transformed ‘from civilians to elite fighters.’” (p. 3)
“In the lead-up to the 1948 war, these three institutions [Hebrew University, the Technion, and the Weizmann Institute] were directly recruited to support the violent dispossession required for Zionist territorial expansion. The leading Zionist militia, the Haganah, established a Science Corps, which opened bases on all three campuses to research and refine military capabilities. Throughout the 1948 war, the universities helped sustain the Haganah and other militias in their mass expulsion of Palestinians… Faculty and students developed and manufactured weapons, as their campuses, equipment, and expertise were put to the service of Zionist militias. With the establishment of Israel, the Technion and the
Weizmann Institute came to anchor the state’s scientific-military capabilities.” (p. 13-14)
“Israeli archaeological theft and appropriation through occupation is a longstanding practice. It is also often publicly conducted, and Israel openly displays stolen artifacts in its own museums…. The Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities and Israeli sources estimate that between 1967 and 1992 approximately 200,000 artifacts were removed annually from the OPT.” (p. 28, 216-17n4)
“Israeli universities run programs that conceptualize academic and military training as one and the same. All public universities offer their facilities, faculty, and expertise for Israeli military training, advancing the career development of soldiers and security state personnel through specialized degreegranting programs. Atuda (academic reserve) is a specialized academic program for soldiers—run by the Israeli military and Ministry of Defense, in collaboration with weapons manufacturers and the
Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure—that is administered through the Israeli university system. The Atuda program was developed to offer the Israeli military a cadre of highly educated and specialized soldiers, amid a national draft of high school seniors.…
“The boundaries are blurred between military training bases and Israeli university campuses. In some elite programs, soldiers complete specialized degree programs throughout their active military service, such as with Ben-Gurion University’s accelerated BA for fighter pilots designed to complement their professional training. In others, military and academic training are intertwined and carried out across both university campuses and military bases, such as with Hebrew University’s Talpiot combined BSc in physics, computer science, and math. Under the auspices of the Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure and the Israeli Air Force, the program fosters leadership in ‘technological research’ for the maintenance and development of weapon systems for the Israeli military and the security establishment. Most of the training takes place at the Air Force Command and Leadership School at Hebrew University’s Giv’at Ram Campus, but soldiers are also trained in military bases and security state facilities.” (p. 99-101)
“All Israeli universities work closely with the Israeli government to develop the state’s military industries and technologies for the military. Israel’s Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure (MAFAT), the R&D directorate of Israel’s Ministry of Defense, maintains close ties with university administrations. MAFAT’s stated aim is to ‘ensure Israel’s ability to develop weapons to build its strength and to continue to maintain its qualitative advantage.’ MAFAT is therefore responsible for weapons and technology infrastructure, cultivating technological research personnel, soliciting and funding research from Israeli universities, and collaborating with academic institutions and military industries on development for the Israeli military.” (p. 107)
“The Technion not only facilitated the birth of the Israeli military industry but also continues to support the international sales of its weapons, even going so far as to explicitly offer courses on arms and security marketing and export.” (p. 110)
“Palestinian citizens of Israel across Israeli universities face attacks on their critical research and writing. This is particularly the case for those who wish to explore the history and present conditions of Palestinians under Israeli rule, both within the Israeli state and in the OPT. Israeli universities have long constrained the right of Palestinian faculty and scholars to investigate the subjects and events most central to the Palestinian experience: the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 and, with it, the mass expulsion, dispossession, and fragmentation of the Palestinian people, thereafter divided into refugees living in the diaspora, those living under Israeli military rule in the OPT, and those living as citizens within Israel’s pre-1967 borders.” (p. 117)
“A senior university administrator [at Ben Gurion University in 2010] assured the press that the university was ‘Zionist,’ reminding the public that the Department of Politics and Government trains active-duty Israeli Air Force personnel. Meanwhile, the university senate passed a directive that faculty must refrain from mentioning their university by name if expressing their own ‘political opinions.’ The institutional message was clear: critical analyses of the Israeli occupation could in no way be associated with the university. Faculty at Ben-Gurion University and at other institutions took notice and began taking new precautions. They reported excluding critical scholarship on their syllabi, making explicit requests not to record their classes, and censoring their own commentary in the classroom. The Israeli consensus on the boundaries of acceptable critique was becoming more strictly enforced.” (p. 127)
“On March 28, 2022, two Palestinian students of Hebrew University sat on the Mt. Scopus campus lawn and sang in Arabic. They were approached by Jewish-Israeli students who demanded to know what they were singing. The Israeli students—who were also off-duty police officers—accused the Palestinian students of singing ‘nationalist’ songs, forcefully escorted them to the campus gates, and summoned active-duty officers to arrest them…. Across Israeli campuses, university administrations marginalize and criminalize Palestinian students by scrutinizing them for signs of national, religious, or political expression.” (p. 150)
“Permits for Palestinian events are commonly refused or rescinded across Israeli university campuses. The Hebrew University administration canceled an academic conference about Palestinian political prisoners in 2017. At Ben-Gurion University that same year, a Palestinian student group organized an exhibit on Israeli demolitions of Bedouin Palestinian homes in the Naqab. Following complaints from the student union, the university reversed its earlier decision to authorize the exhibit, citing ‘security constraints.’ The administration demanded that students present the content of the exhibit in advance and ultimately authorized the display for only one day. In 2018, the Tel Aviv University administration canceled a previously authorized series of meetings, tabling, and events scheduled as part of a ‘Week to End the Occupation’ organized by a joint Palestinian-Jewish student group shortly before the week commenced.” (p. 165)
“Israeli universities serve as part of the state apparatus to quell Palestinian student dissent. Defying the Israeli security state comes at a heavy cost in Palestinian universities, but so does challenging it on Israeli campuses. Universities in the OPT have been physically isolated, financially suffocated, raided by the military, and bombarded with heavy fire. In the face of this repression by the Israeli state, not only have Israeli universities continued to willingly collaborate with the Israeli military and security apparatuses, on their own campuses their administrations actively repress Palestinian student mobilization to protest these injustices.” (p. 187)
“Built on indigenous Palestinian land and designed as vehicles of Jewish settlement expansion and Palestinian dispossession, Israeli institutions of higher education were founded in the tradition of land-grab universities. Like other settler institutions, Israeli universities were established to uphold the colonial infrastructure of the Israeli state. Where they stand apart, however, is in their explicit and ongoing role in sustaining a regime now overwhelmingly recognized by the international community as apartheid. Israeli universities continue not only to actively participate in the violence of the Israeli state against Palestinians but also to contribute their resources, research, and scholarship to maintain, defend, and justify this oppression.” (p. 195)
From Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, The Persecution of Palestinian
Students in Israeli Universities and Colleges during the War on Gaza (March 25, 2024), p. 1-4
“Since the beginning of the War on 7 October 2023, dozens of Israeli universities and colleges initiated disciplinary actions mainly and overwhelmingly against Palestinian students both citizens of Israel and residents of East Jerusalem, based on their social media posts….these proceedings have created a hostile, inciting, and unsafe academic environment for many Palestinian students and faculty…. Surveys conducted among Palestinian students indicate that they feel unsafe on campus and a high percentage consider dropping out….
“Sometimes, students were held accountable for content they did not share themselves but for content that had been created by a user they had shared content from in the past. Additionally, even the posting of basic national symbols, such as the Palestinian flag, at times served as basis for disciplinary action. This strictness was also evident in cases opened against students solely for their expression of views that might challenge the Israeli consensus….For instance, articles criticizing the actions of the Israeli military or casting doubt on the accuracy of some descriptions of the events in the Gaza envelope were often the basis for some complaints, even if the source was Israeli media in Hebrew. Effectively, the use of terms like ‘ethnic cleansing,’ ‘massacre,’ or ‘genocide’ to describe the events in Gaza was banned.
“According to Adalah Center’s review of these posts and the proceedings, there is a clear pattern of racist viewpoints which attribute charges of support for terrorism solely based on the identity of the publishers. Effectively, they have assumed that every Arab student is a terrorist unless they prove themselves otherwise.”
From Anthony Alessandrini, “The Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel as a Defense ofAcademic Freedom,”Academe Blog (August 20, 2024)
“Today, [Israeli] universities closely collaborate with Israeli weapons manufacturers to develop technology for the Israeli military and security state. To give only a few examples: Bar Ilan University works closely with Israel’s security services, condemned by the UN Committee against Torture for their use of illegal interrogation tactics; Ben Gurion University hosts the Homeland Security Institute whose partnerships include Israeli weapons companies and the Israeli Ministry of Defense; Technion has numerous joint academic programs with the Israeli military and developed technology for the Caterpillar D9 armored bulldozer used to demolish Palestinian homes (one killed Rachel Corrie in Gaza in 2003); Tel Aviv University runs joint centers with the Israeli military and arms industry; the University of Haifa hosts the Israeli Military Academic Complex that trains senior military staff; and Ariel University is located in an illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank.”
From Alternative Information Center, Academic Boycott of Israel and the Complicity of Israeli
Academic Institutions in Occupation of Palestinian Territories (Jerusalem: AIC, 2009)
“The Technion, the Israeli institution most renowned for applied sciences such as engineering and computer science, has all but enlisted itself in the military. The Technion, like most other Israeli universities, takes pride in projects of research and development conducted for the Israeli security forces. Examples of the more brutal of these are the development of a remote-controlled ‘D9’ bulldozer used by the Israeli army to demolish Palestinian houses and the development of a method for detecting underground tunnels, specifically developed in order to assist the Israeli army in its continued siege on the Gaza Strip. The extent of cooperation between the Technion and Israeli military was demonstrated when the Technion opened a center for the development of electro-optics in complete partnership with Elbit, one of the biggest Israeli private weapons’ research companies which is also heavily involved in development for the Israeli military.
“Though the Technion is the most notorious and prestigious academic institution that cooperates with the Israeli military in developing military technologies, it is not the only Israeli university to do so…Tel-Aviv University has participated in no less than 55 joint technological projects with the Israeli army, particularly in the field of electro-optics….Bar-Ilan University has also participated in joint research with the army, specifically in developing artificial intelligence for unmanned combat vehicles.
“Other academic institutes such as the Weizman Institute have also been involved in development in service of the Israeli army. Academic institutions such as the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya or Holon College take pride in the fact that their students later work in weapons manufacturing companies such as Elbit and RAFAEL. The Wingate Institute also has joint research projects with the Israeli security forces, although more related to physical fitness rather than to weapon development.” (p. 9-10)
“Being an important part of a militarized war-like society in which army service is a fundamental mainstream consensus, Israeli universities and academic institutes tend to provide preferential treatment to current soldiers, ex-soldiers and reserve-soldier students.
“Israeli law itself stipulates that universities give special treatment to reservist students and none of the universities themselves have ever expressed even symbolic opposition to this political interference in the academic sphere; on the contrary, almost all of them have come up with their own original ways of supporting soldiers and the Israeli war-like agenda (way beyond what they are required to by law). The most common method for this is the granting of scholarships and academic benefits based, sometimes solely, on past, present or future military service. Many scholarships, including some university sponsored ones, grant credit to applicants who have served in the army, and it is also easy to find scholarships granted solely to soldiers….
“Conscription to the Israeli army is mandatory, but there are numerous Israeli youth exempt from service because of religious beliefs and health reasons. There are also a small but important number of conscientious objectors who are sometimes imprisoned because of their refusal to enlist. Any favorable or preferential treatment to soldiers is discrimination against both these groups, but the starkest discrimination is against Palestinian citizens of Israel who, unlike most other ethnic populations, are not conscripted to the Israeli army. In the past this fact has been used in numerous cases to discriminate against Palestinian citizens, especially in matters of employment. Since any preferential treatment of soldiers and ex-soldiers must necessarily be seen as practical discrimination against Palestinians, the Israeli system of higher education is rife with such mistreatment.” (p. 12, 15)
“Several universities have taken a step further and have become directly involved with the Israeli occupation. The starkest example of this is the Judea and Samaria College, founded by Bar Ilan University in Ariel, an Israeli settlement on Palestinian territory….
Jerusalem’s Hebrew University has also become an accomplice in building in settlements on Palestinian lands. Its Mount Scopus campus is situated inside the Green Line, but bordering on
Palestinian land in virtually all directions. Since the 1970s, the university has attempted to oust nine Palestinian families who live in nearby lands in order to expand its campus. Hebrew University has already built on lands belonging to the Palestinian villages of Lifta, al-Issawiya, and Wadi al-Joz. In 2004 the university began expansion onto another area that belongs to Palestinians, in order to build parking lots, offices and student housing.” (p. 18-19)
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:
• Ilan Pappé, “Israeli Universities Are Complicit,” Guardian (June 1, 2024)
• Maya Wind, “The Settler University: Israeli Academic Has Always Been Part of Israel’s Territorial Objectives in Palestine,” Mail & Guardian (April 27, 2024)
• Pola Lem, “Palestinian Students Suspended by Israeli Universities,” Times Higher Education Supplement (October 31, 2023)
• Or Kashti, “In About-face, Israeli University Heads Decide to Admit Settlement University to Joint Body.” Haaretz (10 April 2021).
• MLA Letter to Israeli Authorities about Restrictions on International Academics Working in Palestinian Universities (2019)
• United Nations Committee against Torture, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Concluding Observations on the Fifth PeriodicReport of Israel(June 3, 2016)
• Riham Barghouti, “The Struggle for an Equal Right to Academic Freedom,” International Institute of Social Studies (7 June 2011).
• Gabi Baramki, Peaceful Resistance: Building a Palestinian University Under Occupation. New York: Pluto Press, 2010.
• Marcy Jane Knopf-Newman, “The Fallacy of Academic Freedom and the Academic Boycott of Israel.” CR: The New Centennial Review 8.2 (2008).
• Keith Hammond, “Palestinian Universities and the Israeli Occupation,” Policy Futures in Education 5.2 (2007).
• Tanya Reinhart, “Academic Boycott: In Support of Paris VI.” ZNet (4 February 2003).
• Anthony Sullivan, Palestinian Universities Under Occupation. Cairo: Cairo Papers in Social Science, 1988.
5. Whereas, in 2005, 170 Palestinian civil society organizations called for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel;
Due to frequent misrepresentations of the 2005 BDS call, we reproduce the full document here:
Palestinian Civil Society Calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel Until it Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights (July 9, 2005)
“One year after the historic Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which found Israel’s Wall built on occupied Palestinian territory to be illegal, Israel continues its construction of the colonial Wall with total disregard to the Court’s decision. Thirty-eight years into Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Gaza Strip and the Syrian Golan Heights, Israel continues to expand Jewish colonies. It has unilaterally annexed occupied East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights and is now de facto annexing large parts of the West Bank by means of the Wall. Israel is also preparing—in the shadow of its planned redeployment from the Gaza Strip—to build and expand colonies in the West Bank. Fifty-seven years after the state of Israel was built mainly on land ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian owners, a majority of Palestinians are refugees, most of whom are stateless. Moreover, Israel’s entrenched system of racial discrimination against its own Arab-Palestinian citizens remains intact.
“In light of Israel’s persistent violations of international law; and
“Given that, since 1948, hundreds of UN resolutions have condemned Israel’s colonial and discriminatory policies as illegal and called for immediate, adequate and effective remedies; and
“Given that all forms of international intervention and peace-making have until now failed to convince or force Israel to comply with humanitarian law, to respect fundamental human rights and to end its occupation and oppression of the people of Palestine; and
“In view of the fact that people of conscience in the international community have historically shouldered the moral responsibility to fight injustice, as exemplified in the struggle to abolish apartheid in South Africa through diverse forms of boycott, divestment and sanctions; and
“Inspired by the struggle of South Africans against apartheid and in the spirit of international solidarity, moral consistency and resistance to injustice and oppression;
“We, representatives of Palestinian civil society, call upon international civil society organizations and people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era. We appeal to you to pressure your respective states to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel. We also invite conscientious Israelis to support this Call, for the sake of justice and genuine peace.
“These non-violent punitive measures should be maintained until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:
1. Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall
2. Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and 3. Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.
[A full list of the 170 Palestinian civil society organizations endorsing the call can be found here.]
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:
• Palestinian Civil Society Call for BDS
• Call for an Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel
• Implementing the Academic Boycott: Individuals vs. Institutions
• PACBI Guidelines for the International Cultural Boycott of Israel
• Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions, “Frequently Asked Questions”
• American Studies Association, “What Does the Boycott Mean?”
• Maya Wind, “What Are Academic Boycotts For?” Africa Is a Country (April 18, 2024)
• Paul Di Stefano and Mostafa Henaway, “Boycotting Apartheid: From South Africa to Palestine,” Peace Review 26.1 (2014).
• David Lloyd and Malini Johar Schueller, “The Israeli State of Exception and the Case for Academic Boycott,” AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom 4 (2013)
• Tanya Reinhart, “Academic Boycott: In Support of Paris VI.” ZNet (4 February 2003).
6. Whereas, that call is to boycott institutions, not individual Israeli academics, and to support academic freedom;
Due to frequent misrepresentations of the 2004 Palestinian call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel, we reproduce the full document here:
Call for an Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (July 6, 2004)
“Whereas Israel’s colonial oppression of the Palestinian people, which is based on Zionist ideology, comprises the following:
• Denial of its responsibility for the Nakba—in particular the waves of ethnic cleansing and dispossession that created the Palestinian refugee problem—and therefore refusal to accept the inalienable rights of the refugees and displaced stipulated in and protected by international law;
• Military occupation and colonization of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza since 1967, in violation of international law and UN resolutions;
• The entrenched system of racial discrimination and segregation against the Palestinian citizens of Israel, which resembles the defunct apartheid system in South Africa;
“Since Israeli academic institutions (mostly state controlled) and the vast majority of Israeli intellectuals and academics have either contributed directly to maintaining, defending or otherwise justifying the above forms of oppression, or have been complicit in them through their silence,
“Given that all forms of international intervention have until now failed to force Israel to comply with international law or to end its repression of the Palestinians, which has manifested itself in many forms, including siege, indiscriminate killing, wanton destruction and the racist colonial wall,
“In view of the fact that people of conscience in the international community of scholars and intellectuals have historically shouldered the moral responsibility to fight injustice, as exemplified in their struggle to abolish apartheid in South Africa through diverse forms of boycott,
“Recognizing that the growing international boycott movement against Israel has expressed the need for a Palestinian frame of reference outlining guiding principles,
“In the spirit of international solidarity, moral consistency and resistance to injustice and oppression,
“We, Palestinian academics and intellectuals, call upon our colleagues in the international community to comprehensively and consistently boycott all Israeli academic and cultural institutions as a contribution to the struggle to end Israel’s occupation, colonization and system of apartheid, by applying the following:
1. Refrain from participation in any form of academic and cultural cooperation, collaboration or joint projects with Israeli institutions;
2. Advocate a comprehensive boycott of Israeli institutions at the national and international levels, including suspension of all forms of funding and subsidies to these institutions;
3. Promote divestment and disinvestment from Israel by international academic institutions;
4. Work toward the condemnation of Israeli policies by pressing for resolutions to be adopted by academic, professional and cultural associations and organizations;
5. Support Palestinian academic and cultural institutions directly without requiring them to partner with Israeli counterparts as an explicit or implicit condition for such support.
“Endorsed byPalestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees; Palestinian
General Federation of Trade Unions; Palestinian NGO Network, West Bank; Teachers’ Federation;
Palestinian Writers’ Federation; Palestinian League of Artists; Palestinian Journalists’ Federation; General Union of Palestinian Women; Palestinian Lawyers’ Association; and tens of other Palestinian federations, associations, and civil society organizations.”
From “PACBI Guidelines for the International Cultural Boycott of Israel” (2014):
“Given that the BNC [Palestinian BDS National Committee], through the PACBI guidelines presented below, rejects censorship and upholds the universal right to freedom of expression, the institutional boycott called for by Palestinian civil society does not conflict with such freedom. PACBI subscribes to the internationally-accepted definition of freedom of expression as stipulated in the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
“Anchored in precepts of international law and universal human rights, the BDS movement, including PACBI, rejects on principle boycotts of individuals based on their identity (such as citizenship, race, gender, or religion) or opinion. Mere affiliation of Israeli cultural workers to an Israeli cultural institution is therefore not grounds for applying the boycott.”
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:
• Implementing the Academic Boycott: Individuals vs. Institutions
• Anthropologists for the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions, “But, What About…”
• American Studies Association, “What Does the Boycott Mean?”
• Anthony Alessandrini, “The Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel as a Defense of Academic Freedom,” Academe Blog (August 20, 2024)
• Joan W. Scott, “Changing My Mind About the Boycott.” AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom 4 (2013)
• Tanya Reinhart, “Academic Boycott: In Support of Paris VI.” ZNet (4 February 2003).
7. Whereas the AAUP declared academic boycotts “legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education”;
From American Association of University Professors, “Statement on Academic Boycotts” (August 2024)
“Committee A recognizes that when faculty members choose to support academic boycotts, they can legitimately seek to protect and advance the academic freedom and fundamental rights of colleagues and students who are living and working under circumstances that violate that freedom and one or more of those rights. In such contexts, academic boycotts are not in themselves violations of academic freedom; rather, they can be considered legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education. The freedom to produce and exchange knowledge depends upon the guarantee of other basic freedoms, including the rights to life, liberty, security of person, and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention; the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; the right to hold opinions without interference; the right to freedom of expression; the right to participate in public affairs; the right to equal protection and effective protection against discrimination; the right to freedom of association; the right to peaceful assembly; the right to work; the right to participate in cultural life; the right to education; and the rights to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one’s residence. Not all of our academic colleagues and students in the United States and around the world are afforded these fundamental rights.
“Committee A therefore holds that individual faculty members and students should be free to weigh, assess, and debate the specific circumstances giving rise to calls for systematic academic boycotts and to make their own choices regarding their participation in them. To do otherwise contravenes academic freedom.”
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:
• Rana Jaleel and Todd Wolfson, “The AAUP Has Always Defended Academic Freedom. We Still Do,” Chronicle of Higher Education (August 21, 2024)
• Joan W. Scott, “The AAUP Is Right. Supporting Boycotts Is Academic Freedom,” Chronicle of Higher Education (August 20, 2024)
• Ryan Quinn, “AAUP Ends Two-Decade Opposition to Academic Boycotts,” Inside Higher Ed (August 12, 2024)
• Anthony Alessandrini, “The Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel as a Defense of Academic Freedom,” Academe Blog (August 20, 2024)
• David Lloyd and Malini Johar Schueller, “The Israeli State of Exception and the Case for Academic Boycott,” AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom 4 (2013)
8. Whereas, the MLA’s commitment to “justice throughout the humanities ecosystem” requires ending institutional complicity with genocide and supporting Palestinian colleagues; therefore
From MLA Mission and Strategic Priorities:
“This is an especially important time for the MLA to define its values. The values on which the MLA bases its decision-making are
Equity: The MLA supports and encourages impartiality, fairness, and justice throughout the humanities ecosystem.
Inclusion: The MLA recognizes that all members should feel a sense of belonging within the association—that they are accepted, supported, and valued in word and in actions and that the association’s resources are accessible to them.
Advocacy: The MLA champions intellectual freedom; fair working conditions; and the value of scholarship in, pedagogy of, and public engagement with the humanities.”
As the preceding evidence indicates, the values of equity, inclusion, and advocacy have not been extended in any form to our Palestinian colleagues. In 1997, Nelson Mandela famously declared: “we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.” So too, in 2024, the MLA’s commitment to “justice throughout the humanities ecosystem” remains incomplete without justice for Palestinian scholars and students subjected to scholasticide. We believe that this resolution is absolutely consistent with the MLA’s stated values.
What follows is a sample of additional MLA statements related to justice throughout the humanities ecosystem, both domestically and on an international basis, over the past decade, which are consistent with the intent of the current Resolution to Endorse the 2005 Palestinian BDS Call:
• MLA Statement Endorsing the AAUP’s Statement “Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom: Redefinitions of Antisemitism and Racism” (2022)
• Letter of Appeal for Colleagues in Afghanistan (2021)
• Updated MLA Statement on Continuing Threats to Academic Freedom and Higher Education in Turkey (2021)
• Joint Statement Opposing New Policy on Virtual Scholarly Exchanges in India (2021)
• MLA Statement Deploring Systemic Racism (2020)
• Statement Opposing Xenophobic Visa Regulations Imposed on International Students and Scholars (2020)
• Joint Statement against the Military Targeting of Cultural Sites: Targeting Cultural Sites Is a War Crime (2020)
• Statement on Violence against Students and Teachers in India (2020)
• Statement on the Violent Repression of Political Protest (2019)
• Letter to Israeli Authorities about Restrictions on International Academics Working in Palestinian Universities (2019)
• Statement on Continuing Threats to Academic Freedom and Higher Education in Turkey (2019)
• MLA Statement on the Closing of the Central European University (2018)
• MLA Statement of Support for Turkish Academics (2016)
• MLA Statement on Islamophobia (2015)
• MLA Statement on Exclusion of Refugees (2015)
• MLA Condemns Violence against Teachers and Students in Mexico (2015)
Be it resolved that we, the members of the MLA, endorse the 2005 BDS call.
Below are some of the scholarly organizations, including MLA Allied Organizations, which have endorsed the PACBI call for an academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions and/or the 2005 Palestinian BDS call:
• African Literature Association Resolution: The ALA Supports the Academic Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions (2014)
• American Anthropological Association Resolution to Boycott Israeli Academic Institutions (2023)
• American Comparative Literature Association, Endorsement of the 2005 Call of Palestinian Civil Society for BDS (2024)
• American Studies Association Resolution: Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions (2013)
• Association for Asian American Studies Resolution to Support the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions (2013)
• Association for Humanist Sociology Statement in Support of the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (2013)
• Critical Ethnic Studies Association Resolution on Academic Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions (2014)
• Middle East Studies Association Resolution Regarding BDS (2022)
• Native American and Indigenous Studies Association Declaration in Support of the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions (2013)
• National Association of Chicana and Chicano Studies Resolution to Support the Boycott of Israeli Academic Institutions (2015)
• National Women’s Studies Association Resolution in Support of BDS (2015)
• Peace and Justice Studies Association Endorsement of BDS (2014)
Modern Language Association Leadership Refuses to Allow BDS Resolution
The leadership of the Modern Language Association, a scholarly organization representing scholars of languages and literatures, has, arbitrarily and without explanation, refused to forward a member’s motion to the Delegate Assembly for discussion. This motion called upon the MLA to endorse the call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel that was made in 2005 by 170 Palestinian civil society organizations.
The member who submitted the motion, Anthony Alessandrini of Kingsborough Community College and the CUNY Graduate Center, went through a lengthy vetting process with MLA Executive Director Paula Krebs and other staff in order to ensure that the motion was appropriately worded and that it did not target individual scholars. Dr. Alessandrini was given written assurances that the motion was proper and would be forwarded to the delegates, who represent the broader MLA membership, through the usual channels. The motion was well supported: 39 members co-signed the initial submission, and over 100 members subsequently signed to indicate their support, meaning that it had cleared all hurdles for discussion at the upcoming January convention. Nevertheless, in an act that may be unprecedented in the history of the organization, it was quashed by MLA’s Executive Council. Dr. Krebs, in a three-sentence email sent on Tuesday, October 29th, cited vague “financial and legal effects” as the reason that it could not be discussed. The MLA leadership has subsequently censored attempts by elected delegates to discuss the resolution on an official email list.
The refusal even to allow discussion of BDS is highly unusual for a scholarly organization. MLA is well behind its peers: numerous other organizations, including the American Studies Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the Middle East Studies Association, have endorsed BDS; some did so a decade ago. In 2017, the MLA’s Executive Council permitted a similar resolution to be considered by the Delegate Assembly, although it did not pass.
The MLA’s refusal to allow discussion of BDS at its 2025 convention is indicative of the climate of increasing political repression and censorship within North American academia today. It starkly demonstrates the insidiousness of the “Palestine exception” wherein considerations of free speech and academic freedom are suspended when the topic of Palestine arises. It indicates a shameful abandonment of Palestinian scholars, especially those who are members of the MLA and are scheduled to present at the upcoming convention, at a time when Israel’s campaign of scholasticide has destroyed every university in Gaza, killed at least 11,000 students and 529 educators in the West Bank and Gaza (as of September 2024), and prevented at least 718,000 Palestinian students from attending their schools and universities since October 2023.
At the annual convention in New Orleans, framers of the resolution plan to protest the anti-democratic practices of Krebs and the MLA, and will highlight over 40 panels at the convention devoted to Palestine.
Submitted by Anthony Alessandrini (Kingsborough Community Coll., NY)
Whereas, international law experts, including UN officials, describe the Israeli war on Gaza as a genocide;
Whereas, human rights organizations and the International Court of Justice have determined that Israel is maintaining a system of apartheid;
Whereas, in April 2024 the United Nations documented that Israel’s campaign of scholasticide has destroyed every university in Gaza and killed at least 5,479 students and 356 educators;
Whereas, the complicity of Israeli academic institutions in denying Palestinian human rights has been comprehensively documented;
Whereas, in 2005, 170 Palestinian civil society organizations called for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel;
Whereas, that call is to boycott institutions, not individual Israeli academics, and to support academic freedom;
Whereas the American Association of University Professors declared academic boycotts “legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education”;
Whereas, the MLA’s commitment to “justice throughout the humanities ecosystem” requires ending institutional complicity with genocide and supporting Palestinian colleagues; therefore
Be it resolved that we, the members of the MLA, endorse the 2005 BDS call.
MLA and BDS 1: The Resolution, the Blocked Debate, Some Responses, Two Resignations
Austin, Texas MLA Convention on January 8, 2016
Chris here with the Story Thus Far.
A group of members of the Modern Language Association (MLA) submitted a “Resolution to Endorse the 2005 Palestinian BDS Call” to the Association. The normal process would be for the MLA’s Delegate Assembly (DA), which represents the membership, to debate the Resolution at the annual convention in January 2025 and vote it up or down. The Association’s Executive Council (EC), an elected governing body, is charged with reviewing resolutions for legal, financial and related problems before forwarding it to the DA.
I am part of a group of MLA ex-presidents who objected to blocking the resolution debate. Our letter to the MLA president and Executive Council is also posted at Lit Hub.
Two members of the Executive Council resigned over the decision. Rebecca Colesworthy and Esther Allen have allowed me to post their resignation letters below.
***
December 6, 2024
Dear Officers and Members of the MLA Executive Council,
Yesterday, I submitted the co-authored introduction to the special issue of Profession born of Emergency Motion 2024-1. The essays we selected are at once informed and impassioned. That we had so many submissions from which to choose is indicative of how much MLA members are struggling under—and mobilizing their skills as humanists to work against—current threats to academic freedom and the spread of hatred and hostility on campus and off.
On Wednesday, in my role as the EC adviser to the Committee on the Status of Graduate Students in the Humanities, I participated in a pre-convention Zoom meeting for graduate students along with Paula and staff. The meeting was a welcome reminder of how much the organization and “the profession” have changed since I first attended the convention nearly 20 years ago while serving as the grad student representative on a search committee. While the endless withering of the tenure-track job market is decidedly bad, the organization’s efforts to further engage and support scholars at all stages and to focus more intently on labor issues are undoubtedly good.
The special issue and the warm, welcoming Zoom are exemplary of the many, many things MLA does spectacularly well. I am genuinely honored to have been a part of them, as I have so many committees, activities, and actions during my time on the EC.
I write now, regrettably but necessarily, to resign from my role as a member of the Executive Council. I hasten to add: I remain as committed as ever to the organization and to members.
Nevertheless, I cannot remain on the Executive Council.
Needless to say, I, along with the rest of the voting members present at October’s meeting, voted not to advance Resolution 2025-1 to the Delegate Assembly for debate and a vote. I do not stand by my vote in the meeting and remain troubled by the—indeed, by our—lack of communication and transparency with the proposers and members, as if the supporters of the resolution were not fellow humanities workers with precisely the kind of commitment, conviction, and coordination our fields desperately need right now. These should be our partners—not people we shun.
I try to be proactive. I thought about looking for a procedural path forward. But the problem is that I don’t stand by my vote and cannot defend our decision. It may be the “right” decision based on a narrow construal of the EC’s fiduciary duty. But members are also right to ask: What does this say or, indeed, not say about the organization’s values and principles? Where will the organization draw the line? It’s a slippery slope. I wonder: Will we aim to carry on business as usual in states that, in the near future, may adopt anti-DEI or anti-gender laws that allow institutions not to do business with vendors such as the MLA that are openly committed to equity and inclusion? Will we sign contracts that say, “We do not support DEI”? What happens if MLA’s own publications on social justice become a target?
If I had one, two, or three years left on the EC, I would stay on to try to push and work within established channels. I resign now knowing it’s essentially a symbolic gesture. I don’t think I’m special or unique in feeling torn about this or having “personal” views that deviate from the EC’s decision. I worry that all of you will think I’m a coward if not traitorous for not standing by my initial vote. As I said to Dana [Williams, MLA President] under separate cover recently: relationships—and I really mean relationships, not “connections”—are everything to me. I remain committed to the organization. But I cannot defend our decision.
Above all, this is my way of standing in solidarity with members who have been working with admirable devotion and diligence to mobilize the MLA’s not insubstantial machinery to take collective stands. I cannot bracket my horror at the scholasticide and genocide in Gaza. And I think members committed not only to this particular cause but also to the broader principles of academic freedom and democracy deserve better representation, more open engagement and communication, and more transparency than we’ve given them.
The penultimate sentence of the introduction to the special issue of Profession reads: “it has never been more important for all of us, as MLA members, to come together, support each other, and draw strength from our solidarity.” I can’t take full credit for the words, but I stand by every one of them.
Respectfully,
Rebecca Colesworthy
***
December 6 2024
Dear Executive Council colleagues,
Many people, and many MLA members, see democracy under attack right now, along with academic freedom and campus free speech, and want to work towards a future where genocide ends, democracy, justice, free speech, & academic freedom are powerfully defended, and strong communities and institutions act with collective moral authority to reject and defeat authoritarianism.
As part of that work, some scholarly organizations in the humanities afford their members ways of taking collective action—with regard to US complicity in the annihilation of academic institutions, fellow scholars, students, historic monuments and so much else in Gaza, and with regard to the ongoing attacks on academic, intellectual and personal freedom in this country: the book bannings, anti-LGBTQ, anti-CRT, anti-BDS, anti-trans, anti-abortion and other kinds of harmful laws, abuses, and outrages that are only going to intensify under the incoming administration.
The decision not to allow the Delegate Assembly to vote on 2025-1 risks being perceived by MLA members and others as a declaration that the MLA is not the place for such collective action. Indeed, the decision may seem intended to effect a permanent, definitive squelching of any activism members might think of engaging in via the MLA.
If the fiduciary responsibility of the Executive Council consists exclusively in protecting the MLA’s corporate revenue—the only rationale the EC has offered for this decision—then the MLA is a for-profit corporation, like any other.
The decision not to allow the DA to vote on this may, I fear, do more damage to the MLA than any drop-off in revenue could. I can’t defend it, and hereby resign from the Executive Council.
MLA Members to Protest Suppression of BDS Resolution at Convention
At the annual convention in New Orleans on January 9-12, MLA members will engage in multiple actions to protest MLA leadership’s censorship of a resolution endorsing BDS
January 3, 2025 – In an unprecedented move, the leadership of the Modern Language Association, one of the largest humanities organizations in the United States, is refusing to allow members to vote on a resolution endorsing the 2005 Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. In response, supporters of the resolution are planning protests at the MLA’s annual convention in New Orleans, culminating in an action at the Delegate Assembly meeting on Saturday, January 11 at 12:30pm at the Hilton New Orleans Riverside.
Thirty-nine MLA members introduced the resolution in September. It was on track for a vote by the MLA’s Delegate Assembly at the convention, after more than 100 additional members signed on in support. But on October 29, MLA Executive Director Paula Krebs emailed Anthony Alessandrini, who submitted the resolution, stating that the Executive Council had refused to approve it.
“I was shocked,” Alessandrini, an elected MLA delegate, said. “We followed all the rules and crafted a resolution modeled on those passed by other academic organizations, but after weeks of consultation with MLA leadership, it was rejected with no explanation.”
MLA leadership eventually issued a statement defending the decision, emphasizing the hypothetical fallout from anti-BDS laws in several states. The Executive Council claimed that the resolution could adversely affect “sales of products to universities and libraries” and the MLA’s larger “financial profile.” In 2023, the MLA reported $17 million in revenue and $38.9 million in total assets.
But Zoha Khalili, a Senior Staff Attorney at Palestine Legal, called this a “flawed legal analysis.” “A purely expressive resolution like this one is protected speech that is beyond the reach of any anti-BDS law, even under the most repressive interpretation of our constitutional rights,” Khalili said.
“The MLA Executive Council’s decision to prevent the Delegate Assembly from voting on the BDS resolution is a cowardly, anti-democratic move,” Khalili added. “It is also a misguided one: Even if the MLA chooses to prioritize mercenary interests over Palestinian lives, its flawed legal analysis fails to acknowledge that the resolution is simply an endorsement of the Palestinian call for BDS and does not bind the MLA itself to engage in a boycott.”
In addition, over 100 MLA members have signed a pledge to quit the association to protest the repression of the BDS resolution, and some members have taken to social media to announce they are boycotting the convention. Supporters of the resolution who plan to attend are being asked to read a solidarity statement expressing their support.
“I cannot, in good conscience, continue to be a dues paying member of an organization that both suppresses the free speech of its members and prioritizes its own financial interests over the lives of Palestinians,” said Hannah Manshel, one of the submitters of the resolution and a member of the Executive Committee for the MLA Forum on Indigenous Literatures of the United States and Canada. “It is hypocritical, at best, for the MLA to claim to have an investment in Indigenous literatures while suppressing actions in support of the Indigenous people of Palestine.”
Krebs and the Executive Council have failed to respond, except to state that the resolution will be “discussed”—but not voted on—at the convention in New Orleans.
“The MLA’s Report on the Current State of Academic Freedom, approved by the Executive Council in May of last year, singles out administrative usurpation of shared governance as a principal area of tension,” said Esther Allen, one of the two Council members who resigned in protest. “It defines shared governance as meaningful participation in decisions, that is: voting. So the MLA purports to advocate for its members’ participation in decision-making at their universities, and then turns around and prevents members from taking a vote in their own organization?”
Supporters have called for protests at the convention in New Orleans next week, with a major action at the Delegate Assembly meeting where the resolution would have been voted upon. Other actions, including a pop up poetry reading, will highlight the ongoing genocide and scholasticide being carried out by Israel and supported by the United States. Many of the resolution’s supporters are also taking part in conference sessions dedicated to Palestine.
“The MLA leadership has been advertising the presence of Palestine panels, and we want to make clear that we see this as a calculated effort to cover over the suppression of our BDS resolution,” noted Cynthia Franklin, who also organized for the MLA academic boycott resolution in 2017. “We denounce this shameful attempt at cooptation. And these sessions, many of which have been organized by and feature Palestinian scholars, will include attention to the MLA’s complicity in the ongoing genocide in Palestine.”
More information about upcoming actions at the MLA convention in New Orleans from January 9-12 can be found at https://linktr.ee/mla4pal or by following @mlamjp2025 on Instagram.
In late October, the leadership of the Modern Language Association (MLA)—one of the largest and wealthiest US scholarly organizations in the humanities—refused to allow the organization’s Delegate Assembly to vote on a resolution stating that members support the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement, on the grounds that this would potentially lead to a drop-off in revenue in states with anti-BDS laws. On December 12, in response to this refusal, seven of the MLA members who proposed the resolution released this statement, calling for the organization to let members decide about BDS. Below is a letter from eight former presidents of the MLA (introduced by former president Judith Butler) calling for a vote on the resolution.
_____________________________
Some of the former presidents of the MLA object to the current Executive Council decision not to forward a resolution on the boycott for discussion. We believe that a topic as important as this should be openly debated. Open debate is one of the tasks of the Delegate Assembly as stipulated in the bylaws of the organization. In refusing to forward the motion, the MLA undermines its own structure of shared governance and the value of free and open discussion. We have various views on the boycott but collectively refuse the unsubstantiated claims made by the Director and the Executive Council that fiduciary concerns prohibit open debate about this topic by the Delegate Assembly.”
–Judith Butler, MLA President 2021-22.
*
Dear Paula, Dear Members of the Executive Council,
As former presidents and Executive Council members of the MLA who were highly concerned with the fiduciary obligations of officers during our tenure at the association, we strongly oppose the decision to refuse Delegate Assembly debate on proposed Resolution 2025-1. We request that the Executive Council re-convene to reconsider its decision in the light of widespread and legitimate public criticism. Having studied the reasons given in the EC’s message and its FAQ’s, and having reviewed the Executive Council’s exhaustive report to the Delegate Assembly issued on December 16, 2024, we urge, once again, that members of the Delegate Assembly be permitted to discuss and exercise their right to vote on Resolution 2025:1.
While we respect the work and thoughtfulness that went into the Council’s recently released documents, we do not see the rationale provided as strong or persuasive enough to merit the action taken. We do not, in particular, judge the financial risks mentioned as having been fully explained or, as currently described, worthy of taking precedence over the MLA’s commitment to open debate on urgent issues presented by its members. Indeed, we note that the MLA has itself recommended that administrators of universities and colleges defend dissenting or “unpopular” speech and confront courageously those who would quell speech–which would include deliberative procedures. These principles can be found in our Association’s published statements on Academic Freedom and in the well-formulated letter that the Executive Council released last March about Emergency Motion 2024-1. That letter emphasized the Association’s “unwavering” support for academic freedom and for the right of faculty, student, and staff members to “speak out against Israel’s violence in Gaza.”
The EC makes several claims without supplying substantiation:
1. The EC writes that “fully two-thirds of the operating budget of the MLA comes from sales of products to universities and libraries. If states with anti-BDS laws began refusing to allow their universities, colleges, and libraries to purchase MLA subscription products, the MLA could lose two-thirds of what enables it to carry out its mission, and students and teachers would lose access to these resources.”
We note the apparent assumption that states would be able to invalidate contracts or refuse renewal on the basis of the membership resolution. Some states might attempt this. On the other hand, cancellation would pose a case of viewpoint discrimination that would involve legal and even constitutional questions that could be challenged. We note, as well, the lack of evidence of your core claim that passage of the resolution could put 2/3rds of the MLA’s revenues at risk. You are not procedurally obligated to withhold the financial data that might make your argument more convincing. We are concerned that the lawyers and financial team have been given a de facto veto prior to any discussion of the issues with the DA as representatives of the membership. This is indeed neither democratic nor respectful of the position of the membership as the substance of the Association.
We urge you, once again, to reconsider your decision, and to present at the Delegate Assembly meeting a projection of possible costs based on the evidence we have asked you to supply.
It would be most helpful to have a list of colleges, universities, and libraries to whom MLA sells its products, and what percentage of MLA total revenue would be at risk. Without evidence to assess the scope and validity of the claim, the representation of danger to the MLA appears to amplify fears that are already quelling discussion in the academy. We caution against capitulating to censorship before it happens.
2. The EC states that “The proposed Resolution 2025-1 sought to mitigate this danger by phrasing the resolution such that it focused on the members of the MLA as distinct from the organization. But we cannot count on legislators and their constituents to make that distinction or recognize it as a meaningful one. News articles proclaiming that ‘MLA supports BDS’ wouldn’t likely highlight the distinction between a resolution expressing a majority of members’ individual views and a policy being supported and adopted by the MLA itself. Moreover, in various of these laws and policies, the language in the resolution on ‘support’ for BDS is sufficiently general that a vote by the Delegate Assembly could be taken by many legislatures as prima facie running afoul of the statute by advancing the BDS movement.”
These arguments are fully conjectural, again imagining scenarios in which the MLA has no power to stand up to those who might misconstrue its proceedings. They forebode an unwillingness to defend any future action that the Delegate Assembly might take as its right and to rebut any possible distortions of the precise language of the resolution. On the contrary, anticipating a misreading, the EC concedes spectral allegations in advance of their actual emergence in the public media.
The Chronicle of Higher Education cites Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, who tracks anti-BDS state initiatives. She does not believe that “a resolution expressing members’ sentiments toward BDS would violate anti-boycott laws, but that ‘doesn’t mean that you won’t see blowback.’ Friedman said these contract laws are weaponized by lawmakers to impose a chilling effect on companies. ‘Folks who are behind these laws, to some extent, are counting on [organizations] not being willing or able to defend their free-speech rights in court,’ she said.”
We urge you, once again, to reconsider your decision, and to present at the Delegate Assembly meeting a projection of possible costs based on the evidence we have asked you to supply. Debating a resolution does not and cannot predict its outcome. An affirmative vote would not alter MLA policy. And the right to open debate is as central to academic freedom as it is to declared MLA principles. We expect the MLA to counter any possible critics and threats with an affirmation of the right to assemble, debate, and decide. These are the basics of deliberative democracy and the guiding mandate of the Delegate Assembly.
Now is surely the time to stand up to unjustifiable censorship and retaliation, given how many faculty have been charged, suspended, or terminated for expressing their extra-mural commitments and how many books are being banned while the attack on the humanities and critical thought continues. At a moment when academic freedom is being seriously undermined in our universities and colleges and a new authoritarianism is taking hold, we look to our professional organizations to act not from the fears that increasingly pervade US academia, but from the courage our members will need to continue our work.
With all best wishes, and with thanks for considering our requests,
Judith Butler • Frieda Ekotto • Margaret Ferguson • Marianne Hirsch • Christopher Newfield • Mary Louise Pratt • Sidonie Smith • Diana Taylor
In late October, the leadership of the Modern Language Association (MLA)—one of the largest and wealthiest US scholarly organizations in the humanities—refused to allow the organization’s Delegate Assembly to vote on a resolution stating that members support the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement, on the grounds that this would potentially lead to a drop-off in revenue in states with anti-BDS laws. In response to this refusal, seven of the MLA members who proposed the resolution have written the following.
*
We are seven of the dozens of Modern Language Association members who came together to write a resolution in support of the Palestinian call for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions.
Some of us have been involved in organizing around that call since it was issued by 170 Palestinian civil society organizations in 2005; others have come to Palestine solidarity work more recently. All of us feel the urgency imposed by the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza, funded and supported in every way by the U.S. government. It’s crucial for the Modern Language Association, the world’s largest association for humanities students, teachers, and researchers, to take a clear and meaningful stance against this genocide.
Many of us have watched our students and colleagues being arrested for exercising their right to non-violently protest institutional complicity with genocide.
Another important consideration was the American Association of University Professors’ new Statement on Academic Boycotts issued this past August. The AAUP statement affirms that academic boycotts like the 2005 Palestinian BDS call “can be considered legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education.” Humanities associations like the MLA should be emboldened by such a statement, particularly because the MLA’s own mission statement declares that our organization “supports and encourages . . . justice throughout the humanities ecosystem.”
Of course we knew this wouldn’t be an easy step to take. We were aware that this resolution comes amidst unprecedented repression. Many of us have watched our students and colleagues being arrested for exercising their right to non-violently protest institutional complicity with genocide.
So we studied the web of local, state, and federal laws designed to repress pro-Palestine organizing, specifically organizing around the Palestinian BDS call. Thanks to the work of legal scholars at organizations like Palestine Legal, the Foundation for Middle East Peace, and the ACLU, we know that the majority of these laws do not apply to universities or professional organizations like the MLA.
In fact, most of these laws are designed to stop short of actually suppressing civil liberties, since the U.S. Supreme Court has long held that boycotts to bring about political, economic, and social change are protected by the First Amendment. The goal of these laws is to give the impression that they “outlaw” support for BDS, in order to trick us into self-censorship. As a Palestine Legal briefing points out, the most common response when such laws have faced constitutional challenges is just to narrow the wording so that they do not apply to whatever entity has brought the lawsuit. For all their roar, they are mostly paper tigers.
The sole purpose of our resolution is to give MLA members the opportunity to support the 2005 Palestinian BDS call.
Nevertheless, we worked hard to craft our resolution responsibly. We consulted with legal scholars, and with colleagues in leadership positions at professional associations that have endorsed BDS, to weigh how to best address potential legal challenges. Most of all, we spoke with Palestinian scholars who have faced forms of repression those of us in North America can only imagine, and were continually inspired by their courage, resourcefulness, and steadfastness.
When the time came to bring our resolution to MLA leadership, we made it clear that we wanted to work with them as the resolution made its way through the organization’s complex governance procedures. We exchanged many, many emails with the organization’s Executive Director, Paula Krebs, as well as the Director of Governance. We heeded their suggestions for rewording the resolution to better protect the organization from legal challenges. What’s more, we believed them when they said that legal concerns were irrelevant to the resolution, since MLA resolutions are expressions of members’ sentiment, and thus non-binding to the organization. The sole purpose of our resolution is to give MLA members the opportunity to support the 2005 Palestinian BDS call.
Shocking as MLA leadership’s initial decision was, we are much more taken aback by the cowardice and nakedly corporate, unethical, and anti-intellectual nature of their statement.
Finally, we made it clear that we would be happy to meet with the MLA’s Executive Council—a meeting that is in fact mandated by the MLA constitution as part of the approval process for resolutions. Knowing that the Council must review proposed resolutions for their potential financial and legal effects on the association (and not being naïve about the political landscape we inhabit), we offered to consult with them to discuss any concerns they might have. We were told by Dr. Krebs that such a meeting was not possible, thus making the handling of our resolution fundamentally unconstitutional from the beginning—although she assured us that despite our concerns, “the resolution should go through the governance process just like every other resolution.” In retrospect, we believe that if Council members had the opportunity to become more informed about the resolution, they would have reached a different decision.
We were shocked when Dr. Krebs informed us several weeks later that the Council refused to allow the resolution to proceed to the Delegate Assembly—a decision that is unprecedented in the history of the organization. It took another week before MLA leadership finally offered an explanation of this decision—not to us directly, but rather to a journalist at Inside Higher Ed. The Executive Council’s statement on the resolution, along with an FAQ, was eventually posted on the MLA website (although it is only accessible to members), and the rationale was summed up by the Executive Director in two recent articles.
Shocking as MLA leadership’s initial decision was, we are much more taken aback by the cowardice and nakedly corporate, unethical, and anti-intellectual nature of their statement. You would be hard pressed to believe that it was written by teachers and scholars of literature; it seems more like a document drafted by a team of lawyers and signed off by a CEO. It has nothing to say about our mission as professional humanists or about the MLA’s own mission and values, and it doesn’t even pretend to be interested in questions of justice (needless to say, the word “Palestine” does not appear). It has much to say, on the other hand, about the MLA’s “financial profile,” our “operating budget,” and, most important, the sales of MLA “products.”
the leadership of the world’s most powerful association of writers and teachers has decided that words no longer have any meaning when confronted by unjust laws.
The argument against allowing MLA members to consider our resolution boils down to this: there are many anti-BDS laws; some of these laws restrict state contracts (although no specific examples are given); two-thirds of the MLA’s operating budget comes from “sales of products to universities and libraries”; therefore, this resolution cannot even be discussed. Or, rather, MLA leadership will “allow” our elected delegates to discuss the resolution at the upcoming convention, but not vote on it. As a colleague rightly noted, this is not a democratic process—it’s an elementary school civics lesson.
Even by its own logic, the argument put forward by MLA leadership doesn’t hold water. They admit that anti-BDS laws do not prohibit an organization like the MLA from supporting the Palestinian BDS call. Moreover, they note that the phrasing of our resolution—“we, the members of the MLA, endorse the 2005 BDS call”—makes it very clear that this is not an official position being taken by the organization. But they nevertheless fret that this will not be enough, and that the laws somehow are even more powerful than those who made them claim them to be.
In short, the leadership of the world’s most powerful association of writers and teachers has decided that words no longer have any meaning when confronted by unjust laws. MLA leadership has summarily censored members from speaking with the voice of conscience, making it clear that to be a member of MLA is to be silenced on the matter of Palestine.
This is an argument driven by fear rather than logic. But let’s imagine that as many as half of the twenty-seven anti-BDS state laws that MLA leadership cites—again, most of these are not even applicable, but let’s go with it—somehow get enforced, and the MLA loses one-third of its income from the sale of “MLA products.” In 2023, the MLA reported $17 million in revenue ($1.3 million net) and $38.9 million in total assets. We really couldn’t function if those numbers were cut by a third?
To quote from an email sent to MLA leadership by a graduate student colleague in protest of the decision: “What does safeguarding our surplus resources matter, when our peers in Gaza do not even have the resources to stay alive and study in safety?”
There is one point worth taking seriously: if anti-BDS laws were to prevent the MLA from selling its products in certain states, students and teachers there could lose access to these resources. To that, we offer a simple solution: make MLA resources free and open source in those states. An MLA actually committed to justice could do as the New York Public Library system did in 2022 when it offered free nationwide e-access to banned books. Furthermore, many states that have anti-BDS laws also have laws repressing Critical Race Theory and other anti-racist pedagogy, criminalizing access to gender-affirming care, and restricting women’s reproductive rights. In these states, it is particularly important that MLA resources be made available in a manner that is not bound by political or financial restrictions; offering free access to students and teachers in states with such restrictions would be more in keeping with the MLA’s mission than constantly trying to keep the lawmakers happy.
Instead of repressing a resolution against genocide—and setting a precedent by which any democratic deliberation over “unpopular” political issues can be suppressed in the name of maintaining the profit margin—perhaps we need to re-think the priorities of the MLA, and of our academic institutions more generally. Perhaps the MLA doesn’t need a slew of upper-level administrators earning six-figure salaries while the majority of those teaching in the humanities—our adjunct and graduate student worker colleagues—don’t even earn a living wage. Perhaps we don’t need lavish conferences with massive carbon footprints, or shiny data-driven reports that tell us that the humanities are in crisis. Perhaps this is exactly why the humanities are in crisis.
The MLA can choose a different path. We can, for example, recall the legacy of Edward Said, who served as MLA president not long before his untimely death in 2003. In his final essay, after dwelling on the horrors being inflicted upon Gaza—he described it over twenty years ago as “a human nightmare”—Said condemned the cowardly silence of academic organizations that refused to stand against the “profound abrogation of the Palestinian right to knowledge, to learning, to attend school.” Since then, many academic organizations have in fact spoken out, endorsed the call from our Palestinian colleagues, and taken a stand against genocide. Yet, even beyond the silence that Said condemned, the MLA is today actively silencing those who wish to take a stand against genocide and scholasticide in Palestine
Some of us became teachers of literature because we believe it helps keep us human, even in a world of genocide.
The Presidential Address that Said delivered at the MLA convention in 1999 was entitled “Humanism and Heroism.” Today’s MLA leadership lacks both.
Nevertheless, the organizers of this resolution will continue to push for what it represents: taking a stand with our Palestinian colleagues against genocide and scholasticide, and ending the institutional complicity that enables them. The results of the recent U.S. elections will make the organizing environment for MLA members, and for our students and colleagues everywhere, much more difficult. That’s all the more reason for our professional organizations to show some backbone, rather than responding with anticipatory obedience.
Most important, at the upcoming convention and beyond, we will center the voices of Palestinian scholars and students who continue to resist their erasure. We stand with Shahed Abu Omar, a student at Al Azhar University in Gaza until it was destroyed by the Israeli military; you may have seen images of her sitting among the rubble of a destroyed house, risking her life so she can find the secure internet connection that enables her to take online classes on her phone. We guard the memories of our murdered Palestinian colleagues like the Gazan poet, novelist, and teacher Hiba Abu Nada, killed by an Israeli missile at the age of thirty-two, who with her dying words recorded scenes from her neighborhood, where “teachers, despite their grievances, embrace their little pupils.”
Some of us became teachers of literature because we believe it helps keep us human, even in a world of genocide, of schoolchildren targeted by snipers and poets murdered by missiles, of unjust laws and profit motives and complicity where there should be courage. It’s not too late for the world’s largest organization of professional humanists to find its voice, stand against genocide alongside our Palestinian colleagues, and recall what it means to be human.
*
Anthony Alessandrini is Professor of English and Middle Eastern Studies at the City University of New York Raj Chetty is Associate Professor of English at St. John’s University Cynthia Franklin is Professor of English at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa Hannah Manshel is Assistant Professor of English at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa David Palumbo-Liu is Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor of Comparative Literature at Stanford University Neelofer Qadir is Assistant Professor of English at Georgia State University
S. Shankar is Professor of English at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
David Kotton CAS ’25
Douglas Hauer
israel-academia-monitor.com 