BDS Activism Can Disqualify from Winning the Israel Prize: Oded Goldreich as a Case in Point

25.03.21

Editorial Note

Prof. Oded Goldreich from the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science at Weizmann Institute was a candidate for the prestigious 

Israel Prize. However, Yoav Galant, the Minister of Education, has requested the nomination committee to reconsider his nomination due to BDS support. Goldreich, an expert on cryptography and computational complexity theory, was awarded the prestigious Knuth Prize in 2017 for the outstanding contribution to the foundations of computer science.

Goldreich is a long-time member of Hadash and the Communist Party of Israel, and has been active for years against the “occupation of the Palestinian territories.” In June 2017, Goldreich was among 240 Israeli scholars who signed an appeal to the German Bundestag urging it not to adopt the working definition of anti-Semitism and not to equate BDS with anti-Semitism.

Goldreich told Channel 12, which broke out with this story, that he knew nothing of being a candidate for the Israel Prize. 

A few days later, Goldreich has said in an interview that, “Many of my friends and colleagues have expressed concerns about the grief involved in a handshake with Netanyahu and Galant.” When asked about the petition he signed in 2017, he said: “The document does not call for a boycott of Israel but explains that the harsh criticism of various organizations – including the BDS – on Israel’s policy in the Occupied Territories and the call for sanctions against it for this policy is not anti-Semitic, but legitimate criticism and legitimate political action. I stand behind my signature on this document.”  As for not receiving the Israel prize, he said: “Many of my friends and colleagues have expressed concerns about the grief involved in the handshake of two villains – the prime minister and his spokesman, the Minister of Education. This grief is negligible in relations to the grief I feel every day from the government policy, without mentioning the more severe suffering of many who are direct victims of that criminal and stupid policy,” he added.

Last week Goldreich was among a group of Israeli political activist-academics, who wrote a letter of support to two Italian mayors who withdrew from a conference on anti-Semitism, published by the Palestinian BDS movement. They wrote:  “We are writing to you as Israeli nationals affiliated with academia in the UK and elsewhere, to thank you for choosing not to participate in the ‘Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism’ conference, set to take place on March 16, 2021. Like you, we believe that fighting all forms of racism, including antisemitism, is of utmost importance. At the same time, we are very troubled by attempts, including, but not limited to this Mayors’ conference, to instrumentalize the fight against antisemitism to suppress freedom of expression on Israel and Zionism, to stifle advocacy for Palestinian rights, and to exclude legitimate criticism of Israel’s ongoing oppression of Palestinians.”

Goldreich has a long history of flirting with BDS. In 2008, specifically, he was among a group of Israelis who supported the Methodist Church’ BDS resolution. They wrote, “we Israeli seekers of peace and justice express our sincere gratitude to the Methodist Church for its stand on the occupation, and support the proposals before the General Conference this April on divestment. Boycott and divestment are non-violent means of pressuring governments to change their policies–means now sorely needed to compel the Israeli government to end its occupation of Palestinians and their lands and thereby to better the lives of Israelis as well as of Palestinians.”

Also in 2008, both the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) and the Boycott Israeli Goods (BIG), endorsed a petition by a group of Israeli academics, including Goldreich, questioning “Academic Freedom to Whom?” presenting it as a call to boycott Israel by Israeli academics. None of the signatories corrected the wrong message. By so doing, they lent their names to the boycott movement.

In 2010, Goldreich helped Dr. Anat Matar to define her BDS advocacy. Matar and Goldreich wrote, “The call to boycott draws its inspiration from the apartheid struggle in South-Africa. Of course, the historical circumstances were different, and different forms of struggle, but there are similarities in the form of regime behavior, as well as in relations to the international community… I will note, only, that many people, known for their struggle against South-Africa’s apartheid, are finding such similarities as supportive of the moves for a boycott against Israel because of this.”  

Already in 2003, Goldreich wrote on his website at Weizmann Institute, “My political views,” stating that, “On top of this massive violation of human rights, Israel’s rule of the occupied territories is marked by an increasing number of war crimes ranging from murder (i.e., intentional killing of people without due process and/or sound justification), to causing death and severe injury of civilians in hundreds of cases (by criminal negligence), massive intentional destruction of private and public property (i.e., houses, plants, vehicles, equipment, etc), and the emprisonment and starvation of the entire population. Typically, the justification offered for these violations and crimes is self-defense.”

Evidently, Goldreich felt very strongly about these alleged abuses and, by extension, the State of Israel.  An honorable way to protest would be to resign his position from the Weizmann Institute, which pro-Palestinian activists consider, along with other institutions of higher learning, a tool of oppression.  His position is even more hypocritical since academics, intellectuals, journalists, and activists in the West Bank have been thrown to jail for as much as criticizing Mahmoud Abbas and his corrupt and lawless political system.  Needless to say, under the brutal dictatorship of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, freedom of expression is an alien concept as it is in North Korea.  

IAM has repeatedly emphasized that academics like Goldreich do the Palestinians no favor.  By constantly focusing on Israel, they conveniently omit the problems that Palestinians face at the hands of their leadership. 

The prestigious Israel Prize is given for contributions to society and cannot be divorced from the recipient’s moral character.  By any measure, Goldreich’s hypocritical behavior should disqualify him.

https://worldisraelnews.com/pro-bds-professor-rumored-frontrunner-for-israels-most-prestigious-prize/

Pro-BDS professor rumored frontrunner for Israel’s most prestigious prize

 March 11, 2021

Education Minister has no say but demands that the nominating committee rescind its decision, which has yet to be announced.

By Batya Jerenberg, World Israel News

Education Minister Yoav Galant has demanded that the Israel Prize nominating committee rescind its alleged decision to award the country’s highest honor to a professor who has defended the boycott effort against Israel, Channel 12 reported Wednesday.

Unofficially hearing that the recipient of the award in the category of Mathematics and Computer Science would be Weizmann Institute Prof. Oded Goldreich, Galant blew a gasket upon discovering that the academic had signed an appeal to the German parliament calling to cancel the recognition of the BDS movement as being anti-Semitic.

“The state of affairs in which the professor will receive the most prestigious award from the state with one hand, and with the other hand promotes the affairs of a movement that undermines the existence of Israel – is absurd and unacceptable,” he said, according to the report.

In May 2019, the Bundestag passed an advisory resolution calling on Germany’s regional and local governments to deny public funding or space to any person or institution that supports or identifies with the BDS movement or questions Israel’s right to exist.

In June, some 240 mostly Jewish and Israeli scholars, including Goldreich, condemned the legally non-binding motion and called on the government not to adopt it. They denied that BDS was anti-Semitic and expressed the concern that the resolution curtailed the right of freedom of speech.

BDS was founded by Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti, who has stated, “We oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine.” The movement falsely compares Israel to apartheid-era South Africa and demands the “right of return” for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to Israel, which would effectively destroy the Jewish state.

Making his opposition known may be the only thing Galant can do, as he has no authority to intervene in the granting of the Israel Prize.

According to website Political Campus, which seeks freedom of speech for conservative academics equal to that of liberals in Israeli institutions, Goldreich has signed other anti-Israel petitions as well. During 2014’s Operation Protective Edge to stop Hamas terrorism, he joined a call against an Israeli “slaughter of innocents” that also decried the “endless oppression of the Palestinian people.” He has supported lecturers and students who refuse to serve in the IDF, asked the Spanish parliament to recognize “Palestine,” and signed a petition backing the extreme left-wing Breaking the Silence organization.

The 64-year-old professor told Channel 12 that he knew nothing about the award.

“I have not been updated on the win,” Goldreich said. “I am not willing to comment on what I don’t know. I don’t know what it’s about and therefore I don’t know how to respond.”

Goldreich, who has done extensive research on cryptography and computational complexity theory, won the Knuth Prize in 2017 for outstanding contributions to the foundations of computer science.

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

http://maki.org.il/en/?p=26819

Education Minister Seeks to Deny Prize to Hadash-CPI Activist Prof.

CPI /10 March 2021

The far-right Minister of Education in Benjamin Netanyahu’s caretaker government, MK Yoav Galant, has demanded that the Israel Prize nominating committee rescind its rumored decision to award the country’s highest honor to Professor Oded Goldreich, a leading computer scientist, AlIttihad and Zo Haderech have reported in recent days. Goldreich, who has been active for years against the occupation of the Palestinian territories, is a long-time member of Hadash and the Communist Party of Israel (CPI).Minister Galant, a former general in the Israeli army, was head of the Southern Command during Israel’s excessively brutal and devastatingly destructive, 3-week military campaign “Operation Cast Lead” against Hamas in the Gaza Strip (December 27, 2008-January 18, 2009) which resulted in some 1,400 Palestinian deaths, more than a thousand of which were minors, women or adult male non-combatants, according to B’Tselem. In 2010, Galant’s, nomination as the next Chief of Staff of Israel’s military was withdrawn following allegations of various improprieties on his part, including the seizure of public lands near his home at Moshav Amikam, near Zikhron Ya’akov along the Carmel region of Israel’s Coastal plain.

Galant, a member of the Likud since 2018, reportedly exploded when he unofficially learned last week that the recipient of this year’s Israel Prize for the fields of Mathematics and Computer Science would be Goldreich, a professor at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot. In June 2017, Goldreich was among some 240 Israeli scholars who signed an appeal to the German Bundestag calling on it not to adopt a legally non-binding motion then being debated by the lawmakers which categorized the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel as “anti-Semitic.” The Israeli signatories to the petition categorically refuted any such aspersions towards BDS, and expressed their concern that, if passed, the German resolution would curtail freedom of speech.

The 64-year-old professor of computer science told Channel 12 that he knew nothing about the talk of his being designated to receive the Israel Prize. “I have not been updated on the win,” he told the television station. Goldreich, who has done extensive research on cryptography and computational complexity theory, was awarded the prestigious Knuth Prize in 2017 for outstanding contributions to the foundations of computer science.March 13, 2021 i

===================================================
https://bdsmovement.net/news/israeli-academics-thank-italian-mayors-for-withdrawing-from-conference-aimed-shielding-israel

Israeli Academics Thank Italian Mayors for Withdrawing From Conference Aimed at Shielding Israel From AccountabilityMarch 16, 2021 /  By Israeli academics Israeli academics commend the mayors of Bologna and Palermo for helping to “move us along the path of struggle against all forms of racism, including antisemitism, and set an example for others to follow”.

Below is a letter signed by Israeli academics sent to Virginio Merola, Mayor of Bologna, and Leoluca Orlando, Mayor of Palermo. The academics thank the two mayors for having withdrawn from an international conference of mayors aimed at shieldng Israel from accountability over its violations of Palestinian human rights. 

Dear Mayors,

We are writing to you as Israeli nationals affiliated with academia in the UK and elsewhere, to thank you for choosing not to participate in the ‘Mayors Summit Against Antisemitism’ conference, set to take place on March 16, 2021.

Like you, we believe that fighting all forms of racism, including antisemitism, is of utmost importance. At the same time, we are very troubled by attempts, including, but not limited to this Mayors’ conference, to instrumentalize the fight against antisemitism to suppress freedom of expression on Israel and Zionism, to stifle advocacy for Palestinian rights, and to exclude legitimate criticism of Israel’s ongoing oppression of Palestinians.

The first panel of the conference is dedicated to the inherently flawed IHRA working definition of antisemitism, which has been widely criticised. We are among nearly 200 Israeli scholars worldwide who expressed publically a strong opposition to its adoption by UK universities, pointing out not only its inadequacies in combatting antisemitism on campuses, but also the ways in which it has been deployed to shield Israel from criticism.  Numerous others have warned against the dangers of adopting the IHRA definition, for precisely these reasons, including the director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at the University of London, the University College London Academic Board, the British Society of Middle Eastern Studies, a coalition of Jewish organizations in North America and Canada, and even the lead author of the definition.

We thank you for your willingness to consider the call from international Jewish organisations to withdraw from this conference, for taking the time to familiarize yourself with the accurate nature of the conference’s agenda, and for your decision not to be a part of it. You have shown great courage and integrity. Actions such as yours help move us along the path of struggle against all forms of racism, including antisemitism, and set an example for others to follow. 

Sincerely,

Prof. Hagit Borer FBA, Queen Mary University of London

Dr. Moshe Behar, University of Manchester

Prof. Neve Gordon, Queen Mary University of London

Prof. Emerita Nira Yuval-Davis, University of East London,

Dr. Judit Druks, University College London

Dr. Moriel Ram, Newcastle University

Dr. Yohai Hakak, Brunel University London

PhD Candidate Daphna Baram, Lancaster University

Dr. Yael Friedman, University of Portsmouth

Dr. Catherine Rottenberg, University of Nottingham

Dr. Noam Leshem, Durham University

Dr. Itamar Kastner, University of Edinburgh

Prof. (emeritus) Moshé Machover, Kings College, University of London

Dr. Ophira Gamliel, University of Glasgow

Dr. Merav Amir, Queen’s University Belfast

Dr. Anat Matar, Tel-Aviv University

Prof. Haim Bresheeth, SOAS University of London

Dr. Yonatan Shemmer, University of Sheffield

Prof. Gerardo Leibner, Tel-Aviv University

Prof. Oded Goldreich, Weitzman Institute

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

https://www.maariv.co.il/news/politics/Article-827037

גלנט בפניה לוועדת פרס ישראל: אל תעניקו את הפרס למדען שתומך ב-BDS

בחדשות 12 דווח כי שר החינוך טוען כי פרופ’ עודד גולדרייך, שנבחר על ידי הוועדה לקבל את הפרס בתחום חקר המתמטיקה ומדעי המחשב, חתום על פנייה לבטל את ההכרה בתנועת החרם על ישראל כתנועה אנטישמית

מעריב אונליין 10/03/2021 20:53 1 דק’ קריאה

ההודעה שפרסם משרד החינוך, לפיה טרם התקבלה החלטה סופית לגבי הענקת פרס ישראל בתחום חקר המתמטיקה ומדעי המחשב, ניסתה להתעלם מהמתרחש בחדרים סגורים ומהחלטת הוועדה להעניק את הפרס לפרופ’ עודד גולדרייך – זאת בעקבות בקשתו של שר החינוך יואב גלנט לבחון מחדש את הבחירה, כך פורסם הערב (רביעי) ב”חדשות 12″. הוועדה החליטה להעניק את הפרס לפרופ’ ממכון ויצמן על פועלו בנושא סיבוכיות חישובית. השר גלנט גילה כי גולדרייך חתום על פנייה לפרלמנט הגרמני לבטל את ההכרה בתנועת החרם על ישראל, ה-BDS, כתנועה אנטישמית. בנוסף גילה גלנט, כי הפרופ’ גם הגדיר את חיילי צה”ל כפושעי מלחמה. יצוין כי בג”ץ קבע בעבר כי לשר החינוך אין כל סמכות להתערב בהענקת הפרס, או לקשור בין התבטאויות כגון אלו לבין מתן הפרס.

“מצב הדברים שבו הפרופ’ יקבל בידו האחת מהמדינה את הפרס היוקרתי ביותר, ובידו האחרת מקדם את ענייניה של תנועה החותרת תחת קיומה של ישראל – הוא אבסורדי ובלתי מתקבל על הדעת”, כתב גלנט בפנייתו לוועדה, בה דרש כי בחירתו של הפרופ’ תישקל מחדש.

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

https://www.maariv.co.il/news/Education/Article-827967

“עוגמת הנפש בקבלת פרס ישראל – לחיצת ידיים לשני המנוולים הראשיים גלנט ונתניהו”

הפרופ’ ממכון וייצמן שהוועדה החליטה להעניק לו את הפרס הנחשב מייצר עוד סערות, זאת לאחר הפרסום בחדשות 12 על הכוונה לבטל את זכייתו: “לא מתחרט על התמיכה ב-BDS”

מעריב אונליין 15/03/2021 18:58 2 דק’ קריאה

הסערה סביב פרס ישראל נמשכת: לאחר פרסומים שונים בתקשורת אודות ניסיונתיו של שר החינוך יואב גלנט לשלול מוועדת פרס ישראל את הסמכות להעניק את המענק הנחשב בתחום חקר המתמטיקה ומדעי המחשב לפרופ’ עודד גולדרייך ממכון וייצמן, המדען ממשיך להסתבך בדבריו. בראיון שהתפרסם היום (שני) אמר כי: “רבים מידידיי וחבריי הביעו חששות מעוגמת הנפש הכרוכה בלחיצת ידם של נתניהו וגלנט”.בקשר למחלוקת סביב קבלת הפרס, ותמיכתו לכאורה במטרותיה של התנועה לחרם על ישראל, ה-BDS, אמר המדען: “שוב ושוב – המסמך אינו קורא להחרים את ישראל אלא מסביר שהביקורת החריפה של ארגונים  שונים –  ובכללם ה-BDS – על מדיניות ישראל בשטחים הכבושים והקריאה לסנקציות כלפיה בשל מדיניות זו אינה אנטישמיות, אלא ביקורת לגיטימית ופעולה פוליטית לגיטימית. אני עומד מאחורי חתימתי על מסמך זה”.

“רבים מידידיי וחברי הביעו חששות מעוגמת נפש הכרוכה בלחיצת ידם של שני מנוולים ראשיים – ראש הממשלה ועושה דברו, שר החינוך”, התייחס בזלזול המדען לבנימין נתניהו ויואב גלנט. “עוגמת נפש זאת הינה זניחה ביחס לעוגמת הנפש שיש לי כל יום ממדיניות הממשלה, וזאת מבלי לציין את הסבל הממשי החמור יותר של רבים שהם קורבנות ישירים של אותה מדיניות נפשעת ומטומטמת”, הוסיף. כזכור, ההודעה שפרסם משרד החינוך, לפיה טרם התקבלה החלטה סופית לגבי הענקת פרס ישראל בתחום חקר המתמטיקה ומדעי המחשב, ניסתה להתעלם משהתרחש בחדרים סגורים ומהחלטת הוועדה להעניק את הפרס לפרופ’ גולדרייך – זאת בעקבות בקשתו של גלנט לבחון מחדש את הבחירה, כך על פי פרסום של חדשות 12.טרם הסערה, החליטה הוועדה להעניק את הפרס לגולדריין על פועלו המחקרי בנושא סיבוכיות חישובית. השר גלנט גילה כי גולדרייך חתום על פנייה לפרלמנט הגרמני לבטל את ההכרה בתנועת החרם על ישראל, ה-BDS, כתנועה אנטישמית. בנוסף גילה גלנט, כי הפרופ’ גם הגדיר את חיילי צה”ל כפושעי מלחמה. יצוין כי בג”ץ קבע בעבר כי לשר החינוך אין כל סמכות להתערב בהענקת הפרס, או לקשור בין התבטאויות כגון אלו לבין מתן הפרס.

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

https://bdsmovement.net/news/240-jewish-and-israeli-scholars-german-government-boycotts-are-legitimate-and-non-violent-tool

240 Jewish and Israeli scholars to German government: boycotts are a legitimate and non-violent tool of resistanceJune 12, 2019 / By 240 Jewish and Israeli scholars / Germany, Palestine
“We reject this motion, which is based on the false allegation that BDS as such equals anti-Semitism. We call on the German government not to endorse this motion and to fight anti-Semitism, while respecting and protecting freedom of speech and of association, which are undeniably under attack.”

June 3, 2019 – Mid-May, Jewish and Israeli scholars, many of whom specialized in anti-Semitism, Jewish history and history of the Holocaust, sounded alarm about the growing tendency to label supporters of Palestinian human rights as anti-Semitic. They did so in a call addressed to the German Bundestag in relation to several motions that were being tabled against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS). Many of us signed this call.

On May 17, one of these motions, sponsored by CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, was adopted. We reject this motion, which is based on the false allegation that BDS as such equals anti-Semitism. We call on the German government not to endorse this motion and to fight anti-Semitism, while respecting and protecting freedom of speech and of association, which are undeniably under attack.

As expressed in the earlier statement, we view anti-Semitism and all forms of racism and bigotry as a threat that must be fought, and we encourage the German government and parliament to do so. However, the adopted motion does not assist this fight. On the contrary, it undermines it.

The opinions about BDS among the signatories of this call differ significantly: some may support BDS, while others reject it for different reasons. Yet, we all reject the deceitful allegation that BDS as such is anti-Semitic and maintain that boycotts are a legitimate and non-violent tool of resistance. We, leading researchers of anti-Semitism included, assert that one should be considered an anti-Semite according to the content and the context of one’s words and deeds – whether they come from BDS supporters or not.

Regrettably, the adopted motion ignores the explicit opposition of the BDS movement to “all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism”. The BDS movement seeks to influence the policies of the government of a state that is responsible for the ongoing occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people. Such policies cannot be immune to criticism. In this context, it should also be noted that many Jewish and Israeli individuals and groups either support BDS explicitly, or defend the right to support it. We consider it inappropriate and offensive when German governmental and parliamentary institutions label them anti-Semitic.

Moreover, the three main goals of BDS – ending the occupation, full equality to the Arab citizens of Israel and the right of return of Palestinian refugees – adhere to international law, even if the third goal is undoubtedly debatable. We are shocked that demands for equality and compliance with international law are considered anti-Semitic.

We conclude that the rise in anti-Semitism is clearly not the concern which inspired the motion adopted by the Bundestag. On the contrary, this motion is driven by political interests and policies of Israel’s most right-wing government in history.

For years, the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been labelling any opposition to its illegal and peace-undermining policies as anti-Semitic. No one can be surprised that Netanyahu warmly welcomed the motion by the Bundestag. This embrace illustrates how the fight against anti-Semitism is being instrumentalized to shield policies of the Israeli government that cause severe violations of human rights and that destroy the chances for peace. We find it unacceptable and utterly counterproductive when supporting “the right of the Jewish and democratic state of Israel to exist” and fighting anti-Semitism in fact encourages these policies.

To make things worse, the adopted motion does not distinguish between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. It categorically condemns all boycotts of Israeli businesses and goods – including of businesses in and goods from Israel’s illegal settlements. As a result, it would label a campaign to boycott of products of a settlement company complicit in human rights violations, as anti-Semitic. This constitutes a deplorable withdrawal from the unequivocal and consistent opposition of the German government and the EU to Israel’s settlement policy.

Furthermore, the motion ignores that statements in the context of BDS are protected by freedom of expression, as also confirmed by the EU, which “stands firm in protecting freedom of expression and freedom of association in line with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is applicable on EU Member States’ territory, including with regard to BDS actions carried out on this territory”. Precisely because of its history, Germany should be very cautious about any retreat from these basic democratic norms.

Finally, the conflation of BDS with anti-Semitism does not advance the urgent fight against anti-Semitism. The threat of anti-Semitism does not originate from Palestinian rights activists, but mainly from the extreme right and from Jihadist groups. Denying that could alienate Muslims and Arabs from the vital struggle against anti-Semitism and hamper the possibility of building true solidarity between Jews, Israelis, Muslims and Arabs in fighting anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. It also sends a wrong message to those who choose to oppose the oppression of the Palestinian people by non-violent means.

For all those reasons, we, Jewish and Israeli scholars, reject the motion by CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. Now that it has been adopted, we call on the German government not to endorse this motion and to refrain from equating BDS with anti-Semitism. Instead, the German government must act upon its positive responsibility to promote and protect the freedom of expression and of association.

In addition, we call on the German government to maintain its direct and indirect funding of Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organisations that peacefully challenge the Israeli occupation, expose severe violations of international law and strengthen civil society. These organizations defend the principles and values at the heart of liberal democracy and rule of law in Germany and elsewhere. More than ever, they need financial support and political backing.

Signed by 240 Jewish and Israeli scholars (institutional affiliations mentioned for identification purposes only):

Prof. Aaron J. Hahn Tapper, Mae and Benjamin Swig Professor of Jewish Studies, Director of the Swig Program in Jewish Studies and Social Justice, Department of Theology & Religious Studies University of San Francisco
Adam Hochschild, Author and journalist, Lecturer at the Graduate School of Journalism. University of California at Berkeley, winner of the Theodore Roosevelt-Woodrow Wilson Award (2008)
Dr. Adam Kossoff, Reader at the School of Art, University of Wolverhampton, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Prof. Adam Sutcliffe, Department of History, King’s College London, specializes in Jewish History
Prof. (emerita) Alice Shalvi, English Departments, Hebrew University Jerusalem and Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, former Rector Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies, winner of the Israel Prize (2007), co-winner of the Leibowitz Prize (2009), winner of the Bonei Zion Prize (2017)
Prof. Alon Confino, Pen Tishkach Chair of Holocaust Studies, Director of The Institute for Holocaust, Genocide, and Memory Studies, Department of History, University of Massachusetts
Dr. Alon Liel, International MA in Security and Diplomacy, Tel Aviv University, former Ambassador to South Africa, Consul General in the south-east of the USA and Head of Diplomatic Mission in Turkey, former Director General of the Israeli Ministry of Economy and Planning and of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Dr. Amir Minsky, Assistant Teaching Professor of History, New York University, Abu Dhabi
Prof. (emeritus) Amiram Goldblum, School of Pharmacy- Institute for Drug Research, the Faculty of Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, one of the founders of the Israeli NGP “Peace Now” and its former spokesperson
Prof. Amos Goldberg, Former Chair of the Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, specializes in Holocaust History
Dr. Anat Matar, Philosophy Department, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Andre Levy, Senior Lecturer, Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, specializes in the concepts of diaspora and ethnicity
Prof. Andrew Stuart Bergerson, History Department, University of Missouri-Kansas City, specializes in history of modern Germany
Prof. Aner Preminger, Filmmaker and professor at the Department of Communication, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem and Sapir Academic College
Dr. Annie Pfingst, Independent Scholar, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Dr. Anya Topolski, Associate Professor of Ethics and Political Philosophy, Radboud University Nijmegen, specializes in racism in Europe
Dr. Ariel Salzmann, Associate Professor, Islamic and World History, Department of History, Queen’s University
Assaf Gavron, Writer, winner of the Israeli Prime Minister Award for authors (2011) and the Bernstein Prize (2013)
Prof. Audrey Macklin, Director of the Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies, Professor of Law and Chair in Human Rights, University of Toronto
Prof. (emeritus) Avi Shlaim, The Department of Politics and International Relations, St Antony’s College and The University of Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy, specializes in Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Prof. Avner Ben-Amos, Department of History, Tel Aviv University, specializes in nationalism and collective memory in Israel
Avraham Burg, Former Member of the Israeli Knesset, Speaker of the Knesset and Chairman of the Jewish Agency and the World Zionist Organization
Dr. Ayelet Ben-Yishai, Department of English Language, University of Haifa
Prof. b.h. Yael, Filmmaker, Professor and former chair of Integrated Media at the Ontario College of Art and Design, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Dr. Barak Kalir, Assistant professor in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Amsterdam, specializes in migration in the Jewish-Israeli context
Prof. Barry Trachtenberg, Michael R. and Deborah K. Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History, Department of History, Wake Forest University
Dr. Ben Silverstein, School of History, Australian National University, specializes in indigenous histories and settler colonialism
Prof. (emerita) Benita Parry, English and Comparative Literary Studies, Warwick University
Prof. (emeritus) Ben-Tzion Munitz, Department of Theatre Arts, Tel Aviv University
Prof. (emerita) Bilha Mannheim, Professor of Sociology, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, winner of the Israel Prize (2003)
Dr. Brian Klug, Senior Research Fellow & Tutor in Philosophy, University of Oxford, honorary fellow of the Parkes Institute for the Study of Jewish/non-Jewish Relations, University of Southampton
Alex Levac, Photographer, winner of the Israel Prize (2005)
Prof. Bruce Rosenstock, Department of Religion College of Liberal Arts & Sciences Administration, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Prof. Catherine Rottenberg, Foreign Literature and Linguistics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. (emeritus) Chaim Gans, The Buchmann Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University, specializes in political and legal theory of nationalism and Zionism
Prof. Noy Chaim, School of Communication, Bar-Ilan University, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Prof. Chana Kronfeld, Hebrew, Yiddish and Comparative Literature, UC Berkeley
Prof. (emeritus) Christiane Schomblond, Department of Mathematics, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Prof. Colin Dayan, Robert Penn Warren Professor in the Humanities, English Department and Professor at the Law School, Vanderbilt University
Dr. Cynthia Franklin, Department of English, University of Hawai’I, specializes in race and ethnicity
Prof. (emeritus) Dan Jacobson, the Department of Labor Studies, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Dana Kaplan, Department of Sociology, Political Science and Communication, The Open University of Israel
Dr. Dana Mills, Department of History, Philosophy and Religion, Oxford Brookes University
Prof. Dana Ron, Computer Science, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Daniel D. Blatman, Head of the Avraham Harman Research Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Max and Rita Haber Chair in Contemporary Jewry and Holocaust Studies at the Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry, The Hebrew of University Jerusalem
Prof. Daniel Boyarin, Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture, Departments of Near Eastern Studies and Rhetoric, University of California at Berkeley
Prof. Daryl Glaser, Department of Political Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, specializes in the South African context
Prof. David Blanc, Department of Mathematics, University of Haifa
Prof. David Enoch, The Faculty of Law and The Department of Philosophy, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. David Harel, Computer Science, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Vice President of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, winner of the Israel Prize (2004) and of EMET prize (2010)
Dr. David Ranan, Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, Birkbeck University of London
Prof. David Comedi, Director of the Physics Institute of Northwestern Argentina, INFINOA, National University of Tucumán and CONICET
Prof. David Shulman, Department of Asian Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Member of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, winner of the EMET Prize (2010) and of the Israel Prize (2016)
Prof. Debórah Dwork, Inaugural Rose Professor of Holocaust History, Founding Director of the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Distinguished Research Scholar, Clark University
Dr. (emeritus) Dennis Kortheuer, Department of History at California State University, Long Beach
Prof. Diane L. Wolf, Department of Sociology and former Director of Jewish Studies Program, University of California, Davis
Dr. Dimitry Shevchenko, Post-doctoral fellow, Department of Asian Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Dmitry Shumsky, Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry, Director of the Cherrick Center for the study of Zionism, the Yishuv and the State of Israel, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. (emeritus) Donald Sassoon, Comparative European History, Queen Mary, University of London
Dr. Dorit Naaman, Alliance Atlantis Professor of Film and Media, Queen’s University, Canada, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Dr. E. Natalie Rothman, Department of Historical and Cultural Studies, University of Toronto Scarborough
Dr. Elizabeth Freund (emerita), Department of English Literature, Hebrew University Jerusalem
Prof. Elizabeth Heineman, Department of History, The University of Iowa, specializes in gender, war, and memory in Germany and in the Holocaust
Dr. Erella Grassiani, Department of Anthropology, University of Amsterdam, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Prof. (emerita) Elsa Auerbach, English Department, University of Massachusetts Boston, daughter of German Holocaust refugees
Prof. (emeritus) Emmanuel Farjoun, Einstein Institute of Mathematics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Eric Kligerman, Associate Professor of German and Jewish Studies, Department of Languages, Literatures and Cultures University of Florida
Prof. (emerita) Esther Dischereit, Writer, poet and Professor of Language Arts, University for Applied Arts Vienna, winner of the Erich Fried Prize (2009)
Prof. Eva Illouz, The Department of Sociology and Anthropology, The Hebrew University Jerusalem, The European Centre for Sociology and Political Science , Paris, winner of the EMET Prize (2018)
Prof. Eva Jablonka, Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Eyal Clyne, Department of History, Politics & Philosophy, The University of Manchester, specializes in Israel-Palestine and in Jewish and Zionist thought
Dr. (emerita) Florence Lederer, Laboratory of Physical Chemistry, Université Paris-Sud
Prof. (emeritus) Francis Lowenthal, Cognitive Sciences, University of Mons
Prof. Gabriele Bergers, Department of Oncology, University of Leuven
Prof. Gadi Algazi, Professor of Medieval History, The Department of History, Tel Aviv University, and associate fellow at Re:Work: International Research Center Work and Human Lifecycle in Global History at Humboldt University in Berlin
Dr. Gal Levy, Department of Political Science, Sociology & Communication, The Open University of Israel, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Prof. (emerita) Galia Golan, Darwin Professor, The Department of Political Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Gayle Levy, Associate Professor, Foreign Languages Department and director of UMKC Honors College, University of Missouri-Kansas City, specializes in Nazi-Germany and the Holocaust
Prof. (emeritus) Gideon Freudenthal, The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University
Prof. (emeritus) Graeme Segal, Mathematics, All Souls College
Dr. Hadas Leonov, Software Developer, Bruker BioSpin GmbH, Rheinstetten, Germany
Hadas Pe’ery, Composer, sound artist, educator and activist, teaching fellow at The Buchmann-Mehta School of Music, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Hagit Borer, FBA Chair in Linguistics, SLLF Queen Mary, University of London
Prof. Haim Bresheeth, Centre for Media and Film Studies, SOAS University of London and Director of Camera Obscura Films
Dr. Halleli Pinson, The Department Of Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. (emerita) Hanan J. Kisch, Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Dr. Hannah Safran, Feminist Research Center, Haifa, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Dr. Heidi Grunebaum, Associate Professor at the Centre for Humanities Research University of the Western Cape, specializes in memory and reconciliation in Germany, South Africa and Israel-Palestine
Dr. Hila Amit, Independent scholar of Queer Theory and Migration and Diaspora Studies
Dr. Hilla Dayan, Sociology, Amsterdam University College, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Dr. Idan Landau, Department of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Dr. Ilan Saban, Faculty of Law, University of Haifa, specializes in minority rights, international law, and Nationalism
Dr. Ilana Hammerman, Writer, editor, translator and activist, winner of the Yeshayahu Leibowitz Prize (2015)
Dr. Inna Michaeli, Independent scholar and activist
Dr. Irit Dekel, Research Associate, Jena Center for Reconciliation Studies Friedrich Schiller University, specializes in memory politics in Germany and Israel
Prof. Ishay Rosen-Zvi, Head of the Talmud and Late Antiquity section in the department of Jewish Philosophy, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Isaac (Yanni) Nevo, The Department of Philosophy, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Dr. Itamar Kastner, Humboldt University, Berlin
Dr. Itamar Shachar, Marie Curie Post-doctoral fellow, Department of Anthropology, University of Amsterdam
Dr. Itay Snir, Political Philosophy, Tel Aviv University, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, The Open University of Israel
Prof. (emeritus) Jacob Katriel, Chemistry Department, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
Prof. James Cohen, Anglophone World Department, Université de Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle
Dr. Jared Margulies, Post-doctoral fellow, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield
Prof. Jason Stanley, Jacob Urowsky Professor of Philosophy, Yale University
Dr. (emeritus) Jeanne Fagnani, Senior researcher at The French National Centre for Scientific Research, associate researcher at the Institute of Economic and Social Research, member of the scientific committee of the Nicolas Hulot Foundation for Nature and Mankind
Dr. Jeffrey Melnick, American Studies Department, University of Massachusetts
Prof. (emeritus) Joel Beinin, Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History and Professor of Middle East History, Stanford University
Prof. Joel Gordon, The Department of History, University of Arkansas Fayetteville
Prof. Judith Butler, Maxine Elliot Professor of Comparative Literature and Critical Theory, University of California, Berkeley
Prof. Judith Norman, Department of Philosophy, Trinity University San Antonio, Texas USA
Prof. (emeritus) Jules Chametzky, Department of English, University of Massachusetts
Dr. Karel Arnaut, Associate Professor and Research Coordinator of the Interculturalism, Migration and Minorities Research Centre (IMMRC), Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Prof. (emerita) Karen Brodkin, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, specializes in anti-Semitism and racism
Dr. Katharina Galor, Hirschfeld Visiting Associate Professor of Judaic Studies, Brown University
Kathy Wazana, Documentary filmmaker, Master’s student at the Department of Cinema and Media Arts, York University
Dr. Katy Fox-Hodess, Lecturer in Employment Relations, Accreditations Management School, University of Sheffield
Prof. Kobi Peterzil, Department of Mathematics, University of Haifa
Dr. Kobi Snitz, Mathematics Department, Weizmann Institute of Science
Prof. (emeritus) Laurence Dreyfus, Faculty of Music, University of Oxford
Prof. (emeritus) Lawrence Blum, Professor of Philosophy, and Distinguished Professor of Liberal Arts and Education University of Massachusetts Boston, specializes in anti-Semitism and the Holocaust
Dr. Les Levidow, Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences, Open University, UK
Dr. Lin Chalozin-Dovrat, The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas and Minerva Humanities Center, Tel Aviv University
Prof. (emerita) Linda Dittmar, The English Department, University of Massachusetts, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Prof. Linda Gordon, Florence Kelley Professor of History, New York University, specializes in right-wing populism
Dr. Lior Volinz, Post-doctoral researcher at the Crime and Society (CRiS) research group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Prof. Lisa Baraitser, Department of Psychosocial Studies, Birkbeck Institute, University of London
Dr. Lisa Stampnitzky, Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, specializes in political violence
Prof. (emeritus) Louis Kampf, Literature and Women’s & Gender Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Prof. Louise Bethlehem, English and Cultural Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, specializes in South African apartheid
Prof. Lynne Segal, Psychosocial Studies, Birkbeck Institute, University of London
Prof. (emeritus) Marc David, Department of Mathematics – Computer Science, Universiteit Antwerpen
Prof. (emeritus) Marc Steinling, School of Medicine, University of Lille Nord de France
Prof. Marianne Hirsch, William Peterfield Trent Professor of English, Department of English and Comparative Literature, co-director of the Institute for Research on Women, Gender and Sexuality, Columbia University, specializes in politics of memory, the Holocaust and Jewish memory
Prof. (emerita) Marianne Lederer, Former director of the School of Interpreters and Translators (ESIT), Université Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle
Dr. Marie-José Durand-Richard, Associated researcher at Laboratoire SPHERE, Université Paris Diderot and honorary lecturer of Mathematics and History of Science, Université Paris 8
Dr. Mark Levene, Parkes Centre for Jewish/non-Jewish Relations, University of Southampton
Prof. (emeritus) Mateo Alaluf, Institute of Sociology, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Prof. (emeritus), Maurice Pasternak, Artist and Professor at L’École nationale supérieure des arts visuels de La Cambre
Prof. Menachem Klein, Department of Political Studies, Bar-Ilan University, former advisor for Israeli officials regarding negotiations with Palestinian counterparts and participant in several Israeli-Palestinian peace talks
Prof. Michael Chanan, Department of Media, Culture and Language, University of Roehampton
Prof. Michael Keren, Department of Economics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. (cmeritus) Micah Leshem, The Department of Psychology, University of Haifa
Prof. Michael Rothberg, 1939 Society Samuel Goetz Chair in Holocaust Studies, Department of Comparative Literature, University of California, specializes in Holocaust studies
DipEd. Michel Staszewski, Visiting Researcher Department of Education Free University of Brussels
Dr. Mir Yarfitz, Associate Professor of History, Jewish Studies, Latin American and Latino Studies, Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Wake Forest University
Dr. Miriam Ticktin, Associate Professor of Anthropology, The New School for Social Research
Prof. (emeritus) Mordechai Shechter, The Department of Economics and The Department of Natural Resource & Environmental Management, University of Haifa, former Rector of the University of Haifa, former President of Tel-Hai Academic College, former head of Israel’s National Parks and Nature Reserves Authority Council
Prof. (emeritus) Moshe Zimmermann, Former director of the Richard Koebner Minerva Center for German History, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, specializes in the German Jewry during the Second World War and anti-Semitism
Prof. (emeritus) Moshe Zuckermann, The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University, son of Holocaust survivors, specializes in Zionism and anti-Semitism
Prof. (emeritus) Moshé Machover, Professor of Philosophy, University of London
Dr. Na’ama Rokem, Associate Professor of Modern Hebrew Literature & Comparative Literature, University of Chicago, specializes in Zionist and Israeli literature, and German-Jewish relations
Dr. Nadia Valman, Reader in English Literature Co-director, of the Raphael Samuel History Centre, Queen Mary, University of London, specializes in Jewish History
Dr. Naor Ben-Yehoyada, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University
Prof. Neve Gordon, Department of Politics and Government, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, specializes in human rights and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Prof. Nicholas Stargardt, History Department, Magdalen College, specializes in the history of Nazi Germany
Dr. Nina Caputo, Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Florida
Prof. Nir Gov, Department of Chemical and Biological Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science
Prof. (emeritus) Nira Yuval-Davis, Honorary Director Centre for Migration, Refugees & Belonging, The University of East London
Dr. Noa Roei, Literary and Cultural Analysis, University of Amsterdam, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Prof. (emeritus) Noam Chomsky, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Laureate Professor, The Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
Prof. (emerita), Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Department of Foreign Literatures and Linguistics, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. Nurit Peled-Elhanan, The School of Education, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and The David Yellin Academic College of Education, co-winner of the Sakharov Prize (2001)
Prof. Oded Goldreich, Computer Science, Weizmann Institute of Science
Dr. Oded Na’aman, Martin Buber Society of Fellows in the Humanities and Social Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Ofer Aharony, Faculty of Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science
Dr. Ofri Ilany, Post-doctoral fellow, The Polonsky Academy The Van Leer Jerusalem Institute, specializes in German history and in German-Jewish relations
D.Arch Olivier Tric, Honorary teacher at School of Architecture of Nantes
Prof. Oren Yiftachel, Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Dr. Orian Zakai, The Department of Classical and Near Eastern Languages, The George Washington University
Prof. Pascal Lederer, Honorary research director at The French National Centre for Scientific Research
Dr. Patricia Schor, Department of Social Sciences, Amsterdam University College, specializes in nationalism, race and racism
Prof. (emeritus) Paul Mendes-Flohr, Dorothy Grant Maclear Professor Emeritus of Modern Jewish History and Thought, Associate Faculty in the Department of History, The University of Chicago Divinity School
Dr. Peter Cosyns, Post-doctoral researcher, Art History and Archeology, Free University Brussels
Pierre Getzler, Artist, “Pupille de la Nation”, his father died in July 1940 fighting with the French Foreign Legion against Nazi Germany and received The Cross of War decoration, his mother was deported to Auschwitz where she died in 1943
Dr. R. Ruth Linden, UCSF School of Medicine, founder of the Holocaust Media Project
Prof. Rachel Giora, Department of Linguistics, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Ran Greenstein, Associate professor, Department of Sociology, University of the Witwatersrand, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Dr. Ran HaCohen, Department of Literature, Tel Aviv University, specializes in German-Jewish literature
Dr. Raya Cohen, Department of History, Tel Aviv University and The University of Naples Federico II, specializes in the history of the Holocaust and in the context of Israel-Palestine
Rela Mazali, Independent scholar, writer and peace activist
Revital Madar, PhD candidate, The Cultural Studies Program, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Prof. (emeritus) Richard Falk, Milbank Professor of International Law, Princeton University and former UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Occupied Palestine (2008-14)
Prof. Robert C. Rosen, Department of English, William Paterson University
Dr. Roi Livne, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan
Prof. (emeritus) Rolf Verleger, Psychologist, Member of the Central Council of Jews in Germany 2005-2009
M.D. Rony Brauman, Director of Studies at the Fondation Médecins Sans Frontières, associate professor at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris, and director of the Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom.
Prof. Roy Wagner, Department of Humanities, Social and Political Sciences, ETH Zürich
Dr. Sagi Schaefer, History Department, Tel Aviv University, specializes in the history of modern Germany
Dr. Sara Roy, Senior Research Scholar, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Prof. Sergio Tenenbaum, Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto
Dr. Seth Anziska, Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, University College London, specializes Jewish-Muslim relations and in the context of Israel-Palestine
Prof. Seth L. Sanders, Professor of Religious Studies, Director of the Graduate Group for the Study of Religion Member, Jewish Studies Program University of California, Davis
Prof. Dr. Shani Tzoref, School of Jewish Theology, Hebrew Bible and Biblical Exegesis, University of Potsdam
Prof. (emerita) Sherna Gluck, Director of the Oral History Program, Department of History, California State University Long Beach, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Dr. Sheryl Nestel, Independent Scholar, Toronto, specializes in race and racism
Dr. Shir Hever, Political Science, Free University of Berlin, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Shira Havkin, PhD candidate in Political Sociology, Centre d’Études et de Recherches Internationales, Sciences-Po Paris
Prof. (emerita) Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan, English Department and the Department of General and Comparative Literature, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. (emeritus) Shlomo Moran, Computer Science Department, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
Prof. (emeritus) Shlomo Sand, History Department, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Sidney Corbett, composer and teacher at the Mannheim University of Music and Performing Arts
Prof. Simona Sharoni, Director of the Women’s & Gender Studies Department, Interdisciplinary Institute, Merrimack College
Smadar Ben Natan, PhD candidate, Zvi Meitar Center for Advanced Legal studies, Buchmann Faculty of Law, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Snait B. Gissis, Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas Tel Aviv University, specializes in racism
Prof. (emerita) Sonia Dayan-Herzbrun, Social Sciences, University Paris Diderot-Paris 7
Prof. Stephen Clingman, Department of English, University of Massachusetts
Prof. Stephen Deutsch, Professor of Post-Production, Department of Media Production, Bournemouth University
Prof. Stephen R. Shalom, Political Science Department, William Paterson University, member of the executive board of the Gandhian Forum for Peace & Justice
Prof. (emeritus) Steve Golin, History Department, Bloomfield College
Dr. Steven Levine, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Massachusetts
Prof. (emeritus) Steven Rose, Neuroscience, The Open University, UK
Prof. Susan Slyomovics, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, specializes in human rights, German Reparations and Israel-Palestine
Dr. Sven-Erik Rose, Associate Professor of German and Comparative Literature, chair of the Department of German and Russian, University of California, Davis, specializes in German and German-Jewish literature and thought and Holocaust Studies
Dr. Tal Shuval, Department of History, Philosophy and Judaic studies, The Open University of Israel, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Dr. Tamar Blickstein, Post-doctoral researcher, Affective Societies, The Free University of Berlin
Prof. Tamar Rapoport, The Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Tamir Sorek, Sociology and Jewish Studies, University of Florida, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Dr. Terri Ginsberg, Assistant Professor, Department of the Arts, The American University in Cairo
Dr. Tom Pessah, Independent scholar and activist
Prof. (emeritus) Tommy Dreyfus, Mathematics Education, School of Education, Tel Aviv University
Udi Aloni, Writer and filmmaker, specializes in Jewish and Zionist thought and in the context of Israel-Palestine
Prof. Uri Hadar, Head of Gerontological Clinical Psychology department, Ruppin Academic Center
Prof. (emerita) Vered Kraus, Department of Sociology, University of Haifa
Prof. Victor Ginsburgh, The European Center for Advanced Research in Economics and Statistics, Université Libre de Bruxelles
Prof. Willie van Peer, Intercultural Hermeneutics, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich
Yaara Benger Alaluf, Post-doctoral fellow at The Center for The History of Emotions, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin
Dr. Yael Politi, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Potsdam
Dr. Yair Wallach, Head of the Centre for Jewish Studies, Department of the Languages and Cultures of the Near and Middle East, SOAS, University of London, specializes in the context of Israel-Palestine
Prof. Yakov Rabkin, The Montreal Centre for International Studies and the Department of History, Université de Montréal, specializes in history of Jewish and Zionist thought
Dr. Yali Hashash, Haifa Feminist Research Center, Women and Gender Studies Program and The Oral History Laboratory: Life-stories under oppression at The Zvi Yavetz School of Historical Studies, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Yann Guillaud, Lecturer at The Paris School of International Affairs (PSIA), Sciences Po
Prof. (emeritus) Yehoshua Kolodny, Institute of Earth Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, winner of the Israel Prize (2010)
Prof. Yinon Cohen, Yosef H. Yerushalmi Professor of Israel & Jewish Studies, Department of Sociology, Columbia University
Prof. (emeritus) Yonathan (Jon) Anson, Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Prof. Yosef Grodzinsky, The Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Brain Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Prof. Yosefa Loshitzky, Centre for Media Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London
Prof. Yuri Pines, Director, The Louis Frieberg Center for East Asian Studies Department of Asian Studies The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Dr. Yuval Eylon, The Department of History, Philosophy and Judaic Studies, The Open University of Israel
Dr. Yuval Yonay, Department of Sociology, University of Haifa
Dr. Zvi Bekerman, The Seymour Fox School of Education, The Melton Centre for Jewish Education and research fellow at The Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, specializes in intercultural encounters and minority education==================================================
Israeli academics sign a petition encouraging the United Methodist Church to divest from “companies that enable the occupation to continue” e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.comMon, Jan 28, 2008, 10:46 PM 
http://www.petitiononline.com/Israelis/petition.html

Israeli academics, listed below, signed a petition encouraging the United Methodist Church “to divest from companies that enable the occupation to continue, we the undersigned shall applaud your courageous initiative, and fervently hope that it will set an example for many others to follow…”: Ofer Neiman, Dalit Baum, Roman Vater, kobi snitz, Anat Matar, Yael Korin, Udi Adiv, Prof. Kobi Peterzil, Hannah Safran, Haim Bresheeth, Ur Shlonsky, Moshe Machover, Dana Ron, Yael Ronen and others.

http://www.petitiononline.com/Israelis/petition.html
Letter of Support from Israelis to the United Methodist Church

We endorse the Letter of Support from Israelis to the United Methodist
Church Petition to James E. Winkler, General Secretary of the United
Methodist Church.

To:  James E. Winkler, General Secretary of the United Methodist Church
Letter of support from Israelis to the
2008 General Conference of the United Methodist Church
January 22, 2008

We, as Israelis, express our support of the 2004 resolution adopted by the
General Conference of the Methodist Church that states “The United
Methodist Church opposes continued military occupation of the West Bank,
Gaza, and East Jerusalem, the confiscation of Palestinian land and water
resources, the destruction of Palestinian homes, the continued building of
illegal Jewish settlements and any vision of a ‘Greater Israel’ that
includes the occupied territories and the whole of Jerusalem and its
surroundings [Book of Resolutions, 2004, #12].” Should the Methodist
Church in the wake of the above resolution elect to divest from companies
that enable the occupation to continue, we the undersigned shall applaud
your courageous initiative, and fervently hope that it will set an example
for many others to follow.

We assure the Methodist Church that it is no more anti-Semitic to
criticize and oppose Israeli government policies than it was anti-American
to oppose the Vietnam war or is anti-American to oppose the present war in
Iraq. It is never anti-Semitic to oppose injustice, destruction, gross
inequity, and inequality. We also assure the Church that Israel, having
the fourth most powerful military in the world, is in no existential
danger.

As citizens devoted to the promotion of peace and democracy in the region,
we denounce the international community’s continued economic investments
in our country which directly and indirectly support Israel’s daily
violations of international law and colonization of the occupied
territories. We fear the potentially irreversible damage created by
Israeli occupation, by Israel’s unilateral plans, and by the international
community’s impotence in ending Israel’s occupation. We realize that
Israel’s occupation of Palestinians and their lands will probably not end
without international sanctions.

Moreover, Israelis, as well as Palestinians, will benefit from ending the
occupation Symmetry never exists between occupier and occupied, oppressor
and oppressed. Yet Israelis suffer from loss of life, increase in
militarism, and a steady devaluation of human life. This latter is
particularly evident in the socio-economic sphere and the affliction of
post-traumatic distress.

Successive Israeli governments have spent enormous amounts of money on
expansion, to the detriment of social benefits for the Israeli population.
While it is true that had there been no occupation, Israeli governments
might not have spent the money on social benefits, the fact that expansion
continues apace alongside continued endeavors of ethnic cleansing reveals
Israel’s intention to rid the West Bank of as many Palestinians as
possible and to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian state.

To this end, money is spent on maintaining a large military presence in
the occupied Palestinian Territories, on erecting the apartheid wall at 4
million dollars a mile, with 400 miles planned (twice as long as if it had
been built on the ‘green line’), and constructing more housing units in
highly subsidized settlements. In December 2007, for instance, the Israeli
Housing Ministry announced that it was building 300 more units on Har Homa
(Jabal Abu Ghnaim to Palestinians), with another 1000 intended, and more
recently has begun construction of 60 homes in the Ras Al-Amud section of
East Jerusalem. Israel claims Har Homa to be a part of Jerusalem, but the
international community regards Israel’s construction on it and in East
Jerusalem to be further illegal colonization of Palestinian land. Given
the subsidies and other perks with which Israel lures Israelis to colonize
the West Bank, it is small wonder that population increase in the occupied
Palestinian territory is five to six percent, by contrast to the two to
three percent maximum growth in Israeli communities within Israel proper.
Israel additionally spends much on constructing super-highways for
Israelis-only in the occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as for
lookout towers (that can double as sniper towers), and checkpoints galore.
Furthermore, the majority of the more than 500 checkpoints separate
Palestinian communities from one another.

While all this is taking place at considerable economic cost, poverty in
Israel has increased sharply. Israel in 2006 gained the dubious notoriety
of having the worst poverty level in the Western world, and has retained
this position through 2007. Over one quarter of Israelis now live under
the poverty line. One of every three children goes to bed hungry. And
every fourth elderly person is poor. No wonder, then, that many of
Israel’s elderly are “suicidal.” The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronot
revealed in a report that over 50 percent of suicides in Israel every year
are committed by people aged 65 and over. And there are additional
worrying trends. Not only are the few rich getting richer and the numerous
poor getting poorer, but also many in the middle class who have jobs are
sliding into poverty due to low wages. The Adva Center report of December
2007 showed that a fifth of Israeli wage earners are now living under the
poverty line.

One result of the increased poverty is that 25% of Israelis forego medical
care because they cannot afford it. 75% of the poor cannot afford
medication. But of all the sad statistics, one of the more shocking is
that over 80,000 Holocaust survivors—now mostly aged individuals–live in
desperate straits. It is shameful that of all places in the world, in
Israel, Holocaust survivors live in dire poverty and misery.

The worsening economic conditions contribute, in turn, to escalation of
violence. Thus, for instance, one of every five elderly Israelis is
subject to abuse, mainly by spouses or children. And the Israeli police
recorded a 24% increase in violence among youth the first months of 2006.

A direct cost of occupation and a threat to Israel’s welfare is
post-traumatic stress, which can result in addiction to drugs and alcohol,
and can also contribute to violence. A counselor at a rehabilitation
center terms the malady “a ticking bomb,” Help, he relates, is unavailable
for many soldiers who have gone “into terrible distress of drugs,
beatings, violence, impatience, … soldiers who clashed with a civilian
population, and when they were discharged understood that they had been
wrong.” Hundreds, he reveals, “are roaming about with the feeling that
there is no point to living, and the path to suicide and drugs is very
easy. We are afraid that former soldiers will commit criminal acts as a
result of their distress.”

On the Palestinian end of the occupation, the situation is far worse both
economically and in terms of security. For Palestinians, occupation means
a loudspeaker in the middle of the night ordering residents out of their
homes, regardless of whether it’s winter or summer, hot or cold, wet or
dry. Occupation means long waits at checkpoints, even in emergencies.
Occupation means that one needs permits to go to one’s fields, permits
that are often not given. Even when permits are given, the Palestinian
farmer often finds that the military gates that control accessing his
fields are closed and fail to open, and, for that matter, fail to open
also for children on their way to school. Occupation means land theft and
uprooting of olive trees, some of which are 100s of years old, all of
which are means of sustenance for the Palestinian people, some now the
only means.

Occupation means curfews, during which sick people can and do die.
Occupation means that one’s home can turn into rubble in minutes, as
bulldozers or explosives demolish it, along with its furnishings, toys,
family photograph albums, computers, and all else. Occupation means
imprisonment. Approximately 11,000 Palestinians are now incarcerated in
Israeli facilities.

Israeli Occupation means apartheid. The separation wall is one instance;
four additional ones are water, roads, home construction, and checkpoints.
Of 960 million cubic meters of water that is generated in the West Bank,
Palestinians are allowed to use only one-tenth of it. The rest goes to
Israelis. On average, a Palestinian citizen in the West Bank is allowed to
use no more than 36 cubic meters of water per year, while Israeli settlers
in the West Bank can use up to 2,400 cubic meters. Palestinians are not
permitted to drive on ‘settler’ roads, which are highly superior to other
roads in the occupied Palestinian territories. Palestinians are not
allowed to build houses or even to add rooms, while Jewish settlement
building continues uninhibited. Checkpoints also discriminate. Israelis,
tourists, and Jews from abroad can go from the Territories to Israel via
many checkpoints, but Palestinians having permits are allowed to enter
Israel only through 11 of them, forcing Palestinians fortunate enough to
have a permit to travel far out of the way on their way to work or for
medical care in Israel.

For the above reasons, we Israeli seekers of peace and justice express our
sincere gratitude to the Methodist Church for its stand on the occupation,
and support the proposals before the General Conference this April on
divestment. Boycott and divestment are non-violent means of pressuring
governments to change their policies–means now sorely needed to compel
the Israeli government to end its occupation of Palestinians and their
lands and thereby to better the lives of Israelis as well as of
Palestinians.
——————

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

  Name address
97. Creighton Lacy WNC Annual Conference
96. William Greene
95. Emily Schaeffer Tel Aviv, Israel
94. Rosamine Hayeem London, UK
93. Udi Adiv Detrech Tzarfat 32, Haifa
92. Prof. Kobi Peterzil Haifa
91. ruth victor Jerusalem
90. Yali Amit
89. Hannah Safran Haifa
88. Haim Bresheeth
87. hava halevi 21 shimshom st. jerusalem 93501

86. Areej Sabbagh-Khoury
85. Lily Traubmann Kibutz Megiddo
84. Dr. Sara Fischman
83. galit hess
82. Ruth Tenne
81. ginzburg shaul
80. yifat doron
79. Janet Green
78. Ur Shlonsky
77. Alissa Ben-Ari
76. Noa Shaindlinger
75. Jaye N. White Fayetteville, NC
74. Eli Hamo
73. Yael Oren Kahn UK
72. racheli bar-or
71. Yisrael Puterman tel aviv
70. yasmin sivan
69. eytan lerner
68. Matan Cohen
67. Moshe Machover
66. Yotam Pappo
65. Itamar Shachar
64. Rela Mazali Herzlia
63. David Nir Tel Aviv, Israel
62. Amit Ron
61. yoav barak Tel Aviv
60. aharon Shabtai 27 gruzenberg st. Tel Aviv, 65811
59. Adi Dagan Tel Aviv, Israel
58. Yael Ronen Beer Sheva
57. Elchounon Esterovitz
56. Amit Perelson Haifa
55. Jonathan Pollak
54. Angela Godfrey-Goldstein Jerusalem
53. Oded Goldreich Tel Aviv
52. Yossi Bartal
51. Dana Ron Tel Aviv
50. Haggai Matar Tel Aviv – Jaffa
49. Benjamin Rosendahl
48. Ellen Naor 3403 NE 80th St, Seattle, WA 98112 USA
47. Jacob Naor, Ph.D. 3403 NE 80th St, Seattle, WA 98112 USA
46. Linda L Golden 13827 Sandy Oak Rd, Chester, VA 23831
45. Dorit Naaman
44. Teddy Katz Magal, Israel
43. Mary Alice Nesbitt
42. Kfir Cohen
41. Gideon Spiro גדעון ספירו Israel (Within the Green Line)
40. Amos Gvirtz Shefayim, Israel
39. Yael Lerer Tel Aviv
38. jake javanshir
37. Yvonne Deutsch  Jerusalem

36. annelien kisch-kroon ramat hasharon , Israel
35. Ofra Ben- Artzi Jerusalem
34. Sandra Ruch Israeli in Toronto
33. noa schwartz tel aviv, israel
32. michal schwartz tel aviv, israel
31. Judy Blanc
30. Beatrice Eichten
29. Bilha Golan
28. tsilli goldenberg israel
27. ofer neiman Israel
26. Galit Kadan Toronto, Canada
25. Dalit Baum Tel Aviv
24. Susanne Moses
23. Roman Vater
22. DINA GOOR
21. Hanna Braun London; UK
20. Merav Amir Tel Aviv
19. Alla Nikonov š
18. kobi snitz haifa
17. Hillel Barak Haifa, Israel
16. ruchama marton Tel Aviv
15. Reuven Kaminer Jerusalem
14. Maxine Kaufman-Lacusta
13. Avishai Chelouche Pardes-Hana, Israel
12. Anat Matar
11. Jeannette Herzberg Israel
10. PNINA Feiler KIBBUTZ YAD-HANNA
9. Tamar Yaron Kibbutz Hazorea
8. Yael Korin
7. eileen fleming http://www.wearewideawake.org/USA
6. Paul H. Verduin Silver Spring, Maryland
5. Eldad Benary A Israeli in NY
4. Smadar Carmon
3. Eldad Benary A Israeli in NY
2. Israel Naor Herzliah, Israel
1. Dorothy Naor Herzliah, Israel

The Letter of Support from Israelis to the United Methodist Church
Petition to James E. Winkler, General Secretary of the United Methodist
Church was created by and written by Dorothy Naor
(dor_naor@netvision.net.il).  

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

http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/PS/anat-bds.doc

על ההקשר של החרם האקדמי על ישראל

[מתוך תשובת ענת מטר לדיונים ברשת אוניברסיטאית על עניין החרם האקדמי על ישראל.]

[עריכה (ובפרט הדגשות) על ידי עודד גולדרייך]

בשנת 2005 יצאה קריאה מטעם החברה האזרחית הפלסטינית לחרם, משיכת השקעות וסנקציות על מדינת ישראל ומוסדותיה. על הקריאה הזו חתומים גופים רבים, איגודי עובדים, ארגונים חוץ-ממשלתיים ומפלגות, המבקשים לקדם מאבק לא מזוין בכיבוש המתמשך ובמדיניות האפרטהייד של ישראל. המהלך הזה הוא חלק ממכלול, אשר צד אחר שלו הוא, למשל, ההפגנות השבועיות נגד גדר ההפרדה וגזל האדמות. מי שהצטרפו למאבק הזה דוחים, מצד אחד, את שיתוף הפעולה המתמשך של הרשות הפלסטינית עם הפארסה המכונה “תהליך השלום”, ומצד שני את דרך ההתנגדות המזוינת.

הקריאה לחרם שואבת את השראתה מן המאבק באפרטהייד בדרום-אפריקה. מובן שהנסיבות ההיסטוריות אינן זהות, וגם צורות המאבק השונות אינן זהות, אבל ישנם קווי דמיון בצורת המשטר והתנהגותו, וכן ביחס הקהילה הבינלאומית (אני מתכוונת בראש וראשונה לתמיכה המסיבית של ארה”ב ואנגליה, בצד שאט-הנפש של קהילות בינלאומיות, איגודים מקצועיים וכו’). לא אעמיק כאן בניתוח ההשוואות; אציין רק כי אישים רבים, שנודעו במאבקם בדרום-אפריקה של האפרטהייד, מוצאים קווי דמיון כאלה ותומכים במהלכי ההחרמות נגד ישראל בשל כך.

החרם הוא המכשיר הפוליטי של הקהילה האזרחית – הפלסטינית, הבינלאומית, וגם הקהילה הישראלית הזעירה המבקשת להפגין סולידריות עם המאבק הזה, כמיטב יכולתה. הוא איננו תכלית לעצמה וגם לא צעד “מוסרי” גרידא; דהיינו, אין הוא צעד המצדיק את עצמו ומנותק מאפשרויות ההצלחה שלו. הוא כלי. ככזה, הוא כפוף לנסיבות, ואם יתברר, למשל, שהוא מזיק יותר משהוא מועיל – גם בטווח הארוך הנראה לעין – יהיה נכון לסלקו. כרגע, ניתוח המצב מצביע – בעיני תומכי החרם, כמובן – על היותו אחד הכלים הבודדים שעשויים להוליך את ישראל לשינוי מדיניותה הנפשעת (אולי ישירות, ואולי דרך שינוי מדיניותן של מדינות אירופה, ואפילו ארה”ב – מה שקשה להאמין – ביחס אליה). יתר על כן, נראה שדרכים אחרות חסומות לגמרי. התמיכה האמריקאית המסיבית, שטיפת-המוח הלאומנית, תמיכתה הכמעט-טוטלית של האוכלוסייה היהודית בישראל במהלכי ממשלותיה (93% תמכו במבצע “עופרת יצוקה”, למשל), וכן, גם שיתוף פעולה, שלא לומר התגייסות, של האליטה הכלכלית, התקשורתית והאקדמית – כל אלה מצביעים על כך שללא לחץ חיצוני לא יחול שיפור. אין פירושו של דבר שיש לוותר על דרכים אחרות של מאבק לא מזוין. נהפוך הוא. עבודה בתוך הקהילה הישראלית-יהודית נחוצה, ובמקביל, כמובן, נחוצה גם עבודה פנימית בתוך הקהילה הכבושה.

האינטרס הגדול של ממשלות ישראל הוא שמירת מראית-עין של נורמליות. ישראל מבקשת להציג את עצמה כלפי העולם המערבי כחלק אינטגרלי ממנו, כמדינה דמוקרטית, פתוחה, מתקדמת, ליברלית. ככל שמדיניותה הופכת לאלימה יותר, ככל שאופייה מתרחק יותר מן הדימוי הזה, כך מתגברים מאמציה לשמר את הדימוי. הקמפיין של “מיתוג מחודש של ישראל” – אותו ביקר עמיתנו קרלו שטרנגר ב”הארץ” לפני ימים אחדים – הוא חוד החנית של המאמץ הזה. לקהילה התרבותית והאקדמית מייחדים אנשי הקמפיין, במשרדי החוץ וההסברה, תפקיד חשוב. הן אמורות להציג את פניה היפות של ישראל ובכך לטשטש את שאין לראות.

ההתנגדות לנורמליזציה היא אחת מהסיבות העיקריות לתמיכה במדיניות ההחרמות בכלל, וכאלה המופנות כלפי הקהילה התרבותית והאקדמית של ישראל בפרט. כך, למשל, מתארגנות מחאות נגד אירועי תרבות ישראליים הממומנים על ידי משרד החוץ ומכוונים ל”מיתוג המחודש” – כפי שקרה בפסטיבל טורונטו לקולנוע בשנה שעברה; אמנים מתבקשים על-ידי תומכי החרם שלא להופיע בישראל, מרצים מתבקשים שלא להשתתף בכנסים בארץ, וכדומה.

אולם תפקידה של האקדמיה אינו מסתכם בהיותה ה”פנים הנאורות” שיש להציג בפני העולם כמסכה. העולם האקדמי מחובר בטבורו לממסד המדינתי ומשרת אותו, באינספור פרויקטים צבאיים, מדיניים והסברתיים. במקביל, ביקורת על מדיניות הכיבוש והאפרטהייד של ישראל כמעט ואיננה מושמעת בו – למרות ניסיונות גורמים שונים לצייר את התמונה אחרת. כל אלה הובילו את מנסחי הקמפיין הפלסטיני להכללה, באפיון החרם, גם של קריאה למשיכת השקעות במוסדות האקדמיים ולהימנעות ממימון פרויקטים אקדמיים – בפרט, כמובן, פרויקטים המשרתים ישירות את הממשלה. הרעיון הכולל הוא, שוב, הרצון להקשות על ישראל להתמיד בכיבוש, הן על-ידי הפיכת הכיבוש ל”לא משתלם” והן על-ידי חשיפת המקום אליו הידרדרה החברה הישראלית בפני חבריה עצמה, בדרך של הצבת מראה. לכן, אין לדבר על חרם על האקדמיה באופן מופשט ומנותק מן ההיבטים האחרים של המאבק הלא-מזוין לסיום הכיבוש.

עד כאן הצגה בסיסית של הרקע ההכרחי לדיון.  אני מבקשת להתייחס עתה, בקיצור ככל שאוכל, לכמה עניינים שעלו בהתכתבויות שונות.

שאלת החרם האינדיווידואלי מול זה המוסדי

כאמור, החל משנת 2005 נתנה החברה האזרחית הפלסטינית צורה ממוסדת לחרם. בצד הפנייה לקהילה הבינלאומית להחרמה, משיכת השקעות וסנקציות כלפי ישראל, ישנו גם פירוט של אופני ההחרמה הרצויים, וגם הסברים על אופני החרמה לא רצויים. על פי הפירוט הזה, החרם על האקדמיה הישראלית אינו כולל הימנעות מהזמנת אקדמאים ישראליים להרצאות וכנסים בחו”ל, שיתופם במחקרים, שיפוט ופרסום מאמרים וספרים שלהם, וכדומה. עד כמה שידוע לי, החל מאותה שנה, 2005, לא רבים המקרים בהם בחרו אקדמאים ברחבי העולם בדרכי החרמה כאלה.

שתי שאלות נוספות עלו בהקשר זה. ראשית, האם האקדמאים האירופיים מאמצים את הנוסח המוסדי-בלבד עליו דיברתי. לפי מיטב התרשמותי, הקריאה הפלסטינית יצרה מין “רגולציה” של החרם, ולכן פחתו המקרים שבהם קיבלו ההחרמות צורה אינדיווידואלית מן הסוגים האמורים. מקרים כאלה היו ועוד יהיו בוודאי, אבל לא התמיכה בקריאה הפלסטינית לחרם היא המקדמת אותם, אלא להיפך. בכל מקרה, הקריאה הפלסטינית מצביעה על קיומם של “אזורים אפורים”, ולי, כמו לאחרים – פלסטינים, ישראלים וזרים – יש לעתים הסתייגויות מפעולת חרם כזו או אחרת. אחרי הכל, פועל כל אדם לפי טעמו הפוליטי ומזגו האישי.

שנית, האם תמיכה בחרם מוסדי אינה, למעשה, גם תמיכה בחרם אינדיווידואלי. ובכן, כאן התשובה היא כן ולא. מובן שאקדמאים ייפגעו מכך שעמיתיהם יסרבו להגיע לכאן לכנסים שהם מבקשים לארגן. אבל (אם נסלק יוזמות אישיות מן הסוג האמור לעיל), לא תהיה פגיעה בהזמנת אקדמאים ישראליים לשבתונים והרצאות, בפרסומים וכו’. לעומת זאת ברור שקרנות מחקר תדולדלנה, השקעות באוניברסיטה תצטמצמנה, וכו’. כן, זה מחיר שלדעתי הקהילה האקדמית רבת-הפריבילגיות צריכה לשלם – מן הנימוקים שהבאתי לעיל.

תמיכה במהלך מסוים (כמו תמיכה בחרם) מאפשרת – תמיד – ניצול שלו או פרשנות מוטעית שלו

(למשל שימוש בחרם על-ידי גורמים אנטישמיים, או אחרים, שאינם מונעים מרצון לסיום הכיבוש ומדיניות האפרטהייד בלבד). אפשרות זו קיימת, ולדעתי, כל שאפשר לעשות נגדה הוא הבהרה חד-משמעית של הרציונל של החרם, מטרותיו, מסגרתו, וכו’. מצד שני, לא רק מעשים, אלא גם מחדלים, מפורשים ומנוצלים על ידי גורמים שונים ומשונים, ודי לחכימא ברמיזא.

מדוע דווקא ישראל?

אחת מן השאלות הקשות יותר בה נתקלים תומכי החרם היא השאלה, הסבירה לגמרי, בעניין ייחודה של ישראל. האם פשעיה של ארה”ב קטנים יותר? ואלו של אנגליה? כידוע, חומסקי נמנע מהחרמה משום שהוא טוען שהיא מפלה את ישראל לרעה ביחס לארצו. מן הצד השני, נהג הפיסיקאי, פרופ’ דניאל עמית המנוח, להחרים גם את האקדמיה האמריקאית. אבל אני לא שם. למה? משום שהחרם הוא כלי פוליטי ולא מטרה לעצמה ומשום שיש כמה הבדלים בין ישראל לארה”ב. ציינתי שהחרם איננו מצדיק את עצמו כשלעצמו, במנותק מאפשרויות ההצלחה שלו, מהנסיבות. כדי לקבל הנמקה כזו צריך לאמץ גישה מסוימת ליחסים בין מוסר ומחשבה פוליטית. זו סוגיה פילוסופית חשובה, שלא זה הפורום המתאים לבירורה, אך דנתי בה ובכוונתי לדון בה בהקשרים המתאימים. על כל פנים, כמו במקרה של דרום-אפריקה, מסתמן סיכוי שהחרם על ישראל יישא פירות (ואולי משום כך הוא מבהיל כל כך ישראלים רבים). אין צל של אפשרות אפילו לדמיין חרם על כלכלתה, תרבותה והאקדמיה של ארה”ב, ומובן שאין שום סיכויי הצלחה לחרם כזה.

זה המקום בו שואל אדם את עצמו: האם תמכתי, או הייתי תומך, בחרם על דרום-אפריקה? מי שמשיב בחיוב, צריך לדעתי לשאול את עצמו מדוע לא כאן ועכשיו. [עודד: יתכנו תשובות סבירות לשאלה מדוע לא “כאן ועכשיו”, אבל תשובות סבירות צריכות להיות מנוסחות במונחים יחסיים (ולא מוחלטים) ולהתייחס לנסיבות הפוליטיות של “כאן ועכשיו” – הן מבחינת הצורך להחריף את המאבק במדיניות הישראלית והן מבחינת האפקטיביות הצפויה של צעדים מסוימים.]

שאלה מקבילה, מן הצד השני, נוגעת לפשעיהן של ארצות כמו סין או איראן. מדוע לא להחרים גם אותן? ובכן, ישראל מתיימרת להיות מדינה דמוקרטית יותר מסין או איראן, ולדעתי ליומרה הזו יש מחיר. יתר על כן, ישראל זוכה להטבות מפליגות ממדינות המערב בשל ה”דמוקרטיה” בה היא מתפארת לשווא. קיצוץ בפריבילגיות הללו, לנוכח מדיניותה, נראה לי מעשה ראוי וחשוב.

מדוע אינני מתפטרת?

השאלה הזו מניחה תשובה לשאלה אחרת: האם אני, כלשון העצומה, מבקשת לפגוע בעמיתיי ובתלמידיי, באוניברסיטת תל-אביב וביתר האוניברסיטאות בארץ? תשובתי (הצפויה) היא לא ולא. המוסד האקדמי היחיד בסביבה שהייתי רוצה באמת לפגוע בו הוא מכללת אריאל, ולכך, נדמה לי, שותפים גם אחרים. (אגב: אלה צריכים לשאול את עצמם אם אינם מייחלים לחרם על המרכז האוניברסיטאי באריאל; אם יסרבו להרצות שם ולהשתתף בכנסיו; אם יתמכו בהסבת השקעות ממנו. אם ישיבו בהן על השאלות הללו, ברי שאף הם שמים סייגים לאותו “חופש אקדמי” בו מרבים לנפנף כאן לשווא לאחרונה – ובצדק יעשו כן. אינני מבקשת חלילה לגזור גזירה שווה בין מכללת אריאל לבין האוניברסיטאות הישראליות, אולם את הנקודה הזו חשוב להבהיר.)

איך זה שאני תומכת בחרם ובכל זאת רוצה בטובת האוניברסיטה? ממש כשם שאני רוצה בטובת ישראל ומצדדת בחרם עליה. תביעה להתפטרותי מן האוניברסיטה גוררת גם תביעה להסתלקותי מן הארץ. אין לי צל של ספק שסיום הכיבוש ומדיניות האפרטהייד נחוצים למען עתיד טוב יותר, לכולנו, במקום הזה; וכאמור, אני מאמינה שלחץ בינלאומי, כפי שתיארתי לעיל, הוא כלי חשוב לקידום המטרה הזו. כולנו חברים בקהילות שונות, והפגנת סולידריות עם קהילה אחת עשויה להתנגש עם הסולידריות שאנחנו מפגינים כלפי האחרת.  הסולידריות הראשונית שלי עתה היא עם חבריי למאבק הבלתי מזוין נגד הכיבוש. עם זאת, אני רואה את עצמי בשר מבשרה של הקהילה האקדמית בישראל. היא חשובה לי, היא מהווה חלק משמעותי מחיי, תלמידיי חשובים לי מאד וכך גם עבודתי האקדמית. בוודאי שהתנגשות כזו יוצרת מתיחות – אולי אפילו סתירה. מי שמאמין שאפשר לחיות ללא סתירות ומתחים פנימיים, יבושם לו. בלי שום קשר לנושא הנוכחי, אני לא מאמינה באפשרות כזו. רצוי, כמובן, למוסס את המתח, ואת זאת אני עושה יום יום, בתפקודי באוניברסיטה ובשמאל.

לעניין הפגיעה באוניברסיטה יש להוסיף עוד שני היבטים לפחות. הראשון הוא שגם אמצעי השביתה (אף הוא אמצעי פוליטי, לא מנותק מהקשר ולא בר-הכללה באופן פורמלי), שכולנו או לפחות רובינו תומכים בו, עשוי להזיק בטווח הקצר. השביתה הגדולה של הסגל אכן הזיקה לכיסי האוניברסיטה. סטודנטים עזבו לטובת המכללות, בטענה ש”שם לא שובתים”. (למרבה השמחה הם התבדו – ראו את מכללת ספיר.) דרישות שאנחנו מעלים, בצדק רב, לגבי העסקתם של עובדי הקבלן, או המורים-מן-החוץ, אף הן מרעות לכאורה את מצבה הכלכלי של האוניברסיטה – ובכל זאת אנחנו מאמינים שהן מוצדקות, ואף מצדיקות שביתות וסנקציות שונות.

ההיבט השני נוגע למה שאפשר לקרוא לו בהכללה “המיליטריזם של האוניברסיטה”. שיתוף הפעולה הסמוי והגלוי עם הצבא, תוכניות הלימוד המיוחדות, מינוי מרצים שמוצנחים היישר מן הפיקוד הבכיר – כל אלה, שהאוניברסיטה נוטה להתגאות בהם, מזיקים לה, לטעמי, לא פחות מן התמיכה בחרם. הרבה יותר. אינני מתכוונת רק ליחסי-החוץ, לעובדה שהמיליטריזם הזה מקל על תומכי החרם. אני מתכוונת קודם כל לפרצופה של האוניברסיטה עצמה, לסדר היום של מחקריה, למחויבותה האזרחית.

עד כאן. חשבתי לכתוב לכם מסמך קצר המכיל תשובות לשאלות, אך משהתיישבתי לכתוב אותו הבנתי עד כמה ניסיון כזה הוא מופרך. ברור לי לגמרי עד כמה קשה סוגיית החרם (הכולל, וזה על האקדמיה בפרט). אינני מצפה לשכנע איש, אלא לסלק אי הבנות ולהציע לכם לראות את הדברים מפרספקטיבה אחרת. ברור לי גם שלשם ראייה כזו דרושה הסכמה מינימלית בעניינים הפוליטיים. יתר על כן, אני סבורה, וכתבתי על כך בהרחבה בהקשר האקדמי, כי דרוש לה גם שינוי בהוויה, באורח החיים. אבל, כאמור, עד כאן.

[מאי 2010]

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

http://www.pacbi.org/etemplate.php?id=792

Academic freedom for whom?Comment by PACBI:

This important petition (below) issued by Israeli academics provides further support for PACBI’s consistent denunciation of the Israeli academy for its complicity in the system of oppression against Palestinians and its silence about the long-standing violation of the basic freedoms–including the academic freedom–of Palestinians. The petition also vindicates PACBI in its campaign for the institutional boycott of the Israeli academy.

As the background to the petition makes clear, the Israeli academy is not the bastion of dissent it is purported to be by those seeking to defend it and thus delegitimize the call for the academic boycott of Israel. The vast majority of the Israeli academic community are oblivious to the oppression of the Palestinian people–both inside Israel and in the occupied territory–and have never fought to oppose the practices and policies of their state. In fact, they duly serve in the reserve forces of the occupation army and as such are either perpetrators of or silent witnesses to the daily brutality of the occupation. They also do not hesitate to partner in their academic research with the security-military establishment that is the chief architect and executor of the occupation and other forms of oppression of the Palestinian people.


This initiative also shows that sadly, even those who wish to rouse their colleagues from their slumber seem to be the victims of amnesia or else are willfully ignoring the basic political context within which the academic freedom of Palestinian academics and students is being violated. That context is no other than the illegal, four-decades-old military occupation of Palestinian land, an occupation that has striven consistently to destroy Palestinian society and its institutions, including universities. That a petition issued by academics ignores this basic fact and is unwilling to condemn the occupation regime is very telling.

*******************************************
Text of the Petition Issued by Israeli Academics:

Academic freedom for whom?

The meaning of “academic freedom” is fairly obvious. It is something that is associated with democratic societies, and it is universally held in high esteem, even though its boundaries and limits are often unclear. Basically, where there is freedom to teach, study and carry out research in academic institutions, and to publish research-related books and articles, then academic freedom exists.

It is clear that there can be no real academic freedom in higher education unless it is possible to reach the institutions where one studies, teaches, and carries out research. Academics within the State of Israel are able to do this, but those working in the higher education institutions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not. There, checkpoints, blockades, walls and fences prevent thousands of students and teachers from leading a normal academic life, and lecturers with non-Palestinian passports, who wish to teach in those institutions, are prevented from staying for long enough to carry out meaningful continuous teaching.

The academic community of the State of Israel, which rightly demands academic freedom for its members both inside Israel and within the international academic community, has generally disregarded the demand for a similar freedom for Palestinian academics in the Occupied Territories for which the State of Israel is responsible. Because of this, and in view of the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Territories during the last couple of years, we approached all the senior faculty members in the major higher education and scientific research institutions in Israel: Bar Ilan University, Ben Gurion University, Haifa University, The Hebrew University, The Open University, the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), Tel Aviv University, and the Weizmann Institute for Science. We sent them the following letter and petition:

Dear colleagues:

As academics and citizens of the State of Israel, whatever our political opinions may be, we see ourselves as having a duty to fight for the academic freedom of our Palestinian colleagues. We call upon the Government of Israel to honour and implement the right of freedom of movement, academic study and instruction in the State of Israel and the territories controlled by it. Academic freedom is not divisible and cannot be selective. The State of Israel and we its citizens are directly responsible for upholding that freedom.

We call upon you to actively accept that responsibility and to add your support to the attached petition, which is being distributed among all senior staff members in all institutions of higher education in Israel. After the signatures have been gathered, we intend to seek the support of the Committee of University Presidents and members of the Israeli Academy of Science, and to submit the petition to the following government ministries: Defence, Education, Science, Foreign Affairs, and the Interior.

Sincerely,

The initiators of the petition:

Prof. Menachem Fisch, Tel-Aviv University

Prof. Raphael Falk, The Hebrew University

Prof. Eva Jablonka, Tel-Aviv University

Dr. Snait Gissis, Tel-Aviv University


Text of the petition

We, past and present members of academic staff of Israeli universities, express great concern regarding the ongoing deterioration of the system of higher education in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We protest against the policy of our government which is causing restrictions of freedom of movement, study and instruction, and we call upon the government to allow students and lecturers free access to all the campuses in the Territories, and to allow lecturers and students who hold foreign passports to teach and study without being threatened with withdrawal of residence visas. To leave the situation as it is will cause serious harm to freedom of movement, study and instruction – harm to the foundation of academic freedom, to which we are committed.

We sent about 9000 emails, of which around 5000 were to senior faculty and the rest to emeriti and junior faculty at some of the institutions. These numbers should be reduced by about 5% to allow for the emails that were returned. In order not to misuse the internal all-university lists, all email addresses were manually downloaded from the open-to-the-public sites of university departments. A total of 407 people, 403 of whom are mostly active senior faculty, (but also include emeriti and junior staff) from the above institutions, as well as 4 signatures from senior faculty of Colleges who became aware of our petition, responded to our call and signed the petition. It is our intention to publicize the list of signatories on the web.

The number of signatories from each university is as follows:

Bar Ilan University 10

Ben Gurion University 77

Haifa University 20

Hebrew University 110

Open University 7

Technion 14

Tel Aviv University 155

Weizmann Institute of Science 10

Sapir College 2

Oranim 1

Bezalel 1

We received a number of letters objecting to our call: some of the authors sent reasoned responses, arguing their case against our petition; others chose to send insulting hate mail.

At the Weitzman Institute of Science, one of the heads of the departments sent a letter via the Academic Affairs Office to all the senior faculty of that institute. In it, he warned the faculty of the danger lurking in our call, basing his argument on very inaccurate rumours about the political stance of the initiators of the petition.

In March 2008 we wrote to the Committee of University Presidents and to the Directorial Board of the Israeli Academy of Science asking them to support our petition. So far, the only answer received has been that our request would be considered.

We are well aware that only rarely do petitions cause a change in a political state of affairs. However, we do not doubt that when there are enough people in the Israeli academic community who are prepared to voice their objection to the conditions under which their colleagues in Palestinian higher education institutions have to work, and do all they can to ensure that their Palestinian counterparts have the same academic freedom that they enjoy, we shall all benefit – Israeli and Palestinian academics alike.

Prof. Menachem Fisch, Tel-Aviv University

Prof. Raphael Falk, The Hebrew University

Prof. Eva Jablonka, Tel-Aviv University

Dr. Snait Gissis, Tel-Aviv University



List of Signatories
Dr. Aref Abu-Rabia BGU
Dr. Tabat Abu Ras BGU
Prof. Zach Adam HUJI
Prof. Hanna Adoni HUJI
Dr. Riad Agrabia BGU
Prof. Ron Aharoni Technion
Dr. Iris Agmon BGU
Prof. Joseph Agassi TAU
Prof. Amotz Agnin HUJI
Prof. Ofer Aharoni Weizmann
Prof. Niv Ahituv TAU
Prof. Gadi Algazi TAU
Dr. Karen Alkalay Gut TAU
Dr. Yoav Alon TAU
Prof. Ehud Altman Weizmann
Dr. Tammy Amiel – Hauser TAU
Dr. Eleanor Amit TAU
Prof. Gannit Ankori HU
Prof. Yonathan Anson BGU
Dr. Ruth Arav OPU
Prof. Mira Ariel TAU
Dr. Amos Arieli Weizmann
Prof. Boaz Arpaly TAU
Dr. Ruth Ashery-Padan TAU
Dr. Nurit Ashkenasy BGU
Dr. Daniel Attas HUJ
Prof. Judy Auerbach BGU
Dr. Michal Aviad TAU
Dr. Yoram Ayal BGU
Dr. Prof. Amir Ayali TAU
Dr. Ariela Azoulay BIU
Prof. Roi Baer HUJI
Prof. Shalom Baer HUJI
Dr. Amir Banbaji BGU
Prof. Gad Baneth HUJI
Prof. Ilan Bank TAU
Prof. Maya Bar-Hillel HUJI
Prof. Eitan Bar Yosef BGU
Dr. Oren Barak HUJI
Prof. Isaac Barash, TAU
Prof. Ron Barkai TAU
Prof. Yacob Barnai Haifa U
Prof. Shosh Bar-Nun TAU
Prof. Arie Bass TAU
Prof. Outi Bat-El TAU
Prof. Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot TAU
Prof. Yehuda Bauer HUJI
Dr. Dalia Beck BGU
Prof. Yhuda Beeton BGU
Dr. Guy Beiner BGU
Prof. Shimshon Belkin HUJI
Prof. Avner Ben-Amos TAU
Prof. Eyal Ben Ari HUJI
Dr Hagit Benbaji BGU
Prof. Yemima Ben-Menachem HUJI
Prof. Ziva Ben-Porat, TAU
Prof. Yinon Ben-Neriah, HUJI
Prof. Simon Benninga TAU
Prof. Zvi Bentwich BGU
Dr. Yael Benyamini TAU
Dr. Yael Ben-Zvi BGU
Prof. Benjamin Isaac TAU
Dr. Nitza Berkovitch BGU
Dr. Louise Bethlehem HUJI
Prof. Anat Biletzki TAU
Prof. Yoram Bilu HUJI
Prof. David Blanc Haifa U
Prof. Rony Blum HUJI
Prof. Shoshana Blum-Kulka HUJI
Prof. Irena Botwinik-Rotem BGU
Prof. Yohanan Brada HUJI
Prof. Michael Brandeis HUJI
Prof. Yigal Bronner TAU
Prof. Jose Brunner TAU
Prof. Judith Buber Agassi HUJI
Prof. Victoria Buch HUJI
Dr. Naama Carmi Haifa U
Dr. Julia Chaitin Sapir College
Prof. Reuven Chayoth BGU
Dr. Raz Chen- Morris BIU
Prof. Mottie Chevion HUJI
Dr. Tamar Cholcman TAU
Dr. Eyal Chowers TAU
Prof. Esther Cohen HUJI
Prof. Michael J. Cohen BIU
Prof. Yerachmiel Cohen HUJI
Dr. Yinon Cohen TAU
Mrs. Anat Danziger HUJI
Prof. Marcelo Dascal TAU
Prof. Nathan Dascal TAU
Prof. David Degani Technion
Prof. Sahul Dollberg TAU
Prof. Fanny Dolzhansky HUJI
Dr. Daniel Dor TAU
Prof. Yuval Dor HUJI
Dr. Iris Dotan TAU
Prof. Tommy Dreyfus TAU
Prof. Amos Dreyfus HUJI
Dr Eli Dresner TAU
Dr Otniel Dror HUJI
Dr Tammy Eilat Yagoury TAU
Prof. Gerda Elata-Alster BGU
Prof. Miri Eliav-Feldon TAU
Prof. David Enoch HUJ
Prof. Yehouda Enzel HUJI
Prof. Daphna Erdinast-Vulcan Haifa U
Prof. Ilan Eshel TAU
Prof. Aharon Eviatar TAU
Dr. Zohar Eytan TAU
Dr. Ovadia Ezra TAU
Prof. Raphael Falk HUJI
Prof. Ruma Falk HUJI
Prof. Emmanuel Farjoun HUJI
Prof. Celia Fassberg HUJI
Prof. Steve Fassberg HUJI
Dr. Jackie Feldman BG
Prof. Rivka Feldhay TAU
Dr. Tovi Fenster, TAU
Dr. Dani Filc BGU
Dr. Lizzie Fireman TAU
Prof. Menachem Fisch TAU
Dr. Susie Fisher Open U
Prof. Hanan Frenk TAU
Prof. Gideon Freudenthal TAU
Prof. Ariela Fridman TAU
Prof. Ehud Friedgut HUJI
Prof. Eli Friedlander TAU
Dr. Alon Friedman BGU
Dr. Paul Frosh HUJI
Dr. Iris Fry Technion
Prof. Michael Fry Technion
Dr. Michalle Gal TAU
Prof. Yolanda Gampel TAU
Prof. Uri Gat HUJI
Prof. Nima Geffen TAU
Dr. Ido Geiger HUJI
Prof. Deborah Gera HUJI
Prof. Israel Gershoni TAU
Dr. Mahmud Ghanayim TAU
Prof. Avner Giladi Haifa U
Dr. Asaf Gilboa Haifa U
Dr. Jack Gilrom BGU
Prof. Ruth Ginsburg HUJI
Prof. Simona Ginsburg OU
Prof. Rachel Giora TAU
Dr. Snait Gissis TAU
Prof.essor Eli Glasner TAU
Prof. Ruth Glasner HUJI
Prof. Marek Glezerman TAU
Mr. Shuka Glotman BGU
Prof. Michael Gluzman TAU
Dr. Tamar Golan BGU
Dr. Menachem Goldenberg TAU
Prof. Haim Goldfus BGU
Prof. Amiram Goldblum HUJI
Prof. Oded Goldreich Weizmann
Prof. Hari Golomb TAU
Dr. Neve Gordon BGU
Dr. Tresa Grauer BGU
Dr. Moki Greefeld TAU
Dr. Matine Grenak-Katrivs TAU
Prof. Nachum Gross HUJI
Prof. Yosef Gruenbaum HUJI
Prof. Guretzki-Bilu TAU
Prof. Zali Gurevitch HUJI
Prof. David Gurwitz TAU
Prof. Yossi Guttmann Haifa U
Dr. Ran Hacohen TAU
Prof. Uri Hadar TAU
Dr. Abdulla Haj Ichia HUJI
Prof. Aviva Halamish TAU
Dr. Masud Hamdan Haifa U
Dr. Talma Handler TAU
Dr. Oren Harman BI
Prof. Alon Harel HUJI
Prof. Ran Hassin HUJI
Prof. Galit Hazan-Rokem HUJI
Prof. Shlomo Hasson HUJI
Prof. Abraham Hefetz TAU
Prof. Moti Heiblum Weizmann
Dr. Sibyl Heilbron Haifa U
Dr. Eyal Heifetz TAU
Dr. Sara Helman BGU
Prof. Yitzhak Hen BGU
Dr. Omri Herzog HUJI
Dr. Tamar Hess HUJI
Prof. Hannan Hever TAU
Dr. Sylvie Honigman TAU
Prof. Ehud Hrushovski HUJI
Prof. Boaz Huss BGU
Prof. Eva Illuz HUJI
Dr. Anat Israeli, Oranim
Prof. Eva Jablonka TAU
Prof. Dan Jacobson TAU
Prof. Sulaiman Jubran TAU
Prof. Edouard Jurkevitch HUJI
Dr. Nirit Kadmon TAU
Dr. Devora Kalekin Haifa U
Dr. Itay Kama TAU
Dr. Avi Kaplan BGU
Dr. Nahum Karlinsky BGU
Prof. Steve Karlish Weizmann
Prof. Rimon Kasher BIU
Prof. Tamar Katriel Haifa U
Prof. Yaakov Katriel Technion
Dr. Roni Kaufman BGU
Prof. Gad Kaynar TAU
Dr. Chen Keasar BGU
Ms. Ruth Kener TAU
Prof. Michael Keren HUJI
Dr Nadera Shalhov-Kevorkian HUJI
Prof. Hanan J. Kisch BGU
Dr. Menachem Klein BI
Prof. Sara Klein Breslavy TAU
Dr. Yoel Klemes Open U
Prof. Ruth Klinov HUJI
Dr. Ariel Knafo HUJI
Prof. Yehoshua Kolodny, HUJI
Prof. Mordechai Kremnizer HUJI
Prof. David Kretzmer HUJI
Dr. Michal Krumer-Nevo BGU
Prof. Richard Kulka HUJI
Dr. Orna Kupferman HUJI
Dr. Raz Kupferman HUJI
Dr. Ron Kuzar Haifa U
Dr. Ori Lahav Technion
Prof. Lius Landa BGU
Prof. Idan Landau BGU
MS. Tali Latowicki BGU
Dr. Shai Lavi TAU
Prof. Boaz Lazar HUJI
Dr. Gerardo Leibner, TAU
Prof. Aaron Lerner Haifa U
Prof. Haim Levanon HUJI
Prof. Iris Levin TAU
Prof. Yakir Levin BGU
Prof. Shimon Levy TAU
Prof. David Lior HUJI
Dr Orly Lubin TAU
Prof. Yael Lubin BGU
Dr. Menachem Luz Haifa U
Prof. M. Machover HUJI
Dr. Daniel Maman BGU
Dr. Shmuel Marco TAU
Prof. Avishai Margalit HUJI
Prof. Moshe Margalith TAU
Prof. Shimon Marom Technion
Prof. Imauel Marx TAU
Dr. Anat Matar TAU
Prof. Tsevi Mazeh TAU
Prof. Raphael Mechoulam HUJI
Prof. Gidon Medini TAU
Prof. Avinoam Meir BGU
Prof. Ron Meir Technion
Prof. Yoram Meital BGU
Dr. Eran Meshorer HUJI
Mr. Avi Mograbi Bezalel
Prof. Raya Morag HUJI
Dr. Efrat Morin HUJI
Prof. Uzi Motro, HUJI
Prof. Guy Mundlak TAU
Prof. Ben Zion Munitz TAU
Dr Eti Nachliel TAU
Prof. Zvi Neeman TAU
Prof. Yosef Neuman TAU
Dr. Yitshak Nevo BGU
Dr. Gidi Nevo BGU
Prof. David Newman BGU
Prof.. Ariel Novoplanky BGU
Prof. Avi Ohry TAU
Prof. Dalia Ofer HUJI
Dr. Yanai Ofran BIU
Prof. Adi Ophir TAU
Prof. Aharon Oppenheimer TAU
Prof. Avi Oz Haifa U
Prof. Iris Parush BGU
Dr. Galia Patt Shamir TAU
Dr. Einat Peled TAU
Dr. Yoav Peled TAU
Prof. Bezalel Peleg HUJI
Prof. Hana Peres TAU
Prof. Mordechai Perl BGU
Prof. Kobi Peter( Peterzil) Haifa U
Dr. Amit Pichevski HUJI
Dr. Yona Pinson TAU
Prof. Nava Pliskin BGU
Prof.. Francis Dov Por HUJI
Prof.. Dan Rabinowitz TAU
Prof. Gad Rabinowitz BGU
Prof. Chaim Rachman Technion
Prof. Yoel Rak TAU
Dr. Hagai Ram BGU
Prof. Uri Ram BGU
Prof. Mauro Rathaous TAU
Prof. Shalom Ratzabi TAU
Dr. Tal Raviv TAU
Prof. Jacob Raz, TAU
Prof. Elchanan Reiner TAU
Prof. Omer Reingold Weizmann
Prof. Meir Rigby HUJI
Prof. Ruth Rigby HUJI
Dr. Roer-Strier HUJI
Prof. Freddie Rokem TAU
Prof. Dana Ron TAU
Prof. Moshe Ron HUJI
Dr. Ayala Ronal TAU
Prof. Steven Rosen BGU
Prof. Tova Rosen BGU
Dr. Zeev Rosenhek OPU
Dr. Issachar Rosen-Zvi TAU
Prof. Susan Rothstein BI
Prof. Elisheva Rosen TAU
Dr. Avi Rubin BGU
Dr. Prof. Bella Rubin TAU
Mr. Daniel Rubinstein BGU
Dr. Ilan Saban Haifa U
Prof. Yosef Sadan TAU
Dr. Hanna Safran Haifa U
Prof. Shlomo Sand TAU
Prof. Shifra Sagi BGU
Dr. Lilach Sagiv HUJI
Prof. Edwin Seroussi HUJI
Dr. Zvi Schuldiner Sapir College
Dr. Sara Schwartz Open U
Dr. Yossef Schwartz TAU
Dr. Shlomi Segall HUJ
Dr. Ella Segev Technion
Prof. Idan Segev HUJI
Prof. Ruben Seroussi TAU
Dr. Alla Shainskaya, Weizmann
Dr. Yeala Shaked HUJI
Dr. Milette Shamir TAU
Prof. Michal Shamir TAU
Dr. Ronen Shamir TAU
Dr. Yaakov Shamir HUJI
Prof. Benny Shanon HUJI
Prof. Itzhak Shapira TAU
MS. Noa Shashar HUJI
Dr. Relli Shechter BGU
Prof.. Gaby Shefler HUJI
Prof. Miriam Shlesinger BI
Prof. Yehuda Shenhav TAU
Prof. Yosef Shiloh TAU
Prof. Tal Siloni TAU
Dr. Eyal Shimoni Weizmann
Prof. Naomi Shir BGU
Prof. Moshe Shokeid TAU
Prof. Boaz Shushan BGU
Dr. Tal Shuval TAU
Prof. Moshe Silberbush, BGU
Dr. Ivy Sichel HUJI
Dr. Rosalie Sitman TAU
Dr. Vered Slonim Nevo BGU
Prof. Varda Soskolne BIU
Prof. Avishai Stark TAU
Prof. Wilfo Stein HUJI
Prof. Shamai Speiser Technion
Prof. W. D. Zeev Stein HUJI
Prof. Carlo Strenger TAU
Dr. Deborah Sweeney, TAU
Dr. Daniella Talmon-Heller BGU
Prof. David Talshir BGU
Dr. Daphne Tsimhoni Technion
Prof. Gideon Toury, TAU
Dr. Hamoutal Tsamir BGU
Prof. Yoav Tsori BGU
Dr. Rachel Tzelnik-Abramovitch TAU
Prof. Joseph Tzelgov BGU
Dr. Jehuda (Dudy) Tzfati HUJI
Prof. Edna Ullmann Margalit HUJI
Prof. Sabetai Unguru TAU
Dr. Vered Vitizky-Seroussi HUJI
Prof. Naphtali Wagner HUJI
Prof. Alon Warburg HUJI
Dr. Eynel Wardi HUJI
Prof. Henry Wassermann OPU
Dr. Nathan Wasserman HUJI
Prof.. Ruth Weintraub TAU
Dr. Barak Weiss BGU
Dr. Haim Weiss BGU
Prof. Sasha Weitman TAU
Prof. Haim Werner TAU
Prof. Yehuda Werner HUJI
Prof. Paul Wexler TAU
Prof.. Yoad Winter Technion
Dr. Nurit Yaari TAU
Prof. Yoel Yaari HUJI
Dr. Haim Yacobi BGU
Dr. Niza Yanay BGU
Prof. Eli Yassif TAU
Dr. Mahmoud Yazbak Haifa U
Dr. Edit Yerushalmi Weizmann
Prof. Oren Yiftachel BGU
Dr. Daphna Yoel TAU
Prof. Yuval Yonay Haifa U
Prof. Mira Zakai TAU
Dr. Michael Zakim TAU
Prof. Shmuel Zamir HUJI
Prof. Anat Zanger TAU
Prof. Joseph Zeira HUJI
Dr. Dina Zilberg BGU
Prof. Moshe Zimmermann HUJI
Dr. Michal Zion BIU
Dr. Amalia Ziv TAU
Dr. Ouriel Zohar Technion
Dr. Tsaffrir Zor TAU
Prof. Moshe Zuckermann TAU

http://academic-access.weebly.com/

Posted on 26-07-2008

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

———- Forwarded message ———
From: <e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Subject: Palestine Solidarity Campaign, which launched the Boycott Israeli Goods Campaign, adopts the Petition Issued by Israeli Academics
To:

http://bigcampaign.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=220&cntnt01origid=82&cntnt01dateformat=%25d%20%25b%20%25Y&cntnt01returnid=72 The BIG Campaign (Boycott Israeli Goods) 10 Aug 2008

Academic freedom for whom? Israeli academics


Academic boycott

This important petition (below) issued by Israeli academics provides further support for PACBI’s consistent denunciation of the Israeli academy for its complicity in the system of oppression against Palestinians and its silence about the long-standing violation of the basic freedoms — including the academic freedom — of Palestinians. Comment by PACBI:

The petition also vindicates PACBI in its campaign for the institutional boycott of the Israeli academy.

As the background to the petition makes clear, the Israeli academy is not the bastion of dissent it is purported to be by those seeking to defend it and thus delegitimize the call for the academic boycott of Israel. The vast majority of the Israeli academic community are oblivious to the oppression of the Palestinian people — both inside Israel and in the occupied territory — and have never fought to oppose the practices and policies of their state. In fact, they duly serve in the reserve forces of the occupation army and as such are either perpetrators of or silent witnesses to the daily brutality of the occupation. They also do not hesitate to partner in their academic research with the security-military establishment that is the chief architect and executor of the occupation and other forms of oppression of the Palestinian people.

This initiative also shows that sadly, even those who wish to rouse their colleagues from their slumber seem to be the victims of amnesia or else are willfully ignoring the basic political context within which the academic freedom of Palestinian academics and students is being violated. That context is no other than the illegal, four-decades-old military occupation of Palestinian land, an occupation that has striven consistently to destroy Palestinian society and its institutions, including universities. That a petition issued by academics ignores this basic fact and is unwilling to condemn the occupation regime is very telling.

http://www.pacbi.org/boycott_news_more.php?id=792_0_1_0_C

Text of the Petition Issued by Israeli Academics:

Academic freedom for whom?

The meaning of “academic freedom” is fairly obvious. It is something that is associated with democratic societies, and it is universally held in high esteem, even though its boundaries and limits are often unclear. Basically, where there is freedom to teach, study and carry out research in academic institutions, and to publish research-related books and articles, then academic freedom exists.

It is clear that there can be no real academic freedom in higher education unless it is possible to reach the institutions where one studies, teaches, and carries out research. Academics within the State of Israel are able to do this, but those working in the higher education institutions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are not. There, checkpoints, blockades, walls and fences prevent thousands of students and teachers from leading a normal academic life, and lecturers with non-Palestinian passports, who wish to teach in those institutions, are prevented from staying for long enough to carry out meaningful continuous teaching.

The academic community of the State of Israel, which rightly demands academic freedom for its members both inside Israel and within the international academic community, has generally disregarded the demand for a similar freedom for Palestinian academics in the Occupied Territories for which the State of Israel is responsible. Because of this, and in view of the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Territories during the last couple of years, we approached all the senior faculty members in the major higher education and scientific research institutions in Israel: Bar Ilan University, Ben Gurion University, Haifa University, The Hebrew University, The Open University, the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology), Tel Aviv University, and the Weizmann Institute for Science. We sent them the following letter and petition:

Dear colleagues:

As academics and citizens of the State of Israel, whatever our political opinions may be, we see ourselves as having a duty to fight for the academic freedom of our Palestinian colleagues. We call upon the Government of Israel to honour and implement the right of freedom of movement, academic study and instruction in the State of Israel and the territories controlled by it. Academic freedom is not divisible and cannot be selective. The State of Israel and we its citizens are directly responsible for upholding that freedom.

We call upon you to actively accept that responsibility and to add your support to the attached petition, which is being distributed among all senior staff members in all institutions of higher education in Israel. After the signatures have been gathered, we intend to seek the support of the Committee of University Presidents and members of the Israeli Academy of Science, and to submit the petition to the following government ministries: Defence, Education, Science, Foreign Affairs, and the Interior.

Sincerely,

The initiators of the petition:

Prof. Menachem Fisch, Tel-Aviv University

Prof. Raphael Falk, The Hebrew University

Prof. Eva Jablonka, Tel-Aviv University

Dr. Snait Gissis, Tel-Aviv University


Text of the petition

We, past and present members of academic staff of Israeli universities, express great concern regarding the ongoing deterioration of the system of higher education in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. We protest against the policy of our government which is causing restrictions of freedom of movement, study and instruction, and we call upon the government to allow students and lecturers free access to all the campuses in the Territories, and to allow lecturers and students who hold foreign passports to teach and study without being threatened with withdrawal of residence visas. To leave the situation as it is will cause serious harm to freedom of movement, study and instruction – harm to the foundation of academic freedom, to which we are committed.

We sent about 9000 emails, of which around 5000 were to senior faculty and the rest to emeriti and junior faculty at some of the institutions. These numbers should be reduced by about 5% to allow for the emails that were returned. In order not to misuse the internal all-university lists, all email addresses were manually downloaded from the open-to-the-public sites of university departments. A total of 407 people, 403 of whom are mostly active senior faculty, (but also include emeriti and junior staff) from the above institutions, as well as 4 signatures from senior faculty of Colleges who became aware of our petition, responded to our call and signed the petition. It is our intention to publicize the list of signatories on the web.

The number of signatories from each university is as follows:

Bar Ilan University 10

Ben Gurion University 77

Haifa University 20

Hebrew University 110

Open University 7

Technion 14

Tel Aviv University 155

Weizmann Institute of Science 10

Sapir College 2

Oranim 1

Bezalel 1

We received a number of letters objecting to our call: some of the authors sent reasoned responses, arguing their case against our petition; others chose to send insulting hate mail.

At the Weitzman Institute of Science, one of the heads of the departments sent a letter via the Academic Affairs Office to all the senior faculty of that institute. In it, he warned the faculty of the danger lurking in our call, basing his argument on very inaccurate rumours about the political stance of the initiators of the petition.

In March 2008 we wrote to the Committee of University Presidents and to the Directorial Board of the Israeli Academy of Science asking them to support our petition. So far, the only answer received has been that our request would be considered.

We are well aware that only rarely do petitions cause a change in a political state of affairs. However, we do not doubt that when there are enough people in the Israeli academic community who are prepared to voice their objection to the conditions under which their colleagues in Palestinian higher education institutions have to work, and do all they can to ensure that their Palestinian counterparts have the same academic freedom that they enjoy, we shall all benefit – Israeli and Palestinian academics alike.

Prof. Menachem Fisch, Tel-Aviv University

Prof. Raphael Falk, The Hebrew University

Prof. Eva Jablonka, Tel-Aviv University

Dr. Snait Gissis, Tel-Aviv University

List of Signatories

Dr. Aref Abu-Rabia BGU
Dr. Tabat Abu Ras BGU
Prof. Zach Adam HUJI
Prof. Hanna Adoni HUJI
Dr. Riad Agrabia BGU
Prof. Ron Aharoni Technion
Dr. Iris Agmon BGU
Prof. Joseph Agassi TAU
Prof. Amotz Agnin HUJI
Prof. Ofer Aharoni Weizmann
Prof. Niv Ahituv TAU
Prof. Gadi Algazi TAU
Dr. Karen Alkalay Gut TAU
Dr. Yoav Alon TAU
Prof. Ehud Altman Weizmann
Dr. Tammy Amiel – Hauser TAU
Dr. Eleanor Amit TAU
Prof. Gannit Ankori HU
Prof. Yonathan Anson BGU
Dr. Ruth Arav OPU
Prof. Mira Ariel TAU
Dr. Amos Arieli Weizmann
Prof. Boaz Arpaly TAU
Dr. Ruth Ashery-Padan TAU
Dr. Nurit Ashkenasy BGU
Dr. Daniel Attas HUJ
Prof. Judy Auerbach BGU
Dr. Michal Aviad TAU
Dr. Yoram Ayal BGU
Dr. Prof. Amir Ayali TAU
Dr. Ariela Azoulay BIU
Prof. Roi Baer HUJI
Prof. Shalom Baer HUJI
Dr. Amir Banbaji BGU
Prof. Gad Baneth HUJI
Prof. Ilan Bank TAU
Prof. Maya Bar-Hillel HUJI
Prof. Eitan Bar Yosef BGU
Dr. Oren Barak HUJI
Prof. Isaac Barash, TAU
Prof. Ron Barkai TAU
Prof. Yacob Barnai Haifa U
Prof. Shosh Bar-Nun TAU
Prof. Arie Bass TAU
Prof. Outi Bat-El TAU
Prof. Hava Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot TAU
Prof. Yehuda Bauer HUJI
Dr. Dalia Beck BGU
Prof. Yhuda Beeton BGU
Dr. Guy Beiner BGU
Prof. Shimshon Belkin HUJI
Prof. Avner Ben-Amos TAU
Prof. Eyal Ben Ari HUJI
Dr Hagit Benbaji BGU
Prof. Yemima Ben-Menachem HUJI
Prof. Ziva Ben-Porat, TAU
Prof. Yinon Ben-Neriah, HUJI
Prof. Simon Benninga TAU
Prof. Zvi Bentwich BGU
Dr. Yael Benyamini TAU
Dr. Yael Ben-Zvi BGU
Prof. Benjamin Isaac TAU
Dr. Nitza Berkovitch BGU
Dr. Louise Bethlehem HUJI
Prof. Anat Biletzki TAU
Prof. Yoram Bilu HUJI
Prof. David Blanc Haifa U
Prof. Rony Blum HUJI
Prof. Shoshana Blum-Kulka HUJI
Prof. Irena Botwinik-Rotem BGU
Prof. Yohanan Brada HUJI
Prof. Michael Brandeis HUJI
Prof. Yigal Bronner TAU
Prof. Jose Brunner TAU
Prof. Judith Buber Agassi HUJI
Prof. Victoria Buch HUJI
Dr. Naama Carmi Haifa U
Dr. Julia Chaitin Sapir College
Prof. Reuven Chayoth BGU
Dr. Raz Chen- Morris BIU
Prof. Mottie Chevion HUJI
Dr. Tamar Cholcman TAU
Dr. Eyal Chowers TAU
Prof. Esther Cohen HUJI
Prof. Michael J. Cohen BIU
Prof. Yerachmiel Cohen HUJI
Dr. Yinon Cohen TAU
Mrs. Anat Danziger HUJI
Prof. Marcelo Dascal TAU
Prof. Nathan Dascal TAU
Prof. David Degani Technion
Prof. Sahul Dollberg TAU
Prof. Fanny Dolzhansky HUJI
Dr. Daniel Dor TAU
Prof. Yuval Dor HUJI
Dr. Iris Dotan TAU
Prof. Tommy Dreyfus TAU
Prof. Amos Dreyfus HUJI
Dr Eli Dresner TAU
Dr Otniel Dror HUJI
Dr Tammy Eilat Yagoury TAU
Prof. Gerda Elata-Alster BGU
Prof. Miri Eliav-Feldon TAU
Prof. David Enoch HUJ
Prof. Yehouda Enzel HUJI
Prof. Daphna Erdinast-Vulcan Haifa U
Prof. Ilan Eshel TAU
Prof. Aharon Eviatar TAU
Dr. Zohar Eytan TAU
Dr. Ovadia Ezra TAU
Prof. Raphael Falk HUJI
Prof. Ruma Falk HUJI
Prof. Emmanuel Farjoun HUJI
Prof. Celia Fassberg HUJI
Prof. Steve Fassberg HUJI
Dr. Jackie Feldman BG
Prof. Rivka Feldhay TAU
Dr. Tovi Fenster, TAU
Dr. Dani Filc BGU
Dr. Lizzie Fireman TAU
Prof. Menachem Fisch TAU
Dr. Susie Fisher Open U
Prof. Hanan Frenk TAU
Prof. Gideon Freudenthal TAU
Prof. Ariela Fridman TAU
Prof. Ehud Friedgut HUJI
Prof. Eli Friedlander TAU
Dr. Alon Friedman BGU
Dr. Paul Frosh HUJI
Dr. Iris Fry Technion
Prof. Michael Fry Technion
Dr. Michalle Gal TAU
Prof. Yolanda Gampel TAU
Prof. Uri Gat HUJI
Prof. Nima Geffen TAU
Dr. Ido Geiger HUJI
Prof. Deborah Gera HUJI
Prof. Israel Gershoni TAU
Dr. Mahmud Ghanayim TAU
Prof. Avner Giladi Haifa U
Dr. Asaf Gilboa Haifa U
Dr. Jack Gilrom BGU
Prof. Ruth Ginsburg HUJI
Prof. Simona Ginsburg OU
Prof. Rachel Giora TAU
Dr. Snait Gissis TAU
Prof.essor Eli Glasner TAU
Prof. Ruth Glasner HUJI
Prof. Marek Glezerman TAU
Mr. Shuka Glotman BGU
Prof. Michael Gluzman TAU
Dr. Tamar Golan BGU
Dr. Menachem Goldenberg TAU
Prof. Haim Goldfus BGU
Prof. Amiram Goldblum HUJI
Prof. Oded Goldreich Weizmann
Prof. Hari Golomb TAU
Dr. Neve Gordon BGU
Dr. Tresa Grauer BGU
Dr. Moki Greefeld TAU
Dr. Matine Grenak-Katrivs TAU
Prof. Nachum Gross HUJI
Prof. Yosef Gruenbaum HUJI
Prof. Guretzki-Bilu TAU
Prof. Zali Gurevitch HUJI
Prof. David Gurwitz TAU
Prof. Yossi Guttmann Haifa U
Dr. Ran Hacohen TAU
Prof. Uri Hadar TAU
Dr. Abdulla Haj Ichia HUJI
Prof. Aviva Halamish TAU
Dr. Masud Hamdan Haifa U
Dr. Talma Handler TAU
Dr. Oren Harman BI
Prof. Alon Harel HUJI
Prof. Ran Hassin HUJI
Prof. Galit Hazan-Rokem HUJI
Prof. Shlomo Hasson HUJI
Prof. Abraham Hefetz TAU
Prof. Moti Heiblum Weizmann
Dr. Sibyl Heilbron Haifa U
Dr. Eyal Heifetz TAU
Dr. Sara Helman BGU
Prof. Yitzhak Hen BGU
Dr. Omri Herzog HUJI
Dr. Tamar Hess HUJI
Prof. Hannan Hever TAU
Dr. Sylvie Honigman TAU
Prof. Ehud Hrushovski HUJI
Prof. Boaz Huss BGU
Prof. Eva Illuz HUJI
Dr. Anat Israeli, Oranim
Prof. Eva Jablonka TAU
Prof. Dan Jacobson TAU
Prof. Sulaiman Jubran TAU
Prof. Edouard Jurkevitch HUJI
Dr. Nirit Kadmon TAU
Dr. Devora Kalekin Haifa U
Dr. Itay Kama TAU
Dr. Avi Kaplan BGU
Dr. Nahum Karlinsky BGU
Prof. Steve Karlish Weizmann
Prof. Rimon Kasher BIU
Prof. Tamar Katriel Haifa U
Prof. Yaakov Katriel Technion
Dr. Roni Kaufman BGU
Prof. Gad Kaynar TAU
Dr. Chen Keasar BGU
Ms. Ruth Kener TAU
Prof. Michael Keren HUJI
Dr Nadera Shalhov-Kevorkian HUJI
Prof. Hanan J. Kisch BGU
Dr. Menachem Klein BI
Prof. Sara Klein Breslavy TAU
Dr. Yoel Klemes Open U
Prof. Ruth Klinov HUJI
Dr. Ariel Knafo HUJI
Prof. Yehoshua Kolodny, HUJI
Prof. Mordechai Kremnizer HUJI
Prof. David Kretzmer HUJI
Dr. Michal Krumer-Nevo BGU
Prof. Richard Kulka HUJI
Dr. Orna Kupferman HUJI
Dr. Raz Kupferman HUJI
Dr. Ron Kuzar Haifa U
Dr. Ori Lahav Technion
Prof. Lius Landa BGU
Prof. Idan Landau BGU
MS. Tali Latowicki BGU
Dr. Shai Lavi TAU
Prof. Boaz Lazar HUJI
Dr. Gerardo Leibner, TAU
Prof. Aaron Lerner Haifa U
Prof. Haim Levanon HUJI
Prof. Iris Levin TAU
Prof. Yakir Levin BGU
Prof. Shimon Levy TAU
Prof. David Lior HUJI
Dr Orly Lubin TAU
Prof. Yael Lubin BGU
Dr. Menachem Luz Haifa U
Prof. M. Machover HUJI
Dr. Daniel Maman BGU
Dr. Shmuel Marco TAU
Prof. Avishai Margalit HUJI
Prof. Moshe Margalith TAU
Prof. Shimon Marom Technion
Prof. Imauel Marx TAU
Dr. Anat Matar TAU
Prof. Tsevi Mazeh TAU
Prof. Raphael Mechoulam HUJI
Prof. Gidon Medini TAU
Prof. Avinoam Meir BGU
Prof. Ron Meir Technion
Prof. Yoram Meital BGU
Dr. Eran Meshorer HUJI
Mr. Avi Mograbi Bezalel
Prof. Raya Morag HUJI
Dr. Efrat Morin HUJI
Prof. Uzi Motro, HUJI
Prof. Guy Mundlak TAU
Prof. Ben Zion Munitz TAU
Dr Eti Nachliel TAU
Prof. Zvi Neeman TAU
Prof. Yosef Neuman TAU
Dr. Yitshak Nevo BGU
Dr. Gidi Nevo BGU
Prof. David Newman BGU
Prof.. Ariel Novoplanky BGU
Prof. Avi Ohry TAU
Prof. Dalia Ofer HUJI
Dr. Yanai Ofran BIU
Prof. Adi Ophir TAU
Prof. Aharon Oppenheimer TAU
Prof. Avi Oz Haifa U
Prof. Iris Parush BGU
Dr. Galia Patt Shamir TAU
Dr. Einat Peled TAU
Dr. Yoav Peled TAU
Prof. Bezalel Peleg HUJI
Prof. Hana Peres TAU
Prof. Mordechai Perl BGU
Prof. Kobi Peter( Peterzil) Haifa U
Dr. Amit Pichevski HUJI
Dr. Yona Pinson TAU
Prof. Nava Pliskin BGU
Prof.. Francis Dov Por HUJI
Prof.. Dan Rabinowitz TAU
Prof. Gad Rabinowitz BGU
Prof. Chaim Rachman Technion
Prof. Yoel Rak TAU
Dr. Hagai Ram BGU
Prof. Uri Ram BGU
Prof. Mauro Rathaous TAU
Prof. Shalom Ratzabi TAU
Dr. Tal Raviv TAU
Prof. Jacob Raz, TAU
Prof. Elchanan Reiner TAU
Prof. Omer Reingold Weizmann
Prof. Meir Rigby HUJI
Prof. Ruth Rigby HUJI
Dr. Roer-Strier HUJI
Prof. Freddie Rokem TAU
Prof. Dana Ron TAU
Prof. Moshe Ron HUJI
Dr. Ayala Ronal TAU
Prof. Steven Rosen BGU
Prof. Tova Rosen BGU
Dr. Zeev Rosenhek OPU
Dr. Issachar Rosen-Zvi TAU
Prof. Susan Rothstein BI
Prof. Elisheva Rosen TAU
Dr. Avi Rubin BGU
Dr. Prof. Bella Rubin TAU
Mr. Daniel Rubinstein BGU
Dr. Ilan Saban Haifa U
Prof. Yosef Sadan TAU
Dr. Hanna Safran Haifa U
Prof. Shlomo Sand TAU
Prof. Shifra Sagi BGU
Dr. Lilach Sagiv HUJI
Prof. Edwin Seroussi HUJI
Dr. Zvi Schuldiner Sapir College
Dr. Sara Schwartz Open U
Dr. Yossef Schwartz TAU
Dr. Shlomi Segall HUJ
Dr. Ella Segev Technion
Prof. Idan Segev HUJI
Prof. Ruben Seroussi TAU
Dr. Alla Shainskaya, Weizmann
Dr. Yeala Shaked HUJI
Dr. Milette Shamir TAU
Prof. Michal Shamir TAU
Dr. Ronen Shamir TAU
Dr. Yaakov Shamir HUJI
Prof. Benny Shanon HUJI
Prof. Itzhak Shapira TAU
MS. Noa Shashar HUJI
Dr. Relli Shechter BGU
Prof.. Gaby Shefler HUJI
Prof. Miriam Shlesinger BI
Prof. Yehuda Shenhav TAU
Prof. Yosef Shiloh TAU
Prof. Tal Siloni TAU
Dr. Eyal Shimoni Weizmann
Prof. Naomi Shir BGU
Prof. Moshe Shokeid TAU
Prof. Boaz Shushan BGU
Dr. Tal Shuval TAU
Prof. Moshe Silberbush, BGU
Dr. Ivy Sichel HUJI
Dr. Rosalie Sitman TAU
Dr. Vered Slonim Nevo BGU
Prof. Varda Soskolne BIU
Prof. Avishai Stark TAU
Prof. Wilfo Stein HUJI
Prof. Shamai Speiser Technion
Prof. W. D. Zeev Stein HUJI
Prof. Carlo Strenger TAU
Dr. Deborah Sweeney, TAU
Dr. Daniella Talmon-Heller BGU
Prof. David Talshir BGU
Dr. Daphne Tsimhoni Technion
Prof. Gideon Toury, TAU
Dr. Hamoutal Tsamir BGU
Prof. Yoav Tsori BGU
Dr. Rachel Tzelnik-Abramovitch TAU
Prof. Joseph Tzelgov BGU
Dr. Jehuda (Dudy) Tzfati HUJI
Prof. Edna Ullmann Margalit HUJI
Prof. Sabetai Unguru TAU
Dr. Vered Vitizky-Seroussi HUJI
Prof. Naphtali Wagner HUJI
Prof. Alon Warburg HUJI
Dr. Eynel Wardi HUJI
Prof. Henry Wassermann OPU
Dr. Nathan Wasserman HUJI
Prof.. Ruth Weintraub TAU
Dr. Barak Weiss BGU
Dr. Haim Weiss BGU
Prof. Sasha Weitman TAU
Prof. Haim Werner TAU
Prof. Yehuda Werner HUJI
Prof. Paul Wexler TAU
Prof.. Yoad Winter Technion
Dr. Nurit Yaari TAU
Prof. Yoel Yaari HUJI
Dr. Haim Yacobi BGU
Dr. Niza Yanay BGU
Prof. Eli Yassif TAU
Dr. Mahmoud Yazbak Haifa U
Dr. Edit Yerushalmi Weizmann
Prof. Oren Yiftachel BGU
Dr. Daphna Yoel TAU
Prof. Yuval Yonay Haifa U
Prof. Mira Zakai TAU
Dr. Michael Zakim TAU
Prof. Shmuel Zamir HUJI
Prof. Anat Zanger TAU
Prof. Joseph Zeira HUJI
Dr. Dina Zilberg BGU
Prof. Moshe Zimmermann HUJI
Dr. Michal Zion BIU
Dr. Amalia Ziv TAU
Dr. Ouriel Zohar Technion
Dr. Tsaffrir Zor TAU
Prof. Moshe Zuckermann TAU
http://academic-access.weebly.com/
 The Big Campaign

The Palestine Solidarity Campaign launched the Boycott Israeli Goods Campaign in the House of Commons on the 4th July 2001. There had been calls for a boycott from within Israel itself as well as in the Occupied Territories.

Our decision to launch the BIG Campaign followed decades of Israel ‘s refusal to abide by UN Resolutions, International Humanitarian law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

On 9th June 2005, after the International Court of Justice’s ruling against Israel’s apartheid wall, a coalition of Palestinian Civil Society Organisations issued a ‘Call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against apartheid Israel until it complies with International Law’.

Boycott Israeli goods intends to campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions in line with this call from Palestinian civil society.

We will organise supporters to

  • Boycott Israeli goods and services
  • Boycott Israeli cultural and sporting institutions who do not condemn Israel’s ilegal occupation
  • Boycott Israeli academic institutions and academics who do not condemn Israel’s ilegal occupation
  • Promote a campaign against tourism in apartheid Israel
  • Promote divestment from companies who invest in apartheid Israel or profit from Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies
  • To camapign against companies who invest in apartheid Israel or profit from Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies
  • To persuade businesses to stop trading with apartheid Israel
  • To campaign for an end to European Union and British government trade agreements with Israel
  • To campaign for UK and EU sanctions against apartheid Israel until it complies with international humanitarian law
  • To promote initiatives to decrease the isolation of the occupied Palestinian people and promote ethical, fairly traded Palestinian goods.

====================================================================
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~oded/politicsJan03.html

My political views

Oded Goldreich, January 2003.

Summary

The Israeli society has been degenerating morally and intellectually for several decades and reached a disgusting low point. This degeneration is due in part to a global degeneration (lead by the USA), but is actually dominated by a local factor. The latter is the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Thus, the single most important change that should take place is the immediate ending of this occupation. Other recommended actions include

A concrete suggestion: support HADASH, the only political party in the parliament that is committed to all these views. Meretz, the Labor Party and the Arab parties (i.e., Balad and Ra’am) share some of these views (in some cases in very moderate versions) but are not fully committed to all of them.

The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip

The most dominant source of evil in the Israeli society is the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This source of evil also contributes to several of the other problems discussed below. For example, the occupation strengthens the militaristic character of the Israeli society, fosters its contempt to human rights, and cultivates reactionary, ethnocentric, racist, and provincial attitudes. In addition, it causes severe economical and social problems and prevents a critical discussion of any other key issue (e.g., Globalization, Privatization and Capitalism).

However, the most evil part of the occupation is the occupation itself; that is, the violation of the most basic human right (i.e., freedom) of three million people (i.e., the Palestinians living in the occupied territories). In addition, Israel’s rule of these occupied territories is in clear violation of the globally-recognized duty of the ruler to administer and develop the occupied territory to the benefit of its residents. Needless to say, the settling of the ruler’s citizens in the occupied territories is not only implicitly forbidden by the above principle but is also explicitly forbidden by international law (which the Israeli administration disregards whenever it pleases). On top of this massive violation of human rights, Israel’s rule of the occupied territories is marked by an increasing number of war crimes ranging from murder (i.e., intentional killing of people without due process and/or sound justification), to causing death and severe injury of civilians in hundreds of cases (by criminal negligence), massive intentional destruction of private and public property (i.e., houses, plants, vehicles, equipment, etc), and the emprisonment and starvation of the entire population.

Typically, the justification offered for these violations and crimes is self-defense (“security reasons”), lack of other choice (i.e., “nobody to talk to”) and “common practice” (of other nations). These claims are neither valid nor the true reason for the continued occupation. But even if these claims were valid, a question of balance between legitimate concerns should have been seriously investigated (e.g., balance between the right of self-defense and the harm caused by specific actions taken according to that right). For example, when referring to the intentional killing of certain suspects, the questions are whether it is clear that this particular suspect plans to cause the death of other people and whether killing him/her is the only way to prevent him/her from carrying out this plan. Most if not all the intentional killing by the Israeli army cannot be justified by this defense; they are typically acts of revenge, which are sometimes directed against people that are not even responsible for any “act of terrorism” (but are rather political activists that are considered harmful to the cause of the continued occupation).

The continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip does not promote the security of the state of Israel, but rather endangers it. Indeed, alternative and far more effective security measures (at Israel’s borders with the Palestinian territories) would require far less (human and financial) resources than those wasted towards maintaining the occupation. The continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not performed in lack of other choice: Israel can just withdraw from there (as it did from the south of Lebanon) unilaterally and/or after negotiations with the Palestinians. If the topic of negotiation were withdrawal from the occupied territories as part of a lasting peace treaty then there would be no problem to find “somebody to talk to” on the Palestinian side. (The question is who is willing to conduct negotiations of such a realistic and justified agenda on the Israeli side.) Finally, the fact that other nations (mainly at other historical periods) have conducted worst crimes is not a justification for anything. Needless to say, the approval of the current USA administration (which conducts war crimes en route of its attempts to administer the entire world) is irrelevant.

The true reason for the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is the invested interest of part of the Israeli society in this occupation, the miscalculation of the damage caused by the occupation to the Israeli society, and its disregard of universal considerations (by a large portion of the Israeli society). In particular, the “settlers” have a direct personal interest in the continued occupation and seem oblivious to its cost (in terms of damage to the Israeli society not to mention the Palestinian one). Some businesses also have such an interest. In addition, parts of the Israeli right-wing, which has nothing to offer but hatred of the other and confrontation with it, has an interest in the continued occupation and confrontation that comes with it, and certainly is emotionally incapable in “giving up” anything significant towards a resolution.

The forces in the Israeli society that are truly committed to ending the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are in clear minority. Given the state of affairs described above, it is a moral duty to refuse to take part in any action that serves the occupation. Such a moral choice also carries the political benefit of making a firm statement to the rest of the society regarding the evil (and cost) involved in the occupation, and puts pressure on the forces that favor the continuation of the occupation. Thus, the moral refusal to take part in the occupation is also an important political step. This makes organizations like Yesh Gvul and Ometz Le’Sarev worthy of special support and respect.Globalization, Privatization and CapitalismCapitalism at its current brutal stage is reflected by two slogans: Privatization and Globalization. Privatization, which aims to strip the state from any economical activity (supposedly because it cannot efficiently-perform such activities), is actually the main tool for destructing the structures of social security that were established decades ago by the social-democratic (a.k.a reform capitalist) movement. Globalization acts similarly on a global scale. In both cases, real social benefits (and, in particular, securities) of the entire population are replaced by vague promises (of “prosperity that benefits all”) and unrealistic dreams (of social mobility) that are being disseminated by the mass media. Specifically, general prosperity did not follow when pure (rather than reformed) capitalism was given a free hand (at the last 20 years of the 20th century), and the general population has not benefited but rather suffered. As for social mobility, it occurs very rarely unless promoted by non-economical means (e.g., affirmative action). That is, real-life concerns are being replaced by false ideology. This process is not being orchestrated by a small group of conspirators, but is rather developing through the actions of many members of the society (especially by the intellectual elite and the middle class). Thus, the victims of this process contribute to its development.

The arguments in favor of Globalization, Privatization and Capitalism come all from traditional economics, which is kind of circular at least in case of Capitalism that can be defined as the view that everything should be measured in terms of money or cost/merchandise. But there is no reason to agree to the reduction of everything to costs and merchandise. On the contrary, one should object to this view, and in fact almost all people object to this view when it is carried out to the “moral sphere”; for example, people are not allowed to sell themselves as slaves, to hire others to murder somebody, to offer money for a vote in the election, etc. That is, murdering somebody is not allowed even if it can bring about great economical advantages. The same reasoning should be applied to restrict the behavior of companies in the national and international sphere. Working people should not be treated as merchandise, and social rights and securities should not be treated as merchandise. [Human should not be treated as a mean (or an instrument); Kant, Critique of Practical Reason]

Thus we reject Capitalism at its current brutal stage. The alternatives are either to reform Capitalism (i.e., make it more “human” and “sensitive”) or to turn to socialism (which, roughly speaking, means giving priority to work and workers over capital). Both alternatives are aimed at improving the well-being of mankind and differ on the question of whether this should be done by influencing the evoloution of the “capitalist system” or trying to replace it. The distinction that sound sematical, may be reflected in different attitudes towards concrete questions (which again reduce to the difference between a moderate change and a radical one). There is a big unjustified antagonism between these two alternatives, which stems from the false belief that struggleing towards one alternative hurts the success of the other. In particular, both theoretical consideration and historical experience show that it is harder to move from harsh Capitalism to socialism than it is to move from reformed Capitalism to socialism.

Human and Civil Rights

The low standing of Human Rights in Israel is strongly related to the need to deny the evils involved in maintaining the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The conflict that arises from the occupation (as well as the induced “Israeli-Arab conflict”) is also used to justify the discrimination of the Arab citizens inside Israel, which is also fostered by an identity crisis of the Jewish society in Israel. The latter also prevents any action towards a true separation of religious and state affairs. Instead, secular Jews in Israel develop a hatred towards religious Jews while maintaining an inferiority complex towards the traditional religious Jewish culture.

All these problems are amplified by the lack of a lack of a truly democratic tradition and weakness of the civil society. Instead, the ethos of the state and its army play a major role. In such an atmosphere, equal treatment of women is but a phantom. The same and worst holds with respect to the treatment of other forms of “Others” such as gay/lesbians, Arab citizens and foreign workers.

*********

Back to Goldreich’s homepage or to Oded’s political web-page

The Israeli Apartheid Week 2021 Begins on Campus

18.03.21

Editorial Note

The BDS movement has launched the global Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) of 2021.

In the UK, IAW is running between March 15 to 22. The long list of activities appears below:

-Monday 15th March at 6pm: SOAS Palestine Society: Understanding Palestine Through Gaza
-Tuesday 16th March at 6pm: University of Leicester Palestine Society with PSC. Understanding Israeli Apartheid w/ Lubnah Shomali, Dr Nimer Sultany, Rania Muhareb, Hazam Jamjoum
-Tuesday 16th March at 6pm: Lancaster University Friends of Palestine: Budrus Film Screening
-Tuesday 16th March at 6pm: SOAS Palestine Society: Imprisoning a Generation Documentary Screening.
-Tuesday 16th March at 6.30: Sussex Friends of Palestine Society: Medical Apartheid in Palestine w/ Dr Ghada Karmi
-Tuesday 16th March at 6pm: UCL SJP and KCL SJP: Shira Robinson on ‘Citizens Stranger: Palestinians in Israel’
-Wednesday 17th March at 6pm: University of Bristol Friends of Palestine: United Against Israeli Apartheid
-Wednesday 17th March: at 6pm Lancaster University Friends of Palestine: The Ongoing Nakba with Lubnah Shomali.
-Wednesday 17th March at 7pm: University of Exeter Friends of Palestine Society: Solidarity with Palestine and the IHRA
-Wednesday 17th March at 6pm: SOAS Palestine Society: Discussion with activists from Youth Against Settlements
-Thursday 18th March at 6pm: KCL Students for Justice in Palestine w/ PSC: Resisting Israeli Apartheid, w/ Omar Barghouti, Ben Jamal, William Shoki and Larissa Kennedy
-Thursday 18th March at 6.30: Sussex Friends of Palestine Society: 5 Broken Cameras Film Screening
-Thursday 18th March at 6pm: SOAS Palestine Society: Hawiyya Dabke Workshop
-Friday 19th March at 6pm: Lancaster University Friends of Palestine: From Ferguson to Palestine
-Friday 19th March at 6pm: UCL SJP: Noura Erakat: ‘Resisting Apartheid: Breaking the Cycle of Injustice’
-Friday 19th March at 6.30pm: Sussex Friends of Palestine Society: “If only walls could talk” Open Mic Fundraiser
-Saturday 20th March at 3pm: Stop the JNF Campaign: Richard Falk on Israeli Apartheid
-Sunday 21st March at 3pm: Global Israeli Apartheid Week Rally: Feat Remi Kanazi, Shaeera Kalla and more!
-Monday 22nd March at 6.30pm: This is Apartheid: A conversation with B’Tselem’s executive director Hagai El-Ad and renowned Palestinian lawyer Diana Buttu

In January, the Palestine Solidarity Committee hosted a webinar on “Resisting Lawfare on Campus,” which is a reply to the legal actions taken by Jewish and Zionist students who felt threatened by the anti-Semitic episodes that surfaced during pro-Palestinian events. According to the organizers of the webinar, It is “evident that crude lawfare tactics mainly aim to discourage students from speaking up for Palestinian rights on campus as well as educating others about the constant infringements of international law occurring in Palestine.” Legal experts outlined what students must do if their event faces “unfair (and potentially illegal) restrictions in the run up to Israeli Apartheid Week 2021.” The webinar highlighted the support available for any student “subjected to threats of litigation or inaccurate legal arguments.” 

The group Palestine Solidarity Campaign Youth and Student Committee has published a newsletter, authored by a SOAS student who spent a year in Nablus as part of her Arabic degree. According to her, the IAW activities worldwide are “inspiring virtual events” intending to “protest against all forms of racism and discrimination, including Israeli apartheid.” 

She announces that the protests will focus on “the struggle against Israel’s regime of systematic racial discrimination against all parts of the Palestinian people, amounting to the crime apartheid.” The BDS activities will act as a “massive virtual protest to resist racial discrimination, colonialism, and apartheid and celebrate our struggles’ diversity and connectedness.” Because history showed that “when movements for justice unite to take on oppressive structures, we can and will win. Liberation struggles must work together against institutional racism and oppression, challenging unjust systems of power together. So, let’s educate our peers about Israeli apartheid, and grow the struggle against all complicity,” she says. 

Interestingly, the newsletter includes a section on the news from Palestine, stating that the upcoming Palestinian elections have been “met with a mixture of hope and apathy by Palestinians accustomed to living under seemingly perpetual occupation.”  In particular, “there is widespread skepticism amongst Palestinians that the election process will be accepted or will translate into meaningful positive change for Palestinians.”


As per the last elections held in 2006, “the results were not accepted by the international community and Hamas, the winners, were squeezed out of the West Bank before consolidating power in Gaza following a failed coup d’état by their political rivals Fatah. Whilst Fatah’s chance of victory in these elections appears stronger than in 2006, there are rumors that, in an attempt to mitigate possible international condemnation of election results, Fatah and Hamas may put forward a joint list of candidates, although this remains unclear at time of writing.”

As can be seen, the protest is not only against Israel but also the US and Europe. “Those in power use it to generate fear and separate us from each other and from our dreams. In 2020 alone, thousands of migrants have lost their lives because of the racist migration policies imposed by the US and fortress Europe. Police brutality has taken the lives of hundreds of black people in the US.”

However, the harshest attack is always against Israel: “Israel ́s regime of apartheid, colonialism, and military occupation has gone unpunished for decades, subjecting the entire Palestinian people to a system of institutionalized and systematic racial oppression that denies their most basic rights.”  

A preview of what can be expected was offered by the Nelson Mandela University in South Africa, which hosted Dr. Haidar Eid, an associate professor of English Literature at Al-Aqsa University, in a Zoom lecture on March 15, 2021. Eid made a case for “De-Osloization,” that is, “the redefinition of the Palestinian cause as an anti-colonial struggle against a system of settler-colonialism and apartheid, and reunification of the three components of the Palestinian people, namely, Gaza and the West Bank residents, refugees, and Palestinian citizens of Israel.” Eid observed that in the West Bank and Gaza, “What has been created is literally two different worlds, both of which have been led by undemocratic institutions, many security apparatuses, Third Worldish courts, corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency and nepotism—to mention but few (neo)colonial qualities.”   The obtuse jargon of academic-activists, a subspecies of the Neo-Marxist, critical scholarship, does not clarify who should be blamed for the long list of governance failures, but knowing how this group thinks, it is safe to assume that Israel is the culprit.  

By using the Israel cop-out, Dr. Eid and his colleagues don’t have to accuse the Palestinians, especially Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) for turning the Gaza Strip into the most fortified piece of real estate in the world.  They don’t have to mention that billions of dollars that the Palestinians receive from the international community were squandered through corruption and nepotism, not to mention used to build monstrous tunnels, and hideouts for weapons and ammunition under the public buildings, schools, and mosques.  They don’t have to note that the West Bank residents, under the “enlightened” rule of Mahmoud Abbas, enjoy precious few rights, that journalists and activists are jailed and occasionally murdered.  In the Gaza Strip, under the brutal dictatorship of Hamas, there are no human rights, and dissenters are executed through extra-judicial means. 

Of course, in this litany of alleged Israeli sins, there is no need to mention that the Oslo process was undermined by Iran and its proxies, Hamas and PIJ, which launched a campaign of suicide attacks that killed more than 1,500 Israelis and wounded thousands.   The same elements intimidated Yasser Arafat to the point that he refused to sign the Oslo agreement presented at the Second Camp David in 2000.  Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, openly acknowledged that the Oslo agreement was an existential threat to the regime and needed to be “destroyed.” 

Having ignored this reality, the Palestinian advocates on campus can perpetuate the myth of Israeli apartheid year after year. 

https://events.mandela.ac.za/Events/Lectures-and-Talks/WEBINAR-Israeli-Apartheid-Week

WEBINAR – Israeli Apartheid Week  

Event location: Online webinar

Event date and time: 15/03/2021 18:00:00

The Palestinian Struggle: De-osloization and the Fight Against Normalisation.

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

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_bg6Uc4tTT3uiWB4evtYXgg

Webinar RegistrationTopicDe-Osloization and the Fight Against NormalisationDescriptionIt has been almost 30 years since the first Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. The Accords promised that that one-third of the Palestinian people, those living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, would realize their “national dream” of statehood on no more than 22 percent of historic Palestine. 28 years later, the dream of Palestinian statehood has proved illusory as Israel has not only entrenched its occupation and relentlessly expanded its colonization in the West Bank, but also placed the Gaza strip under permanent siege.

So, as Dr Haidar Eid has observed, far from the possibility of self-determination, “Instead, what has been created in parts of the West Bank and Gaza is an apartheid-type Bantustan endorsed by the international community. What has been created is literally two different worlds, both of which have been led by undemocratic institutions, many security apparatuses, Third Worldish courts, corruption, mismanagement, inefficiency and nepotism—to mention but few (neo)colonial qualities.“

In this talk, Dr Eid, who is an Associate Professor in the Department of English Literature at Al-Aqsa University, makes the case for “De-Osloization”– which he describes as “the redefinition of the Palestinian cause as an anti-colonial struggle against a system of settler-colonialism and apartheid, and reunification of the three components of the Palestinian people, namely, Gaza and the West Bank residents, refugees, and Palestinian citizens of Israel.”Time

Mar 15, 2021 06:00 PM in Johannesburg
==================================================
https://www.palestinecampaign.org/list-of-iaw-2021-events/

List of Events Below:

Monday 15th March at 6pm: SOAS Palestine Society: Understanding Palestine Through Gaza

Tuesday 16th March at 6pm: University of Leicester Palestine Society with PSC. Understanding Israeli Apartheid w/ Lubnah Shomali, Dr Nimer Sultany, Rania Muhareb, Hazam Jamjoum

Tuesday 16th March at 6pm: Lancaster University Friends of Palestine: Budrus Film Screening

Tuesday 16th March at 6pm: SOAS Palestine Society: Imprisoning a Generation Documentary Screening.

Tuesday 16th March at 6.30: Sussex Friends of Palestine Society: Medical Apartheid in Palestine w/ Dr Ghada Karmi

Tuesday 16th March at 6pm: UCL SJP and KCL SJP: Shira Robinson on ‘Citizens Stranger: Palestinians in Israel’

Wednesday 17th March at 6pm: University of Bristol Friends of Palestine: United Against Israeli Apartheid

Wednesday 17th March: at 6pm Lancaster University Friends of Palestine: The Ongoing Nakba with Lubnah Shomali.

Wednesday 17th March at 7pm: University of Exeter Friends of Palestine Society: Solidarity with Palestine and the IHRA

Wednesday 17th March at 6pm: SOAS Palestine Society: Discussion with activists from Youth Against Settlements

Thursday 18th March at 6pm: KCL Students for Justice in Palestine w/ PSC: Resisting Israeli Apartheid, w/ Omar Barghouti, Ben Jamal, William Shoki and Larissa Kennedy

Thursday 18th March at 6.30: Sussex Friends of Palestine Society: 5 Broken Cameras Film Screening

Thursday 18th March at 6pm: SOAS Palestine Society: Hawiyya Dabke Workshop

Friday 19th March at 6pm: Lancaster University Friends of Palestine: From Ferguson to Palestine

Friday 19th March at 6pm: UCL SJP: Noura Erakat: ‘Resisting Apartheid: Breaking the Cycle of Injustice’

Friday 19th March at 6.30pm: Sussex Friends of Palestine Society: “If only walls could talk” Open Mic Fundraiser

Saturday 20th March at 3pm: Stop the JNF Campaign: Richard Falk on Israeli Apartheid

Sunday 21st March at 3pm: Global Israeli Apartheid Week RallyFeat Remi Kanazi, Shaeera Kalla and more! Join here

Monday 22nd March at 6.30pm: This is Apartheid: A conversation with B’Tselem’s executive director Hagai El-Ad and renowned Palestinian lawyer Diana Buttu

https://www.facebook.com/events/419335612627253

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2021 AT 8 PM UTC+02

IAW 2021: United Against Racism – Resisting Israeli Apartheid

Free  · Online event

Details

549 people respondedEvent by Palestine Solidarity Campaign UKOnline: bit.lyThursday, March 18, 2021 at 8 PM UTC+02Price: FreePublic  · Anyone on or off FacebookREGISTER: http://bit.ly/IAWResistIsrael’s system of institutionalised racist discrimination amounts to the crime of apartheid under international law. This webinar, part of Israeli Apartheid Week 2021, will explore how Palestinians, and their allies around the globe, resist Israeli apartheid.This includes through the global Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement, which works to target companies and institutions aiding Israel’s violations of international law.
History has shown us that when movements for justice unite to take on oppressive structures, we can and will win. Liberation struggles must work together against institutional racism and oppression, challenging unjust systems of power together.This webinar will also touch on how you can build the movement in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality on your university campus.SPEAKERS:
William Shoki, activist with South African BDS Coalition
Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Palestinian-led BDS Movement
Ben Jamal, Director of PSC
Larissa Kennedy, National Union of Student PresidentREGISTER: http://bit.ly/IAWResist

=========================================
https://www.facebook.com/events/218178846665029

TUESDAY, 16 MARCH 2021 AT 20:00 UTC+02

IAW 2021: Understanding Israeli Apartheid

Free  · Online event  IAW 2021: Understanding Israeli Apartheid 526 people responded

DetailsEvent by Palestine Solidarity Campaign UK and University of Leicester Palestine SocietyOnline: bit.lyTuesday, 16 March 2021 at 20:00 UTC+02Price: freePublic  · Anyone on or off FacebookREGISTER: http://bit.ly/IAWApartheidSince its foundation Israel has developed a system of institutionalised racist discrimination against the Palestinian people. Whether living under occupation, as citizens of the Israeli state, or in exile, Palestinians face a system of rule which collectively oppresses and subjugates them.This year, Israel’s publicly stated aim of annexing at least 30% of the West Bank – following its illegal annexation of East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights – has further exposed its apartheid reality.
This webinar, co-hosted by Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Uni of Leicester Palestine Society, as part of the global Israel Apartheid Week, will explore how Israel’s treatment of all parts of the Palestinian population amounts to the crime of apartheid under international law.Expert speakers will explore the way in which Israel’s practices meet the legal definition of apartheid, while focusing on the effect on Palestinians in all areas of their lives.SPEAKERS:
Rania Muhareb, PhD researcher and scholar
Hazem Jamjoum, al-Shabaka policy member, scholar.
Lubnah Shomali, Unit Manager for BADIL Resource Centre
Nimer Sultany, Reader at SOAS Law, commentator.REGISTER: http://bit.ly/IAWApartheid

==========================================================
https://www.palestinecampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/PSC-YSC-Newsletter-3.pdf
WHAT’S NEW IN THE STORE
Hello and a warm welcome to our third newsletter from all of us at the PSCYouth & Student Committee!
As always, Israeli Apartheid Week is coming round fast. Students acrossthe world are organising inspiring virtual events as an international protest against all forms of racism and discrimination, including Israeli apartheid.
You can read on and find out about national webinars we’ve organised.There’s still time to organise something on your campus! Get in touch for advice and support.
In this newsletter, along with our plans for IAW, you’ll find reports from our previous events, including our workshop on how to resist unfair, and potentially illegal, restrictions on your events, as well as news from Palestine and our ‘Visit Palestine’ segment.
In solidarity!
Palestine Solidarity Campaign Youth and Student Committee
PSC YOUTH AND STUDENT
ISSUE 3: MARCH 2021
ISRAELI APARTHEID WEEK 2021
From March 15th to 21st, students and others across the world will be organisingevents and holding protests focused on growing the struggle against Israel’sregime of systematic racial discrimination against all parts of the Palestinianpeople, amounting to the crime apartheid.
They’ll be joining up with those struggling against all forms of racism, marginalisation, and oppression, and promoting the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement for Palestinian freedom, justice andequality.
From Hebron to Ferguson, from Khirbet Humsa to London,
racism strips us of our humanity, tearing at our collective soul. But together, united as a movement for liberation – we can fight back.
Our events around the world will act as massive virtual protest to resist racialdiscrimination, colonialism, and apartheid and celebrate our struggles’ diversity and connectedness. History has shown us that when movements for justice unite to take on oppressive structures, we can and will win.
Liberation struggles must work together against institutional racism and oppression, challenging unjust systems of power together. So, let’s educate ourpeers about Israeli apartheid, and grow the struggle against all complicity.
Along with many events organised across UK campuses, here’s two onlineevents you can join wherever you are:
March 16th: Understanding Israeli Apartheid (co-hosted by PSC and Leicester Palestine Society)
Featuring Lubnah Shomali (BADIL), Rania Muhareb, Dr Nimer Sultany + more!
March 18th: United Against Racism – Resisting Israeli Apartheid (co-hosted by KCL Students for Justice in Palestine and PSC) w/ Omar Barghouti, Ben Jamal, Larissa Kennedy + more!
REPORT: RESISTING LAWFARE ON CAMPUS
As support for Palestinian rights amongst students grows, an increase in unjust attacks on students has also been witnessed. In an effort to maintain support for all students, PSC hosted a webinar in January titled ‘Resisting a Lawfare on Campus’, where legal experts outlined what students must do if their event faces unfair (and potentially illegal) restrictions in the run up to Israeli Apartheid Week 2021.
As a university student myself, being part of this event allowed me to know exactly what my rights are and how to manage any violation of such rights. The webinar also highlighted the support available for any student subjected to threats of litigation or inaccurate legal arguments.
Throughout the webinar, students and participants had the opportunity to raise questions which were answered by the speakers Lewis Backon, a campaigns office at PSC, Giovanni Fassina, the Programme Director of the European Legal Support Center – the first independent organisation that exists solely to defend and empower advocates for Palestinian rights across Europe through legalmeans, and Dima Khalidi, the founder and director of Palestine Legal andCooperating Counsel with the Center for Constitutional Rights.
It’s evident that crude lawfare tactics mainly aim to discourage students from speaking up for Palestinian rights on campus as well as educating others about the constant infringements of international law occurring in Palestine.
However, according to the students’ questions and contributions, such acts carried out by Israel and its allies have only motivated student activists to continue their support for Palestinian human rights until Israel complies withinternational law.
If you are subject to any unfair treatment please email:lewis.backon@palestinecampaign.org
News From Palestine
Palestinian elections have been set for the coming months, but the seemingly welcome news has been met with a mixture of hope and apathy by Palestinians accustomed to living under seemingly perpetual occupation.
Elections are planned to take place in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, although Israel is likely to undermine, if not stop entirely, voting in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem, predominantly made up of Palestinians and recognised as Occupied Territory under international law, has been claimed by Israel as part of its sovereign territory since 1980.
Regardless of whether elections actually take place in all or part of the Occupied Territory, Palestinians in the global diaspora will not be able to take part, meaning the elections will not reflect the views of all Palestinians living outside occupied Palestine.
In addition, and perhaps more significantly, there is widespread scepticism amongst Palestinians that the election process will be accepted or will translate into meaningful positive change for Palestinians.
The last time elections were held in Palestine in 2006, the results were not accepted by the international community and Hamas, the winners, were squeezed out of the West Bank before consolidating power in Gaza following a failed coup d’état by their political rivals Fatah. Whilst Fatah’s chance of victory in these elections appears stronger than in 2006, there are rumours that, in an attempt to mitigate possible international condemnation of election results, Fatah and Hamas may put forward a joint list of candidates, although this remains unclear at time of writing.
In other news, Palestinians continue to suffer the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic without access to significant quantities of vaccines. Meanwhile Israel, its neighbour and occupying power, has the highest per-capita vaccination rate in the world and appears set on dispensing its surplus vaccine stocks globally in support of its geo-strategic national interests, at the expense of Palestinians next door. VISIT PALESTINE
I studied in Nablus for one year, as part of my Arabic degree at SOAS university in 2012-13. There are too many aspects to choose from of what I loved about
Palestine, so I thought I would go through a few places which I would tell anyone going, to visit!
Nablus is my number one! I lived in this beautiful, extremely friendly city for a year and I miss it. It nestles between two mountains – Aybal and Gerzim – and has an ancient quarter home to the city’s market where you can find local soap, olive oil, cheese, and the famous local dessert ‘knaffe’ – and lots more – in the stunning winding covered alleyways.
I would definitely recommend visiting Sebastia, where there is a lovely café overlooking the place where you get dropped off. The ‘hummous ma lahem’ isdelicious as are the fresh Palestinian olives…during a short walk round the hilly village you will see the remains of a roman amphitheatre, the site Salome danced for John the Baptist’s head (so they say) and extensive remains of whatI was told was King Herod’s palace.
Finally, the old city of Jerusalem during Ramadan is magical, with the markets opened through the night and lanterns of every colour decorating the arched stone passageways, as families visit shops and cafes after iftar, or go to theHaram al-Sharif to pray during this special and holy period. There is so much more to say (the coffee❤!the falafels❤!), but more than all the magical places and amazing food is the warmth and generosity of the people I met, so many of whom treated me like a member of their family, and looked after me and my friends.
Free Palestine ❤
IAW CALL AGAINST COLONIALISM, RACISM, ANDAPARTHEID 
FROM THE BDS NATIONAL COMMITTEE
Racism tears the soul of the world
It strips us of our humanity
Those in power use it to generate fear and separate us from each other and from our dreams
In 2020 alone, thousands of migrants have lost their lives because of the racist migration policies imposed by the US and fortress Europe Police brutality has taken the lives of hundreds of black people in the US
Israel ́s regime of apartheid, colonialism, and military occupation hasgone unpunished for decades, subjecting the entire Palestinian people to a system ofinstitutionalized and systematic racial oppression that denies their most basic rights
Many cannot enjoy freedom and equality because of where they are born, the color of their skin, or their sexual identity
This is the ugly reality we have, but not the beautiful one we want
We don’t accept privileges for a few
We demand rights for all.
We and millions like us take to the streets to protest against systemic racism, patriarchal violence, climate injustice, neoliberal austerity, and economic inequality.
We will not stop until we tear down the structures of oppression
We will not stop resisting injustice
We will continue dreaming of freedom, justice, and rights for all.
We need all our voices united across the world to end racism,colonialism, and apartheid.
Together we are unstoppable.
Stand united against racism
Get involved in Israeli Apartheid Week 2021. Take action online, or organise a webinar for your campus!

Radical Left-Wing Polemics: Hagar Kotef as a Case in Point

11.03.21

Editorial Note 

IAM has often reported on radical scholars who have recruited political-activist students, nurtured them, and provided them with academic positions, either in their own departments or helped them to move abroad.   As IAM made clear, there is a flourishing market for Israeli pro-Palestinian academics in the West who provide a cover for BDS and other forms of delegitimization of Israel. 

Dr. Hagar Kotef, a former student of Profs. Adi Ophir and Anat Biletzki from Tel Aviv University, currently based at SOAS, is a case in point. As well known, SOAS is a hotbed of anti-Israel activity. 

Kotef was the subject of an article that Haaretz published last year about Israeli left-wing academics who moved abroad because of alleged difficulties of working in Israel.  Haaretz wrote that Kotef “was active in Machsom Watch and other left-wing movements, completed her doctoral studies in philosophy at Tel Aviv University… Kotef found employment as a senior lecturer in politics and political theory in the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.”  

Kotef did not disappoint her former professors.  She recently published a book titled The Colonizing Self Or, Home and Homelessness in Israel. The book is full of left-wing polemics.  The acknowledgment in her book reads like a who is who of anti-Israel radicals. 

She writes, “At Soas, my new home, Laleh Khalili, Ruba Salih, Rahul Rao, Charles Tripp, Rafeef Ziadah, and Carlo Bonura have read the manuscript or significant parts of it. The insights and thoughts they provided, their critique and their questions, have been essential to the process of writing it and thinking through its many predicaments.”

She also mentions Neve Gordon: “Over one brunch in London, Neve Gordon shifted much of the ethnographic work for this book, and helped me disentangle so many of my questions. On many other occasions he offered ideas, suggestions, and at times skepticism. These, and the comments he provided on the full draft, are woven throughout the final outcome. Over the years, our paths crossed in several continents, and now in London he has become not only a treasured colleague but also a friend.”    

She mentions BDS activist, “Merav Amir seems to have become a person without whom I find it difficult to think. Much of the ideas herein were formed in a constant dialogue with her, endless phone conversations, and exchange of drafts.”

Murad Idris, an associate professor of Political Theory at the University of Virginia and the co-editor of The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Political Theory, “has become an interlocutor and a friend during the long course of writing this book. At numerous junctures he has thought with me or pushed me to think differently, often shedding so much light on a problem with just one quick, almost incidental comment.

Kobi Snitz, staff scientist of Neurobiology at Weizmann Institute, “kindly traveled with me to the West Bank several times. He accompanied me when I went to take pictures or to check the accuracy of maps marking fences around settlements; he organized the visit to Yanun and facilitated the conversations I had there; he put me in touch with others, who provided crucial information. I am grateful for his time, for the indispensable information he provided following years of activism, and for his company.”

She then thanks Hagit Ofran from Peace Now; Dror Etkes, a radical political activist; Ziv Stahl from Yesh Din, and others. 

In her book, she states that “settler colonialism” serves as an example for which “the existence of some is conditioned on inflicting violence on others.” This violence can be direct or unintentional, or “denied by the injuring persons, or can even hurt their sense of self (as is, for example, the case with progressive, leftist Israelis)—but it is nonetheless part of who they are.”

She also claims that “Israel has become a paradigm of a certain kind of leftist critique.” Nevertheless, “Sometimes I think that part of what is at stake for Left critique in Israel is to keep open more conversations— conversations which are getting increasingly impossible.”

Kotef is wondering what a Palestinian taxi driver would think, “how it is possible that he takes a route that is part of the dispossession of and discrimination against his own people?” 

She discusses homes, or a “plurality of homes: the depopulated Palestinian homes that are inhabited by Israeli Jews, often progressive and left leaning… These Palestinian homes—in Jaffa, Jerusalem, Ein Hod—and this mode of homemaking in the depopulated home/ space serve as an allegory for Zionism at large (if not settlement as such). At the focus of this allegory is liberal Zionism, and, in this sense, there is a wider lesson concerning liberal sentiments here.”

In the book, she “moves between the 1967 and the 1948 borders and endeavors to think together (even if apart) the establishment of Israel and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.” 

In another article, “Fragments,” Kotef questions BDS, which “is rearticulated as a series of paradoxical demands or practices when applied to Israeli academia. Some of us support the boycott, but how should such a support—a serious, genuine support—look from within Israel? What happens when we publish, with our names and Israeli affiliation, in international journals? Can the distinction between an individual and an academic boycott make sense here (especially within an economic model wherein universities receive governmental funding according to publication numbers)? Should we therefore encourage international journals not to publish our papers? Do we not violate the boycott regularly when we apply for international grants, when we provide scholarships based on such grants to our students? But can we survive in today’s neoliberal academia without doing so? Can someone belong to Israeli academia and coherently support the boycott then? One can contend that the boycott is not addressed to us, that it is not ours to support or object, that at best, we can make efforts not to undermine it. But don’t we undermine it on a regular basis, especially when we try to be politically and ethically engaged? We collaborate with Palestinian scholars, for example. But in that, don’t we put them in an impossible stance vis-à-vis the boycott? And what would the alternative be? Collaborating with the silencing of Palestinians in the Israeli academy?”

Kotef has also been associated with a Palestinian center that has the sole purpose of attacking Israel. It is called the Palestinian Forum for Israeli Studies (MADAR) and is based in Ramallah, Palestine. It is a registered NGO with the Palestinian Ministry of Interior and licensed by the Palestinian Ministry of Information.  

Kotef provided MADAR, which is also supported by the Rosa Luxemburg Palestine Office, with one of her articles, “Checkpoints” in Arabic. It is based on her 2015 book Movement and the Ordering of Freedom, where shediscusses, as translated to English, the “peace negotiations” and “peace processes” and “talks” of all kinds, when in the midst, “Israel had to create a system that enables it to maintain its hold on the ground with a minimal (military) presence, physical and minimal direct violence. In this context, Israel’s ability to hold on lies in the state’s semblance, which seeks to achieve peace without giving up the advantages of controlling land and resources abundant at stake. This is the system some call a “matrix of control.”

The politicization of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict discourse has often been featuring in the academy in Israel and the West.  This has an unfortunate result on what is known as “production of knowledge.” It is this type of knowledge that has fueled the BDS movement and other anti-Israel activities on campus. Those who fight it need to review the academic literature which portrays Israel as an apartheid colonial state. After decades of politicized scholarship, this view is now dominant, driving the vast delegitimization campaign against Israel. 

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210220-the-colonising-self-or-home-and-homelessness-in-israel-palestine/
The Colonising Self: Or, Home and Homelessness in Israel/Palestine
February 20, 2021 at 4:03 pm 

Book Author(s) :Hagar Kotef Published Date :February 2021 Publisher :Duke University Press Hardcover :320 pages ISBN-13 :978-1478010289

Book review by Ramona Wadi 

A look at Israeli colonisation from the inside requires a thorough reckoning. In Hagar Kotef’s recent study, The Colonising Self: Or, Home and Homelessness in Israel/Palestine, settlement narratives are juxtaposed with accountability. Running parallel to Palestinian memory, Kotef immediately embarks upon the concept of settlement and settler narratives, and examines the extent to which these narratives can threaten or colonise Palestinian memory itself.

The book is engaging from the start. The Nakba’s presence and absence in settler narratives, even those conscious of the destruction wrought by the earlier Zionist colonial process, is not necessarily authentically conveyed. What is the positioning of the settler in Nakba narratives? On Israeli efforts to render the Nakba more visible to Israeli society, Kotef writes of: “The risk of colonising Palestinian memory itself in and through this endeavour.”

Settler homes cannot be separated from colonial violence. The author notes that without attachment to violence, settlement cannot be contained. What is perceived by society as shelter was constructed upon the ruins of dispossession, or simply by moving into the houses of displaced Palestinians. Within the settler mind-frame, there is a dissociation between the home and the self, and Kotef asks if settlers can reconcile their image with the violence that provided them with homes. The fantasy of the home conceals the atrocities that produced the current dwellings.

In the introduction, Kotef asserts: “This is a book about homes that were formed in and through violence; about homes that themselves became tools of destruction and expulsion, and about lives and selves whose very being is a form of injury.”

Kotef discusses three main issues of settler-colonialism: homes and identity built upon destruction as a common feature, the settler attachment to homes and how this brings about oblivion to violence and the ongoing settlement practices in the occupied West Bank. Focusing on how settler-colonialism and settling legitimises violence, the author discusses how the settler identity is shaped under violence and how settler presence itself is a form of violence, even if the act of settling is far removed from the acts of violence perpetrated by others.

As a result of settling and the way settler-colonialism generates identity, the colonised and their lack of homes contributes to a loss of identity that is visible. Kotef writes: “As part of the shift in perspective from violence in the home to homes as a tool of violence that is deployed externally, scale changes; at stake is an entire society that disposes of another.”

The “settler self” is described by Kotef as “a function of territory”. On the other side of the equation, the Palestinian “unsettlement” has dissociated the concept of home from the state. For Palestinians, the home also has a political meaning – its absence emphasises its importance.

Noting how the concept of home for Palestinians altered through Zionist settler-colonialism, Kotef discusses the implications of temporary homes in Palestinian refugee camps. She addresses how Palestinians are trapped between the right of home in a camp, albeit as a result of dispossession and not of choice, and the Palestinian right of return, in which acknowledging the Palestinian homeownership would spell the beginning of undoing the Zionist settler-colonial project. While Palestinians contend with these restrictions, the Israeli settler-colonialist is entrenched in the home of the dispossessed.

Kotef’s discussion on decolonisation is particularly insightful and recognises the multi-layered approach and intricacies that one must acknowledge, in particular, the “change of attachment”. The book argues that state-level democracy is not enough to produce a decolonial framework, since the settler is an intricate part of the process. “The Israeli attachment to territory is at least derivatively also an attachment to the act of colonisation, since the latter is the condition for the self’s placement in the land.”

For Israeli settlers, the victory rests at the settlement project, which comes as a result of negotiating with violence to justify its existence. As the book shifts its discussion to Palestinian ruins and how these have been integrated into the colonial landscape to the detriment of the colonised, Kotef notes how such normalisation erases the Nakba from the settlers’ consciousness, which in turn leads to a denial of Israeli violence. Denying violence constructs dissociation, so much so that Kotef argues: “The point, then, is not that we could not see the remnants of violence, but that we saw them all the time and almost everywhere.” A pertinent observation by Kotef, bluntly stated: “As Jewish Israelis, we learned to feel at home in Palestinian ruins.”

Dissecting the settler consciousness as Kotef does, brings forth a realisation that the history of colonisation spills over to the present. The ongoing colonial expansion in the occupied West Bank – illustrated in detail by the author through the story of a farming enterprise that differentiates between business and product ethics, and the absence of ethics that comes with the expulsion of the Palestinian people – shows both the trauma of the dispossessed, as well as the settler justification for expulsion, which is violent and wrongly legitimised.

Yet in media narratives, as the book portrays, the settler’s trauma over the eviction at Amona eclipses decades of Zionist expulsion of the Palestinian people. The erasure of Palestinians has been so thorough – there is no consideration for the people who the settlers uprooted in order to establish homes built upon violence. As far as mainstream narratives go, it is the evicted settler that lost a home, and not the Palestinian people whose homes have been destroyed or re-inhabited by the settler-colonists.

Kotef’s writing on settler narratives is, first and foremost, a reckoning for the Israeli settlers themselves. Being conscious of the role that the settler plays is an important step in the decolonisation process that is often overlooked. An incredibly detailed and engaging study that illustrates Palestinian erasure from within the settler consciousness, the book brings forth an understanding from within that does much to bring the Palestinian trauma to the fore.================================================================================

https://www.dukeupress.edu/Assets/PubMaterials/978-1-4780-1133-0_601.pdf
The Colonizing Self Or, Home and Homelessness in Israel / Palestine
Hagar Kotef
The Colonizing Self
A Theory in Forms Book Series Editors Nancy Rose Hunt and Achille Mbembe
Duke University Press / Durham and London / 2020
The Colonizing Self
or, home and homelessness in israel/palestine Hagar Kotef
© duke university press. All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper ∞
Designed by Courtney Leigh Richardson and typeset in
Portrait by Westchester Publishing Services
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication
Data
Names: Kotef, Hagar, [date] author.
Title: The colonizing self : or, home and homelessness in Israel/Palestine / Hagar Kotef.
Other titles: Theory in forms.
Description: Durham : Duke University Press, 2020. | Series: Theory in forms | Includes bibliographical
references and index.

Cover art: © Marjan Teeuwen, courtesy Bruce Silverstein Gallery, NY. The cover image by the Dutch artist Marjan Teeuwen, from a series titled Destroyed House, is of a destroyed house in Gaza, which Teeuwen reassembled and photographed. This form of reclaiming debris and rubble is in conversation with many themes this book foregrounds—from the effort to render destruction visible as a critique of violence to the appropriation of someone else’s home and its destruction as part of one’s identity, national revival, or (as in the case of this image) a professional art exhibition. 
to my dad—so much of what is written here is a prolonged conversation with him; and to maya and noa, whom i have moved away from home, but for whom i’m trying, endlessly, to build another
Contents
Preface ix Acknowledgments xiii
Introduction: Home 1
Theoretical Overview: Violent Attachments 29
Part I. Homes
interlude Home/Homelessness: A Reading in Arendt 55
chapter 1 The Consuming Self: On Locke, Aristotle,
Feminist Theory, and Domestic Violences
73
epilogue Unsettlement 109
Part II. Relics
interlude A Brief Reflection on Death and Decolonization 127
chapter 2 Home (and the Ruins That Remain) 137
epilogue A Phenomenology of Violence:
Ruins 185
Part III. Settlement
interlude A Moment of Popular
Culture:
The Home of MasterChef 203
chapter 3 On Eggs and Dispossession: Organic Agriculture
and the New Settlement Movement 215
epilogue An Ethic of Violence:
Organic Washing 251
Conclusion 261 Bibliography 267 Index 293

Preface I think Israelis should be aware that their presence in many places in the country entails the loss of a Palestinian family, the demolition of a house, the destruction of a village. . . . Many Israelis resist this because they think the consequence would be to leave. Not at all. . . . The last thing I want to do is to perpetuate this process by which one distortion leads to another. I have a horror of that. I saw it happen too many times. I don’t want to see more people leave.—edward w. said “The Nakba is the history of anyone living on this land and/or anyone who cherishes it,” states Eitan Bronstein Aparicio, director of the organization Zochrot and founder of De-Colonizer. And yet, it seems that making it, indeed, part of his own history is a struggle for Bronstein Aparicio—a struggle that manifests itself as a movement between two poles: On the one hand, Bronstein Aparicio is part of an ongoing endeavor to make the Palestinian Nakba visible and legible to the Jewish Israeli public. On the other hand, he reports grappling with the risk of colonizing Palestinian memory itself in and through this endeavor. As a result, he states, he can “never feel at home.”1 Throughout this book we shall reencounter this sentiment: a sense of Jewish Israeli home that becomes impossible, or at least unstable, when home is entwined with the present or past of the Palestinian disaster. Yet we Epigraph: Edward W. Said, “Interview with Ari Shavit,” Ha’aretz, August 18, 2000, republished in Power, Politics, and Culture: Interviews with Edward W. Said, by Edward W. Said, ed. Gauri Viswanathan (New York: Vintage Books, 2001). An English version can also be found at “Edward Said Interviewed by Ari Shavit for Ha’aretz,” MiddleEast .org, August 26, 2000, http://www .middleeast .org /archives /8 -00 -31 .htm. 1 Eitan Bronstein Aparicio, “Finding Home in a New Memory: A Journey to the Golan,” + 972 magazin, June 4, 2016, https://972mag .com /finding -home -in -a -new -memory -a -journey -to -the -golan /119816# ftnref1. x · Preface 2 Bronstein Aparicio, “Finding Home.” shall find that just as prevalent is a sound sense of home that emerges despite, besides, and even through this disaster. The negotiations of a sense of belonging against the reality of this disaster give rise to the type of “self ” this book seeks to identify. For the sake of brevity, I call it “the colonizing self.” In narrating his struggle, which so accurately captures the impasses of many activists working to undo the evils their own societies generate, Bronstein Aparicio takes us to the ruins of his wife’s village, Mansura. Situated in the Golan Heights, Mansura is a Syrian village that was demolished in 1967. With his wife’s family and others, Bronstein Aparicio returned to this site of destruction to tell the stories of the ruined village and to rebuild it—if only very partially—as a symbolic gesture. It is through this project, he writes, that he was finally able to construct his own sense of home. Through this experience, “it became clear to me that the story of Mansura had become my own—not exclusively mine but also my own.”2 In Bronstein Aparicio’s description, the story of expulsion, expropriation, and demolition became “his own” when he participated in reconstructing both the oral history and the concrete space of the village; it is therefore “his” story as a storyteller, or as a participant in reconstructing both stories and traces. But what Bronstein Aparicio recognizes, and yet refuses to assert, is that the stories of the ruins were always also his stories; not as stories he comes to inhabit through Palestinian narratives or through his own embodied effort to create counternarratives, but as stories he inhabits through Israeli narratives and embodied projects that were always part of the Israeli project of settling the land. These stories were his own as the agent of these homes’ destruction, rather than as the agent of their reconstruction and narration. Akin to the Palestinian memories, these stories of settlement are passed on through generations (from my grandparents’ generation, which was directly involved in the Nakba, to us, who still live in its aftermath and keep generating other catastrophes); and akin to the Palestinian memories, they come to shape Israeli identity. Yet they are often told differently, through gaps and silences that nonetheless carry with them acts of ruination. Stories of triumphs alongside stories of wartime anxiety and a fear of war that so many of us grew up with—that so many of us inhabit directly, having lived through wars and violence of various kinds—are inlaid with the physical remnants of Palestinian destruction. To recognize ourselves in these stories is to refuse a gap between “the state” and its people, between what “it” has done and who “we” are. For Bronstein Aparicio, or for me and Preface · xi many others, it is to refuse a gap between the Left in Israel and Israeli violence, between some progressive “us” and all those forces standing between “us” and “peace.” This refusal is not an act of erasing those distinctions; it is a form of taking responsibility—for what we have done, or for what was and is done in our name, or for all the destruction and violence whose fruits we still enjoy. This sense of responsibility can then become a first step toward reconstituting these distinctions in a way that is more politically productive. I recall trips with my father along an abandoned railway to the ruins of Na’ane, which was close to the kibbutz where he was born and where my grandparents still lived. I recall bathing on hot summer days in a pool in the Golan Heights that was built by the Syrian army for its officers. We knew it was called “the officers’ pool,” we always passed through the traces of war on our way to it, and yet this was “our” pool, a site of beauty amid fig trees, whose freezing water became our challenge—who would be brave enough to jump? My childhood memories, my home, cannot be detached from the violence of 1948 and 1967. When I miss my home, this is part of what I miss. In this regard, my point here and one of the main arguments of this book is that the construction of Jewish attachment to the landscape of Israel, the establishment of belonging to the land, the founding of home as well as homeland, includes a certain longing for and belonging to a past violence that becomes integral to Israelis’ self-identity. It is this identity I seek to understand here. Many Israelis who write about the occupation or the wider colonial facets of Israel’s control over Palestinians—including myself—often focus on the mechanisms and technologies of power and domination, the structure of the law, or the logics of violence and governance. I seek here to turn the gaze toward the subject positions within the wider networks of occupation and settlement: the settler or colonizing self. How, then, can a critique be formulated when its material conditions are the object of critique? One can criticize one’s state, to be sure—its violence, its wars. But how can one question the legitimacy of their own home; how can one point to the wrongs that are embedded in the very nature of their political existence? What would it mean for a Jewish Israeli to not simply write against “the occupation,” but to recognize that her home is historically conditioned on the destruction of Palestinians’ homes; that her attachment to this place is founded on a history—not such a distant history— of violence and is conditioned, at least to some extent, on the perpetuation of this violence? (And since Israel has become a paradigm of a certain kind of leftist critique, it is worth noting that the primary difference between Israel and other settler colonies such as the United States or Australia in this regard xii · Preface 3 Manu Samnotra, “ ‘Poor in World’: Hannah Arendt’s Critique of Imperialism,” Contemporary Political Theory 18, no. 4 (2018): 562–82. is temporal density). Once we move to engage in such a critique, there is no more separation between the “I” who writes and her object of critique, that is, the state and its doings: military and police violence, planning policies, legal discrimination. The I itself becomes the object of critique and her voice—the place from which she speaks, her language, the dialogues available to her—can no longer pretend to assume a position that is simply and clearly oppositional to injustice. From this perspective, this book was impossible to write, an act of hitting an ethical and political wall wherever I turned. It is a book about these impasses. Ultimately, at stake here is not the possibility to settle this mode of being-at- an- impasse, but to find ways of presence in the land (Israel in my case) that fracture and then undo it. I am not interested, in other words, in lamenting the tragedy of this subject position, but in offering a critique of this form of subjectivity. And yet to understand the mechanisms by which the colonizing self can be decolonized and a territory—a home—can be inhabited in noncolonial ways despite a history of colonization, we first need to understand what Manu Samnotra refers to as “the objective conditions of colonialism.”3 In particular, we need to understand the mechanism of the colonizing self ’s entrenchment in both space and senses of justice. This is the main object of the book. Acknowledgments This book is strangely personal, and yet was conceived with the help, support, thoughts, and investment of so many others. I have had the rare opportunity and sheer luck of working with the most brilliant colleagues, who have engaged with this manuscript in thorough, critical, and committed ways beyond what I could have ever hoped for. I really cannot thank them enough. Their thoughts and comments have shaped this book and so many of its arguments. At soas, my new home, Laleh Khalili, Ruba Salih, Rahul Rao, Charles Tripp, Rafeef Ziadah, and Carlo Bonura have read the manuscript or significant parts of it. The insights and thoughts they provided, their critique and their questions, have been essential to the process of writing it and thinking through its many predicaments. I have been overwhelmed, in the most positive way possible, by their thoughtfulness, kindness, and ways of seeing. Over one brunch in London, Neve Gordon shifted much of the ethnographic work for this book, and helped me disentangle so many of my questions. On many other occasions he offered ideas, suggestions, and at times skepticism. These, and the comments he provided on the full draft, are woven throughout the final outcome. Over the years, our paths crossed in several continents, and now in London he has become not only a treasured colleague but also a friend. Noam Leshem and Keally McBride read the full manuscript as well. They did this thoroughly and carefully and with rare attentiveness. In Keally’s hand it became a jigsaw puzzle, and as I worked through her comments—always as generous as they are astute—so many of its pieces fell into place. Noam has been significant in adding some of the missing pieces to the puzzle, rendering the picture somewhat more complete. Merav Amir seems to have become a person without whom I find it difficult to think. Much of the ideas herein were formed in a constant dialogue with her, endless phone conversations, and exchange of drafts. She was also kind enough to join me on the trip to Giv’ot Olam, during which significant parts xiv · Acknowledgments of the ethnographic work for chapter 3 took place. Murad Idris has become an interlocutor and a friend during the long course of writing this book. At numerous junctures he has thought with me or pushed me to think differently, often shedding so much light on a problem with just one quick, almost incidental comment. Kobi Snitz kindly traveled with me to the West Bank several times. He accompanied me when I went to take pictures or to check the accuracy of maps marking fences around settlements; he organized the visit to Yanun and facilitated the conversations I had there; he put me in touch with others, who provided crucial information. I am grateful for his time, for the indispensable information he provided following years of activism, and for his company. Hagit Ofran from Peace Now, Dror Etkes from Kerem Navot, Ziv Stahl from Yesh Din, and John Brown from many places have all provided vital support in the process of writing this book. I am not merely indebted for their time and help; I am in awe and admiration of their work, for which the adjective “important” seems like an understatement. They are some of the few people who demonstrate in their daily doings that the space between the sea and the river can be made into a different, less destructive one. Throughout the years, segments of the work herein have been presented in quite a few workshops, seminars, and conferences, and this book has benefited from so many such interactions. I have had the privilege of thinking out loud alongside some of the brightest critical thinkers in the world, and I thank those who gave me the opportunity to do so and those who engaged in the conversation. These have included two installments of Association for Political Theory (apt) (and I am especially thankful to Libby Anker and Adom Getachew for their comments as discussants), one Western Political Science Association (wpsa) (with special thanks to Jeanne Morefield for her comments as a discussant), an American Political Science Association (apsa), as well as many workshops and colloquiums. I thank Shai Gortler for the invitation to present at the Minnesota Political Theory Colloquium; Monica Brito Vieira for inviting me to the Political Theory Workshop at York; Sorana Jude for the invitation to the Politics Seminar in Newcastle; Merav Amir (again) for inviting me to the Lexicon Workshop at Queen’s University, Belfast; Yair Wallach and Moriel Ram for the invitation to the “After Oslo” Lecture Series, as well as the “Turning to Matter and Space in Israel-Palestine” Workshop, both at soas; Jason Edwards for the invitation to the Birkbeck Political Theory Colloquium; Miriam Ticktin and Alexandra Delano for the invitation to the Zolberg Institute on Migration and Mobility at the New School for Social Research; María González Pendás and Whitney Laemmli, for the invitations to present at the Crisis of Democracy Acknowledgments · xv Workshop at Paris’s Institute for Ideas and Imagination; and Teresa Bejan for the invitation to present at the Oxford Political Thought Seminar. Jack Halberstam and Lisa Lowe have offered me the rare honor of presenting a chapter as part of a Modern Language Association presidential panel, and I am grateful for this and for their support of my scholarship at large. David Joselit generously organized a public lecture at the Committee on Globalization and Social Change, cuny Graduate Center, where I also had the opportunity of meeting the brilliant Audra Simpson, who has since become a dear interlocutor. Kristina Hagström-Ståhl has given me several exceptional opportunities to present bits and pieces of this project at Gothenburg—I thank her for the conversations she facilitated, her own unique insights, and her generosity. Catharina Bergil’s inspiring invitation to Gothenburg’s Dance and Theatre Festival began this exchange and, in a way, gave me the opportunity to think with others on this work for the very first time. There were also the intense and productive workshops organized by Jo McDonagh and Jonathan Sachs at the Clark Library, University of California, Los Angeles; by Adam Stern at Yale; by Murad Idris and Lawrie Balfour at the University of Virginia; and by Irus Braverman at suny Buffalo. Finally, again with Murad Idris, there was the Empire by Its Other Names Workshop we both assembled at Columbia University. The people I met through these scholarly encounters, and those whom I already knew and saw again, the intensity of discussion, and the thoughtful suggestions they made have been critical to the formation of the pages herein, and will stay with me much beyond. The Politics Seminar at soas and the workshops organized by the Centre for Comparative Political Thought are other venues in which I have had the opportunity to present, listen, share thoughts, and work through critiques. And I thank Charles Tripp (again and again) for cultivating these spaces. Further, the ideas herein have been shaped through engagements with colleagues at soas’s Politics and International Studies Department, as well as through less formal conversations and exchanges. Many of them have been acknowledged above as readers of the manuscript. I express my deep appreciation also to Meera Sabaratnam; Kerem Nisancioglu; Salwa Ismail, to whom I am especially grateful, as she facilitated my arrival at the department; Manjeet Ramgotra; and Mark Laffey, whom I thank also for supporting, together with Fiona Adamson, a manuscript workshop, which has been essential in the final revisions of this text. This department, in its unique approach to the discipline, its critical thinking, its commitment to politics, and its amazing students and wonderful colleagues, has been more than I could have imagined as an academic home. xvi · Acknowledgments There are so many others, in so many corners of the world, friends and colleagues and those who make this distinction impossible, who have been a part of this journey and contributed to it: Andrew Dilts, Ariel Handel, George Shulman, Hellen Kinsella, Uday Mehta, Yair Wallach, Gil Hochberg, Rafi Grosglik, Jeanne Morefield (again), Rob Nichols, Nancy Luxon, Yves Winter, Anne McNevin, Ann Stoler, Onur Ulas Ince, Chris Brown, Michal Givoni, and Yuval Evri. I feel blessed by the long or short conversations we have had, their knowledgeable references or suggestions, the work they have been kind enough to share, and their ongoing support. Parts of this book have been published in other academic journals, and although I cannot personally thank the anonymous reviewers of these essays, if they happen to read this book, I hope they can identify their contributions. A version of the theoretical overview was published in Political Theory; I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Lawrie Balfour, for the engaged and dedicated work she has done as part of this publication. Thinking on this book started many years ago with another publication, the entry “Home” in Mafte’akh: Lexical Review of Political Thought. Much like my previous book, which took form after writing the entry “Movement,” the roots of this book can be traced back to this intellectual project, which has been one of the most productive scholarly endeavors in which I have taken part. I am indebted to all those who were part of this project, and above all to Adi Ophir, who initiated it and assembled all of us around it. Mori Ram has worked with me on this research and has helped with so much more than I originally expected or planned for. Phoebe O’Hara and Jordi Lpez Bo have also been incredibly helpful in the research process. Marieke Krijnen and Emma Jacobs provided attentive and careful editing, and the team at Duke University Press has done fantastic work throughout the production process. I am particularly appreciative of Sandra Korn, Susan Albury, and, of course, Courtney Berger, who was involved in this book even before it hatched, who has believed in it, pushed for it to be published with Duke, provided advice, and was patient and accommodating of so many requests. The two anonymous reviewers provided feedback that was simultaneously so uplifting and so perceptive. Their meticulous and careful reading and the productiveness with which they expressed their critique is deeply appreciated. Finally, there are few people who have not contributed to this book directly, but without whom I would have probably not become the person writing it. Anat Biletzki introduced me to philosophy and to its intimate links to politics. She was my ultimate source of inspiration, and my decision to pursue an acaAcknowledgments · xvii demic career was very much a function of my desire to stand, one day, like her, in 144 Gilman (the room where she taught her Introduction to Logic) and open the eyes of others as she did for me. Adi Ophir has taught me what radical, critical thinking looks like, and has provided the philosophical path I have since sought to follow. Judith Butler has shaped my ways of seeing the world and understanding it, first in her writings and then in person; she also opened the world for me, and provided me the opportunity—often rare if not impossible— to escape. Last, Eileen Gillooly created a space—for me and so many others— in which more than I have ever believed to be possible became a reality. So many of the encounters, conversations, and friendships mentioned throughout these acknowledgments are her making, in one way or another. The Leverhulme Trust generously provided the material conditions for the work of writing, as it gave me the precious gift of time. I am grateful for the opportunity they have given me to complete this book. Epigraphs: Yael Navaro-Yashin, “Affective Spaces, Melancholic Objects: Ruination and the Production of Anthropological Knowledge,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 15, no. 1 (2009): 5; Rebecca Bryant, “History’s Remainders: On Time and Objects after Conflict in Cyprus,” American Ethnologist 41, no. 4 (2014): 690; Edward W. Said, “Interview with Ari Shavit,” Ha’aretz, August 18, 2000, republished in Power, Politics, and Culture: Interviews with Edward W. Said, by Edward W. Said, ed. Gauri Viswanathan (New York: Vintage Books, 2001), 458. 1 Alison Blunt and Ann Varley, “Introduction: Geographies of Home,” Cultural Geographies 11, no. 1 (2004): 3. 2 T. Peil, “Home,” in International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, ed. Rob Kitchin and Nigel Thrift (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2009). For a phenomenological analysis of home as fundamental to being, see Dylan Trigg, The Memory of Place: A Phenomenology of the Uncanny (Athens: Ohio University Press, 2012). Introduction Home This is a story of ruination at the foundation of a new political system. —Yael Navaro-Yashin Indeed, the house is often made to stand for “the conflict” insofar as it represents the tangible losses and gains that resulted. —Rebecca Bryant I suppose part of my critique of Zionism is that it attaches too much importance to home. Saying, we need a home. And we will do anything to get a home, even if it means making others homeless. —edward w. said This is a book about homes that were formed in and through violence; about homes that themselves become tools of destruction and expulsion; and about lives and selves whose very being is a form of injury. “A space of belonging and alienation, intimacy and violence, desire and fear,” as Alison Blunt and Ann Varley put it,1 which is “fundamental to being,”2 home functions for me here as 2 · Introduction 3 Amahl Bishara, “House and Homeland: Examining Sentiments about and Claims to Jerusalem and Its Houses,” Social Text 21, no. 2 (summer 2003): 143. On home as a metaphor for the nation or state, see also, among many others, Alon Confino, The Nation as a Local Metaphor: Wurttemberg, Imperial Germany, and National Memory, 1871–1918 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1997); Michael Feige, “Soft Power: The Meaning of Home for Gush Emunim Settlers,” Journal of Israeli History 32, no. 1 (2013): 109–26; or Erin Manning, Ephemeral Territories: Representing Nation, Home, and Identity in Canada (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003). 4 For an excellent analysis tying together capitalism (postindustrialization, globalized markets), ethnic violence, and homes—their shortage, the fantasies constructing and undoing them, their geographies, and the various forms through which they are (re)created at a time of crisis—see Arjun Appadurai, “Spectral Housing and Urban Cleansing: Notes on Millennial Mumbai,” Public Culture 12, no. 3 (fall 2000): 627–51. 5 Bishara, “House and Homeland,” 144. 6 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998). a concrete site, but also a placeholder, a metaphor, for thinking identities (collective and individual) that emerge through violence. Most explicitly, home is a site that ties the self to the nation, for which it often serves as “an uneasy metaphor.” 3 This book, then, looks at the systems of injury that have founded the system of property (from which enclosure, imperialism, slavery, or gentrification cannot be cleansed away) and are thus embedded into the concept of home if we think of any industrial, capitalist society.4 It looks at the violence intertwined with the intimacies of love and sexual desire, which is thus embedded into the concept of home if we think of kinship. But above all, it looks at settler colonies, wherein the construction of one’s home, and ultimately one’s (national) identity, is the destruction of another’s. In this context, this book’s main test case is Israel/Palestine, where, indeed, the territorial struggle involved in the formation of homeland often took—still takes—place through various struggles around houses. 5 My linguistic points of departure are Hebrew and Arabic, in which home and house (affect and architecture, belonging and territory) are merged. This linguistic point of departure, as well as the location from which I write, allow a linguistic slide between several words: home, household, house, domestic, domos, and oikos. If Hannah Arendt is correct, these words do not merely have different meanings and do not merely represent different political systems; they actually organize and shape different political orders. 6 And yet, the Hebrew word ba’it encapsulates this array of meanings. It is Home · 3 7 For a further analysis of this concept, see Hagar Kotef, “Ba’it (Home/Household),” Mafte’akh: Lexical Review of Political Thought 1e (2010), http://mafteakh .tau .ac .il /en /2010 -01 /01 /. 8 Achille Mbembe provides a concise yet comprehensive map of these forms of violence in the context of colonization—from the founding violence that creates the space for its own appearance to a violence that “give[s] this order meaning,” and to a violence that “recur[s] again and again in the most banal and ordinary situations,” which falls “well short of what is properly called ‘war,’ ” yet cannot be reduced to the notion of structural violence. Achille Mbembe, On the Postcolony (Oakland: University of California Press, 2001), 25. 9 I am thinking here about belonging primarily in its political form, that is, as a mode of maintaining, demarcating, reproducing, or imagining “the boundaries of the political community.” See Nira Yuval-Davis, The Politics of Belonging: Intersectional Contestations (London: sage, 2011), 204. But as Yuval-Davis proposed, this mode of belonging is tangled up with other forms of belonging—with social categories (of race, class, gender, etc.) or value systems. 10 In Sara Ahmed’s words: “The issue is that home is not simply about fantasies of belonging—where do I originate from—but that it is sentimentalized as a space of belonging (‘home is where the heart is’). The question of home and being at home can only be addressed by considering the the domos of the domestic sphere and it entails (or is contained within) the oikonomia of the oikos; it is a home, a house, and at times a household. In other words, it is the physical site, the social order that is organized within it, and the affectual dimensions that eventually territorialize identity as well as attachment.7 The Arabic beit likewise entails an array of functions that are scattered over several English concepts. But as we shall see, whereas language unites these functions, political history dissociates them in the case of many Palestinians. “Home” thus represents here the spatial facets of attachment, belonging, community, kinship, identity, and thus subjectivity. These spatial facets render “home” an apt site (or, as stated above, an analogy, an allegory) for understanding settler colonialism: the political system defined by an attachment to space that rests on dispossession, on a primordial act of ethnic cleansing and the many forms of violence that follow.8 Accordingly, the task ahead is to understand the cultural, political, and theoretical apparatuses that enable people and nations to construct a home on the ruins of other people’s homes, to feel that they belong to spaces of expulsion, or to develop an attachment to sites which subsequently—or even consequently—are transformed into sites of violence. Belonging is thus conceptualized here as and through settlement (homemaking, a mode of taking place) in order to produce an account of the relationship between collective identities and institutional, mass, or state violence. 9 In a way, then, I ask about the affectual conditions of possibility of settler colonialism,10 which is 4 · Introduction question of affect: being at home is here a matter of how one feels or how one might fail to feel.” “Home and Away: Narratives of Migration and Estrangement,” International Journal of Cultural Studies 2, no. 3 (December 1999): 341. 11 Indeed, as Butler notes, the ethical and political reflection of the question of violence “must take place precisely at the threshold of the psychic and social worlds” (Judith Butler, The Force of Non-violence [New York: Verso Books, 2020], 172). 12 Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009), 68. See also Stoler’s Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race and the Intimate in Colonial Rule (Oakland: University of California Press, 2002); Antoinette Burton, Dwelling in the Archive: Women Writing House, Home, and History in Late Colonial India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Philippa Levine, Prostitution, Race, and Politics: Policing Venereal Disease in the British Empire (New York: Routledge, 2003); and Anne McClintock, Imperial Leather: Race, Gender, and Sexuality in the Colonial Contest (New York: Routledge, 1995), among many others. 13 See, for example, Ian Baucom, “Mournful Histories: Narratives of Postimperial Melancholy,” mfs: Modern Fiction Studies 42, no. 2 (summer 1996): 259–88; Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism (London: Vintage Books, 1994). simultaneously a sociopolitical and a psychic question.11 After all, without such mechanisms of attachment to violence, “settling” would have been impossible amid the conditions of colonization. In so doing, I follow a rich body of literature that argues that colonization cannot be understood without what Ann Stoler terms the “ ‘emotional economies’ of empire,” and I try to understand those in their most spatially articulated manifestation.12 The house, its structure, its ideology, the sentiments invested in it, the social textures within it and those of which it forms a part, are inseparable from the financial systems, policies, and moral economies of empire.13 I therefore move between “home” as a metaphor for a state or an attachment to wider political constellations (community, territory, nation) and home as a component of the state (which is composed, as Aristotle stated, of many households), that is, the homes of individuals and small kinship units. This movement is a way of weaving together these affective economies, or untangling them to see how they are produced, managed, and regulated. This means that settler colonialism also serves here as an example (if not an allegory in and of itself ) of other political formations in which the existence of some—their lives, their bodies, their security, and their prosperity—is conditioned on inflicting violence on others. This violence can be direct or structural, deliberated or unintentional, celebrated or denied by the injuring persons, or can even hurt their sense of self (as is, for example, the case with progressive, leftist Israelis)—but it is nonetheless part of who they are. Who Home · 5 14 Jennifer Terry, Attachments to War: Biomedical Logics and Violence in Twenty-First- Century America (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017); Bruce Robbins, The Beneficiary (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017); Michael Rothberg, The Implicated Subject: Beyond Victims and Perpetrators (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2019); Jeanne Morefield, Empires without Imperialism: Anglo-American Decline and the Politics of Deflection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 2. 15 See, for example, James Martel, The Misinterpellated Subject (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2017); or Judith Butler’s work, in particular, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York: Routledge, 1990), and Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (New York: Routledge, 1993). we are. As Jennifer Terry recently showed in regard to war, Bruce Robbins in regard to various modes of privilege, or Michael Rothberg in regard to various orders of systematic violence, systems of injury are woven into social positions in ways that make it impossible to simply renounce them, to simply take a stance against them, to simply say, in Jeanne Morefield’s reconstruction, this is not “who we are.”14 Which is not to say that we should accept these systems of injury. “Who we are” always takes form within broken, contradictory schemes that can never be determined once and for all.15 this book was written over a period of more than seven years, during which many dominant assumptions concerning political lives have shifted. When I started writing it, around 2012, there was a need, I thought, to question the assumption that those living in liberal democracies disavow violence, if only as a rhetorical maneuver. There was an urgency, I thought, to point to the undercurrents tethered to the political fabric (in Israel, but also in the United States or Europe) that render legitimate the explicit embrace of, and political will to, violence. But as the book was written, with the rise of Trump and the Far Right across the world, the explicit racism that came to light with Brexit, and the slow legalization of apartheid in Israel, these undercurrents rose to the surface. In this sense, the book is both more and less timely than originally planned. The theoretical effort to expose these desires or attachments may be less needed as they are now barer, but understanding them is more urgent than ever. What I seek to offer here is a theory of the dispossessor. At least in the context of Israel/Palestine, much has been written on the dispossessed subject, and theories of subjectivity that work through the figure of the refugee or through the space of diaspora are quite prevalent. There has also been a proliferation of literature about the state as an actor or state actors, or mechanisms of power 6 · Introduction 16 For an analysis, see Ariella Azoulay and Adi Ophir, The One-State Condition: Occupation and Democracy in Israel/Palestine (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012), 203–24. that explain dispossession. But a theory of the dispossessing subject is largely missing. The Colonizing Self thus works at two levels: first, it provides a contextualized analysis of spaces of belonging in Israel/Palestine, and second, it provides a theoretical analysis of the forms of subjectivity at the foundation of both liberalism and settler colonialism (which are, historically at least, inextricable). In this regard the status of Israel as a liberal democracy (albeit an eroding one) merits some explication. “Liberal” and “democratic” are in Israel parameters limited to a dual matrix, combining citizenship status and location: All Jewish citizens (within the 1948 borders and in the settlements) enjoy liberal democracy, and, to a lesser degree, all citizens (Jewish and Palestinian) within the 1948 borders. Thus, even though also within these parameters, both the liberal and the democratic facets of the regime are limited, stratified, and eroding, and even though the “one state” is already the political condition of Israel/Palestine—and within these boundaries it is clearly a nondemocratic state—its matrix of control allows for clearly defined zones of democratic rule.16 When I refer here to “liberal” or “democratic” I refer to these enclaves, within which most Jewish Israelis reside. To unfold this dual analysis, the book focuses on three main homes or, better yet, three main figures of home, archetypes of sorts that come to represent different modes of inhabiting violent geographies. The first is the home of one of the most violent settlers in the West Bank, a home that effectively led to the eviction of an entire Palestinian village. It is also the largest organic farm in Israel, and the relation between the ethics of organic agriculture and this form of dispossession is crucial to me, as part of an effort to understand the ethical schemes that are employed to support homes under such conditions of violence (part III). The second home is in fact a plurality of homes: the depopulated Palestinian homes that are inhabited by Israeli Jews, often progressive and left leaning (part II). These Palestinian homes—in Jaffa, Jerusalem, Ein Hod—and this mode of homemaking in the depopulated home/ space serve as an allegory for Zionism at large (if not settlement as such). At the focus of this allegory is liberal Zionism, and, in this sense, there is a wider lesson concerning liberal sentiments here. The duo formed by parts II and III moves between the 1967 and the 1948 borders and endeavors to think together (even if apart) the establishment of Israel and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. In very different ways, these two modes of homemaking open questions concerning the various narratives, ideologies, and ethics Home · 7 17 Peil, “Home,” 181. that allow one to live amid the destruction for which they are responsible. Accordingly, this analysis allows us to see the forms of social and political positions—the selves—that emerge through the attachment to these sites of violence. The analysis of these two parts is based on a spatial typology of contested homes, an ethnographic examination of these homes as sites wherein both formal citizenship and claims for place are negotiated, and a cultural analysis of identity production via a study of the representations of homes, national or private. Finally, the third home, which opens this book, is the figure of home as it circulates in political theory (part I). At its core, it is the home I reread into the Lockean concept of property, but in its wider sense, it is the home that I seek to situate as the core unit of political analysis. Via this reading, I show how the structure of dispossession is embedded into different modes of subjectivity, thereby providing a conceptual foundation for the analysis that follows. Home and Violence: The Wider Scope of the Argument Home is “the primary site around which identities are produced and performed,” a site of intimacy and love, a site defined by attachments.17 At the same time, home is always also a site of injury: injuries caused by and to the territories we inhabit or the people with whom we share our lives or with whom we refuse to coinhabit; injuries caused by our disposed piles of rubbish or our sewage flows, or by police or military violence that penetrates home or refuses to do so. Furthermore, home is also an exclusionary space: it creates distinctions between those who can come in and those who must stay out; between those who stay overnight and those who must leave; those who have keys and those who must knock on the door—between the members of the household (and, within them, between family and domestic workers or slaves, for example) and guests or unwanted strangers. Or, to apply these distinctions to another context, between the members of the nation-state and its outsiders: guest workers, undocumented migrants, and those who cannot even cross the border. Home is thus a site of differentiations. Therefore, in its articulation as both a political technology and a political concept, we can think of the home as a place of governing differences—governing by creating differences (by hiding them, containing them) or governing those who have been differentiated: the governance of wives, slaves, servants, and other domestic workers, as well as children or those presumed 8 · Introduction 18 We see this in the Aristotelian demarcation of the oikos as the other of the polis and in a long tradition of both philosophy and historical accounts ever since. It underlies the dichotomy identified by Max Weber between the pure form of rational authority in the modern bureaucratic state, on the one hand, and the traditional state, drawing its form from the household, on the other. Mediated by civil society, this opposition also appears in Hegel; it is central to the rigid distinction between the private and the political that liberalism both assumes and demands—a distinction that preconditions the notion of private property; and it is shared by institutional-historical analyses that depict the emergence of the modern state from the royal court. According to the latter analyses, even though the state in its embryonic form was inseparable from the king’s household, the modern state is defined as such because of the disentanglement of the sovereign from the persona of the king and of the state’s bureaucracy from the management of the king’s household. 19 I am thinking here along the lines of Arendt’s reading of Aristoteles (see Human Condition). 20 As Carole Pateman has observed, or as Marx has made clear. Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988); Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” in The Marx-Engels Reader, ed. Robert Tucker (New York: W. W. Norton, 1978), 26–52. to be like children (and thus we can think of home as a meeting point for questions of race, class, legal residency, age, and disability). Home is that which can be—indeed is—differentiated (above all from the political), 18 and is that within which difference resides: It is the place of Woman (she who is different from Man); the signifier of private property (which produces class differences); and it is the function through which forms of government are differentiated: differences between those who are thoroughly and fully governed and those who can, in some fields, transcend being governed and are therefore “free” and “equal.”19 If one of the main problems of early modern and modern political theory is the tension between theoretical equality (universalism) and a reality of domination, discrimination, and exploitation, then “home” may provide a theoretical solution. Prefiguring and conditioning the political sphere as a sphere of (presumed) equality, the home (or private sphere, or domestic sphere) allows differences and differentiations to be governed outside of politics and as if they were nonpolitical, making way for “universalism” at the state’s level.20 At stake, then, is the array of connections between exclusion, often violent, and intimacy—an intimacy that always requires exclusion to maintain its parameters (intimacy, after all, cannot be stretched too far), yet tends to hide this aspect from the stories it tells about itself. This combination means that also at stake is a tension between fantasy and real life, or a tension between the promises of political concepts and the political orders they actually depict. In this sense, too, this book can be read as a parable. The Home · 9 fantasy (or concept) it captures is a certain fantasy of home, as a sheltering, stable, and peaceful space. The reality is that of violence— the violence of forced mobility, demolition, and dispossession on which this book’s argument focuses, but also of rape, incest, beating, imprisonment, confinement, isolation. This is not to say that all these violences are the same, and indeed, I will not consider all of them here. Many have pointed to this tension before me, and their work can mark the larger scope of the argument, the wider field to which it applies. Feminists across disciplines, historical moments, and geographical contexts have exposed the frequency of domestic violence, marital rape, or incest; they have shown how domestic work and care are outsourced to those working under conditions of exploitation, often paying with their own homes’ collapse. Drawing on their important insights, my book nevertheless centers not on violence in the home, but on homes as a technology of violence that operates outward. Accordingly, working on home here is not a way of foregrounding intimate modes of injustice that often take place in the private sphere. Rather, my focus is the intimacies of public wrongs. The history of public wrongs that is woven into the theory and practice of homemaking is quite diverse. Another one of its main fields is capitalism, and alongside gender and sexuality it, too, provides some of the larger parameters within which my argument can echo. Much like in settler colonialism, which is the focus of this inquiry, in capitalism we find mechanisms of attachment to objects of violence— objects whose production necessitates violence— and a continuous attachment to these objects even after this violence becomes apparent. Most relevant to the subject of this book would be cases of gentrification, or instances in which eminent domain is declared to evict some (most often the less well-off), transferring places of residence to private real-estate enterprises in a process through which new homes are constructed on the ruins of others. But in different forms and under different structures, we are attached to objects in which violence is implicated in even the most mundane practices of domesticity: from our contribution to degrading working conditions when ordering home supplies from Amazon, to the toxicity of mineral dust in the cobalt mines in the Democratic Republic of Congo that goes into the production of almost every battery we use (from laptops to electric cars), to the child and forced labor in those and other mines; the list goes on and on. Lauren Berlant further shows that desire under capitalism attaches itself not just to objects implicated in violence (through their production, or through the social organizations that coalesce around either production or consumption), 10 · Introduction 21 David Harvey, The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Gastón Gordillo inverts the famous “creative destruction” into “destructive production” to think of the capitalist production of space. Gastón R. Gordillo, Rubble: The Afterlife of Destruction (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014). See also Marshall Berman, All That Is Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity (New York: Penguin Books, 1982), 100. 22 Lauren Berlant, Cruel Optimism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011), 27. Quote from Sigmund Freud, “Mourning and Melancholia [1915],” in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 14, ed. James Strachey (London: Hogarth, 1957), 244. but to the very order of violence. I will return to this analogy in detail in the theoretical overview and chapter 2. Whereas it is Berlant’s model of attachment that will stand at the basis of one of the main arguments of this book, the analogy between capitalist systems and settler colonialism has other facets which will be considered here only partially. A key analogy here is the capitalist mode of production through destruction that David Harvey identifies, following Marx.21 For Harvey, it is capitalist production that is at stake here; but creative destruction is also the mode through which settlers’ homemaking takes place. Finally, much like the case of both settler colonialism and intimacy or kinship, part of what shapes capitalist form of destruction is the question of substitution. Presumably, whereas both capitalist consumption and sexual desire are organized according to the logic of substitution, at stake in settler colonialism is precisely the lack of the possibility of substituting the object of attachment: territory. That is, if in capitalism the logic of value or exchange, and certainly practices of surplus consumption, are anchored in the possibility—and the desire—to substitute one object (concrete or abstracted) for another, and if sexual desire is organized around the substitution of one object of desire with another (this is precisely the foundation of the Oedipal complex, the structure of Lacan’s objet petit a, but also the nature of any new relationship or most fantasies), then in settler colonialism the singularity of the territory, its irreplaceability, is the political principle that drives and justifies settlement. Yet the difference does not hold, and the mechanism of substitution often remains an unrealized potential, even in the former two orders. In this sense, to borrow Berlant’s words (themselves borrowed), this book “politicizes Freud’s observation that ‘people never willingly abandon a libidinal position, not even, indeed, when a substitute is already beckoning to them.’ ”22 Home · 11 23 Patrick Wolfe, Traces of History: Elementary Structures of Race (New York: Verso Books, 2016), 33. 24 Ruba Salih and Sophie Richter-Devroe, “Palestine beyond National Frames: Emerging Politics, Cultures, and Claims,” South Atlantic Quarterly 117, no. 1 (2018): 7; my italics. 25 I add here the qualifier “Jew” to “Israeli” in order not to erase the roughly 20 percent of the Israeli population who are not Jews, particularly Palestinians who are citizens of the Israeli state. This qualifier may produce some discomfort, as it may sound essentializing and as such racist (anti-Semitic). This is not my intention here. 26 Sumud literally means “persistence,” but also refers to the act of Palestinians staying closely, tightly, stubbornly to the land, and building a home and a homeland, despite the effort to dispossess them. See Alexandra Rijke and Toine van Teeffelen, “To Exist Is to Resist: Sumud, Heroism, and the Everyday,” Jerusalem Quarterly 59 (2014): 86–99; Raja Shehadeh, The Third Way: A Journal of Life in the West Bank (New York: Quartet Books, 1982). 27 Yael Allweil, Homeland: Zionism as Housing Regime, 1860–2011 (London: Routledge, 2017), 5. Allweil analyzes the Zionist project through what she refers to as “Israel’s housing regime,” which was Israeli Homes “The ongoing requirement to eliminate the Native alternative continues to shape the colonial society that settlers construct on their expropriated land base,” argues Patrick Wolfe.23 The main argument of this book is that not just societies, but also modes of selfhood are shaped by this ongoing requirement. In other words, there is a settler self and it is constituted as part of a project of ethnic cleansing. As Ruba Salih and Sophie Richter-Devroe put it in the Israeli context, “land confiscation, annexation, and fragmentation are foundational not only to the formation of Israeli settler nationalism but also to the definition of its citizens as political and human subjects.”24 The story of the “political and human subject” that is formed via “land confiscation, annexation, and fragmentation” (in Salih and Richter-Devroe’s words) is the story of the homemaking of the Israeli Jew in Israel/Palestine.25 And this story must be examined also through all those Palestinian homes whose destruction constitutes this home: homes that are bulldozed or bombarded, at times killing their inhabitants in their collapse; homes that are still standing but have become inaccessible; homes whose keys are kept in the hope of return and that are often inhabited by others; temporary homes in refugee camps that have become permanent; homes that are rendered illegal by discriminatory land regimes; homes that are being demolished cyclically as part of Israel’s effort to make more land available for Jewish settlement; but also homes that are being rebuilt, again and again, as a form of resistance—staying put, sumud, as a political struggle reasserting identity and belonging.26 Zionism is often described as (indeed is) “a massive housing project.” 27 Yet as Idan Landau observed, 12 · Introduction “intended to provide housing for each citizen as a fulfilment of the right of each Jew to the ancestral homeland in which he or she was being rooted” (12). Note the conflation here between “citizen” and “Jew,” which has served to deny many Palestinian citizens the right to a proper home. 28 Idan Landau, “House Demolitions: The Enduring Background Noise of Zionism,” Lo lamut tipesh [Don’t die dumb] (blog), June 10, 2013, https://idanlandau .com /2013 /06 /10 /house -demolishions -zionism -background -noise /; my translation. The quoted segment is from Walter Benjamin’s “On the Concept of History,” in Selected Writings, vol. 4: 1938–1940, ed. Michael W. Jennings and Howard Eiland, 389–400 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), ix. if someone were to summarize the Zionist project one day, [they] would have to face one baffling fact: how is it that so many people tie Zionism to construction and production, rather than to destruction and eviction? After all, alongside the obsession with nonstop construction, mostly beyond the Green Line, the roars of bulldozers have always been present: ascending, striking, breaking, and shattering. Migrants’ housing projects were built instantly, build-your- own- home neighborhoods, neighborhoods for military personnel, suburbs, and luxurious high-rises sprung up like mushrooms after the rain; and at the very same time, the angel of Zionist history amassed a pile of debris which “grows skyward.”28 Stories of destruction also feature in Israeli identity via the destruction of Jewish homes: above all, the hounding image of the destruction of the temple, which is referred to in Hebrew as the destruction of home, the prolonged exile that followed, and the Holocaust. This duality of constitutive destruction can be a version of Said’s claim that both nations share a history of dispossession, but this is not the claim I want to make here. I will not offer a detailed mapping of these various destroyed homes and the diverse courses of their destruction. I rather seek to isolate a segment from this complex map in order to integrate destruction and construction into one history, one identity, of a community, a nation, for which destruction is constitutive. for now, amid all this destruction, I want to focus on the constitutive destruction that took place in 1948 and its long aftermath in order to introduce a wider question regarding knowledge and violence. In the aftermath of the two grand territorial wars of Israel—in 1948 and 1967—massive projects of demolition have changed the Israeli landscape. Home · 13 29 There are many dimensions to the transformation of Arab land into Jewish land. On the legal status of territory, see Geremy Forman and Alexandre Kedar, “From Arab Land to ‘Israel Lands’: The Legal Dispossession of the Palestinians Displaced by Israel in the Wake of 1948,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22, no. 6 (December 2004): 809–30; Alexandre Kedar, “The Legal Transformation of Ethnic Geography: Israeli Law and the Palestinian Landholder 1948–1967,” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 33, no. 4 (2001): 923–1000; Issachar Rosen-Zvi, Taking Space Seriously: Law, Space and Society in Contemporary Israel (Abingdon, VA: Routledge, 2017). In regard to the Bedouin minority, see Alexandre Kedar, Ahmad Amara, and Oren Yiftachel, Emptied Lands: A Legal Geography of Bedouin Rights in the Negev (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2018). Noam Leshem emphasizes that the state is not a unified entity in this regard, and many who settled in depopulated Arab houses or areas cannot simply be seen as its agents. They had conflicting relations with the state, which often treated them as illegal trespassers. Noam Leshem, Life after Ruin: The Struggles over Israel’s Depopulated Arab Spaces (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016). 30 A very partial list includes Nadia Abu El-Haj, Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001); Salman H. Abu Sitta, The Palestinian Nakba 1948: The Register of Depopulated Localities in Palestine (London: Palestinian Return Centre, 1998); Meron Benvenisti, Sacred Landscape: The Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000); Noga Kadman, Erased from Space and Consciousness: Israel and the Depopulated Palestinian Villages of 1948 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2015); Walid Khalidi, ed., All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948 (Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992). I review others throughout this book. Pictures and maps showing “before” and “after” strikingly present the construction of the Jewish homeland as heavily dependent on destruction (see figures I.1–I. 3). Ever since this period, house demolition in its various forms has been a dominant political technology in Israel, and an essential element in its construction.29 My argument in regard to this political technology is dual. First, as aforementioned, I argue that this destruction is constitutive. That is, this destruction is not a mere historical contingency. It is rather woven into Israeli subjectivity, as far as such exists (and national selves never fully exist as such). To put it differently, this book sets out to show that Israelis are intimately invested in destruction in various ways. Second and relatedly, I argue that in some cases, this destruction is affirmed rather than denied. This second argument intervenes in a larger debate in the literature concerning the work of collective memory in Israel/ Palestine, as well as colonial memory more broadly. I touch on it extensively in the theoretical overview. Within this debate, some emphasize the erasure of Palestinian history and landscape, intended to deny their very existence in the land and, derivatively, the violence entailed in removing them;30 some focus on 14 · Introduction figure i.1. Manshiyya. January 1949 (source: Zalmanya). the various rationales deployed to justify Palestinians’ dispossession when their existence becomes undeniable;31 some argue that there are large holes in these networks of blindness and denial through which that past constantly emerges;32 some call for a complete change of metaphors. 33 Rather than working to provide 31 The myth of nomadism alongside apparatuses producing nomadism, and with them the notion of terra nullius, is probably the most dominant here, in the context of Israel/Palestine and others. See, for example, Kedar, Amara, and Yiftachel, Emptied Lands; Hagar Kotef, Movement and the Ordering of Freedom: On Liberal Governances of Mobility (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015); Carole Pateman and Charles W. Mills, Contract and Domination (Malden, MA: Polity, 2007). Home · 15 32 Gil Z. Hochberg, Visual Occupation: Violence and Visibility in a Conflict Zone (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2015); Leshem, Life after Ruin. For other contexts, see Stoler, Along the Archival Grain, chapter 7, “Imperial Dispositions of Disregard.” 33 Ann Laura Stoler, “Colonial Aphasia: Race and Disabled Histories in France,” Public Culture 23, no. 1 (winter 2011): 121–56. further “proof” of or “support” for this side or the other, I am more interested in the very existence of this debate. The debate itself reflects an unstable dyad of collective memory that can then be translated into an argument regarding the content of what is remembered (did we know? did we see? have we forgotten? erased? denied? could we have been aware?—or unaware?). I contend that this dyad, and the difficulty of accounting for it, is at least partly generated 
figure i.2. Shows Tel Aviv in the early 2000s. The minaret of the Hassan Bek Mosque serves here as a visual anchor. figure i.3. Manshiyya’s destruction plan. In dark gray houses that were destroyed by October 1949; in light gray, houses that were destroyed by 1980. Courtesy of Or Aleksandrowicz. Aleksandrowicz’s work details these acts of destruction, questions the security claims behind them, and unfolds the long history of destruction behind several of Tel Aviv’s neighborhoods. Image from “The Camouflage of War: Planned Destruction in Jaffa and Tel Aviv, 1948,” Planning Perspective 32, no. 2 (2017): 188. Home · 17 34 This was done via the regulation of sex and kinship, the school system, and the emphasis on constant mobility of bureaucrats across the empire. Such managed circulations—within the empire and between colonies and metropoles—aimed at creating proper attachments and ways of being “moved” that separated “home” (in the metropole) from “away” (in the empire). It generated bonds to people as well as territories, but also cultivated aversions to people and territories in the colony, from whom one had to remain detached. See Stoler, Along the Archival Grain, 68 (although the project of narrating these movements reaches beyond this page and book, and can be traced through most of Stoler’s writings). Sara Ahmed shows how the result is entire groups, mostly of postcolonized subjects, for whom this distinction between “home” and “away” becomes impossible (Ahmed, “Home and Away”). 35 Wolfe, Traces of History, 33. by the difficulty of settling modes of being-with- violence. Put differently, the inability to settle down colonial memory, as well as the inability to settle the different theoretical frameworks accounting for this memory, is a function of the difficulty of acknowledging that selves can live with their own violence in nonconflictual ways. This difficulty may be of the settler’s own memory or the theorist’s frame—and I will keep moving here between these levels of analysis. It is this assumption, that people cannot reconcile their self-image with the violence they inflict on others, that I want to question. A Methodological Note: Settler Colonialism “Home” can be seen as one of the main criteria differentiating colonialism from settler colonialism. Wolfe famously distinguished between the imperative to work imposed on the colonized in colonialism (part of a racial system that exploits bodies and resources) and the imperative to move imposed on the colonized in settler colonialism (part of a racial system that takes over land for the purpose of settlement). Thus, in the first system, various modes of colonial governance endeavored to maintain the metropole as a home and keep the attachments of Europeans to the colony limited and transient.34 In the case of settler colonialism, however, at stake is the production and preservation of home in the colony. What will be outlined in this book is therefore a history of sentiments that allow one to stay put, to form an identity unaffected, or less affected, or at least not completely undone by its contradictions and violence. The facts that “settlers come to stay,” that settler colonialism is “first and foremost a project of replacement,” and that in the act of settlement settlers “destroy to replace”35 render the paradigm of settler colonialism an apt lens through which to examine my question concerning home as a tool of destruction (or perhaps render “home” an apt lens through which to examine settler 18 · Introduction 36 This is the case even if settlement takes the form of a national identity, mostly since such societies are often migrant societies, united primarily by the territory. 37 Patrick Wolfe’s famous formulation of settler colonialism as a “logic of elimination” is not an argument that all settler colonies are necessarily genocidal. The imperative posed by such societies is not always about death, but always about movement: the imperative on indigenous populations to move. Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event (London: Cassell, 1999). For the colonial histories and the limits of the concept of dispossession, as well as for the possibility of reclaiming it in radical struggles for decolonization, see Robert Nichols, Theft Is Property! Dispossession and Critical Theory (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, forthcoming). 38 With Ariella Azoulay, we can think of this claim somewhat differently but with the same conclusion: by being governed as a citizen alongside noncitizens, one is “in effect exerting violence.” Ariella Azoulay, “Civil Alliances—Palestine, 1947–1948,” Settler Colonial Studies 4, no. 4 (2014): 416. 39 Ann Laura Stoler, “On Degrees of Imperial Sovereignty,” Public Culture 18, no. 1 (2006): 125–46. colonialism). This does not mean that settlers necessarily bring about destruction maliciously, but if in settler colonialism the primary identity is the relation to place,36 and if this belonging is an act of elimination and dispossession,37 then by being who one is, one is already implicated in violence. 38 Violence, then, emerges as a precondition for the integrity of one’s subjectivity. This is the main claim of this book. Nevertheless, two primary reservations can be made in regard to the framing of Israel as a settler-colonial state and this argument’s framing. First, many of the events, modes of attachment, and practices of homemaking that will occupy these pages resonate and have parallels with other historical and geopolitical contexts: Poles, Germans, or Hungarians who moved into the homes of Jews after the Second World War; postpartition “house swaps” in India/Pakistan; or Turkish Cypriots who came to inhabit the homes of Greek Cypriots after partition. I therefore refer here to “settler colonialism” not as an exclusive and excluding framework. Unlike some tendencies in the recent field of comparative settler-colonial studies, I prefer to follow Stoler’s insight that there is no one imperial (or colonial, or settler-colonial) case that is identical to the other, which also means that sometimes cases that can be categorized as settler colonialism in some respects resemble civil wars, postcolonial partitions, or national revivals in other facets.39 The second reservation has to do with the particular status of Israel within this framework. With the emergence of “settler-colonial studies,” there has been much debate concerning the relevance of this framework to the Israeli/Palestinian context. Some have treated it as a clear case of Home · 19 40 A special issue of the journal Settler Colonial Studies (as well as many other essays in it throughout the years) was dedicated to examining this paradigm in relation to Israel/Palestine. For the analytical and political benefits of applying the category “settler colonialism” to the Israeli case, see Omar Salamanca, Mezna Qato, Kareem Rabie, and Sobhi Samour, “Past Is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine,” Settler Colonial Studies 2, no. 1 (2012): 1–8. See also other papers in that volume. One of the first accounts of Israel as a settler-colonial state is Maxime Rodinson’s Israel: A Colonial-Settler State? (New York: Monad Press, 1973). However, as Patrick Wolfe notes, despite its title, this book does not think about settler colonialism in particular, but about colonialism as such. For Wolfe’s account of how this book has shaped his understanding of settler colonialism, see Patrick Wolfe, “New Jews for Old: Settler State Formation and the Impossibility of Zionism: In Memory of Edward W. Said,” Arena Journal 37/38 (2012): 285–321. Wolfe dedicated a significant segment of his comparative account of settler colonialism to the Israeli case, marking it as a settler-colonialism case par excellence (see Traces of History). Just as important, the paradigm has given language to resistance and the imagination of new horizons, particularly among Palestinians who are citizens of Israel, since it allowed for a shift from the discourse of “peace process,” “conflict management,” or even “occupation” to a language of decolonization that assumes the need to account for the mode of governance also within the 1948 borders. 41 For the limits of this paradigm in this context, see Rachel Busbridge, “Israel-Palestine and the Settler Colonial ‘Turn’: From Interpretation to Decolonization,” Theory, Culture and Society 35, no. 1 (January 2018): 91–115, which also provides a comprehensive review of the settler-colonialism literature in relation to the Israeli/Palestinian context. Some have called for thinking within other frameworks, such as apartheid (e.g., Abigail B. Bakan and Yasmeen Abu-Laban, “Israel/Palestine, South Africa and the ‘One-State Solution’: The Case for an Apartheid Analysis,” Politikon 37, nos. 2–3 [2010]: 331–51; Hilla Dayan, “Regimes of Separation: Israel/Palestine and the Shadow of Apartheid,” in The Power of Inclusive Exclusion: Anatomy of Israeli Rule in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, ed. Adi Ophir, Michal Givoni, and Sari Hanafi [New York: Zone, 2009], 281–322); ethnocracy (Oren Yiftachel, Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics in Israel/Palestine [Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006]); or simply colonialism (Derek Gregory, The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq [Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005]). Lorenzo Veracini argued that while the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is a colonial project, within the 1948 borders it is a settler-colonial one (“The Other Shift: Settler Colonialism, Israel, and the Occupation,” Journal of Palestine Studies 42, no. 2 [winter 2013]: 26–42). Others have rejected these critiques altogether, insisting that Zionism is a national project. Between these approaches, Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin argued that “we must rid ourselves of the tendency to think in terms of the dichotomy colonialism/nationalism, which often dominates the discussion of the Zionist consciousness,” not just because the term colonial seems to entail “a total delegitimating” and “the term ‘national’ [presumably] justifie[s] anything,” but also because, as Raef Zreik notes, both historically and conceptually, Zionism has always entailed both dimensions—the national and the settler colonial. Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, “Exile, History, and the Nationalization of settler colonialism, if not one of the primary players in the comparative playing field of the discipline.40 Others pointed to the limitations of this paradigm—for Israel as well as for other geopolitical contexts.41 Given the 20 · Introduction Jewish Memory: Some Reflections on the Zionist Notion of History and Return,” Journal of Levantine Studies 3, no. 2 (winter 2013): note 43; Raef Zreik, “Leumit ve colonialit” [National and colonial], Ha’aretz, July 21, 2015, https://www .haaretz .co .il /opinions /. premium -1 .2688934. 42 Raef Zreik, “When Does a Settler Become a Native? (With Apologies to Mamdani),” Constellations 23, no. 3 (2016): 359. 43 Yuval Evri and Hagar Kotef, “When Does a Native Become a Settler?,” Constellations (forthcoming). 44 Unlike Palestinian Jews—who have been living in Palestine during, and sometimes before, the Ottoman Empire, and were considered as natives by themselves as well as by their fellow Muslim and Christian Palestinians and the authorities, Mizrahi Jews is a term usually serving to mark those who immigrated to Israel, often after 1948. However, because they came from Arab-speaking countries and had been an integral part of the Middle East and the Ottoman Empire, Jews from North Africa and the Middle East (“Mizrahi”) are often seen as part of a different logic and structure of immigration and placement, if not the victims of Zionism as a European/ settler project. See, for example, Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, “Zionist Return to the West and the Mizrachi Jewish Perspective,” in Orientalism and the Jews, ed. Ivan Kalmar and Derek Penslar (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2005), 162–81; Ella Shohat, “Sephardim in Israel: Zionism from the Standpoint of Its Jewish Victims,” Social Text 19/20 (autumn 1988): 1–35. first reservation, I have no stakes in arguing that Israel falls or does not fall within the parameters of this paradigm. I nevertheless use it, despite these limits, since—to follow Raef Zreik’s useful formulation—in its “praxis and tools,” Zionism follows the structure of settler colonialism: “Its takeover of the land, its dream of the disappearance of the native, the importance it allocates to the frontier, its expanding nature and the stories that it tells itself about the land as being terra nullius all match the settler-colonial paradigm.” 42 This is even though, as Zreik himself contends, Zionism was at the same time a national movement, a revival of a nation in what was—and still is—seen as its own homeland. Finally, a conceptual clarification is required. In the Israeli context, the term settler is most often used to designate someone living beyond the Green Line, primarily in the West Bank. However, if we think within the framework of settler colonialism, then at least schematically, all Jews in Israel fall under this category. There are several ways in which this categorization can—and should—be problematized. Elsewhere, with Yuval Evri, I do some of this work of problematization in regard to Palestinian Jews (who were natives of the land)43 and others have done so as well, particularly in regard to Mizrahi Jews.44 But the work of this book progresses primarily through figures, and the detailed historical work that such problematization necessitates will not be done here. Home · 21 45 For a complex analysis of this rejection, see Raz-Krakotzkin, “Exile, History.” 46 For such a call, see Daniel Boyarin, A Traveling Homeland: The Babylonian Talmud as Diaspora (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015); Judith Butler, Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013); and Arendt, to whom we shall return. For a contemporary call for Jewish/Israeli diasporic existence as part of a growing despair in the Israeli left, as well as its critique, see Michal Givoni, “Indifference and Repetition: Occupation Testimonies and Left-Wing Despair,” Cultural Studies 33, no. 4 (2019): 595–631. 47 See, for example, Tim Cresswell, On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World (New York: Routledge, 2006); Kotef, Movement. 48 Ahmed, “Home and Away,” 335. 49 Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, “Exile and Binationalism: From Gershom Scholem and Hannah Arendt to Edward Said and Mahmoud Darwish” (Carl Heinrich Becker Lecture, Fritz Thyssen Stiftung, Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, Berlin, 2012), 129. A Note on Exile (and Politics) If Zionism can be defined as a negation of exile45 and a construction of an exclusively Jewish homeland, and if the outcome of this return from exile is destruction, would the key to justice be exile, a refusal of a home that has become a tool of dispossession? 46 Within a state of left-wing despair, some have advocated this as the political solution. But within a global regime in which modes of both mobility and stability are radically differentiated,47 there are political and ethical risks involved in romanticizing exile. Sara Ahmed questions, as a mode of warning, whether exile and other modes of nomadic and diasporic existence are the coherent choices of the “one that can do so, because the world is already constituted as their home.” “Is this,” she further asks, “an example of movement as a form of privilege rather than transgression, a movement that is itself predicated on the translation of the collective and forced movements of others into an act of individual and free choice?”48 Alternatively, one could advocate exile not as a concrete call, say, for the Jews to leave Israel/Palestine (a call, we must note, that takes the form of ethnic cleansing), but as a conceptual tool that allows a reorganization of political life. Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin proposes to think of exile not as “the opposition to homeland, but [as] a sensitivity that leads towards a process of decolonization that includes Jews and Arabs alike, in which Jews limit their rights in order to create the space for a Palestinian existence, while Palestinians recognize Jewish existence.” Such a concept “may become the starting point for thinking about alternatives to partitions, as well as the idea of the nation state, without ignoring national differences.”49 This imagining of political exile will not be a romanticization of what Said saw as “the unhealable rift forced between a human being and a native place, between the self and its true home,” but rather, and still after Said, a way of thinking of a 22 · Introduction 50 Edward W. Said, Reflections on Exile and Other Essays (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 171. 51 J. Butler, Parting Ways, 208. 52 J. Butler, Parting Ways, 209. 53 Theodor W. Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life (London: Verso Books, 2005), 39. 54 Ahmed, “Home and Away,” 334. 55 Said, Reflections on Exile, 177. shared condition of displacement from which another politics can emerge.50 Not a negation of home, but a way of envisioning “political principles that are derived from the diasporic conditions that must also, as it were, be brought home.”51 Such a concept of exile could become, in Butler’s words, “an internal criticism of the national, if not a set of qualifications and safeguards that inhere in any possible nation.”52 In times in which, as Adorno famously put it, “it is part of morality not to be at home in one’s home” (and were there ever any other times?), would this advocation of exile not be a preferred political solution?53 Perhaps. But, again following Ahmed, it may be that by thinking of exile conceptually we are, once more, engaging in a romanticizing move in which the nomads, the exiled, “come to perform a particular kind of theoretical work, to represent something other than themselves.”54 Can one think concretely about exile as a condition that can be employed to organize the political communities at home, as it were? Can one do so in ways that fracture the modes of entrenched, exclusive nationalism but do not further fracture the subject, already in “a discontinuous state of being” generated by displacement?55 Perhaps. But in this book, rather than focusing on shared models of diasporic homemaking or the Jewish sense of rebuilding a home postdiaspora, I ask about the meeting point of these two homes—the Palestinian and the Jewish Israeli—as part of an effort to understand how the destruction of homes (of Palestinians) becomes constitutive of the construction of homes: of the construction of Israel as a national home, of the establishment of houses for Israelis to reside in, and of the sense of attachment to territory that is formative of identities. Thinking about this connection urges us to think of the home’s absence not as another possible definition of homes (as in the case of diasporic models of homemaking) but as a condition that subtends the being—the presence—of some homes. This again places the conceptualization of home within an analytic of violence, or makes home the embodiment of such an analytic. Home · 23 Structure and Main Arguments The Colonizing Self is composed of three main chapters and six shorter “satellites” organized in three parts. Before each of the main chapters, a brief interlude opens the particular question of the chapter to a different context—sometimes, the interlude examines a different case of settler colonialism; at other times, it serves to offer a different departing point for the main chapter. The goal of these interludes is to gesture toward other domains to which the argument is relevant, even though I cannot fully develop these other directions here. After each chapter, an epilogue offers an analysis of one of the core problems that surfaced in the main chapter. These are more structural interventions, focusing on specific questions the main chapters opened up but did not fully address. after this introduction, a theoretical overview sets the ground for my main question concerning the relations between violence and identity. It attempts to map the primary models within which these relations are conceptualized in existing literature, and marks the main theoretical lacuna this book seeks to address. These models are going to be unpacked throughout the book and guide its inquiry. part i: homes A home—and identity—that is built on the dispossession (the destruction) of others encapsulates a structure of belonging that is not limited to Israel. Rather than a comparative analysis of settler colonies and their construction of home (which is undoubtedly of value), part I, “Homes,” returns to some key moments in political theory to show the conceptual foundations for this book’s inquiry. Specifically, I argue that the kind of political self that is formed within a specific theory in which home is the basic unit of analysis is ontologically dependent on violence. The interlude, “Home/Homelessness,” works primarily with Arendt to foreground two claims: (i) Despite an effort to allocate “home” to a separate, nonpolitical sphere, homemaking appears to be foundational in a significant part of the history of political thought, and “Man” emerges as a domestic animal. The ability to sustain a political community is thus seen as a function of sedentary qualities. (ii) Within these texts, the concept of home is narrowed down to particular (European) models. Given (i), this narrowing means that this tradition can see only some subjects as fully human. This global distribution of homelessness and entitlement to homes will be mapped onto the 24 · Introduction Israeli/Palestinian context in the following chapters. The main chapter of part I, “The Consuming Self: On Locke, Aristotle, Feminist Theory, and Domestic Violences,” looks at the concept of home as it materializes in three moments in political theory: Aristotle’s theory of politics, feminist theory’s critique of domesticity, and Locke’s theory of property. The latter is the focus of that chapter, since it works at the essential converging point of liberalism and settler colonialism. Drawing on Carole Pateman’s famous reading in The Sexual Contract, according to which it is the family, rather than the individual, that “contracts in,” I argue that the basic property-making unit shifts throughout chapter 5 of the Second Treatise (the chapter on property). Whereas it begins with the individual body, over the course of the chapter Locke carries it to the household. The household thus appears as the basic political unit, rather than the individual or even Pateman’s couple. My reading of Locke does not merely serve to introduce the home to the core of political theory; it also demonstrates that the Lockean individual had strong expansionist tendencies. This understanding of the expansionist drive at the foundation of liberal subjectivity establishes the basis for the analysis of settler colonialism that is to follow. Moreover, since the household can materialize as a property-making unit in Locke only via enclosure, and since its paradigmatic means of expansion is agriculture, the link to the analysis of organic agriculture in the West Bank (part III) is fully made. Part I ends with an epilogue titled “Unsettlement,” which situates the analysis in the particular space of Israel/Palestine. The epilogue problematizes some of the framings of this book in order to show the multiple positions and possible trajectories that will be sidelined by the focus of my argument. Marking those is necessary not only as part of demarcating the wider picture, but also since this plurality entails alternative political possibilities to the trajectory this book tracks. It thereby also lays bare some of the methodological frames employed in my analysis of homemaking in Israel/Palestine, and as such serves as an introduction of sorts to parts II and III. Thus, even readers less interested in the more theoretical discussion, who may prefer to skip Part I and focus their reading on the more concrete discussion of Israel/Palestine, should probably begin with this brief chapter. part ii: Relics Part II, “Relics,” opens with a reading of Lorraine Hansberry’s Les Blancs. This interlude, “A Brief Reflection on Death and Decolonization,” focuses on notions of home among the settler figures in the play and asks about the prospects of decolonization given their modes of attachment to territory. Since the play is Home · 25 situated in an imaginary African country, this reading also opens a path to a comparative analysis vis-à- vis chapter 2. Chapter 2, “Home (and the Ruins That Remain),” looks into identities that are shaped when one’s own sense of belonging is saturated with the violence of the past. Focusing on Jewish Israelis who made homes in depopulated Palestinian homes, the chapter develops a model of wounded attachments (following Wendy Brown) to the violence undergirding political belonging. It may be questioned to what degree this attachment is indeed an attachment to violence: Those who live in the ruins of others often do not experience their lives as violent, and those who look at the landscape dotted with half-standing houses may not see it as a remnant of violence. There is here an attachment to a home, a land, but not, one may argue, to the violence that made the former possible, even if such violence was a necessary element of colonization. To address this potential reservation, the epilogue, “A Phenomenology of Violence: Ruins,” provides a typology of the violence that is nonetheless there. It is there as a residue that cannot be erased; it is there as a trace that still carries elements of the violent past; it is there in the clash between temporalities of those for whom violence is indeed in the past and those who still experience it as their everyday. The chapter provides a phenomenological map of these modes of violence in order to peel apart—but also weave together—the different forms of violence with which this book engages. part iii: Settlement Part III, “Settlement,” moves to the West Bank. Thus, whereas part II focuses on those who inherited the colonized space they came to inhabit, part III looks at the act of colonization as it takes place. Nevertheless, the divisions between the arguments developed in part II and those developed in part III are not necessarily superimposed on the 1948/1967 division. These lines of division are questioned at the end of chapter 3, and feature here only for the sake of clarity and simplification. Part III presents two stories of two homes in the West Bank, both revolving around the production of food, as an element of domesticity. It begins with an interlude, “A Moment of Popular Culture: The Home of MasterChef,” that introduces the concept of home in the West Bank through a brief engagement with the Israeli franchise of the popular reality show MasterChef. The show’s seventh season included a settler from the evicted outpost Amona among its contestants. I follow the way this contender won over the hearts of the Israeli mainstream through this show. His story of loss and homelessness joins the politics of food to provide an account of the normalization of settlements in Israel today. This politics of food remains central to the main chapter of this 26 · Introduction 56 I thank reviewer number 2 for this observation. part, chapter 3: “On Eggs and Dispossession: Organic Agriculture and the New Settlement Movement.” Focusing on one extreme outpost in the West Bank called Giv’ot Olam, it analyzes a process of homemaking in which violence and dispossession are ongoing practices. Giv’ot Olam was the forerunner of the new settlement movement that is often referred to as “hilltop youth”: a movement aimed at grabbing more land by building illegal outposts outside established settlements. Giv’ot Olam is also, as aforementioned, the largest organic farm in Israel and the largest supplier of organic, free-range eggs in the country. Examining both the ethics of organic food and the material conditions of organic agriculture (land resources, waste, and water), I show how a home is created as a dispositional tool within an ethical scheme. This chapter also tracks the story of the Palestinian village Yanun, which has been almost completely abandoned following constant harassment and severe attacks from Giv’ot Olam’s settlers. The epilogue, “An Ethic of Violence: Organic Washing,” returns to the question of violence’s visibility that is key to the theoretical overview and part II. It asks whether the scheme of organic agriculture sustains settlements’ violence by enveloping it with a language of justice and care (toward animals or the earth) that hides violence from sight (“washes” it in green politics). Based on the ethnographic work of chapter 3, the epilogue concludes the book by arguing that we need to find an alternative account, one that shows not how people deny their violence to sustain it, but how life with violence is embraced. the three main chapters at the heart of each part thus offer a certain historical journey. I begin with the imaginary past of settler colonialism (chapter 1), move to a more recent history of Israel/Palestine (chapter 2), and end by looking at the present-day West Bank (chapter 3).56 Yet this chronology is not strictly kept. It presents a present that can be dated to the past, and a past that still lingers in the present, in order to show the ontologies and fractured histories of the settler-colonial project. Chapter 2 is “historical” not just because it focuses on the homes depopulated in 1948, but also because it represents a position that is becoming less dominant in Israel. In the last decade or so, Israel’s attitude toward its own violence has dramatically changed. Though such changes are always fractured, never linear, and appear gradually and unevenly across society—and hence dating them is a somewhat problematic exercise—this change occurred sometime after the 2006 Lebanon War. It was first clearly manifested in Gaza in Home · 27 57 To paraphrase the election slogan of the Jewish Home Party from the 2014 campaign. I elaborate on this formulation at the end of chapter 2. 58 Robbins, Beneficiary; Rothberg, Implicated Subject. 59 Rothberg, Implicated Subject, 2. 2009. Chapter 2 marks this trajectory from selves who are truly undone by their own violence, who cannot inhabit life once they realize the destruction that this inhabitation generates, to selves who “shoot and cry”—the famous formulation that comes to mark “crying” as both a token paid so that violence can continue and a way of indulging one’s own pain when confronted with the suffering one causes to others— and, finally, to selves who do not even cry after shooting, who “shoot and do not apologize,”57 who fully own their violence and no longer come undone by it. Nevertheless, the subjects featured in chapter 2 are not perpetrators in the classic formulations, but rather those defined by Robbins as structural beneficiaries or by Rothberg as implicated subjects: 58 They are those who “occupy positions aligned with power and privilege without being themselves direct agents of harm,” who “contribute to, inhabit, inherit, or benefit from regimes of domination but do not originate or control such regimes.”59 Their relations to violence accordingly remain more ambivalent than what we see in chapter 3. In a similar yet mirrored vein, chapter 3 is “contemporary,” not just because it depicts the current settlement movement in the West Bank but also because it depicts most clearly the aforementioned nonconflictual approach to violence that is becoming more dominant in Israeli public discourse. It represents, in this sense, a wider tendency in Israel to steer away from the liberal-democratic facets of the state project and more openly embrace its nationalist-settler facets. And yet this chapter, too, is “historical,” in the sense that the positions and patterns of settlement it describes have been typical to the project of settling Israel from the very outset. The juxtaposition of chapters 2 and 3 is, accordingly, not a claim that West Bank settlers (the protagonists of part III) inhabit this violent position whereas liberal Zionists within the 1948 borders (the protagonists of part II) do not. My point is precisely that in the historical trajectories this book marks, both positions come to inhabit violence in non-( or less) conflictual ways, albeit differently.

(see original article for bibliography)
=================================================

http://www.rosaluxemburg.ps/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/qadaya-66-final.pdf

https://www.madarcenter.org/en/journal-israeli-affairs/israeli-affairs-issue-no-66

“50 Years since the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

  • Author: Thaer Abu Saleh, Ali Haydar, Muhannad Mostafa, David Kretschmer, Ariel Hendel, Ruthie Ginsburg, Hagar kotef, Michel Warschawski, Yagil Levy, Nir Gazit, Yigal Elam, Bilah Daher, Faris Shomali, Walid Habbas, Anton Shalhat
  • Translator: Said Ayyash, Yaseen el-Sayyed, Salim Salameh
  • Editor: Raif Zureik, Nabil al-Saleh, Honaida Ghanem
  • Number of Pages: 154
  • ISBN: 978-9950-03-0060
  • Date of update: Monday, 07 August 2017
  • Price: $0.00
Israeli Affairs (Issue no. 66)

Fifty years of occupation and seventy years from partition, which led to the Nakba and establishment of Israel. Israel is a man in the seventies. He spent the last fifty years of his life as an occupier. Is the occupation merely an incident, a transient illness, in his life? Is it a constituent part of its being and nature? Is the occupation an illness, which Israel has to recover from? Is it evidence for its health, strength and agility? 
The more the years pass, the twenty year interval between the Nakba and Naksa appears as a truce that is not quiet. This time marked the massacres of Kafr Qasem and Qubeiba, murder of infiltrators who returned to their homeland, and 1956 war. Overtime, this truce looks like a marginal detail in a project that is more than 120 years old. For example, who recalls that California was not part of the United States when it was established and that it was occupied almost a century later?

With the end of the last chapter and conclusion of the settlement enterprise in America, all details seem to be secondary vis-à-vis the grand narrative.

Looking at the occupation in its broader context allows us to understand its current process. This occupation is no longer belligerent, ideological or temporary. It is no longer belligerent because those who construct highways, railways and universities, and transport half a million settlers, have nothing to do with the army or security apparatus. It is no longer ideological because the forces which take part in and embrace settlement and control over land and resources are not a Messianic, religious right wing any more. These are parties of the political centre, economy sharks who are avid for cheap land, and poor groups who enjoy better living conditions, tax exemptions and spacious houses. When these two factors meet, the result is that Israel no longer deals with it [the occupation] as if it were temporary.

All this tempts us to say that the Green Line has been erased and become as brown as the land. However, the colour of the line is not painted by Israel alone. If the last chapter in America’s narrative was written, the last chapter in Palestine’s narrative has not. Extreme caution should be taken to understand politics as the inevitable consequence of historical analysis and requirements of logic. There is a political logic in the thought of those who insist on thickening and demarcating the Green Line in tandem with international and UN Security Council resolutions. Nevertheless, time is not on their side.

Nothing justifies that Palestinians accept this threshold as long as Israel does not admit that the Green Line to be its border. Reciprocity requires that the Green Line be either a border for both parties or not be a border at all. The Green Line today is a Green Line for Palestinians solely. In the eyes of Israel and its settlers, it does not exist. Let this reciprocity be an idea that might inform the Palestinian strategy.

=========================================
https://en-humanities.tau.ac.il/minerva/projects/academia

The Sciences of Academia  

The public role of the Academia

A research project led by Dr. Hagar Kotef

The Sciences of Academia is a joint project of all three research groups at the Minerva center. It emerged from the ongoing work of the Minerva center, including both its research activities, as well as the public-intellectual involvement and commitment of the center as a whole, and of senior and junior scholars within it.
This project aims to open new ways for reflecting on the various aspects of- and transformations in the status of the academia, knowledge and scholarship in this era. We try to consider these issues through at least three interfaces: first, the institutional relationship between the university and the state, in its historical, philosophical, and legal contexts. Second, the socio-economic relations between the academia, the market, and civil society. Third, the relationship between knowledge and different facets of the political: a critical inquiry into the political dimensions of knowledge.
We focus on the Israeli case while placing it within both the global context of our time and a wide historical context. We aim to examine the material, institutional, ideological and political conditions of knowledge production, looking into matters such as: issues of public funding alongside the privatization and commercialization of public universities; modes of employment and of obtaining funding for research; the institutional relations between universities and governments; the making and breaking of disciplinary boundaries; the processes of selecting and establishing fields of research and methodologies.
Apart from conferences and workshops, we have formed an ongoing research and writing group, Sciences of the Academia, in collaboration with the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Tel Aviv University. The group’s work is dedicated to both reading and research. In the 2014-2015 academic year the group is working towards the compilation of an edited volume of papers focusing on the civic, social, and political roles of the academia (particularly in the contemporary Israeli context, but introducing global and historical perspectives).

Project participants:

Dr. Hagar Kotef, Minerva hUmanities Center

Dr. Lin Chalozin-Dovrat, Minerva Humanities Center
Prof. Shai Lavi, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Eyal Chowers, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Yossef Schwartz, the Cohn Institute, Tel Aviv University

Dr. Yofi Tirosh, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Tel Aviv University
Dr. Anat Matar, The Philosophy Department, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Isaac (Yanni) Nevo, Ben Gurion University, Department of Philosophy
Prof. Menachem Mautner, Law Faculty, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Oded Goldreich, The Weizmann Institute for Science
Dr. Tamar Hager, Tel Chai Academic Center
Naveh Frumer, Minerva Humanities Center
Itay Snir, Minerva Humanities Center
Dikla Bytner, Minerva Humanities Center

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

https://humanities.tau.ac.il/minerva/publications/kotef-movement-book

ספר חדש: “תנועה והסדרת החירות”, מאת הגר קוטף, בהוצאת אוניברסיטת דיוק

Hagar Kotef, Movement and the Ordering of Freedom: on Liberal Governances of Mobility. Duke University Press, 2015

להדפסה

אנחנו שמחים לבשר על צאת ספרה של הגר קוטף, עמיתת מחקר במרכז מינרבה למדעי הרוח באוניברסיטת תל אביב, בהוצאת אוניברסיטת דיוק:

Movement and the Ordering of Freedom: on Liberal Governances of Mobility

אנחנו חיים במערכות פוליטיות שמבקשות לשלוט בתנועה, ומאורגנות סביב התשוקה והיכולת לקבוע מי רשאי להיכנס לאילו מרחבים, מקהילות מגודרות עד מדינות לאום. הספר בוחן את התפקידים של ניידות ואי-ניידות בהיסטוריה של המחשבה הפוליטית, ובהיסטוריה של הבניית מרחבים פוליטיים.

תוכן העניינים:
Chapter 1:
Between Imaginary Lines: Violence and Its Justificationsat the Military Checkpoints in Occupied Palestine
Hagar Kotef and Merav Amir

Chapter 2:
An Interlude: A Tale of Two Roads — On Freedomand Movement

Chapter 3:
The Fence That “Ill Deserves the Name of Confinement”:Locomotion and the Liberal Body

Chapter 4:
The Problem of “Excessive” Movement

Chapter 5:
The “Substance and Meaning of All Things Political”:On Other Bodies

ההקדמה לספר זמינה לקריאה כאן

Kotef - Movement and the ordering of freedom

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

https://portside.org/2020-05-28/after-losing-hope-change-top-left-wing-activists-and-scholars-leave-israel-behind
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-losing-hope-for-change-top-left-wing-activists-and-scholars-leave-israel-behind-1.8864499
Article’s part on Hagar Kotef

  Once is enough

Hagar Kotef, 43, found herself in an even more disturbing situation with regard to an Israeli university. Dr. Kotef, who was active in Machsom Watch and other left-wing movements, completed her doctoral studies in philosophy at Tel Aviv University and at the University of California, Berkeley. In 2012, she had an opportunity to come back to Israel as part of a plan to integrate returning academics. She was offered a teaching job in a prestigious program at one of the country’s universities.

On the evening before her contract was approved, a right-wing NGO launched a campaign against her employment by the university. As a result, the rector refused to sign the contract, and the university put forward new conditions for the appointment, notably a demand that she sign a commitment relating to her political activity: Kotef was required to undertake not to attend demonstrations, not to sign petitions and not to speak publicly – or in the classroom – about any subject not related to her academic research.

It was the summer of 2014. When Operation Protective Edge broke out, in the Gaza Strip, Kotef signed an internet petition calling for Israel to negotiate with Hamas. Minutes later, she received a phone call from the university informing her that her employment was terminated. Kotef took the case to the Labor Court and was reinstated. “I started to work, but my job contract never arrived.”

Kotef and her partner, a physicist and brain scientist, started to look for jobs in England. “It was clear that staying there [at the university] wasn’t an option, and also that I wouldn’t find a job anywhere else in Israel,” she says.

Kotef later found employment as a senior lecturer in politics and political theory in the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. After teaching a semester there, she and her family left Israel permanently: “The combination of what happened in the university, the war, the violence in the streets, the fear to speak out, the racism and the hatred simply broke me.”

Open gallery view
A 2014 protest in Tel Aviv against the war in Gaza. The signs say “A demonstration of hope” and “Jews and Arabs refuse to be enemies.”Credit: Tomer Appelbaum

Even today, six years later, Kotef is still clearly shaken by the memories of that period. “Exile is too highly charged a concept: I don’t categorize myself as a political exile, because all in all we left for a good job and a good place. But at the same time, we did not leave by choice and it wasn’t a relocation.” Kotef admits frankly that she did not find a way to continue her political activity in London.

“I’m not capable of being an activist [regarding Israel or other issues] here,” she adds. “A few years ago, my partner scolded me for going to a demonstration: ‘We’ve already been expelled from one country because of you, we don’t want to be expelled from another.’”

Do you feel guilty about leaving?

Kotef: “No. I lost hope that it’s possible to change things from within, so I don’t feel I could be doing something if I were [in Israel]. If anything, I feel guilty toward my family, toward my parents, who were separated from their granddaughters, and toward my daughters, whom I moved to this place. Sometimes I look and say it’s lucky we’re not in Israel; and sometimes there is a feeling of loss. London is a cosmopolitan city, but there is still a hatred of minorities here, which Brexit exposed intensely, and we will always be strangers here.

“But I prefer to live and raise children in a place where my foreignness sometimes generates antagonism, rather than in a place where I am part of the side that is racist toward the other. There are moments when I ask myself what we have done, but I don’t feel that it was really our choice.”  

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

https://www.academia.edu/35444668/Fragments

Fragments
Hagar Kotef
Words 1
How can a critique be formulated when its material conditions are the
object of critique? One can criticize one’s state, to be sure—its violence, its
wars. But how can one question the legitimacy of one’s own home; how can
one point to the wrongs that are embedded into the very nature of her or
his political existence? What would it mean for a Jewish Israeli not simply
to write against the occupation but to recognize that her or his home is
historically conditioned upon the destruction of Palestinians’ homes? What
would it mean for her or him to recognize that her or his attachment to this
place is founded upon a history—not such a distant history—of violence
and conditioned, at least to some extent, on the perpetuation of this violence?
(And since Israel has become a paradigm of a certain kind of leftist
critique, it is worth noting that the only difference between Israel and other
settler colonies such as the United States or Australia is temporal density.)
Once we move to engage in such a critique, there is no more separation between
the I who writes and her or his object of critique, that is, the state and
its doings (military and police violence, planning policy, legal discrimination).
The I itself becomes the object of critique and her or his voice—the
place from which she or he speaks, her or his language, the dialogues available
for her or him—can no longer pretend to assume a position which is
simply and clearly oppositional to injustice.
In my current attempt to envision an alternative reality in which both
homes—those of Jews and those of Palestinians—can coexist, I suddenly
find myself falling into vocabularies that sometimes seem to me strangely
conservative. Perhaps such visions can be voiced only by the colonized? Is
This essay was written in Tel Aviv, 2014.
Critical Inquiry 44 (Winter 2018)
© 2018 by The University of Chicago. 00093-1896/18/4402-0008$10.00. All rights reserved.
343
This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on December 16, 2017 06:27:34 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
any effort to unfold them by the colonizers always another form of taking
someone else’s place? Should we, Israeli Jews writing critically about Israel/
Palestine, limit ourselves to a negative critique without trying to sketch
ways out—ways that are perhaps not ours to sketch? But then wouldn’t we
become yet another “proof” to the claim that there is no solution?
Words 2
(Therefore) when I do write about the occupation I often write about
Israeli violence and about the Israeli movements that oppose this violence.
As Jewish Israelis, I sometimes think we should avoid writing about
Palestinians. This often feels to me like a mode of occupation in and of
itself. Their voices are not mine to represent. So I limit myself to writing
about Israeli powers, public discourse, or resistance. But this limitation
carries its own problems: it once again erases the voices of the occupied.
Are we confined to this limbo, moving between erasure and occupation,
thereby reproducing the logic of the Israeli regime? But at the same time,
sitting in Tel Aviv and writing about other subjects so as to bypass this
limbo seems like a privilege. I therefore often think that instead of writing
we should do something.
Action
But what would it mean to “do something” within such parameters?1
At least in some ways, all political actions are doomed to fail (even when
they succeed beyond all expectations). Political action, as Hannah Arendt
noted but as any activist knows from experience, always exceeds the intention
of the doer and is never predictable.2 Action is often contaminated
by different power structures and materializes into consequences that undermine
the activists’ goals. It has its own life that cannot be contained
within preplanned intentions. Two cases I examined in the past can be
indicative here, if only as a very brief illustration. The first is that of Tali
1. A question I posed with Merav Amir in relation to the checkpoints in the West Bank
and the main organization working against them, Checkpoint Watch. For the analysis of both
question and answer, see Hagar Kotef and Merav Amir, “(En)Gendering Checkpoints: Checkpoint
Watch and the Repercussions of Intervention,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and
Society 32 (Summer 2007): 973–96.
2. See Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago, 1998).
Hagar Kotef is an associate professor of political theory and comparative
political thought at the Department of Politics and International Studies,
SOAS, The University of London. She is the author of Movement and the
Ordering of Freedom: On Liberal Governances of Mobility (2015).
344 Hagar Kotef / Fragments
This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on December 16, 2017 06:27:34 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Fahima, a radical-left activist who decided to protect with her bodily presence
(as a human shield) Zacharia Zubeidi. Zubeidi was the leader of al-
Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, a Palestinian military group which planned and
executed several suicide attacks in Israel, and was considered by the Israeli
army a legitimate target of assassination. Despite a mode of action that
sought to demonstrate the possibility of coexistence between Israelis and
Palestinians, Fahima’s story—more accurately a fictive story, in which she
took the role of Zubeidi’s lover and a terrorist by this mere association—
was taken rather to entrench racial anxieties in Israel. Fahima’s story was
publically rewritten—working against both her actions and her words—as
a story of conservative gender roles, in which (presumed) sex with the enemy
becomes (presumed) maternal monstrosity (giving birth to a terroristto-
be), that calls for reinstituting boundaries rather than questioning them.3
The second case is that of Anarchists against theWall (AATW)—a solidaritybased
Israeli group demonstrating in collaboration with Palestinians against
the separation wall. As in the case of Fahima, solidarity takes place here
via the practice of human shielding. The Jewish activists serve as a buffer
between Palestinians and Israeli violence in order to reduce this violence.
However, in time (and in fact, quite quickly) the Anarchists themselves
became legitimate targets of violence. They failed in their effort to shield.
Moreover, and perhaps not less importantly, this logic of shielding reproduces,
in and of itself, the very division between valued and disposable
lives that the act of solidarity seeks to challenge—two radical failures.4
In both cases, we see the cooptation of leftist action into the mechanisms
justifying the occupation, the manners by which a public reading of action
can turn it against itself, the ways in which activism is taken to justify the
very powers it opposes.
This is not to dismiss political action or call for political passivism. Indeed,
failure itself must be thought of also through its productive aspects.
Thus, even the moment of themost radical failure can be seen also as amoment
of action’s greatest success. For Arendt what is disclosed through
action is a distinct humanness—a who—that is revealed in action’s very
materialization in the world; in the cases above, and perhaps in all cases
of activism, action no longer reveals the activist’s own unique who, but the
3. For a full analysis, see Kotef, “Baking at the Front Line, Sleeping with the Enemy: Reflections
on Gender and Women’s Peace Activism in Israel,” Politics and Gender 7 (Jan. 2012):
551–72. For further analyses of such patterns in different contexts see Laura Sjoberg and
Caron E. Gentry, Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women’s Violence in Global Politics (New York,
2007).
4. See Kotef and Amir, “Limits of Dissent, Perils of Activism: Spaces of Resistance and
the New Security Logic,” Antipode 47 (June 2015): 671–88.
Critical Inquiry / Winter 2018 345
This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on December 16, 2017 06:27:34 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
power against which she or he acts.5 Queer theory can provide some clarification.
For Judith Butler, failed performances of gender stances expose
an array of alternative potential identities and subject positions beyond
the heteronormative dichotomist order and hence expose also the artificiality
of this order.6 Failure is thus “the weapon of the weak,” in the words
of Jack Halberstam, following James Scott; it pushes against the boundaries
of the intelligible, the doable, the possible in that it reveals the logic, as well
as the limits, of the heteronormative order, challenging it thereby.7 A similar
structure can be identified in many other cases of activism. The failure
to physically protect codemonstrators in the case of AATW, for example,
exposes an inherent failure in citizenship, which is the failure of democratic
order and hence the activist’s greatest success. It points to the breaches
in the pretense of the democratic state to protect its own citizens while
challenging its legitimacy to hurt its noncitizens. This failure thus exposes
the duplicity at the foundation of Israel as a democracy: the idea of a Jewish
democratic state is splintered here twice. First, democracy is made fragile
when the state shoots its own citizens; and second, the Jewish privilege
embedded in the state’s definition is fractured when the targets of shooting
are Jewish. In fact at this moment, the contradiction of the combination
of Jewish and democratic is exposed because, in a way, it demonstrates
that once one becomes too democratic (in full solidarity with Palestinians)
she or he ceases to be a Jew from the point of view of the regime and its
violence. Being shot at, therefore, can be seen both as the pinnacle of solidarity
(exposing one’s life to the danger inflicted upon an other) and the
clearest manifestation of the activist’s claim regarding the nature of the regime.
Failure and success thus become enmeshed.
Focusing on failure is therefore not a claim against political action. It
is rather an attempt to struggle with the limits of antioccupation action,
as well as its potentiality. But could I not say the same about writing?
Writing 1
Many of us writing in Israel about the occupation have been trying to
engage in the same practice of revealing the logic of the Israeli regime,
questioning the rhetoric of democracy as a façade concealing—and by so
doing, sustaining—a reality of militarized violence and radically discriminatory
powers. Much of our work, I believe, rested on the assumption
that there is a certain mask that must be removed. This mask is not en-
5. Arendt, The Human Condition, p. 176.
6. See Judith Butler, Gender Trouble (New York, 1999).
7. Judith Halberstam, The Queer Art of Failure (Durham, N.C., 2011), p. 88.
346 Hagar Kotef / Fragments
This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on December 16, 2017 06:27:34 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
tirely and accurately a lie but a thin layer of democracy that Israel must
maintain in order to justify—from both within and without—its doings.
Accordingly, many of us sought to expose what is under this thin layer.
We assumed that without it Israel would be vulnerable to both growing
international critique and domestic unrest. Many Israelis, we believed, see
themselves as peace-seeking liberals. If we could thus demonstrate the
mechanisms and logic of governance that tie together the democratic rule
prevailing in Tel Aviv with the military rule in Hebron, and if we could
show that Israel keeps undercutting any viable political solution, this, we
believed, would necessary lead to the end of occupation. In a way, I think
we have succeeded, at least to some degree, in establishing these claims.
But it seems that our success in this goal of peeling off masks was also our
greatest failure. Once the masks were removed, the space was not democratized—
almost to the contrary; with this removal Israel has turned ever
further from democratic process.
Not so long ago the rhetoric of the two-state solution—even if merely
a rhetoric and never a guideline for official political action—rested on the
assumption that a Jewish democratic state (if such a combination is indeed
possible) requires a Jewish majority. However, recently, the reluctance
to relinquish hold over the territories Israel occupied in 1967 as well
as the legitimacy crisis in regard to 1948 (it is not accidental, I think, that
Netanyahu suddenly demanded that the Palestinians recognize the Jewish
state) have been translated into a gradual but persistent abandonment of
the Israeli democratic project. More and more people in Israel, on both
the Right and the Left, now say what was not long ago inconceivable: that
Israel is not, or soon will not be, a democracy. More often than not, this
is not asserted from a critical standpoint, but is rather proclaimed to argue
that the state should annex the Palestinian territories without incorporating
their residences into its citizenry. In other words, the justification mechanisms
that sustained a democratic discourse by talking about a “peace process”
and a “two-state solution” in order to present the state of occupation
as temporary are replaced by a more direct claim stating that the state of
occupation should become the rule of Israeli sovereignty.8 Alongside these
processes, other nondemocratic enterprises become more and more widespread:
from legislation against the High Court of Justice to decreasing
academic freedom and to political violence in the streets in times of war.
8. One might argue that this blunt rejection of democratic principles is better than a reality
in which a very partial adherence to these principles serves to undercut their universal implementation.
One could maintain that this provides a clearer target for struggle. I used to think
so myself, but I am no longer sure. It seems to me such a judgment makes sense only if this
openness facilitates a turning point. But what if it does not?
Critical Inquiry / Winter 2018 347
This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on December 16, 2017 06:27:34 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
Is it possible that our writings have contributed to this process by
pushing the logic of democracy to its limits? Can we see here an analogy
(perhaps a reversed one) to the analysis of activism above?
Writing 2
Beyond this mode of cooptation, wherein by revealing the undemocratic
infrastructure of the regime we might have helped to weaken some
of its democratic elements, there are other questions to be asked about
the conditions of critical writing in Israel.
First, akin to the notion of “pinkwashing” or “greenwashing,” the antioccupation
Israeli research might function as a certain “academicwashing.”
In criticizing Israel, revealing its wrongdoing, showing its logic of control,
we demonstrate Israel’s tolerance and democratic nature—an attribute that
seems to be proven by the very fact we can write these critiques. Writing
against Israel, we function as a proof that Israel allows dissent even amidst
an existential threat—an ongoing threat, of course, which is part of the
very founding logic of Zionism (which means that there is always a crisis
of existential nature and accordingly a critique always serves to prove the
democratic nature of Israel). Like the High Court of Justice, human rights
organizations, or gay-friendly policies, Israeli needs us to prove it is, indeed,
the only democracy in the Middle East. Yet like the High Court
of Justice or human rights organizations (but interestingly enough unlike
gay-friendly policies), this need is becoming more and more a matter of
history. As part of the dedemocraticization processes in Israel to which I
pointed above, it seems it is less and less important for Israel to manifest
such tolerance. Thus, in recent years there is increasing legislation against
critique, growing censorship in the Israeli academy, and persecution of
intellectual dissent by both students and management. Perhaps “academicwashing”
is no longer called for.
Second, the question of boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) is rearticulated
as a series of paradoxical demands or practices when applied to Israeli
academia. Some of us support the boycott, but how should such a
support—a serious, genuine support—look from within Israel? What
happens when we publish, with our names and Israeli affiliation, in international
journals? Can the distinction between an individual and an academic
boycott make sense here (especially within an economic model
wherein universities receive governmental funding according to publication
numbers)? Should we therefore encourage international journals
not to publish our papers? Do we not violate the boycott regularly when
we apply for international grants, when we provide scholarships based on
such grants to our students? But can we survive in today’s neoliberal ac-
348 Hagar Kotef / Fragments
This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on December 16, 2017 06:27:34 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).
ademia without doing so? Can someone belong to Israeli academia and
coherently support the boycott then? One can contend that the boycott
is not addressed to us, that it is not ours to support or object, that at best,
we can make efforts not to undermine it. But don’t we undermine it on
a regular basis, especially when we try to be politically and ethically engaged?
We collaborate with Palestinian scholars, for example. But in that,
don’t we put them in an impossible stance vis-à-vis the boycott? And what
would the alternative be? Collaborating with the silencing of Palestinians in
the Israeli academy? We are back with the limbo with which I opened.
Political Grounds
My main inquiry here concerns the ground from which critique is
made. Perhaps all political grounds are unstable, but at times I feel that
the one from which we have tried to make our critique is particularly so.
Four of us, all from Tel Aviv University, were sitting in a cab on the
way to a seminar in the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute. At some point the
taxi driver left the main road and took a different, more rapid route—
road 443. This road goes through the West Bank and is one of the roads
on which Palestinians who are not citizens of Israel are not allowed to
drive. We all started moving uncomfortably in our seats. In any other circumstance
we would probably have said something; refusing to go on
that road, or taking the opportunity to have a political conversation with
the driver. But our driver was a Palestinian from East Jerusalem. Who am
I, I thought, to judge? And how would such a judgement look, anyway?
Could I have asked my Palestinian driver, given the multilayered privileges
at play, how it is possible that he takes a route that is part of the dispossession
of and discrimination against his own people? None of us was able
to say anything, to ask, to open up a conversation. Sometimes I think that
part of what is at stake for Left critique in Israel is to keep open more conversations—
conversations which are getting increasingly impossible. But
could there have been a conversation had it been a Jewish driver? We
could have stood our ground, for sure, insisted he take a different road,
and we would have probably felt very good about ourselves—very just—
after preaching about rights, violation of international law, or political
equality. But could a real conversation take place? Would there be any
movement in each other’s positions? If critique is not a mere deconstruction
but always also a productive effort, must we not aim at such movements?
Perhaps, however, it was rather in the silence with the Palestinian
driver that some movement became possible. Perhaps what we learnt from
it, what we were forced to consider, is the emptiness of some political gestures.
The paradoxes embedded into our political stance became very clear at
that moment.
Critical Inquiry / Winter 2018 349
This content downloaded from 150.216.068.200 on December 16, 2017 06:27:34 AM
All use subject to University of Chicago Press Terms and Conditions (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/t-and-c).

Hebrew University Jerusalem: ‘Beware of False Prophets, which Come to you in Sheep’s Clothing’

04.03.21

Editorial Note

IAM often reports on political activism disguised as academics. Recently, a Hebrew University research project raised some eyebrows. The 2021 Index for Shared Society Progress in Youth (ISSPY) was conducted by the aChord Center of the Hebrew University, specializing in the social psychology of intergroup relations. The index is based on a survey taken between May to July of 2020 among 1,091 teenage boys and girls aged 16 to 18 from secular-Jewish, religious-Jewish, Haredi, and Arab backgrounds.

The results were published in the media spreading hatred. Titled “Survey: The ultra-Orthodox youth hate Arabs, the religious youth want to deprive them of rights.” The reporter explained that “A comprehensive study conducted at the Hebrew University shows that many teenagers in Israel hold negative stereotypes towards other groups.” The researchers in the study said that “The Ministry of Education must stop ignoring.” The article continues, “About half of the religious youth support the denial of the right to vote from Arabs, the levels of hatred among Haredim towards Arabs are the highest recorded among the various social groups, about half of the Arab youth hold negative stereotypes towards Haredim, while secular ones report low empathy towards all the groups, pointing to internal isolation.  This emerges from a large-scale study conducted at the Hebrew University and clearly outlines the ‘map of hatred’ in Israel. There are important differences and nuances in the expressions of fear, disgust or disregard of the members of the various groups towards each other, but no one escapes them.”

Arab media such as Middle East Monitor, an outlet that publishes hatred of Israel, has published the article “Poll: Most young Israelis hate Palestinian citizens of Israel.” It announced that “A poll by the Hebrew University’s aChord Centre revealed nearly half of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox and nationalist religious young people support stripping Palestinians of their Israeli citizenship.” Similarly, Middle East Eye, another anti-Israel Arab outlet, published a report, “Israeli press review: Report finds widespread racism among Israel’s youth.” For the same purpose of spreading hatred against Jews, The Muslim Times republished this article. 

Two persons are behind the aChord Center.  One is Prof. Eran Halperin, a political psychologist at the Hebrew University, the other is Ron Gerlitz, a New Israel Fund associate, formerly co-general director of the NGO Sikkuy. Halperin is a former student of Daniel Bar-Tal, who was hired to teach early childhood development at Tel Aviv University, only to remake himself into an expert on Israeli-Palestinian conflict to suit his political activism.  One of Bar-Tal’s inventions was the so-called “Masada Complex,” a form of collective trauma that allegedly prevented the Israelis from concluding the Oslo peace process.  Quite conveniently, Bar-Tal did not mention the suicide attacks on Israeli citizens undertaken by Hamas and Islamic jihad on behalf of the Islamist regime in Iran desperate to scuttle the budding peace venture.  Halperin’s Ph.D. thesis in 2007 titled “Psychology of Intergroup Hatred in Political Systems” was co-supervised by Bar-Tal.  Like his supervisor, Halpern’s had exclusively blamed the Jews for the alleged hatred. 

In an interview with the Israeli press, Halperin stated, “we [in Jewish society] can’t build a partnership with Arab society by trying to prevent them from commemorating the Nakba or talking about their Palestinian identity.”    

In an article discussing “A conflict within a conflict: intragroup ideological polarization and intergroup intractable conflict,” by Tal Orian Harel, Ifat Maoz, and Eran Halperin, the authors claimed that “Studies conducted in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have found that Jewish-Israeli right-wing political ideology is associated with less recognition of the adversary’s pain and suffering and less openness to its narrative.” This assumption was based on a 2017 article co-authored by Ifat Maoz, another political activist, titled “Predicting Jewish-Israeli recognition of Palestinian pain and suffering.”

The authors even egregiously claim that the murder of Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was “an act which is considered as one of the main reasons for the failure of the peace process.”   Like Bar-Tal, Halperin and his co-authors ignored the jihadist bloodletting that left hundreds of Israelis dead and wounded.  Of course, Halperin did not mention that Arafat rejected a generous offer to settle the conflict by Prime Minister Ehud Barak during the Oslo II summit.    

aChord styles itself as an NGO, but it does not appear on the Ministry of Justice website of Non-Governmental Organizations and Companies for Public Benefit. Likewise, the New Israel Fund no longer appears there as an NGO since 1997.

In a job opening published last year, aChord describes itself as “Social Psychology for Social Change,” part of the Magid Institute at the Hebrew University. Their description is quite telling: “aChord is a social-academic organization that seeks to promote equal, tolerant, and respectful intergroup relations within the Israeli society and between Israel and its neighbors by using cutting-edge research from the social sciences. The current project aggregates insights on successful peace processes to create an empirically based model that will advance Israeli-Palestinian Peace.” It is seeking a candidate that “Identifies with aChord’s values.”  

Another aChord’s research provides a glimpse into the political activities that it promotes. “The Majority of the Public Opposes the Unilateral Annexation,” they wrote, declaring that “A new comprehensive study regarding the annexation reveals important findings about the way the plan is perceived by the public.”  

The Hebrew University should not allow publishing propaganda pieces camouflaged as legitimate research in its name. The purpose of conducting such “hate research” is clear, to tarnish Israeli society.   Needless to say, a negative depiction of the Israeli society, especially by academics, is a moneymaker, drawing support from a multitude of foundations and organizations engaged in extensive efforts to prove that Israel is a racist, apartheid state. 

Hebrew University cannot afford to lose its prestige, even when outside sources fund this endeavor.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210222-poll-most-young-israelis-hate-palestinian-citizens-of-israel/

Poll: Most young Israelis hate Palestinian citizens of Israel

A poll by the Hebrew University’s aChord Centre revealed nearly half of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox and nationalist religious young people support stripping Palestinians of their Israeli citizenshipFebruary 22, 2021 at 3:19 pm

A poll by the Hebrew University’s aChord Centre reveals that nearly half of Israel’s ultra-Orthodox and nationalist religious young people have expressed hatred towards Palestinians and support stripping them of their Israeli citizenship, Haaretz has reported. Around 1,100 respondents aged 16 to 18 took part in the poll.

According to the centre, 49 per cent of all religious Israeli teenagers and 23 per cent of their secular fellows would like to strip Israel’s Palestinian citizens — who make up one fifth of the population — of their citizenship.https://twitter.com/swilkinsonbc/status/1363171967948517378Sarah Wilkinson@swilkinsonbc·Feb 20

New study reveals a dangerous & unchecked growth in racism, right-wing views and xenophobic hatred among israeli teenagers #BDS

Israeli human rights group B’Tselem took to social media to illustrate how this sort of statistic translates into attacks on the Palestinians by illegal settlers.

https://twitter.com/btselem/status/1360918474093117440
B’Tselem בצלם بتسيلم@btselem·Feb 14Muhammad ‘Abbad: “We’ve been on constant alert ever since that day, afraid of another attack. I can’t sleep at night. I’m worried they’ll surprise us and this time, torch the cars or one of the houses”. https://btselem.org/node/213293

Wafa news agency, meanwhile, has reported that a Palestinian woman died of a heart attack last Wednesday when Israeli settlers broke into her home in the occupied West Bank.

According to the settlement watchdog Peace Now, there are 132 settlements and 113 settlement outposts in the occupied territory. All of Israel’s settlements are illegal under international law. The outposts are even illegal under Israeli law.

Peace Now also points out that more than 413,000 settlers now live in the illegal settlements. Moving citizens into territory occupied by war is a war crime under international law.=============================================

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-youth-racism-widespread-press-review

Israeli press review: Report finds widespread racism among Israel’s youth

Meanwhile, Netanyahu polling well but election stalemate still predicted, and Palestinian filmmaker excluded from Labor listBy MEE staffPublished date: 19 February 2021 16:43 UTC | Last update: 3 days 16 hours ago

Racial hatred among Israel’s youth

A comprehensive study conducted at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem revealed widespread racism and belief in stereotypes among a majority of teenagers from various backgrounds in Israel.

The study, which was conducted by the university’s aChord Center, aimed to draw a “map of hatred” in Israel, according to Haaretz, and reached 1,100 youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 – including Palestinian citizens of Israel, secular, religious and ultra-Orthodox Jewish Israelis – between May and July 2020.

The study showed that 66 percent of the ultra-Orthodox, 42 percent of religious Israelis, and 24 percent of secularists “hate Arabs”, meaning the Palestinian community that makes up 20 percent of the Israeli population and who participate in the Knesset and government institutions. 

The study said that 49 percent of religious Israelis and 23 pecent of secular citizens supported stripping the right to vote from Palestinians inside Israel. Twelve percent of Palestinian citizens of Israel said they hated Israeli secularists, and 22 percent said they hated religious and ultra-Orthodox Israelis.

Nine percent of the Palestinians approached by the study said they support stripping the right to vote from Israeli secularists, 13 percent supported taking the vote from religious Israelis, and 19 percent agreed to do the same for the ultra-Orthodox community. 

Among Israelis, the levels of hatred varied according to the study. Seven percent of Israeli secularists said they believed religious Israelis should not vote in the elections, and 12 percent said the Ultra-Orthodox communty’s right to vote should be denied. 

Also, 23 percent of Israeli secularists said they hated the ultra-Orthodox community, and eight percent expressed dislike of religious Israelis. Eight percent of the latter, however, said they hated Israeli secularists, and ten percent said they dislikeed ultra-Orthodox Israelis. 

The study concluded that young Israelis expressed severe negative feelings and preconceptions and almost no desire to get to know other groups in the society considered marginal to them. 

aChord Center, which deals with social psychological issues to drive change in society, said the goal of the study was to open a discussion about hatred and bridge the gaps between communities and sects in the country through the educational system.

It called for immediate measure to be taken to counter “the absence of tolerance, the hatred and the rejection of the youths who differ from them.”===============================================================================

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/mutual-hatred-poll-finds-intergroup-hate-high-among-arab-jewish-youth-659653
‘Mutual hatred’: Intergroup hate high among Arab, Jewish youth – pollThe survey found that two-thirds of haredi youth expressed hatred against Arabs, while 22% of Arab youth expressed hatred against haredim.By TZVI JOFFRE   FEBRUARY 21, 2021 16:54

Intergroup hatred between Arab, religious-Jewish and haredi (ultra-Orthodox) youth is high, with nearly half of religious-Jewish youth supporting denying Arabs the right to vote, according to the 2021 Index for Shared Society Progress in Youth (ISSPY) published by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s aChord Center last week.
The index is based on a survey conducted from May to July of 2020 among 1,091 teenage boys and girls between the ages of 16 and 18 in Israel’s four education streams: secular-Jewish, religious-Jewish, haredi and Arab. The aChord Center specializes in social psychology of intergroup relations.
The report examines perceptions, feelings, attitudes and behaviors of teenagers in the context of intergroup partnership and the effects of the coronavirus outbreak on relations between the four groups.The survey found that two-thirds (66%) of haredi youth expressed hatred against Arabs, as did 42% of religious-Jewish youth. A quarter (24%) of secular Jewish youth expressed hatred against Arabs and a similar number (23%) expressed hatred against haredim. Among Arab youth, 22% expressed hatred against haredim, 22% expressed hatred against religious Jews and 12% expressed hatred against secular Jews.The survey also found that many youth among the religious-Jewish (about 41%) and haredi sector (about 58%) hold stereotypical and negative views of Arabs, while half of Arab youth (50.5%) hold stereotypical and severely negative views of haredim. More than a third (35%) of secular youth expressed negative views of haredim.The center expressed concern over findings that a relatively high percentage (49%) of religious-Jewish youth expressed support for denying Arabs the right to vote. The report additionally found that the less aware religious-Jewish youth were of anti-Arab discrimination, the more they supported denying Arabs the right to vote.
“It is possible that these phenomena reinforce each other – those who are unaware of discrimination against the Arab minority even support its extremism,” wrote the researchers in the report. RELIGIOUS-JEWISH and haredi youth also expressed less support for minority rights compared to other groups in the survey. The study also found that, amid the coronavirus outbreak, youth from all groups in Israeli society believed both that resources should not be equally allocated between the groups and that groups more heavily affected by the outbreak should not receive more assistance.These two youth groups supported allocating resources to the Arab sector considerably less than they supported allocating resources to Jewish groups, according to the report.”It seems that the boys and girls of all groups are less supportive of providing assistance to groups that they perceive as the most threatening, perhaps as a kind of means of punishment,” wrote the researchers in the ISSPY.The study additionally found that religious-Jewish and haredi youth showed low willingness to be close with or improve relations with Arabs. The researchers described the desire and readiness of haredi youth to meet or interact with Arabs as “almost non-existent.” While Arab youth expressed a higher level of readiness for closeness with Jewish groups than the Jewish groups expressed towards them, their desire for closeness with religious Jews and haredim was still very low.Despite the relatively severe findings of the survey, the study did find some signs of improvement compared to prior years. Compared to previous years, Secular and religious Jews and Arabs expressed a higher level of readiness for closeness between the groups, and fewer secular and religious Jews and Arabs expressed negative and stereotypical views of other groups.The most impressive declines in reports of negative and stereotypical views of other groups was reported among Arab youth, especially concerning their views of religious Jews, according to the study. THE ACHORD center stressed in a press release that the study’s findings paint “a particularly difficult picture regarding the relationship between the minority groups in Israel, the difficult relationship that develops between them from such a young age, and the chance that schools can influence and change the situation.””The particularly worrying data in the situation that emerges from the report include stereotypical perceptions and difficult feelings such as hatred towards some of the groups in Israeli society, little desire to maintain ties with these groups and support for discriminatory treatment towards them to the point of supporting their denial of basic rights,” the researchers said.T”These findings are a wake-up call and a call to action for the Israeli education system, which is responsible for building the future of Israeli society,” they said. “The serious findings that emerge from the report are intended to stimulate action for all those involved in education – from educators and school principals to the education departments in local authorities and the Education Ministry – and to motivate them to work intensively to promote education for partnership to which every student in the State of Israel will be exposed.”As a possible explanation for the tense relations between Arab and haredi youth, the researchers wrote that, “according to the research literature in the field of social psychology, isolated groups often work against other isolated groups to promote themselves and protect their image on their own.”The researchers also pointed to the fact that a “certain trend of improvement” was noticed in intergroup relations between youth in Israel, stating that “it seems that the issue needs to be further explored in order to understand in depth the various factors that promote these positive trends. The education system and all those involved in the craft have a duty to continue to work so that these positive processes will continue in the coming years.”The report presented a number of recommendations for teachers, administrators and anyone interested in promoting education for partnership in Israel, including promoting positive perceptions and feelings even towards the most remote social groups and encouraging partnership education, especially among those for whom engaging in the subject of partnership arouses greater opposition.The researchers also called on the education system to implement a number of operations immediately, including appointing coordinators in each school to promote partnership education, building a regulated curriculum for partnership education, adjusting curricula in all subject to promote partnership and training for teachers.”The emotional support provided by the school has positive implications not only for the student’s personal well-being but also for the quality of interaction between groups at this time,” wrote the researchers.
THE ISRAEL National Council for the Child called the findings of the study “worrying.””It is important to remember that children and youth are not disconnected from the society in which they live, and they are nourished by what adults around them think,” said the council. “The Education Ministry has an important role to play in promoting tolerance and partnership, and in promoting the right to mutual respect and equality, but the challenge lies not only in its development but also in the development of adult society in general, including policymakers and shapers of public opinion.”Imam Iyad Amer, principal of the Kfar Qassem Comprehensive School, was quoted by the report as stating that “the findings of the report teach us that without partnership education, it is impossible to survive – neither as a Jewish society nor as an Arab one.”The school has been working for about four years with the aChord center and succeeded in creating noticeable improvements in intergroup attitudes among students and faculty.Rabbi Pinchas, principal of the Zivia Lod School, was quoted as stating that “the report teaches us that every stream of education has different characteristics, and this should be addressed when building a curriculum for partnership education. Areas that are groundbreaking require a lot of guidance, and the field of partnership education is a groundbreaking topic today, which is not sufficiently engaged in.”This is the first year that the report is being published for the general public. In the past, it was presented to the president of Israel as part of the Israeli Hope in Education project of the President’s Office, the Education Ministry and the Lautman Forum.The full ISSPY report will be published on Tuesday during a conference with President Reuven Rivlin at 10 a.m.

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

https://www.calcalistech.com/ctech/articles/0,7340,L-3782910,00.html

Nearly Half of Israeli Arab Academics Avoid Applying for Jobs at 

Predominantly Jewish Companies, Research Shows

According to the study, conducted by The Hebrew University’s aChord Center, Arab candidates are afraid of encountering 

racism or failing to get the job for non-professional reasons as well as of the way working for a Jewish company may be perceived 

by their own community

Maayan Manela1

27.01.20

While the Israeli tech sector is slowly upping its efforts to diversify its workforce to fight an ongoing talent crunch, a new study shows members of Israel’s Arab minority tend 

to avoid predominantly Jewish companies altogether.

According to the study, conducted by The Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s aChord Center, which specializes in the social psychology of intergroup relations, 45% of Arab 

academics do not apply to Jewish companies, mostly for fear of encountering racism or failing to get the job for non-professional reasons. Of the 400 Arab academics questioned, 

65% also said they feel their own community would have trouble accepting them working for such a company.

AChord’s research attempted to examine the psychological obstacles—on top of objective obstacles, such as place of residence or infrastructure, and cultural obstacles, such as 

worrying that a predominantly Jewish workplace will not provide a good working environment—that are preventing Arabs from applying to jobs, Oranit Ramati Dvir, director 

of the employment program at aChord, told Calcalist in an interview.

“If you do not feel like you have a chance to get the job, if you think you would not be happy with the corporate culture or that the people around you would frown upon your 

choice to work at a company with a Jewish majority, then you are much less likely to apply,” Sama Safouri, employment project leader at aChord, said.

What the research shows is that the challenge of reaching Arab candidates is not just a technicality, but the result of an acute trust crisis between the Arab minority and the Israeli 

industry that has pushed it aside for decades, Nawa Jashan Batshon, CEO of Co-Impact, an organization dedicated to promoting Arab employment in Israel, said in an interview.  

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

https://en.achord.huji.ac.il/

image.png
image.png



“aChord Center is a unique capacity building organization that strives to improve the efficacy of activity for shared society in Israel”

Meet the Team

  aChord Center  
  aChord Center was established in response to the field’s need for practical knowledge and innovative tools to best deal with psychological 

barriers in intergroup relations. Home to a diverse group of researchers and professionals, the Center has a unique ability to connect the latest 

research with real world needs and activities. The Center offers training, consulting and research services, develops practical and tailor-made 

tools, and examines their effectiveness, all based on broad and developing knowledge in social psychology from Israel and abroad.

aChord Newsletter – February 2021

See here >>

screen_shot_2021-01-12_at_14.37.50.png

How Much Hate is the Pandemic Generating?

An interview of Prof. Eran Halperin, Founder and Head of Achord >>

employment.png

Diverse Employment during the Coronavirus crisis

A practical guide for managers >>

annexation.jpg

The Majority of the Public Opposes the Unilateral Annexation

A new comprehensive study regarding the annexation reveals important findings about the way the plan is perceived by the public >>

covid-4948866_640.jpg

To slow coronavirus, disparate groups in Israel society must com

An article by By Prof ERAN HALPERIN, aChord’s Chairman and RON GERLITZ, aChord’s CEO >>

empty_table.jpg

Employers, don’t allow your workers pay the price

Op-Ed on Diversity & Inclusion in Employment during the Coronavirus Crisis >>



aChord – Social Psychology for Social Change • achord@mail.huji.ac.il • 2nd floor, Hutzot Shefayim 6099000 Israel • +972-9-373-0300  

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

https://en.achord.huji.ac.il/about

aChord Center is a non-profit organization that specializes in the social psychology of intergroup relations. The center’s unique added value is in
developing innovative, evidence based, practical knowledge and tools to improve intergroup relations, by utilizing cutting-edge social psychological
theory and data.
 
The Center was established in 2015 by Professor Eran Halperin, a full professor of psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, together with his
colleagues, Prof. Tamar Saguy and Dr. Michal Reifen-Tager. Eran is a recognized and highly acclaimed expert in his field worldwide, having published
over 130 academic papers and three books. A frequent lecturer at universities, such as Stanford, Harvard, and Princeton, Eran won the award as the most
promising young political psychologist in the world from the International Society of Political Psychology in 2012.
 
Eran built the center out of concern for the disconnect between research based knowledge on intergroup relations and the actual work being done in the field.
The high levels of tension, prejudice, and negative emotions between groups are the most pressing social issues in Israel today. Bound up in these issues are
numerous subtle and deep-seated psychological factors that underlie and influence intergroup relations. Yet currently, the numerus organizations and programs
that aspire to enhance social cohesion within Israeli society lack socio-psychological knowledge and tools that can significantly increase the effectiveness of
their work. It is this gap that the center aims to fill.
 
aChord’s services are varied, and tailored to specific challenges and fields. To date, the Center conducts research, develops training sessions, offers intensive
workshops, designs tools, and consults numerous organizations; helping them address psychological barriers in their work with social groups. The center works
in collaboration with the PICR research lab. Home to more than 30 researchers from Israel and abroad, it is one of the leading research labs in the world in the
development of effective socio-psychological interventions.

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

https://en.achord.huji.ac.il/vision

Vision

We aim to promote tolerant and equal intergroup relations by developing practical knowledge and innovative tools from cutting-edge research in social psychology.

The center operates in the area that lies between academia and the field. It aims to bridge the gap between current research on the psychology of intergroup relations and civil society organizations, government agencies, and other programs that promote shared society in the fields of education, employment, leadership, the media, etc. Today, there is research-based knowledge,  developed in Israel and abroad that enables the dismantling of psychological barriers and the advancement of perceptions, emotions, and behaviors that are more conducive to equal and respectful intergroup relations.

To date, this knowledge has only been used by the field to a limited extent.

We believe that by addressing people’s actual psychological needs, the impact of the work done today can be dramatically increased.

Three basic assumptions guide us:

Group identity and belonging are of immense importance to people’s welfare, and therefore effective social partnership will give respect to distinct identities.
Respectful, tolerant, and equal relationships among groups are possible and necessary for a shared society.
Any significant social change in this area must include psychological change, that is, a change in people’s perceptions, attitudes, and feelings.
We believe that social psychologists and researchers have a professional obligation to make the existing scientific knowledge available to the field and, with the field, to develop
practical and creative ways to apply it, enabling agents of social change to base their work on data and research-based tools.


In a polarized reality, with many conflicts and deep-rooted rifts, we believe that our mission is not only necessary, but also urgent: to reduce manifestations of hostility, violence, and racism; to empower the forces working to eradicate these phenomena; and to promote respect, tolerance and mutual responsibility, sensitivity to inequality, and support for narrowing social gaps. In this spirit and in partnership with social leaders, organizations, individuals and policy makers, the center will act creatively and consistently as an auxiliary force and a model of supportive and groundbreaking cooperation.

=====================================================https://achord.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/achord.hebrew/files/achord_-_job_opening_-_research_associate.pdf

aChord – Social Psychology for Social Change • 2nd floor, Hutzot Shefayim 6099000 Israel • +972-9-373-0300 • Website: aChord.huji.ac.il
Job opening at aChord Center – Research Associate
aChord Center, a part of Magid Institute at the Hebrew University, is seeking a research
associate for conducting a multidisciplinary study on international peace. The position is for
five months, with a tentative possibility of extension, and is between half-time and full-time.
aChord is a social-academic organization that seeks to promote equal, tolerant, and
respectful intergroup relations within the Israeli society and between Israel and its
neighbors by using cutting-edge research from the social sciences. The current project
aggregates insights on successful peace processes to create an empirically based model
that will advance Israeli-Palestinian Peace. The research associate will be a part of a small
and dedicated team of researchers.
Main Responsibilities:
– Conducting a systematic review of scholarly resources (journal articles, book chapters,
and books) about peace processes and agreements. The work includes coding
approximately 1,000 resources based on pre-defined criteria.
– Writing and presenting chapters of the report about the aggregated insights from the
review.
Qualifications:
– Interest in cross-disciplinary research on international peace and conflict.
– Ability and motivation to read and code a large volume of academic publications on
peace and conflict.
– High proficiency in English is a prerequisite (all research resources and
communications are in English).
– Master’s degree in the social sciences. Research-oriented MA students are also
eligible.
Skills:
– Ability to work independently.
– Diligent and meticulous
– Ability to work under tight schedules.
– Identifies with aChord’s values
Scope:
– Between 50% and full-time position, to be determined by aChord and the applicant.
– Duration: Five months, with a tentative possibility of extension.
– Immediate recruitment.
– Location: Hotzut Shefayim, Sharon District. The employee will be expected to work from
our offices at least once a week. Otherwise, the work can be done remotely.
Interested? Please send your CV and a short statement in English about your motivation
and qualifications for this position to cvachord@gmail.com. In the statement, detail your
availability for the next five months and your preference for the scope of the position
(between 50% and full time). Please mention “application for research associate” in the
subject of the email.

Tel Aviv University Dan David Prize 2021 Threatened by BDS

25.02.21

Editorial Note

The Tel Aviv University Dan David Prize annually awards three prizes to “globally inspiring individuals and organizations,” the sum of one million dollars each. According to the prize page, the prize honors “outstanding contributions that expand knowledge of the past, enrich society in the present, and promise to improve the future of our world.”  The laureates were announced live in an online event on February 15, 2021, and the Prize Award Ceremony will be held in an online event in May 2021.

This year’s fields are History of Health and Medicine (Past category), Public Health (Present category), and Molecular Medicine (Future category).

In the History of Health and Medicine (Past Category), the award is given to Prof. Alison Bashford of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, among two others. She is a “world-leader and an agenda-setter in the history of health and medicine.” Bashford’s books constitute a major resource for understanding the current global pandemic, as an early analyst of the relationship between public health, disease control, and race, who galvanized historians of health and medicine worldwide around the question of quarantine and medico-legal border control. She researched the biosecurity threats of SARS, anthrax, and avian influenza that amplified political insecurity in the early 2000s. 

The TAU Dan David Prize encourages scholars to excel in researching and solving global crises. 

However, a Palestinian BDS group is seeking to sabotage the Prize.

BDS Australia, a BDS group that calls to boycott Israel to support Palestinians rights, has recently urged Prof. Bashford to “support Palestinians in their struggle against apartheid and brutal repression by rejecting the Dan David Prize.”  According to the BDS group, “Israel is currently obstructing Covid vaccines’ delivery to Palestinians.” They also claim that “its illegal military occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip, which Tel Aviv University facilitates, have systematically attacked Palestinians’ public health for decades.” 

BDS Australia claims that “Palestinians are calling on people of good will to boycott organizations that profit from, contribute to, or normalize Israel’s repression of them. Academics from all over the world have met the call with strong support.”   

The BDS movement has scored one success. In 2018, Prof. Catherine Hall of University College London declined the Dan David Prize.  Hall said: “I have withdrawn from the prize – this was an independent political choice, undertaken after many discussions with those who are deeply involved with the politics of Israel-Palestine, but with differing views as to how best to act.”  Instead, the award was distributed as grants for students at Tel Aviv University and across the globe. Ariel David from the foundation’s administrative board said: “This will give Israelis of all backgrounds, whether Jewish or Arab, as well as international scholars, the opportunity to meet at this beautiful campus and engage in academic discussion, research and discovery.”

BDS Australia told Bashford that:

-the Dan David prize obscures the severe rolling health crisis in the occupied territories, and ignores the fact that Israel robs countless Palestinians of their right to health, well-being and ordinary prospects of flourishing.” 

-“accepting the prize contributes to misleading the public about Israel’s violence and racism towards Palestinians, and legitimizes institutions at the center of Israel’s apartheid policies.” 

-Israel’s “complicity with the stockpiling of the bodies of dead Palestinians, Tel Aviv University, the prize administrator, directly facilitates the violence of Israel’s apartheid policies.”

-“Millions of Palestinians are subjected to Israel’s slow ethnic-cleansing regime, which dispossesses, arbitrarily imprisons, maims and kills them in large numbers.”

-“we ask you to refuse to be one for Israel’s apartheid and brutal military occupation and blockade of Palestinians.” 

-“You surely would not have been an apologist for South Africa’s apartheid.”

Like other branches of the BDS movement, BDS Australia has consistently and often maliciously misrepresented the complex realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by blaming the Israeli side exclusively.  Such a one-sided view allows the BDS advocates to whitewash the Palestinian leadership role in creating a situation in which the Palestinians cannot thrive.  The history is full of examples.  In 2000, Yasser Arafat, influenced by Iran and its Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad proxies, refused Israel’s generous offer to settle the conflict.  Even so, the international community had spent untold millions of dollars to help the Palestinians, by far the most generous donation per capita to any population.   Hamas, which evicted the PLO from Gaza in 2006, has chosen to spend this largess on Kassam rockets, weapons, ammunition, and tunnels against Israel.  The group has run a brutal dictatorship in which dissent is not tolerated.  The PLO leadership in charge of the West Bank is inept and highly corrupt, a recipe for robbing its people of the opportunity to thrive. 

Prof. Bashford should take note of this.

https://english.m.tau.ac.il/impact/dan_david_prize_2021

Dan David Prize 2021 Laureates in Health and Medicine Announced

Dr. Anthony Fauci among winners in fields of infectious disease, history of medicine, and anti-cancer immunotherapy15 February 2021

This year’s Dan David Prize laureates are Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr. Anthony Fauci; health and medicine historians Prof. Alison Bashford, Prof. Katharine Park, and Prof. Keith Wailoo; and the pioneers of an anti-cancer immunotherapy Prof. Zelig Eshhar, Prof. Carl June, and Dr. Steven Rosenberg.

The laureates were announced live in an online event on February 15, 2021.

The internationally renowned Dan David Prize, headquartered at Tel Aviv University, annually awards three prizes of US $1 million each to globally inspiring individuals and organizations. The Prize honors outstanding contributions that expand knowledge of the past, enrich society in the present, and promise to improve the future of our world. The total purse of US $3 million makes this prestigious prize also one of the highest-valued awards internationally. This year’s fields are: History of Health and Medicine (Past category), Public Health (Present category), and Molecular Medicine (Future category).

The Laureates

History of Health and Medicine (Past Category)

A world-leader and an agenda-setter in the history of health and medicine, Prof. Alison Bashford’s wide-ranging work is unusually expansive across geographies, topics, and periods, and demonstrates the global interconnectedness of medicine and public health in the modern world. As one of the earliest analysts of the relationship between public health, disease control, and race, she galvanized historians of health and medicine worldwide around the question of quarantine and medico-legal border control. When the biosecurity threats of SARS, anthrax, and avian influenza amplified political insecurity in the early 2000s, she quickly convened scholars from diverse fields, curating and editing three books that have expanded our understanding of that complex global moment. One of them constitutes a major resource for understanding the current global pandemic. She currently serves as the Laureate Professor of History, UNSW Sydney, Australia.

Prof. Katharine Park is a professor emerita of the History of Science at Harvard University, and a pioneering scholar of medieval and early modern science and medicine. Her early scholarship focused on the medical profession in Renaissance Florence; applying an innovative approach, she surveyed “the entire world of medical practice” in the wake of the first plague epidemic in 1348. Her research re-orients what we thought we knew about medieval and Renaissance anatomy and places gender at the center of the analysis, demonstrating how this can provide radically new insights. Combining conceptual temerity, visionary analysis, and methodological innovation, her work has revitalized the field and is reshaping our understanding of gender, sexuality, and the [female] body in pre-modern societies.

Professor of History and Public Affairs at Princeton University, Keith A. Wailoo’s research is shedding new light on hidden health experiences in the past, from pain management to the way cultural values shape ideas about cancer, or how sickle cell disease emerged from medical invisibility to become a focal point of debate in the U.S. over race, health equity, and social justice. He is redefining the social history of American medicine, by positioning the issue of race at its heart. By forcefully bringing a historical perspective into public commentary and policy discussions on topics ranging from the opioid crisis to the politics of vaccination and COVID-19, he is advancing a broad understanding of health and health equity.

Public Health (Present Category)

Dr. Anthony Fauci, M.D., is the consummate model of leadership and impact in public health. As the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the U.S. National Institutes of Health since 1984, he oversees an extensive research portfolio focused on infectious and immune-mediated diseases. He is widely respected throughout the world for his efforts to develop novel diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines against COVID-19.  As the COVID-19 pandemic unraveled, he leveraged his considerable communication skills to address people gripped by fear and anxiety and worked relentlessly to inform individuals in the United States and elsewhere about the public health measures essential for containing the pandemic’s spread.  In addition, he has been widely praised for his courage in speaking truth to power in a highly charged political environment. Dr. Fauci has also made many seminal contributions in basic and clinical research and is one of the world’s most-cited biomedical scientists. He was one of the principal architects of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which has saved millions of lives throughout the developing world.

Molecular Medicine (Future Category)

Prof. Zelig Eshhar is an immunologist at the Weizmann Institute of Science and the Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, known for his pioneering work on T cells and chimeric antigen receptors (CAR) cancer immunotherapy. By combining antibodies with T-cell through genetic engineering, he created “killer” T cells, which have improved cancer recognition skills. His team was the first to employ the CAR -T cells to specifically fight cancer. He also worked to create unique antibodies for allergies. As an expert in monoclonal antibodies, Prof. Eshhar was invited to teach in developing countries and to advise many biotech companies. In a visit to another Dan David Prize laureate, Prof. Steven Rosenberg, Eshhar set the groundwork for the clinical application of his technology.

Prof. Carl June is a physician scientist and the Richard W. Vague Professor in Immunotherapy in the department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine in the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and director of the Center for Cellular Immunotherapies at Penn’s Abramson Cancer Center. June and his lab discovered several basic scientific principles of how the cells in the immune system work to fight cancer and infections in the 1980s and 1990s. His lab would go on to conduct the first clinical evaluation of gene-modified T cells, initially in people with HIV/AIDS and then in patients with advanced leukemia beginning using CAR T cell therapy, the approach that retrains a patient’s own immune cells to attack cancer. The cellular therapy was awarded “Breakthrough Therapy” status by the FDA for acute leukemia in children and adults in 2014 and was approved as the first personalized cellular therapy for cancer, Kymriah, in 2017. It is now in use for the treatment of pediatric and adult blood cancer patients.

Dr. Steven Rosenberg  is Chief of the Surgery Branch at the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland and a Professor of Surgery at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences and the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences. He pioneered the development of gene therapy and was the first to successfully insert foreign genes into humans. He was also the first to demonstrate the effectiveness of genetically engineered CAR-T cells to mediate the regression of B-cell malignancies in humans, a treatment now approved by the FDA for widespread use. In recent work Dr. Rosenberg established new approaches for the application of immunotherapy to patients with a variety of common solid cancers by targeting the unique mutations present in the patient’s cancer. His recent studies of the adoptive transfer of genetically modified lymphocytes have resulted in the regression of metastatic cancer in patients with various types of tumors.

About the Dan David Prize

The Dan David Prize was established by the late Dan David, an international businessman and philanthropist whose vision is the driving force behind the international Dan David Prize. His aim was to reward those who have made a lasting impact on society and to help young students and entrepreneurs become the scholars and leaders of the future.

Previous Dan David Prize laureates include cellist Yo-Yo Ma (2006); former US Vice President Al Gore (2008); novelist Margaret Atwood (2010); filmmakers Ethan and Joel Coen (2011); distinguished economist and recent Nobel Laureate, Esther Duflo (2013); and artificial intelligence researcher, neuroscientist, and entrepreneur Dr. Demis Hassabis (2020).

The laureates donate 10% of their award money to scholarships for graduate or post-graduate researchers in their respective fields.

Prof. Ariel Porat, President of Tel Aviv University and Chairperson of the Dan David Prize Board said:

“The coronavirus pandemic has presented humanity with new challenges. Therefore, this year, we decided to honor the fields at the forefront of the battle against the virus – health and medicine. International review committees selected this year’s laureates for their pioneering work and their exceptional contributions to humanity in these fields, in three time dimensions – past, present and future.”

Ariel David, director of the Dan David Foundation and son of the prize founder, said:

“During the past year, we sought to address the challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. We chose to do so while staying true to the broad and diverse approach that distinguishes the Prize, recognizing achievements in a wide variety of fields that deal with issues of health, medicine and epidemiology. Our laureates for this year have probed how humanity has dealt with sickness and pandemics throughout history; they have provided relief, guidance and leadership in dealing with current outbreaks – from AIDS to Ebola and the Novel Coronavirus – and they are at the forefront of discovering new treatments that give us hope for the future in the ongoing battle against cancer and other diseases. I feel fortunate that we have the opportunity to celebrate their achievements and to remind ourselves that it is only by marshaling all the resources of the human intellect that we can trace a path through the darkest of crises.” 

The Prize’s unique model implements a ‘roving’ formula that rewards achievements in all fields of human endeavor, rather than in a fixed set of categories, and every year, a new theme is selected for each of the three time categories – past, present, and future.

The seven laureates will be honored at the 2021 Dan David Prize Award Ceremony, to be held in a special online event in May 2021. 

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

https://www.miragenews.com/university-professor-accepted-tainted-516552/

FEBRUARY 19, 2021 12:09 PM AEDT

University Professor accepted tainted award

BDS Australia calls on UNSW Laureate Professor Alison Bashford to support Palestinians in their struggle against apartheid and brutal repression by rejecting the Dan David Prize.

The 2021 prize, which is administered by Tel Aviv University, rewards contributions to the understanding of public health. Yet Israel is currently obstructing the delivery of Covid vaccines to Palestinians, and its illegal military occupation of the West Bank and blockade of the Gaza Strip, which Tel Aviv University facilitates, have systematically attacked Palestinians’ public health for decades.

State-based efforts to bring about justice for Palestinians have comprehensively failed. In response, Palestinians are calling on people of good will to boycott organisations that profit from, contribute to, or normalize Israel’s repression of them. Academics from all over the world have met the call with strong support. As one example only, Prof. Catherine Hall of University College London declined to accept the same Dan David Prize in 2018 after extensive discussion about the politics of Israel-Palestine.

In suggesting that Israel is committed to advances in public health, the Dan David prize obscures the severe rolling health crisis in the occupied territories, and ignores the fact that Israel robs countless Palestinians of their right to health, well-being and ordinary prospects of flourishing. In its structural ties to Israel’s military and political architecture, including fee-waiversand scholarships for Israeli soldiers, and its complicity with the stockpiling of the bodies of dead Palestinians, Tel Aviv University, the prize administrator, directly facilitates the violence of Israel’s apartheid policies.

Millions of Palestinians are subjected to Israel’s slow ethnic-cleansing regime, which dispossesses, arbitrarily imprisons, maims and kills them in large numbers. To them, a high-profile prize from the heart of the Israeli political and academic establishment can only appear a cruel joke.

Professor Bashford, accepting the prize contributes to misleading the public about Israel’s violence and racism towards Palestinians, and legitimizes institutions at the centre of Israel’s apartheid policies. We therefore ask you to put into practice your declared commitments to public health and antiracism, and respect Palestinians’ call for solidarity by boycotting the Dan David prize. You surely would not have been an apologist for South Africa’s apartheid; we ask you to refuse to be one for Israel’s apartheid and brutal military occupation and blockade of Palestinians.

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

An Open letter from academics, researchers and students: Professor Alison Bashford – Please reconsider the Dan David Prize

Latest

Dear Professor Bashford,

We are academics, researchers and students. We ask you to please reconsider accepting your share of the prestigious 2021 Dan David Prize,[1] the academic award administered by and headquartered at Tel Aviv University (TAU).[2] This year’s prize rewards scholars who have contributed to advances in and understanding of medicine and public health. In reality, however, accepting it serves to legitimize and normalize Israel’s colonial violence and apartheid.

As we are sure you are aware, for decades, through its military occupation, blockade and apartheid, Israel has been undermining Palestine’s health systems and systematically denying Palestinians medical care.[3] In a report from November last year, the director of the World Health Organisation noted that Israel’s ‘chronic occupation has profound implications for the sustainability of health-care provision by public authorities, in terms of both revenue raising and affordability.’[4] Palestinians are regularly blackmailed into collaboration with the Israeli Security Services in order to get the permits they need to leave the West Bank and Gaza for medical treatment.[5] Currently, while Israel has been hailed for vaccinating its population, it is refusing to immunize all Palestinians under its rule,[6] as is its responsibility,[7] and placing obstacles in the way of transfer of vaccines into Gaza and the West Bank, entry to which it fully controls – clear testament to the apartheid regime it maintains.[8]  

Since 2005, Palestinian civil society organizations have been calling on supporters of justice and antiracism around the world to express solidarity with the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause by boycotting Israel, including its academic institutions. Accepting the prize would be a clear violation of this call, and an outright refusal of Palestinians’ aspirations for freedom. We ask you to respect the wishes of Palestinian people and not side with their oppressor.

TAU directly facilitates Israel’s ongoing illegal occupation of the West Bank and its illegal blockade of Gaza. It must be held accountable for supporting Israel’s repression of Palestinians. Examples of TAU’s complicity in Israel’s anti-Palestinianism are numerous: 

– An affiliate of the university’s Sackler School of Medicine, the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute,[9] is currently stockpiling the bodies of scores of Palestinians for use as leverage in negotiations, refusing to release them to their families, a practice which contravenes international treaties and conventions.[10]  
– TAU hosts the Institute for National Security Studies, whose 2018 ‘Plan’ recommends completing the illegal separation wall, and ‘ongoing construction in settlement blocs’ – in other words, perpetuation of Israeli apartheid – and which declares in its current report that ‘it is necessary to prepare for the next war’.[11] 
– TAU’s Yuval Ne’eman Workshop for Science, Technology and Security cooperates closely with the Israeli Defence Force and other security services, and hosts work on, among other things, ‘missiles and guided weapons, homeland security, [and] force build-up policy’.[12] In 2008 the TAU President described himself as ‘awed by the magnitude and scientific creativity of the work being done behind the scenes at TAU that enhances the country’s civilian defense capabilities and military edge’.[13]  
– TAU’s Iby and Aladar Fleischman Faculty of Engineering runs an ‘entrepreneurship program’ with Elbit Systems,[14] a major Israeli arms manufacturer, whose weapons and technology are battle-tested on Palestinians.[15] 
– Since 2016, as at all Israeli universities, soldiers’ TAU tuition fees are paid after discharge from the army.[16]  
– In 2014, TAU offered a year’s free tuition to students who had participated in the murderous military attacks on Gaza.[17] 
– In 2012, TAU started collaboration with settlement organisations in archaeological digs in Palestinian East Jerusalem, in violation of international agreements.[18] 

Professor Bashford, we call on you to follow the lead of your colleague and fellow historian Professor Catherine Hall, who in 2018 refused the Dan David Prize prize.[19] Doing so would make an important contribution to the cause of antiracism and opposition to apartheid in Israel in a context in which state-led resolution efforts have failed. It would also avoid a flagrant contradiction with your own published work, which aims to contribute to ‘the critical history of colonialism, nationalism and public health’, investigating, among other topics, ‘segregation as both hygienic – that is, as part of public health – and racial – as part of the systems and cultures of race management’.[20]  

Israel’s racist policies against Palestinians, long criticised as instances of apartheid by Palestinians themselves, as well as by international legal and humanitarian authorities (including recently by the Israeli NGO B’Tselem) are an egregious example of racial segregation imposed on an entire population, with all the desperate consequences for Palestinians’ health and well-being that this implies.[21] 

Professor Bashford, you have a significant opportunity to contribute to public understanding of the importance of antiracism and anti-apartheid. In 2003, you and a co-author noted that ‘even repressive regimes have been eroded through criticism generated by external human rights groups attempting to universalise democratic ideals’; as you pointed out, ‘it is difficult to imagine the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, for example, without the chorus of international calls to release high-profile political prisoners on Robben Island’.[22] Palestinians’ appeal for boycott is an attempt to mobilise a chorus of international calls of exactly this kind. 

Nothing obliges you to accept the Dan David prize and the financial reward that accompanies it. Doing so would be a sharp rebuke to the unanimous call from Palestinian organisations to support their struggle for freedom. As you have noted, ‘liberalism and the idea of democratic rule — most recently through the language of human rights — problematises arbitrary detention, the incarceration of non-criminals and of political prisoners’.[23] These are, however, among the very practices which Israel imposes on Palestinians. Refusing the award, opposing the whitewashing of Israel’s crimes, and rejecting collaboration with an Israeli academic institution complicit with the oppression of Palestinians, would earn you the respect and admiration of all those who believe that academic research must serve the cause of freedom, in Palestine and in the world.

Samah Sabawi, independent scholar, Melbourne Nick Riemer, University of Sydney Rima Najjar, Al Quds University, Palestine Ahmed Alnajjar. Director of Public and International Relations, Ministry of Education, Palestine Randa Abdel-Fattah, Macquarie University Randa Farah, University of Western Ontario Wael Hallaq, Columbia University Peter Slezak, University of New South Wales Alistair Sisson, University of New South Wales Michael Grewcock, University of New South Wales Alana Lentin, University of Western Sydney David Brophy, University of Sydney James Godfrey, Birkbeck, University of London Jumana Bayeh, Macquarie University Sara Dehm, University of Technology, Sydney Ntina Tzouvala, Australian National University Lucia Sorbera, University of Sydney Kieron Cadey, Canterbury Christ Church Inna Michaeli, independent scholar, Germany Michael Griffiths, University of Wollongong Sara Saleh, University of New South Wales Liyana Kayali, Australian National University Micaela Sahhar, University of Melbourne Kate Davison, University of Melbourne Daniel A. Segal, Pitzer College of the Claremont Colleges, USA Nicola Perugini, University of Edinburgh Sharri Plonski, Queen Mary, University of London Ronit Lentin, Trinity College Dublin Ryan Al-Natour, Charles Sturt University Robert Boyce, London School of Economics Mohd Nazari bin Ismail, University of Malaya Dr Lobna Yassine, Australian Catholic University Dr. Suzita Noor, University of Malaya Karel Arnaut, KU Leuven Paola Manduca, University of Genoa, Italy John King, New York University Angelo Baracca, University of Florence Zati Azizul, University of Malaya Marcelo Svirsky University of Wollongong Elsa Haniffah Mejia Mohamed, University Malaya MY Musa, USM Aneesa Abdul Rashid, Islamic Medical Association of Malaysia Herman De Ley, Ghent University Mark Ayyash, Mount Royal University, Canada Raja Jamilah Raja Yuso, University of Malaya Norhayati Ab.Rahman, University of Malaya David Faber, Flinders University Dr. Noor Fadiya Mohd Noor, University of Malaya Noor Adwa Sulaiman University of Malaya Fatiha Shabaruddin, Universiti Malaya Marc De Meyere Gent University Susan Ferguson, Wilfrid Laurier University Nozomi Takahashi, Staff scientist, VIB/Ghent University Snehal Shingavi, University of Texas, Austin Hassan Basri, University of Sultan Zainal Abidin J. Ahmad, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia Meera Atkinson, University of Notre Dame Australia George H Morgan, Western Sydney University Brian Brophy, University of Adelaide Zul’aini Zainal Abidin, Kolej Poly-Tech MARA Sharmani Patricia Gabriel, Universiti Malaya Amir Nor, Islamic Science University Professor Omar bin Yaakob, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia M.Tashid, University of Technology malaysia Rozaini Roslan, UTHM Mohamed Hatta Shaharom, Chairman Ikram Foundation of Malaysia Harlina Halizah Siraj, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) Prof Dr Hayati, USIM Borhanuddin Mohd Ali, Universiti Putra Malaysia Prof. Azman Che Mat, UiTM Mustafa Mohd Hanefah Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia Ramli Bin Nazir, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Ahmad Hariza Hashim, Universiti Putra Malaysia Prof Dr Norhasmah, UPM Prof. Dr. Nor Azan, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Dr. Abdul Rashid Mohamed, Universiti Sains Malaysia Daing Nasir Ibrahim University Malaysia Pahang Dr Sahrim Ahmad/Professor, UKM, Malaysia Haiyun Ma, Frostburg State University, USA Mahamod Ismail, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Tengku Shahrom Tengku Shahdan, Universiti Selangor Associate Professor Dr Suhaimi Mhd Sarif International Islamic University Malaysia A’zzah, CEO, Al Musab Institute Wan Jefrey Basirun University Malaya Adlina Suleiman Academy of Professors Malaysia Khairul Saidah Abas Azmi, Senior Lecturer University of Malaya Noorsyazly Rameli, Malaysia Mohammad Nazri, Universiti Malaya Kelton Muir Sydney University John Michael O’Brien, University of Sydney Souheir Edelbi, UNSW Paul Russell, Victoria University Toby Fitch, University of Sydney Finola Laughren, University of Sydney Dr Azmi Aminuddin, UiTM Rohana Hassan, UiTM Christiane Schomblond, Université Libre de Bruxelles Kathryn Ticehurst, University of Sydney Carol Que, University of Melbourne Noor Sapiei, University of Malaya Alan Hill, RMIT University, Melbourne Goldie Osuri, University of Warwick Azman Hassan , Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Meloni Muir, University of Sydney Liam Ward, RMIT University, Melbourne David Klein, California State University Northridge Mike Cushman, London School of Economics Harry Smaller, York University, Canada Vannina Sztainbok, University of Toronto Colin Mooers, Ryerson University, Canada Sylvat Aziz, Queens University, Toronto Joy Moore, Dawson College, Montreal Asha Varadharajan, Queen’s University Brett Story, Assistant Professor, Ryerson University Larry Hannant, University of Victoria Sumi Hasegawa, McGill University Nicola Pratt, University of Warwick David Borgonjon, Rhode Island School of Design Kevin Moloney, York University, Toronto Steven Jordan, McGill University Peter Chidiac, University of Western Ontario Anne Meneley, Trent University Dr. Edwin E. Daniel, University of Alberta Christo El Morr, York University Natalia Maystorovich Chulio, University of Sydney Matilda Fay, University of Technology Sydney Mark LeVine, UC Irvine Robert Austin, University of Sydney Viviana Ramírez, independent scholar, Chile Mohd Hilmi Jaafar, University of Malaya Victor Wallis, Berklee College of Music Zuhaimy ismail, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Shira Robinson, George Washington University Daing Nasir Ibrahim, University Malaysia Pahang Malek Abisaab, McGill University Graham Holton, University of Queensland

Notes
[1]  https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/general/unsw-sydney-historian-named-2021-dan-david-prize-laureate
[2] https://www.dandavidprize.org/about/about-the-prize
[3] A 2020 report by the WHO Director General, ‘Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan’, for instance, finds that ‘Israeli settler population in the West Bank, estimated to comprise more than 600000 persons, compared to Palestinians living in the same territory, have a life expectancy almost nine years higher, infant mortality more than six times lower and maternal mortality nine times lower’, 12. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA73/A73_15-en.pdf
[4] ‘Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan’, 18. https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA73/A73_15-en.pdf
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/28/palestinians-gaza-strip-collaborate-israel
[6]https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/joint-letter-free-and-equitable-access-and-distribution-covid
[7] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26655
[8] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/16/israel-blocked-covid-vaccines-from-entering-gaza-say-palestinians
[9] https://www.health.gov.il/English/MinistryUnits/HealthDivision/MedicalAdministration/forensic/Pages/default.aspx
[10] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/2/24/israel-slammed-for-necroviolence-on-bodies-of-palestinians
https://www.inss.org.il/publication/questions-answers-inss-plan-strategic-framework-israeli-palestinian-arena/;
[11] https://www.inss.org.il/publication/strategic-survey-the-operative-arena/
[12] https://en-sectech.tau.ac.il/about
[13] https://english.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/media_server/TAU%20Review%202008-09.pdf
[14] https://en-engineering.tau.ac.il/Engineering-Faculty-Home-innobitenglish
[15] https://whoprofits.org/company/elbit-systems/
[16] https://www.israel365news.com/79016/first-time-idf-will-fully-fund-soldier-university-scholarships/
[17] https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/israeli-universities-lend-support-gaza-massacre
[18] https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-academics-urge-tel-aviv-u-not-to-join-e-j-lem-dig-1.5281799
[19] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/prominent-historian-rejects-israeli-academic-award-1.5386129
[20] Bashford A. (2004) Introduction: Lines of hygiene, boundaries of rule. In: Imperial Hygiene. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 13 and 2.
[21] https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid
[22] Bashford A. and Strange C., ‘Isolation and exclusion in the modern world An introductory essay’, in Bashford A. and Strange C. (eds) Isolation: Places and Practices of Exclusion, London, Routledge, 2003, p.14
[23] Bashford A. and Strange C. ‘Isolation and exclusion in the modern world An introductory essay’, in Bashford A. and Strange C. (eds) Isolation: Places and Practices of Exclusion, London, Routledge, 2003, p.14

Radical Group ‘Academia for Equality’ Calls to Boycott Ariel U Medical School

17.02.21

Editorial Note

The shortages of medical staff in Israel are well known. The need for a medical school is the first step in alleviating this problem.  With this in mind, in August 2018, the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson School of Medicine at Ariel University was established. 

As reported by Ariel University, the medical school is based on a four-year course of post-graduate studies: The first year includes courses in basic medical sciences such as anatomy, physiology, clinical microbiology, clinical immunology, epidemiology, and clinical pharmacology; The second year focuses on integrative teaching of the body systems in health and disease. The clinical and basic science-related aspects of body systems, such as the gastrointestinal tract, the cardiovascular system, infection, and immunity, will be highlighted; The third and fourth years are devoted to hands-on clinical studies, based on small group bed-side interaction in hospitals and the community.  

The school emphasizes that a “Great effort went into designing an advanced educational program that will empower students with comprehensive knowledge both in medical sciences and clinical medicine to ensure delivery of total patient care.” Real medical scenarios will be initiated from the early stages of the program. Medical studies with an integrative approach on personalized medicine such as robotics, digitalized medicine, and evidence-based decision-making aim to encourage graduates to be “inquisitive, research-oriented and resolute physicians with excellent interpersonal and communication skills,” with a special emphasis on “comprehensive courses in translational bioinformatics using big data, clinical molecular biology and human genetics.”  

However, the founding of the Adelson School of Medicine at Ariel University was not smooth, facing opposition for several years. First, other medical schools wanted to see this money going to existing schools and not new ones. However, the Adelsons preferred to invest in Ariel University.

The most significant opposition came from political activist-academics who perceive Ariel’s settlement in Judea and Samaria as illegitimate, including the university. For them, this territory is occupied and not disputed, and as a result, Jews are not allowed to live there.

Also, a committee under the Council for Higher Education (CHE) voted in February 2019 in opposition to establishing the medical school at Ariel University. Nevertheless, in another round of votes two months later, the CHE approved the school’s founding.

As IAM reported in February 2020, there was another boycott attempt against Ariel University. The Palestinian Ministry of Education and Higher Education has urged the international academic community to reject cooperation with Ariel University. In a campaign titled “No Academic Business as Usual with Ariel University and all other Israeli Academic Institutions Illegally Built on Occupied Palestinian Land,” also joined by the Council of Palestinian Universities’ Presidents and the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees. It was first published on November 29, 2018, calling on states, academic institutions, and research bodies to end institutional relations with Ariel University and “other Israeli academic institutions illegally built on occupied Palestinian land.”  The campaign cited the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, which stated 

that Ariel was “seized under the false pretext of imperative military needs and on land that was declared state land.”

The “Ariel University non-recognition and non-collaboration” campaign was backed by an International Advisory Board, which included Prof. David Harel of Weizmann Institute of Science. As stated by the organizers, the Advisory Board members provide “strategic input and serve as public advocates of the campaign.”   

Similarly, Academia for Equality, a radical-leftist group of academics based at Tel Aviv University, also embraced the “Ariel University non-recognition and non-collaboration” campaign and posted a letter from Israeli psychologists and social workers who refuse to participate in a series of seminars organized by Ariel University. The signatories included Dr. Ruchama Merton and other radical Israeli academics such as Prof. Uri Hadar, Dr. Kim Yuval, and Dr. Julia Chaitin, among the 68 signatories. 

Not easily discouraged, Academia for Equality is now running a similar campaign. On January 23, 2021, Academia for Equality voiced its reservations about a “collaboration outline” between the Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University and the academic institute in Ariel, which will operate from August 2021. In a public declaration, Academia for Equality wrote a letter to the TAU’s administration claiming that “this institutional cooperation, obtained without open debate in the University Senate, is alarming for a variety of moral, legal, professional and technical reasons. First and foremost, the very existence of this institution, which stands on occupied land and serves the population of the occupying nation exclusively, is a war crime and a clear example of apartheid. The recognition of this institution by far-right forces around the world which overlook its inhuman aspect is neither a victory nor an achievement for Israeli society but the opposite. We keep working against this cooperation and call upon our colleagues worldwide to join us.”

The Council for Higher Education should sanction Academia for Equality and warn its supporters at Tel Aviv University. As IAM repeatedly argued, boycotting Ariel University is illegal in Israel since the anti-Boycott Law was enacted.

אקדמיה לשוויון Academia for Equality أكاديميون من أجل ألمساواة· 

23 January at 14:43
Academia for Equality voiced in October its reservations about the “collaboration outline” between the Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University and the academic institute in Ariel, which is planned to operate starting from August 2021. See comments for our full letter to TAU’s administration (in Hebrew).This institutional cooperation, obtained without open debate in the University Senate, is alarming for a variety of moral, legal, professional and technical reasons. First and foremost, the very existence of this institution, which stands on occupied land and serves the population of the occupying nation exclusively, is a war crime and a clear example of apartheid. The recognition of this institution by far-right forces around the world which overlook its inhuman aspect is neither a victory nor an achievement for Israeli society but the opposite. We keep working against this cooperation and call upon our colleagues worldwide to join us.Read Meron Rapoport’s report at +972 Magazine for all the details (link in comments).

https://tinyurl.com/y22djn45
أكاديميون من أجل المساواة | Academia for Equality | אקדמיה לשוויון
https://www.academia4equality.com
info@academia4equality.com
1
לכבוד: 1 באוקטובר, 2020
פרופ’ אהוד גרוסמן, דיקאן הפקולטה לרפואה, אוניברסיטת תל אביב
פרופ’ אריאל פורת, נשיא אוניברסיטת תל אביב
פרופ’ מרק שטייף, רקטור אוניברסיטת תל-אביב
העתקים:
פרופ׳ שגב ברק, יו״ר ארגון הסגל הבכיר, אוניברסיטת תל אביב
מר פלג מיכאלי, יו״ר ארגון הסגל הזוטר, אוניברסיטת תל אביב
גב׳ אבלין מילוא, יו״ר ארגון הסגל המנהלי, אוניברסיטת תל אביב
אנו פונים אליכם בשם “אקדמיה לשוויון”, ארגון המאגד כ- 600 חברים וחברות בקהילה האקדמית ופועל למען
דמוקרטיזציה של המוסדות האקדמיים בישראל ושל החברה הישראלית בכללה . לאחרונה התבשרנו
שהפקולטה לרפואה באוניברסיטת ת”א חתמה עם המוסד האקדמי באריאל על “מתווה” לשיתוף פעולה,
שמתוכנן להתחיל לפעול מאוגוסט 2021 . ברצוננו להאיר את תשומת לבכם לבעייתיות שבמהלך כזה ולדרוש
מכם לסגת ממנו, מהסיבות הבאות :
המוסד האקדמי באריאל איננו ממוקם בשטחה הריבוני של מדינת ישראל אלא נבנה בלב הגדה המערבית, כחלק
מההתנחלות אריאל. בשל כך, הוא נמצא בלב הקונפליקט הלאומי והפוליטי שמפלג את החברה הישראלית כבר
עשורים. שיתוף פעולה מערכתי, מטעם האוניברסיטה או הפקולטה לרפואה, מציב את חברי הסגל והסטודנטים
שמתנגדים להתנחלויות ולכיבוש בדילמה בלתי-אפשרית. יש הבדל מהותי בין שיתופי פעולה אינדיבידואלים עם
אריאל, שכל חוקר/ת יכולים לבצע לפי ראות עיניהם, לבין מהלך קולקטיבי מטעם הפקולטה כולה. שיתוף פעולה
ממוסד כזה מכריח אנשי סגל וסטודנטים בתל-אביב לעזור להתנחלויות ולכיבוש להתבסס וכופה עליהם אימוץ
בפועל של עמדה פוליטית, אשר חלקם מתנגדים לה בכל מאודם. עירוב כזה של האקדמי והפוליטי יוצר דילמה
מוסרית חריפה, כזו שאינה קיימת בהקשר של אף מוסד אקדמי אחר במדינת ישראל, ופוגע בזכויותיהם
הבסיסיות ביותר כאזרחים וכעובדים.
כידוע, הקמתו של המוסד האקדמי באריאל, ביסוסו כ”אוניברסיטה” וכינונה של פקולטה לרפואה במסגרתו
היו כולם מהלכים פוליטיים לעילא, שמטרתם הייתה ל”הלבין”, לנרמל ולתת ארשת מכובדות להתנחלויות –
ובכך להפכן לעובדה שאין לערער עליה. מהלכים אלה בוצעו בראשית הדרך באמצעות גוף מומצא בשם “מל”ג-
יו”ש”, כאשר את האישור ה”אקדמי” הסופי נתן בשם המדינה אלוף פיקוד מרכז, ולא המועצה להשכלה
הגבוהה. כדי ל”תקן” את המעוות הזה, עודכן ב- 2018 חוק המל”ג כך שסמכות המועצה הורחבה אל מעבר
לגבולות המדינה והיא נפרשת מאז על כל הישראלים הנמצאים בשטחים הכבושים. “תיקון” זה הפך את
האקדמיה הישראלית לשותפה פעילה בחוקי ההפרדה האתנית המתקיימים בשטחים הכבושים. לא מיותר
להזכיר גם את התנגדותם הנחרצת של כל דיקני הפקולטות לרפואה בישראל להקמת הפקולטה באריאל ואת
הגיבוי שנתנו בכך להחלטת ות”ת שלא להקים את הפקולטה, וכן את המניפולציות הפוליטיות שננקטו באיוש
מחודש של הוועדה לתכנון ולתקצוב כדי להפוך את ההחלטה על פיה .
ההתנחלויות בשטחים נחשבות ע”י חלק גדול מהציבור בישראל וע”י הרוב המוחלט של הקהילה הבינלאומית
כהפרה של אמנת ז’נבה האוסרת על המדינה הכובשת ליישב את אוכלוסייתה בשטח הכבוש. אי-חוקיות
ההתנחלויות אושרה מחדש בהחלטת מועצת הביטחון 2334 ב- 2016 . בשל עובדות אלו, קרנות המחקר
הבינלאומיות הראשיות הפועלות בישראל, כדוגמת ה – ERC וה BSF , לא נותנות מענקי מחקר וכל מימון שהוא
למוסדות בשטחים הכבושים. יש לשאול האם בכך שהפקולטה לרפואה באוניברסיטת ת”א מעמידה במסגרת
ה”מתווה” הנדון את משאביה לטובת המוסד באריאל אין היא מפירה את תנאי הקרנות שמהן נהנים חוקרים
בפקולטה. ציוד וכוח אדם שמתקיימים בזכות כספי הקרנות הללו יעמדו לרשות אריאל, אף שבתנאי הקרנות
אסור שכספיהן יעברו את הקו הירוק .
מכל הסיבות הללו, אנו דורשים מכם לסגת משיתוף פעולה ממוסד עם הפקולטה לרפואה באריאל .
בברכה ,
הוועד
אקדמיה לשוויון
أكاديميون من أجل المساواة | Academia for Equality | אקדמיה לשוויון
https://www.academia4equality.com
info@academia4equality.com

https://www.972mag.com/ariel-tel-aviv-medical-school-settlements/?fbclid=IwAR09xhLG73o0WiIQrJRU-YGaMcatoLFMjA8CIPF5USX7ceMY
Tel Aviv University faculty condemn deal with settlement medical schoolThe deal will allow students from Ariel University to do clinical work in TAU’s affiliated hospitals. ‘We’re being forced to support the occupation.’By Meron Rapoport January 21, 2021

Tel Aviv University’s Sackler Faculty of Medicine has signed a student exchange agreement with Ariel University, located in the settlement of Ariel in the occupied West Bank. The deal will allow students from Ariel University’s Adelson School of Medicine to be placed in hospitals affiliated with Tel Aviv University for their clinical practice.

Tel Aviv University spokesperson Tomer Velmer hinted that the agreement was signed as a result of external pressure by Israel’s Council for Higher Education, the supervisory body for universities and colleges in Israel that is headed by the education minister. However, the Council denies that it demanded or coerced Tel Aviv University to agree to this cooperation.

Sackler’s dean, Prof. Ehud Grossman, sent a letter to faculty members in September 2020 to inform them that the university’s medical school will “begin teaching students from the faculty of medicine at Ariel University in the run-up to August 2021,” in accordance with the deal. In the letter, Grossman also explained that the agreement was reached “with the goal of maintaining the quality and level of instruction and allowing both faculties to operate optimally.”

The Sackler Faculty of Medicine is affiliated with several hospitals in the center of the country, which medical students are placed in during the clinical phase of their studies. During this practice, the students spend time in various hospital wards shadowing doctors who teach at Tel Aviv University and keeping up with patients’ progress.

Since the faculty at Ariel University is not “affiliated” with any hospital, it therefore needs assistance from an existing medical school to allow its students clinical access. The lack of affiliation seems to be the impetus for the letter from the dean of Tel Aviv University’s medical school.

According to a source who was involved in the discussions between the Council for Higher Education and the Planning and Budgeting Committee, a subcommittee responsible for funding Israel’s higher education institutions, Ariel University is paying Tel Aviv University a “high fee” for teaching students from Ariel. The source asked to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions. However, both universities refused to say how much money Tel Aviv University will make from the agreement.

Israel’s first settlement medical school

The Adelson School of Medicine at Ariel University was established in August 2018. The cornerstone for the faculty building, which received funding from American pro-settlement billionaire Sheldon Adelson, was laid even before Ariel University obtained the necessary authorization for the faculty’s establishment.

According to Tel Aviv faculty members, the school’s opening was politically motivated and pushed along by far-right leader Naftali Bennett during his tenure as education minister between 2015 and 2019. For example, the Committee of University Heads, a voluntary body composed of the presidents, rectors, and directors-general of Israel’s universities, opposed the establishment of the school. In a letter it sent to the Council for Higher Education, it claimed the decision was abrupt and seemed “to be dictated by the political echelon.”

Three university representatives who sit on the Planning and Budgeting Committee claimed that Bennett’s actions amounted to “political intervention in the committee’s work.” In a discussion the Planning and Budgeting Committee held in 2019, the professional echelon expressed reservations about establishing a medical faculty in Ariel, due to the lack of hospitals in the area that medical students can undergo clinical training in. “It was clear that Ariel did not have the infrastructure and capabilities, but the political echelon pushed for it,” says a source who was involved in the discussions and asked to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions.

Despite the professionals’ opposition, the Planning and Budgeting Committee approved the establishment of Ariel’s medical school. But in February 2019, Israel’s attorney general ordered the committee to hold a re-vote, after it was revealed that one of the members of the committee was up for promotion by Ariel University.

Days later, the committee voted to reverse its decision to open a medical school in Ariel. Yet Bennett was determined not to give up.

That same February, the Council for Higher Education in Judea and Samaria — a body that used to operate under the auspices of the military commander of the West Bank, and that supervised Israeli higher education in the West Bank under a similar authority to that of the Council for Higher Education in Israel proper — convened to approve the establishment of the faculty in Ariel. Just two days after the vote, the Council for Higher Education in Judea and Samaria was dissolved, when the Knesset voted to place Ariel University and other West Bank institutions under the control of the Council for Higher Education.

In November 2019, the Planning and Budgeting Committee approved the school’s budget, after then-Education Minister Rafi Peretz replaced some of the committee’s members for previously opposing the school’s establishment. With that, Ariel University’s Adelson School of Medicine was ready to officially open.

‘Cooperation forces faculty to support the occupation’

The letter from the dean of the Sackler Faculty of Medicine provoked resentment among some faculty members at Tel Aviv University. “They try to whitewash [the issue], as if the occupied territories and Israel are the same thing,” said a faculty member at the medical school who preferred to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions. “They want to stick to a seemingly non-political agenda, when in fact it is actually political. Now I’m being forced to cooperate with this.”

The faculty member explained that the deal prevents him from opting out of the collaboration with Ariel University. “Once we receive the students, I will not be able to refuse to teach them. I will not be able to tell students from Ariel ‘do not enter the department.’”

Academia for Equality, an organization that includes 600 academics in Israel working to promote democratization, equality, and access to higher education for all communities living in Israel, demanded Sackler withdraw from the agreement. In a letter sent to the university administration on Jan. 10, the group said: “Cooperation with such an institution forces faculty and students at Tel Aviv [university] to support the settlements and the occupation, and forces them to adopt a political position that some [faculty and students] strongly oppose.”

The letter stated that many international research funds do not provide grants or funding to institutions in the occupied territories. “One must ask whether the fact that the Faculty of Medicine in Tel Aviv diverts its resources toward the institution in Ariel as part of the ‘deal’ in question does not violate the conditions attached to the funds, which are enjoyed by researchers in the faculty,” since the “equipment and manpower made available by these funds will be made available to Ariel.”

The letter further states that Ariel University is “putting faculty members and students who oppose settlements and occupation in an impossible dilemma,” and that the deal “violates their most basic rights.” The letter claims that there is a “substantial difference” between individual lecturers who collaborate with Ariel and a “collective process on behalf of the entire faculty.”

Senior lecturers at Tel Aviv University also wondered why the decision to collaborate with Ariel did not come up for discussion in the university’s academic senate, which approves new curricula, among other things. The university explained that the deal was not part of a new curriculum, but rather would allow Ariel to use their clinical facilities at various affiliated hospitals. However, according to the Sackler faculty member, Ariel’s faculty members will likely make use of “resources that belong to the doctors and patients” at Tel Aviv University.

Tel Aviv University spokesperson Tomer Velmer hinted that the Council for Higher Education had forced the university into the deal with Ariel. “The deal was signed more than a year ago, after the opening of a medical school in Ariel was approved in principle by the Council for Higher Education,” said Velmer. “The agreement was required at the request of the Council and the Planning and Budgeting Committee.”

The Council of Higher Education offers a different version of the events. “The deal does not require the authorization of the Planning and Budgeting Committee,” Beata Krantz, the Council’s spokesperson said, “but rather the committee is required to ensure during the authorization process that there are enough practicum spaces for students who are beginning their studies, and therefore Ariel University was requested to present before the committee where it was planning to carry out the practicum. The Planning and Budgeting Committee neither demands nor requires the signing of the agreement, and the institutions have administrative freedom to do as they please in this context.”

In other words, the Council of Higher Education claims it never demanded Tel Aviv University sign the agreement, and that the understanding was reached between the two institutions so that Ariel’s medical students could have a place to conduct their practical training.

Velmer’s comment did not address a concern raised by Academia for Equality regarding grants from international research foundations such as the European Research Council and the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation, both of which deny funding for academic research initiatives beyond the Green Line. The EU’s Horizon 2020 plan — a seven-year, 80 billion euros fund that provides financial support for research, technological development, and innovation — also refers to the West Bank and East Jerusalem as occupied territories, and thus those areas are not included in its agreement with Israel.

“Clinical training for students in Ariel will not harm the high level of clinical training of the Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University,” Velmer said in his response.

“According to the agreement, the hospitals in question are affiliated with Tel Aviv University only, and the allocation of students is determined by Tel Aviv University’s dean of medicine with regard to the needs and capacity of the hospitals,” Velmer said. “It should be emphasized that according to the agreement, the training of the students is done separately, with Ariel using the hospitals only when not in use by Tel Aviv University, and in any case, as stated there will be no harm to the training of students at Tel Aviv University.”

Ariel University Spokesperson Naama Cohen Yehezkeli stated in response that “the agreement signed a few years ago between the universities is intended to ensure that the training of medical students is optimal and professional, as part of the national effort to increase the number of doctors in Israel, while giving young men and women a proper opportunity to study medicine in Israel.”

A version of this article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here.

Meron Rapoport is an editor at Local Call.  

============================================================https://www.facebook.com/groups/773307619464924/permalink/3554642027998122/Academia-IL Network
Yaara Benger Alaluf shared a photo.  

21 January at 13:50  

אקדמיה לשוויון Academia for Equality أكاديميون من أجل ألمساواة· 

ביום שני הקרוב תקיים עמותת “זוכרות” סיור וירטואלי ביישוב הפלסטיני ההרוס אלשֵיח’ מֻוַנִּס. היישוב, בו חיו למעלה מ-2200 תושבים, נכבש במרץ 1948, תושביו גורשו ולא הותר להם לשוב, בתיהם יושבו זמנית על ידי משפחות יהודיות והחל משנות הששים הרסו השלטונות הישראליים את המבנים והקימו על חורבותיהם את אוניברסיטת תל אביב ומוסדות נוספים.זו הזדמנות עבור כולנו, ובעיקר עבור חברות וחברי הקהילה האקדמית של אוניברסיטת תל אביב, ללמוד על ההיסטוריה של אלשֵיח’ מֻוַנִּס ועל הווה של הסתרה ומחיקה. זו הזדמנות לחשוב על המשמעות של שיתוף פעולה קולוניאלי ועל הדרכים להתנגד לו.

▪️
▪️
▪️

התנצלויות פומביות, הסרת פסלים, מימון מחקרים לבירור המעורבות של המוסד עם עוולות, הענקת מלגות לבנות ובני קהילות ילידיות או מדוכאות, תשלום פיצויים על שימוש באדמות – אלו הן חלק מהפרקטיקות בהן נוקטים בשנים האחרונות לא מעט (אבל בוודאי לא מספיק) מוסדות אקדמיים ברחבי העולם כחלק מההכרה בשיתוף הפעולה ההיסטורי והמתמשך שלהם עם עוולות שונים לרבות גזל אדמות של עמים ילידיים, תמיכה בסחר עבדים וקבלת “תרומות מזוהמות”.נראה שהאקדמיה הישראלית רחוקה שנות אור מתהליך כן של הכרה ותיקון. קמפוסים בנויים על כפרים מחוקים וקברים מתפוררים ללא כל אזכור של ההיסטוריה של המקום ושל ההווה של תושביו הפליטים, תמיכה והכרה במוסד אקדמי בעל מאפייני אפרטהייד מובהקים, שיתוף פעולה צמוד עם תעשיית הנשק והביון ועוד ועוד… במציאות הזו אנחנו גאות במיוחד בחברות וחברי אקדמיה לשוויון שלוקחות אחריות וחושפות את היסודות הרקובים של האקדמיה הישראלית, בין היתר באמצעות הובלת סיורים ביקורתיים בשטח הקמפוסים.בנוסף, חברות וחברי אקדמיה לשוויון מתעדים באופן שוטף את התמיכה רחבת ההיקף של מוסדות אקדמיים ישראליים בכיבוש ובשימור מבני כוח אי-שוויוניים בגבולות 1948 באמצעות מאגר המידע המקוון “אקדמיה מגויסת”. לא מאוחר לעצור, לקחת אחריות ולתקן.

▪️
▪️
▪️

בתגובות: קישור לסיור של זוכרות (ישודר גם בעמוד הפייסבוק Zochrot / זוכרות / ذاكرات)קישור למאגר המידע #אקדמיה_מגויסתבתמונה: לוחמים אחרי כיבוש היישוב ליד ביתו של אברהים אבו כחיל, הבית הידוע היום בכינויו “הבית הירוק” ומשמש כמועדון לסגל האוניברסיטה, מסעדה, אולם אירועים ואולם כנסים. אוסף יהודה זיו, יד בן צבי.

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

https://www.ariel.ac.il/wp/med/en/

The Adelson School of Medicine

The Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson School of Medicine at Ariel University was established in August 2018 and will begin accepting medical students in the 2018-2019 academic year. Great effort went into designing an advanced educational program that will empower students with comprehensive knowledge both in medical sciences and clinical medicine to ensure delivery of total patient care. Our integrative approach to medical studies highlights personalized medicine, robotics, digitalized medicine and evidence-based decision making to encourage graduates to be inquisitive, research-oriented and resolute physicians with excellent interpersonal and communication skills. Self-learning is of prime importance in our program to keep abreast of the ever-expanding body of medical knowledge. Special emphasis will be given to comprehensive courses in translational bioinformatics using big data, clinical molecular biology and human genetics. To nurture excellent communication skills, exposure to patients and real medical scenarios will be initiated from the early stages of the program.

The medical school is based on a four-year course of post-graduate studies. The first year includes courses in basic medical sciences such as anatomy, physiology, clinical microbiology, clinical immunology, epidemiology and clinical pharmacology. The second year focuses on integrative teaching of the body systems in health and disease. The clinical and basic science-related aspects of body systems, such as the gastrointestinal tract, the cardiovascular system, infection and immunity, will be highlighted. The third and fourth years are devoted to hands-on clinical studies, based on small group bed-side interaction in hospitals and in the community.

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

  https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/education-committee-votes-against-creation-of-ariel-university-med-school-579999

Higher Education Committee blocks medical school at Ariel

The Yesha Council accused the Council of Higher Education of “damaging the future of Israel’s medicine.”

By MAAYAN JAFFE-HOFFMAN, YVETTE J. DEANE   FEBRUARY 7, 2019 14:57
   

The future of Israeli healthcare took a blow on Thursday when the Council for Higher Education voted against the establishment of a medical school at Ariel University.
“This was to be an essential and critical component in increasing the number of medical students in Israel,” said Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman regarding the decision.

According to the Israel Medical Association, Israel faces a severe healthcare crisis, largely due to a lack of both licensed medical personnel and training vacancies for students.
“It is inconceivable that more than half of Israel’s medical graduates come from abroad in schools that are not always satisfactory,” Litzman said.
Thursday’s vote undoes a previous decision made by the council’s Planning and Budgeting Committee in July 2018, when it voted 4-2 to establish the medical school at Ariel University, which is in the West Bank’s Area C – under Israeli civil and military control.
Six months later in December, Deputy Attorney General Dina Zilber ordered a re-vote due to an alleged conflict of interests. One of the members of the committee, Dr. Rivka Wadmany Shauman, had originally voted in favor of establishing the faculty of medicine at Ariel University – even though she was a candidate to teach at the institution as part of the teacher training program.
Education Minister Naftali Bennett lashed out at Thursday’s decision, stating that he intends to “fight the university cartel until we establish the Faculty of Medicine at Ariel University.

“Israel is crying out for doctors, and [the committee is] holding it back,” he continued.
The Yesha Council accused the Council of Higher Education of “damaging the future of Israel’s medicine.”
“Israeli academia is motivated by extraneous considerations and has stopped the scientific development of the State of Israel with its own hands,” the Yesha statement said.
The council had previously found that Ariel University’s medical program meets all the requirements for quality training of medical practitioners in Israel. As such, despite the committee’s decision, the university said medical studies will begin in October, as planned.
Ariel held an inaugural ceremony for the new medical school in summer 2018, shortly after the initial vote.
The school was founded in 1982 as a branch of Bar-Ilan University. It became an independent college in 2004 and in 2012 was granted accreditation by the Council for Higher Education in Judea and Samaria.
Today, Ariel University is home to more than 15,000 students and 300 faculty members. In the field of health sciences, the university already offers a pre-med program and has 30 research labs.
The new medical faculty is named after Sheldon Adelson, the American billionaire and his Israeli-born wife, Miriam. It was reported that the Adelsons donated $5 million to the medical school, nearly a quarter of the estimated $28.4 million price tag.
Israel currently has five other medical schools: the Azrieli Faculty of Medicine of Bar-Ilan University in Safed; the Rappaport Faculty of Medicine of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa; the Sackler Faculty of Medicine of Tel Aviv University; the Hadassah School of Medicine of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; and the Joyce and Irving Goldman Medical School of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beersheba.
Ariel University said in a statement: “We are confident that the competent authorities will support us through this legal process to ensure we can move forward without hindrance.”

Academics Shift their Research to Political Activism

11.02.21

Editorial Note

IAM has repeatedly demonstrated that political activist-academics have penetrated humanities and social sciences in Israel.  Once tenured, many have switched their field of research into subjects for which they were not hired and for which they have no qualifications, but which fit their political agenda.   Although such practices would not have been tolerated in a properly managed university, the activists had received continuous support from their political-activist colleagues who recruited and promoted them.

Dr. Anat Matar, a Tel Aviv University lecturer of Philosophy, is a case in point. A veteran member of the Communist Party. She first made her name as one of the leaders of the group ‘Boycott from Within.’  In the last decades, she has campaigned for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons. She is also a member of ‘Academia for Equality’ that aims to “struggle against the complicity of Israeli academia with oppression and denial of education in the occupied Palestinian territories.” 

Next week Matar plans to participate in a Webinar titled “Political Arrests as Continuous Suppression: Conversation with Adv. Abeer Baker, Adv. Janan Abdu and Dr. Anat Matar.” The event was organized by the group “Zochrot,” as the invitation says, “We provide access to information and teach about the Nakba that began in 1948 and never ended. The Nakba is the continuous colonization, oppression, and dispossession of the Palestinian People in various ways and forms. One of them is arrests, administrative and other. The General Security Services has always arrested Palestinians on vague allegations with a weak legal basis, which are received with apathy by the Israeli public, but it seems that in the past year, arrests have become more frequent and common than they have been for a long time, perhaps under cover of Covid-19. We have recently witnessed a wave of arrests of journalists, writers, intellectuals, and students from the young political leadership of the Palestinian opposition to Israeli control. This also includes arrests of Palestinians in areas 48, with Israeli citizenship, who refuse to succumb to the split imposed by the Israeli government and insist on working for liberation alongside Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and the Diaspora.”

Other participants are Adv. Abeer Baker – a Palestinian lawyer specializing in prisoners’ rights and representing Palestinian political prisoners in hundreds of cases and petitions.  Adv. Janan Abdu – a lawyer at the legal department of the Public Committee Against Torture.  Worth noting that Baker also works at the University of Haifa Prisoners’ Rights and Rehabilitation Clinic. Abdu is the wife of Ameer Makhoul, sentenced in 2010 to nine years in prison on espionage for Hezbollah and was released in 2019.  

 Prof. Yehouda Shenhav-Saharabani is another case in point.  He was hired to research and teach sociology of organizations at Tel Aviv University.  With his tenure secured, he admitted to switching fields after joining the Democratic Rainbow Coalition, Hakeshet Hademocratit Hamizrahit, an outreach for lower-class Mizrahim. Shenhav was influenced by Ella Shohat, whose book Mizrahim in Israel: Zionism from the Standpoint of its Jewish Victims was a replay of Edward Said’s “Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims.” According to Shohat, the Mizrahim, like the Palestinians, were victims of white Ashkenazi colonialists.  To make the parallel stick, she placed the Mizrahim within the region’s cultural sphere and in opposition to European Jews.  Shohat blamed the Ashkenazi Zionist ideology for alienating the immigrants from their cultural kin, the Arabs, and with “de-Orientalizing” them to fit the Western image of the State of Israel.  Shohat’s ideas found fertile ground in Mizrahi intellectuals’ identity movement, which subsequently created the Hakeshet Hademocratit Hamizrahit. Shenahv was a leading activist in this circle, although he was an unlikely candidate, having been born to a well-to-do middle-class family of Iraqi immigrants; his father worked for the Israeli intelligence.  Shenhav was employed by the Israeli Military Industry that sponsored his Ph.D. studies at Stanford University.  To bolster his political agenda, he published a book claiming that the Mizrahim were actually Arab Jews. The study aimed at providing academic legitimacy to the goal of creating an anti-Zionist Palestinian-Mizrahi alliance. After signing the 2004 Olga Document, a declaration of support for a bi-national state, Shenhav wrote a number of monographs on the subject.  Van Leer Institute, a highly activist leftist organization, boosted Shenhav-Shaharabani’s career.  

Recently, the Van Leer Institute and the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Tel Aviv University announced an annual prize for translation and research in the thought of Shenhav-Shaharbani. “The Yehouda Shenhav-Shaharbani Prize for Translation and Research.”  The press release states that “The work of Yehouda Shenhav-Shaharbani in research, teaching, translation and public arena position him as one of the outstanding intellectuals of Israel today. The variety of topics that he researched spans many fields of knowledge, from statistics and engineering, through the philosophy of science, the study of bureaucracy, and postcolonial studies, to literature and translation. His commitment to the sociology of knowledge and social history runs like a thread between the fields. During his decades of work at the Van Leer Institute, he edited and founded prominent journals and publishing platforms (“Theory and Criticism;” “Maktoob;” and “Theory and Criticism in Context“), wrote and edited many books that influenced generations of students studying at universities in Israel and abroad and served as the head of many research teams. Throughout his career, Shenhav-Shaharbani has served and continues to be a loyal mentor to generations of students, researchers in various research fields and founded courses taught at many institutions around the country. Shenhav-Shaharbani also worked outside the ivory tower and became one of the major public intellectuals that influenced generations of leaders in civil society, in social, cultural and educational organizations.” 

According to the press release, “Constituting an award for research and translation on the name of Prof. Shenhav-Shaharabani is a tribute to his activity and remarkable generosity. The prize marks for us, the social science community, working values and intellectual and public activity, and contributes to the continuity of the unique and acute intellectual tradition outlined by Shenhav-Shaharbani in his academic and public life.”

In 2021, the prize of $1000 will be awarded for research in knowledge and science in the social sciences. Preference will be given to unpublished articles, which combine sociology, history, and philosophy of knowledge, or articles dealing with the theory and criticism of its various shades and future manifestations. The door is open for articles criticizing the work of Shenhav-Shaharbani. The article will be presented at an annual session by the winner, and Shenhav-Shaharbani will respond to it. The Prize committee in 2021 is Adriana Kemp, Areej-Sabagh-Khouri, and Gil Eyal.

Israeli universities have traditionally been reluctant to take a stand against faculty that switched fields to promote their political agenda.  By doing so, they defaulted on their fiduciary responsibilities to students, the research capital, and the taxpayer.  Students have been taught by faculty that hardly research in their designated fields. The research capital in humanities and social science was depleted, and the taxpayers were forced to support these activists’ political agenda.

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_WHMwrzsUS7aVwgGjXA0wAQ

Webinar Registration

מעצרים פוליטיים כדיכוי מתמשךשיחה עם עו”ד עביר בכר, עו”ד ג’נאן עבדו וד”ר ענת מטר
בזוכרות, אנחנו מנגישות מידע ומלמדות על הנכבה שהתחילה ב-1948 ומעולם לא הסתיימה. הנכבה היא הקולוניזציה, הדיכוי והנישול המתמשכים של העם הפלסטיני בשלל אופנים וצורות. אחת מהם היא מעצרים, מנהליים ואחרים. השב”כ תמיד עצר פלסטינים בטענות עמומות עם בסיס משפטי רעוע, שמתקבלות בשוויון נפש בציבור הישראלי, אבל נדמה שבשנה האחרונה מעצרים הפכו תכופים ונפוצים יותר משהיו זה זמן רב, אולי בחסות הקורונה.

בתקופה האחרונה אנו עדות לגל מעצרים של עיתונאים, סופרים, אנשי רוח וסטודנטים מההנהגה הפוליטית הצעירה של ההתנגדות הפלסטינית לשליטה הישראלית. זה כולל גם מעצרים של פלסטינים בתחומי 48, בעלי אזרחות ישראלית, שמסרבים להיכנע לפיצול שכופה השלטון הישראלי ומתעקשים לפעול לשחרור לצד פלסטינים בגדה המערבית, בעזה ובגולה.

מה המצב כרגע ומה הרקע לו? מה מעצרים עושים לעצור.ה ומה מעצרים המוניים עושים לחברה כולה – לאקדמיה, לתרבות, לסיכוי לבנות חברה חופשית? מה המטרות של משטר המעצרים ומה אנחנו יכולות לעשות מולו?

אנא מלאו פרטים למטה כדי לקבל לינק להשתתפות.

עו”ד עביר בכר – משפטנית פלסטינית שמתמחה בזכויות אסירים וייצגה אסירים פוליטיים פלסטינים במאות תיקים ועתירות.
ד”ר ענת מטר – מרצה באוניברסיטת תל אביב ופעילה פוליטית, חברת אקדמיה לשוויון
עו”ד ג’נאן עבדו – עורכת דין במחלקה המשפטית של הוועד נגד עינויים

Feb 15, 2021 08:30 PM in Jerusalem

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

———- Forwarded message ———
From: Dganit Waldman <dganitw@tauex.tau.ac.il>
Date: Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 9:42 AM
‪Subject: [SocSci-IL] קול קורא לפרס יהודה שנהב שהרבני לדוקטורנטים/יות ופוסט דוקטורנט/יות‬
To: socsci-il@listserver.cc.huji.ac.il <socsci-il@listserver.cc.huji.ac.il>

שלום רב,

מעבירה לידיעתכן/ם את הקול קורא לפרס יהודה שנהב שהרבני לדוקטורנטים/יות ופוסט דוקטורנט/יות.

בברכה,

 דגנית וולדמן | עוזרת מנהלית

 החוג לסוציולוגיה ואנתרופולוגיה | אוניברסיטת תל-אביב

 דוא”ל:  dganitw@tauex.tau.ac.il|

משרד: 03-6406731 | אתר החוג

פרס יהודה שנהב-שהרבני לתרגום ולמחקר

מכון ון ליר והחוג לסוציולוגיה ואנתרופולוגיה באוניברסיטת תל אביב מכריזים על הענקת פרס שנתי לתרגום ולמחקר במסורת המחשבה של יהודה שנהב-שהרבני  .פועלו של יהודה שנהב-שהרבני במחקר, בהוראה, בתרגום ובזירה הציבורית מציב אותו כאחד האינטלקטואלים הבולטים בישראל כיום. מגוון הנושאים שחקר משתרע על פני שדות ידע רבים, החל בסטטיסטיקה והנדסה, דרך פילוסופיה של המדע, חקר בירוקרטיות ולימודים פוסטקולוניאליים, וכלה בספרות ובתרגום. מחויבותו לסוציולוגיה של הידע ולהיסטוריה חברתית עוברת כחוט השני בין התחומים. במשך עשרות שנות פעילותו במכון ון ליר ערך וייסד כתבי עת ובמות פרסום בולטות (“תיאוריה וביקורת”, “מכתוב”, “הקשרי עיון וביקורת”), כתב וערך ספרים רבים שהשפיעו על דורות של תלמידים שמלמדים באוניברסיטאות בארץ ובחו”ל, וכיהן כראש תחומי מחקר רבים. לאורך כל הדרך שנהב-שהרבני שימש ומשמש חונך נאמן לדורות של סטודנטיות וסטודנטים, חוקרות וחוקרים במגוון תחומי מחקר, וייסד קורסים הנלמדים במוסדות רבים ברחבי הארץ  .שנהב-שהרבני פועל גם מחוץ למגדל השן והפך לאחד האינטלקטואלים הציבוריים המרכזיים שהשפיעו על דורות של מנהיגים בחברה האזרחית בארגונים חברתיים ,תרבותיים וחינוכיים .פרס על שם יהודה שנהב-שהרבני יינתן לסירוגין בתחום התרגום ובתחום המחקר. לזוכה יוענקו פרס כספי של 1,000 דולר, לוחית פרס ומארז ספרים מהוצאת מכתוב. בתחום התרגום הפרס מיועד למתרגמים על תרגום פרוזה שטרם ראתה אור משפה לא-מערבית ,ועדיפות תינתן לתרגום מערבית. בתחום המחקר הפרס מיועד לדוקטורנטים.יות ופוסט-דוקטורנטים.יות על מאמר מחקרי מקורי בתחומי ידע ודעת במדעי החברה .בשנת תשפ”א יינתן הפרס למחקר בתחום הידע והדעת במדעי החברה. עדיפות תינתן למאמרים שטרם פורסמו, המשלבים סוציולוגיה, היסטוריה ופילוסופיה של הידע, או למאמרים העוסקים בתחום התיאוריה והביקורת על גווניה השונים ומופעיה העתידיים .הדלת פתוחה למאמרי ביקורת על עבודתו של שנהב-שהרבני. המאמר יוצג במושב שנתי על ידי הזוכה, ושנהב-שהרבני יגיב לו .וועדת הפרס תשפ”א: אדריאנה קמפ, אריז’ סבאע’ ח’ורי וגיל אייל.הגשת מועמדות: דוקטורנטים.יות ופוסט-דוקטורנטים.יות במדעי החברה ישלחו כתב יד באורך של לא יותר מ- 12,000 מילים לראשת ועדת הפרס (akemp@tauex.tau.ac.il), ויצרפו מכתב בן כ-200 מילה המנמק בקצרה את מועמדותם. התאריך האחרון להגשת כתבי יד הוא 1.3.2021.אירוע הענקת הפרס למאמר הזוכה ייערך ביום חמישי ,10  ביוני 2021, בשעה 18:00 באוניברסיטת תל אביב  .מיסוד פרס למחקר ולתרגום על שמו של פרופ’ שנהב-שהרבני מהווה הוקרה ראויה לפועלו ולמסורת הנתינה יוצאת הדופן שלו. הפרס מסמן עבורנו, קהילת מדעני החברה בישראל, ערכי עבודה ופעולה אינטלקטואלית וציבורית, ותורם להמשכיות המסורת האינטלקטואלית הייחודית והאקוטית שמתווה שנהב-שהרבני בחייו האקדמיים והציבוריים. 

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

קשר השתיקה התפרסם במוסף “הארץ” ב- 27.12.96

https://www.ha-keshet.org.il/%d7%a7%d7%a9%d7%a8-%d7%94%d7%a9%d7%aa%d7%99%d7%a7%d7%94/
https://people.socsci.tau.ac.il/mu/yshenhav/files/2013/07/%D7%A7%D7%A9%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%941.pdf

קשר השתיקה

יהודה שנהב

מדוע אוהבים ההיסטוריונים החדשים לעסוק בדיכוי הפלסטינים, אך מתעלמים מפרשת ילדי תימן. מדוע אין בישראל שמאל אמיתי, ודיבורים על פער עדתי נתפסים כהסתה?

ההיסטוריונים החדשים ראויים לשבח: הם סייעו לנו להתנער מהבלים ולהג מתוצרת הפוליטרוקים של הציונות, לימדו אותנו על פשעיהם של ממלאי פקודות לדורותיהם, על טכניקות הגירוש, על פעולות ‘התגמול’ (היזומות), על יחסו האמביוולנטי של היישוב לטבח יהדות אירופה ועל אידיאולוגית השוויון (המזויף) כמיתוס מגייס.

          אבל להיסטוריונים אלה יש גם נקודה עיוורת, ולכן קשר שתיקה נוסף טרם פוצח: אני מתכוון לקשר השתיקה הבין-דורי בין הקומיסרים האידיאולוגיים של הציונות המגשימה (“מלח הארץ”) לבין האינטלקטואלים של השמאל הישראלי בן ימינו (גם כן “מלח הארץ”). זו הסכמה שבשתיקה בין שני דורות של הגמוניה אשכנזית – כלפי הבעיה המזרחית.

          בעניין זה נשאר הדור הצעיר של האינטלקטואלים האשכנזים, לרבות ההיסטוריונים החדשים, נאמן ומזדהה עם דור הוריו. “השמאל” הישראלי הציוני מוכן להשקיע את כל כולו בחשיפת העוולות שנעשו ונעשים לפלסטינים, אך אינו מוכן להתייצב ולהוקיע את דור ההורים על גזענותו כלפי היהודים המזרחים. חשוב יותר: דור זה אינו מוכן כלל להודות, ששאלת המזרחיות היא בעיה אקטואלית מרכזית. כך האינטלקטואלים וכך הפוליטיקאים: דדי צוקר, יוסי שריד וחבריהם אינם מפגינים כל מעש למען הקבוצות, שהיו צריכות לעמוד בראש מעיניהם. הם מתהדרים בתווית “שמאל” כפי שדור הוריהם השתמש במושג “שוויון”. בדיוק כפי שהוריהם לא היו שוויוניים, הם אינם אנשי שמאל. התוצאה היא, מזרחים מן המעמד הנמוך, פעילי שכונות ואף אינטלקטואלים מזרחים המפגינים עוינות גם כלפי תנועת העבודה המסורתית וגם כלפי יורשיה. מדוע להוט השמאל לעסוק בבעיה הפלסטינית, ומדוע הוא מכחיש את הסוגיה המזרחית, שלהחרפתה הוא שותף? עצם העובדה שהדור הצעיר של “השמאל” הישראלי אינו מזהה את המכנה המשותף הבולט בין שתי הקהילות הללו – הפלסטינים והמזרחים – מעוררת חשד ותמיהה. אבל, בעצם, הסברה אינו קשה: הוקעת העוול שנעשה לפלסטינים אינה מסכנת את מעמדם של האינטלקטואלים האשכנזים בני דורנו. היא לא מסכנת אותם כקבוצה תרבותית הגמונית בתוך החברה הישראלית ולא כמעמד כלכלי. היא לא מסכנת את הגדרתם העצמית כנציגי התרבות המערבית בתוך המזרח הערבי (או ה”ים-תיכוני”, אם נשתמש בביטוי מטפורי מעדן למען החרדים מהתווית “ערבי”). העיסוק בעוול, שנעשה לפלסטינים, מספק את זרי הדפנה של ההומניזם, את העמדה היוקרתית של שוחטי פרות קדושות ושואפי שלום, את תווית המרדנות, את הקתרזיס לנוכח עוולות דור ההורים. כלומר המזרח – הבלתי מוכר, המאיים, הלא-רציונלי – מקובל על ה”רדיקלים”, כל עוד הוא נשאר מחוץ לגדר – כמו הפלסטינים. הוא ניתן לעיכול, כל עוד אפשר לסמנו, להפכו ל”אחר” ולהרחיקו. מתוך זה, אפשר להבין למה תומך השמאל הישראלי בהפרדה ובשתי מדינות לשני עמים.

          בשל אותו חשש מן המזרח פיתחו ישראלים רבים, לרבות אנשי שמאל ברוח מרצ, הכחשה כלפי מזרחיותם של היהודים המזרחים, שהרי את היהודים המזרחים אי אפשר להפוך ל”אחר” או להוציא אל מחוץ לגדר. לכל היותר, אפשר לבנות כבישים עוקפי עיירות פיתוח ושכונות עוני. ההכחשה היא אמצעי  ההגנה: אם יכירו אנשי השמאל בעוול שנעשה למזרחים וישאפו לתקן אותו, יצטרכו לתקן גם את עצמם. הם יצטרכו לוותר על מעמדם ההגמוני, לחלק אחרת את העוגה הלאומית, להשתלב באזור כשווים ולא כפטרונים. הם יצטרכו לשנות את תכניות הלימודים, מהמוסדות להשכלה גבוהה ועד לגן הילדים. הם יידרשו להקים אקדמיה למוסיקה קלאסית ערבית (למשל אנדלוסית), ללמד מקורות של תרבות עמי ערב (ולא רק מקורות של תרבות המערב), ללמוד וללמד את השירה והשפה הערבית. הם יצטרכו להיפרד מן הזיקה הבלעדית לאירופה ולצפון אמריקה, ממה שנתפס בעיניהם אוניברסלי. נוכח כל הסכנות האלה הנשק האפקטיבי הוא שתיקה: ההכרה במזרחיות כתופעה פנים ישראלית היא טאבו.

          מתוך כך אפשר להבין את שטחיות עמדתו של “השמאל” כלפי הפלסטינים. השמאל הוא פרו-פלסטיני, כל עוד אין הפלסטינים תובעים את זכות השיבה, כל עוד יש חלוקה, כל עוד יש הפרדה, כל עוד מוותרים הפלסטינים על בתיהם בטלביה וביפו, כל עוד תישאר המדינה יהודית (ומערבית) וכל עוד ימשיכו הפלסטינים המכונים “ערביי ישראל” להיות נוכחים נפקדים. אילו היו האינטלקטואלים של השמאל משוחררים באמת מהמיתוסים של דור ההורים, הם היו חושפים את הציונות כתנועה אירופית אנטי-מזרחית, אשר הגיעה למזרח (מסיבות מוצדקות או לא-מוצדקות) ולא ראתה בו ישות פוליטית, אלא מדבר הזקוק להפריה. אילו היו ההורים והבנים – האשכנזים – מכירים במזרח כבישות פוליטית, הם היו מבחינים גם במכנה המשותף בין המזרחיות היהודית למזרחיות המוסלמית והנוצרית. הם היו מבינים, שהאנטגוניזם, רב השנים, בין המזרחים לבין הערבים, הוא בחלקו תוצר של תקיעת טריז אירופי בין מזרחים למזרחים. אבל השמאל הישראלי ממשיך את מדיניות העיוורון וההתנשאות של הוריו השמרנים.

          ברור, אפוא, מדוע עסקה החברה הישראלית כל השנים בדה-פוליטיזציה של שאלת המזרחים. המזרחיות הוצגה כקוריוז מקומי, כאוסף מיצגים תרבותיים כמו נענע, חומוס, עבודות-יד תימניות או מופלטה. כל ניסיון להפכה לשאלה פוליטית נתקל בדה-לגיטימציה ובהכחשה כמו כל טאבו חברתי אחר. מצד אחד, עודדו המפלגות הגדולות את  המזרחיות ברמה הארגונית, כמקור לגיוס קולות. מצד שני, שללו את המזרחיות ברמה האידיאולוגית. מצע עדתי הוצג כסותר את מיזוג הגלויות ואחדות העם. בשנות החמישים הוצגו רשימות מזרחיות כמזוהות עם גורמים עוינים, והפנתרים השחורים הוצגו כתנועה מסוכנת למדינה.

          תהליכי הדה-פוליטיזציה הללו השפיעו גם על ההיסטוריונים החדשים. למרות הרדיקליות שלהם, לכאורה, הם אינם עוסקים, באופן מעמיק, בהיסטוריוגרפיה מזרחית – למרות שנושאים הזועקים לטיפול מונחים ממש לרגליהם. שתי דוגמאות קטנות, ידועות למדי: עדיין לא נעשה מחקר מקיף ובעל תהודה על המניפולציות של התנועה הציונית בהבאת יהודי תימן. משום מה ההיסטוריונים החדשים לא מתעניינים בכך. אף אחד מן האינטלקטואלים בני דורנו לא עוסק באנלוגיות בין אי-כניעתם של התימנים לבעלי האדמות במושבות לבין אי-כניעתם של התימנים בפרשת עוזי משולם. בתפיסה הפולקלוריסטית האשכנזית, התימנים נשארו נקיים, צייתנים, אוהבי עבודה וציוניים.

          אף אחד מההיסטוריונים החדשים – לוחמי זכויות האזרח – לא התעורר לעסוק בפרשיות המחרידות של חטיפות ילדי תימן. מי מהם הפגין למען הקמת ועדות חקירה? באותה מידה, אף אחד מן ההיסטוריונים החדשים לא עוסק ברצינות מספקת בעדויות על הפרובוקציות של התנועה הציונית בעיראק, בתחילת שנות החמישים, שנועדו לזרז את העלייה לישראל. כמעט אף אחד מהם לא שואל כיצד הסכימה התנועה הציונית להלאמה של רכוש יהודי עיראק, ואם לא הייתה זו תוצאה של חשש, שהמפגש של עיראקים אמידים עם המעברות, יחזיר אותם בהמוניהם אל ארץ מוצאם.

          אלה, שהתנסו בפעילות מזרחית, יודעים לספר עד כמה חרדים האשכנזים בכל פעם שעולה שאלת הכמיהה של מזרחים לזהות ייחודית. יש לחרדה זו, בדרך כלל, כמה תגובות אשכנזיות אופייניות. בולטות בהן שתיים: הטענה שאין טעם לעסוק בעוולות היסטוריות, שהרי גם קבוצות אתניות אחרות, כמו הפולנים, ההונגרים או הרומנים סבלו קשיי קליטה, השפלה ודחייה. טענה נוספת היא שהבעיה נעלמת והולכת, הפערים נסגרים, שיש נישואים בין-עדתיים, שיש מזרחים בפוליטיקה ושמתפתחת תרבות “ישראלית”. כל מי שמעז לטעון אחרת עובר דיסקרטיזציה, מכונה “מקצוען עדתי”, מואשם שהוא מנסה להפוך עלבון להון אישי ושהוא פוגע באחדות העם (אחדות העם וקונצנזוס היו תמיד מיתוס מגייס ומנגנון השתקה של מיעוטים). והמגוחך מכל: בכל פעם שאינטלקטואל מזרחי טוען שקיימת בארץ גזענות, הוא מואשם בגזענות כלפי אשכנזים ומתויג כקיצוני.

          אלא שלכל הטענות יש תשובות משכנעות. ראשית, אין ספק שגם יוצאי ארצות אירופה סבלו קשיי הגירה, וחלקם אף התנשאות של היישוב, אך ההבדלים בין חוויות אלה לבין השפלת המזרחים משמעותיים ומכריעים. לא היה ספק שיוצאי מזרח אירופה ישתלבו יפה מאוד כמעצבי תרבות וכמעמד בינוני מובהק בחברה הישראלית, כפי שלא היה ספק שהעולים החדשים מרוסיה בשנות השבעים יתמקמו במרכז החברה וכך גם עולי רוסיה בשנות התשעים (לעומת זאת, אין ספק שהאתיופים יתמקמו כ”חלשים”, “שכבות מצוקה”, “טעוני טיפוח” וכיוצא באלה). העולים המזרחים תועלו לשולי הכלכלה וקופחו על ידי הממסד הקולט בהקצאת מים, קרקע, דירות ומשרות.

          הטענה, שהפערים נסגרים והולכים, נשמעת עוד משנות החמישים. המציאות הפוכה, הקשר בין מוצא להישגים מתהדק והולך. הפערים אינם רק נחלת דור המדבר. הם שרירים וקיימים בקרב הדור השני ואף מתרחבים. במחקר, שבדק את מצבם של ילידי הארץ בני הורים מזרחים בהשוואה לילידי הארץ בני הורים אשכנזים, נמצא כי ב- 1975 השתכרו גברים מזרחים כ- 79 אחוזים משכר האשכנזים, ב- 1992 היה השיעור כ- 68 אחוזים. החוקרים מיחסים שליש מהפער הזה להפליה. הם התמקדו גם בבני המחזור הצעיר (בני 25-29), אשר שיפר במידת מה את מצבו בין השנים 75 ל- 92. שיעור בעלי תואר ראשון בקרב המזרחים היה 3.3 אחוזים ב- 75, ועלה ל- 7.7 אחוזים ב- 92. בקרב האשכנזים: 23.8 אחוזים בשנת 75, 31.1 אחוזים בשנת 92. כאן המגמה אפוא חיובית, ואם הפער באחוז בעלי התואר הראשון ישתנה באותו קצב, מציינים החוקרים, ינון כהן ויצחק הברפלד, ישתווה הפער בהשכלה בעוד 94 שנים. הדור שישיג זאת עדיין לא נולד.

          אחת התוצאות המרות של הכחשת המזרחיות היא שהדור השני והשלישי של המזרחים מבין את הזהות המזרחית שלו (אם בכלל) כאנטגוניזם לאשכנזיות. הוא מזרחי לא כחיבור תרבותי של ממש אלא כזהות ישראלית מסוימת הכרוכה בכעס ובתסכול. זהו “מזרח” חדש, של מזרחים ישראלים בלבד.

            ואילו השמאל הישראלי החדש לא ראוי להתכנות שמאל. הוא מורכב ברובו מאשכנזים שאין להם כל קשר לסוגיות חברתיות. עסקני שלום עכשיו, פעילים שונים של מרצ ואינטלקטואלים מתנשאים מן הפקולטות למדעי החברה והרוח (“החדשים”), אינם מתעוררים למראה עוולות הדיכוי המכוער של המוני עניים, “אנשי שוליים”, “שכבות חלשות”, “טעוני טיפוח”. רוב רובם של פעילי ה”שמאל” הם בורגנים אמידים, אנשי קהילת העסקים, פרופסורים למינהל עסקים ולכלכלה. כאשר הם מדברים על השלום או על החזרת השטחים הם קושרים זאת בצמיחה כלכלית, במהפכת מיחשוב ובטיפוח מצוינות. כלכלנים המזוהים עם מרצ ושלום עכשיו תומכים, באופן חד משמעי, בהפרטה ובצמיחה כלכלית (“מזרח תיכון חדש”), וממשלות ישראל מגדילות את אי-השוויון למען צמיחה כלכלית כמיטב המסורת של כלכלת צד ההיצע. הן מאפשרות להון לנצל את המדינה לצרכיו.

          השמאל של מרצ הוא שמאל מזויף: שמאל של “חירות” (כלכלית), ולא שמאל של שוויון ושל סולידריות. אפילו משפטני זכויות האזרח של מרצעוסקים הרבה מאוד בזכויות אדם, על פי המסורת הליברלית, אולם אינם עוסקים בזכאויות אחרות של  האזרח מול השלטון, כפי שמחייבת מסורת סוציאל-דמוקרטית. אין הם עוסקים בזכויות חינוך, זכויות דיור או זכויות בפיתוח תרבות אתנית. את התביעה לזכאויות כאלה הם משאירים לש”ס, לחרדים ולשאר קבוצות האינטרסים. בתוך הקשר זה יכול היה שמעון פרס לטעון שהבעיה של העניים היא שהם עניים.

          למען הדיוק ההיסטורי: לא רק השמאל ותנועת העבודה אשמים בהתרחקות המזרחים מהם. חלק מהאשמה יש לתלות בהצלחתו של הימין להשתמש במזרחים ולהלהיבם בסמליו הלאומניים האנטי-ערבים. בשני העשורים האחרונים, אחד האויבים הגדולים של הצדק החברתי בארץ הוא דוד לוי, שתפס את משבצת הקיפוח, והפך אותה לרטוריקה חלולה. יש להאשים בכך גם את הפוליטרוקים המזרחים לדורותיהם, משה שחל, שלמה הלל, שמעון שיטרית, יצחק נבון, שושנה ארבלי-אלמוזלינו, משה קצב, מרדכי בן-פורת, ועוד רבים אחרים – מזרחים מלידה אך לא מזרחים בתודעה, שעשו דה-לגיטימציה למזרחיות כעניין של פוליטיקה.

          בכנסת הנוכחית יש מספר ניכר של פוליטיקאים מזרחים. אין בהם ולו אחד אשר פרש אידיאולוגיה מזרחית חברתית סדורה. כולם משחקים בכלים, במגרש ובשפה של ההגמוניה האשכנזית. אין שמאל אמיתי שיציע מצע חברתי דמוקרטי, שידחה את השיח הליברלי של מרצ ואת השיח הפשיסטי של הימין. אין שמאל שיאפשר גם למזרחים היהודים להיות מפויסים עם מקורותיהם הערבים בלי אפולוגטיקה או הכחשה, ויאפשר לאשכנזים הישראלים להכיר במזרחיות של המזרחים בישראל. אין שמאל שיאפשר כינון זהות מזרחית לא מתוך קונפליקט אלא מתוך חירות תרבותית. את השמאל הזה יוכלו ליזום, כנראה, רק מזרחים.

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

https://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.1189833

פרופ’ יהודה שנהב חושב שיש לנו יותר מסכסוך אחד לפתור פה, לפני שיהיה שקט

אנשי השמאל האשכנזים שואפים להיפרד מהשטחים ומהפלסטינים ולהתכנס בגבולות הקו הירוק כדי למנוע את הפיכתה של ישראל לחברה עם רוב מזרחי. פרופ’ יהודה שנהב מנתח את המצב קצת אחרת

18.02.2010 04:11 עודכן ב: 01.09.2011 14:14

יותם פלדמן

רבים מבני משפחתו של פרופ’ יהודה שנהב, מבקר רהוט ועקבי של השלטון הישראלי בשטחים, הרוויחו מהשתלטות ישראל על המרחב שבין הקו הירוק לנהר הירדן. אביו המנוח, אליהו שהרבני, עולה מעיראק שדיבר ערבית, טיפח קריירה משגשגת בקהילת המודיעין ובממשל הצבאי – שנהב זוכר שהתלווה אליו למבצעי החרמת מחברות בגדה המערבית אחרי 67′ והסתיר בילקוטו עפרונות ועטים שנלקחו מפלסטינים. בן דודו שמתגורר במעלה אדומים מתפרנס מעבודות שיפוצים באזור וקרובי משפחה אחרים מתגוררים אף הם מעבר לקו הירוק ונהנים ממה שמכנה שנהב (בעקבות דני גוטווין) “מדינת הרווחה הישראלית שבשטחים”: תעסוקה מלאה, הנחות בארנונה ודיור מוזל.

לעומת זאת, טוען שנהב, רוב רובם של אנשי השמאל הציוני מנוכרים לא רק לדרישות הפוליטיות ולצורכיהם של הפלסטינים, אלא גם למתנחלים שהוא מכנה בספרו החדש “ישראל השלישית”: חרדים, מזרחים תומכי ש”ס ומהגרים מחבר המדינות שמצדדים באביגדור ליברמן. שנהב גורס כי הבדל זה – בין היתר – איפשר לו לכתוב את הספר “במלכודת הקו הירוק” (עם עובד) שיצא לאור החודש. בחיבורו הוא מנסה לזנוח את ההבחנות המקובלות בין שמאל לבין ימין בישראל, וממיר אותן בהבחנה בין המעמידים את יסודות הסכסוך על כיבוש השטחים שממזרח לקו הירוק ב-67′ לבין המעמידים אותם על כיבוש השטחים שממערב לו ב-48′.

המחנה הראשון כולל את מרבית אנשי השמאל הציוני, המרכז הפוליטי ורבים מאנשי השמאל הרדיקלי היהודים. המחנה השני, מציע שנהב, הוא קואליציה שבין פלסטינים שמתגוררים בשטח ישראל, פליטים פלסטינים, אנשי ימין שסבורים כי פשרה על בסיס גבולות הקו הירוק אינה אפשרית, שמאלנים תומכי מדינה דו-לאומית ומתנחלים שרוצים להישאר בבתיהם גם לאחר הסדר עם הפלסטינים.

שנהב, שמייחד את ספרו לביקורת על מרכזיותו של הקו הירוק בדיון הפוליטי בישראל, אינו מתחייב על שיוכו לשמאל. “כיהודי הנהנה מפריבילגיות של יהודי, כמזרחי בעל תודעה מזרחית וכמי שגדל והתחנך מרבית שנותיו בישראל”, הוא כותב בהקדמה לספר, “זה שנים רבות אני חש ניכור כלפי עמדותיו (של השמאל) ביחס לסכסוך וביחס לשאלות מעמדיות, אתניות וזהותיות. בשני העשורים האחרונים מצאתי את עצמי מבקר בחריפות את גוש השמאל לא פחות מאשר את גוש הימין”.

הניתוחים הפוליטיים שעמם הוא מזדהה ביותר הם אלה של אנשי הימין הישראלים: “קראתי לפני חודשיים מאמר של בני בגין בעיתון ‘הארץ'”, הוא אומר, “ואני מסכים עם כל מלה. יכולתי לכתוב את זה בעצמי לגבי העובדה שתהליך השלום כושל, ואין דרך להמשיך אותו. אם תשאל אותי אם אני בעד שהאמריקאים יכפו על הצדדים פתרון מדף של שתי מדינות, אני אגיד – כמו בגין – שלא. הניתוח שלנו הוא אותו ניתוח, גם אם המסקנות הנורמטיביות שלנו יהיו שונות”.

הקו הירוק שנקבע בוועידת רודוס ב-49′ אינו אלא תיחום אדמיניסטרטיבי שרירותי, לפי שנהב. בעיניו, יסודותיו האמיתיים של הסכסוך – מלחמת 48′ וגירוש הפלסטינים שהתגוררו ממערב לקו הירוק – הם גם המוכחשים ביותר. “לאנשים רבים שחיים פה, משכילים ובעלי ידיעות רבות על תרבות מערבית, אין מושג מה קרה פה ב-48′, הם מדברים כמו יצורים שלא חיו פה. זו התוצאה של סגירת המיתוס של 48′ בארון מיד. אנחנו מסרבים להוציא אותו משם”.

למה לקבוע את 1948 כנקודת האפס של הסכסוך? זו קביעה די שרירותית. אפשר לחשוב על צמתים משמעותיים אחרים: הצהרת בלפור ב-1917, או המרד הערבי ב-1936.

“זו שאלה שמציקה לי: למה לא 1917 למשל? דברים מרתקים קורים לא רק בהצהרת בלפור אלא בתהליך הכתיבה שלה. אבל יש בנקודה הזאת משהו אחר: בחרתי בה במכוון כי אני לא חושב שצריך לרסק את מדינת ישראל. בחרתי ב-48′ בדיוק בגלל שאני רוצה שכל ניתוח היסטורי יכלול את ההישגים של מדינת ישראל. אם חוזרים להצהרת בלפור, אז חוזרים למצב קשה מאוד מבחינת היהודים”.

אבל למה בכלל לקבוע נקודת אפס? למה לתלות את כל ההתפתחויות ההיסטוריות באירוע אחד?

“בחרתי בנקודת אפס מתוך עמדה שמכירה באפשרות להציג היסטוריה אלטרנטיבית, גם אם היא מדומיינת – ההיסטוריה שלא קרתה, מה היה קורה אילו היתה מתממשת הסתעפות אחרת מהנקודה שאתה מגדיר כצומת. באותו מקום שבו בחרתי כנקודת אפס אני עוצר את ההסתעפויות ומקבל את מה שקרה עד אז כטבעי. מהבחינה הזאת, המקום שבו תבחר הוא זה שבו אתה מכונן את העמדה הפוליטית שלך. אני מניח את קיומה של ישראל ואת המאפיינים שלה כחלק הכרחי מהניתוח, כי אני לא רוצה להרוס אותה”.

מלחמת 19 השנים

בראיון בדירתו בתל אביב, מציג שנהב תפיסה היסטורית שמתארת את מלחמת 48′ כמאורע המחולל, נקודת האפס, שממנו נבעו באופן ישיר ההתפתחויות ההיסטוריות המאוחרות יותר. כך הוא מציג את פעולות קיביה (53′) וסמוע (66′) כהמשך “הטיהור האתני” של המרחב מפלסטינים שהחל ב-48′; את מלחמת ששת הימים כהרחבה מתוכננת היטב של הישגי 48′ ואת ההתנחלות בשטחים כהמשך ישיר של ההתיישבות היהודית בתוך תחומי הקו הירוק.

הניתוח נראה לעתים חד-ממדי וחלקי, אך בה בעת מציע חלופה מאתגרת למובן מאליו של השמאל והימין ה”מתונים” בישראל. “בוא נחשוב שאנחנו יושבים בעוד 150 שנה”, אומר שנהב, “ואנחנו קוראים ספר היסטוריה. יהיה כתוב שם שהכוחות היהודיים הצליחו לכבוש חלקים מארץ ישראל או מפלסטין המנדטורית, ולעשות טיהור אתני – מושג שמקובל לגבי ישראל בספרות המחקרית הבינלאומית – ושהתהליך נמשך בשני שלבים: ב-48′ וב-67′. כל המנגנונים שבדרך, כמו מלחמות, מעקב דמוגרפי, טרנספר מרצון, דיכוי מאוויים פוליטיים, חינוך, הם תוצאה של אותו תהליך שהיו לו שני חלקים”.

משום כך סולד שנהב מהתיאור ההיסטורי הרווח בשמאל, לפיו ישראל “הושחתה” ב-67′ והכיבוש ממזרח לקו הירוק סיאב את מידותיהם המוסריות של הישראלים. לא רק שהמידה המוסרית אבדה לישראל כבר במעשי הטבח והגירוש של 48′, טוען שנהב, אלא שכיבוש השטחים ויצירתו של מרחב רציף בין הים לירדן היו התפתחות משמחת עבור רבים שסבלו מההפרדה שגזרה עליהם שרירותיותו של הקו הירוק. “מלחמת 67′ העניקה עצמאות, מעמד ואפשרויות קידום לדור שלם של יהודים מארצות ערב שחגגו את פתיחת המרחב”, כותב שנהב. “היא איפשרה הגדרה מחודשת של הזהות המזרחית בישראל לא כאנטיתזה לזהות אשכנזית, אלא כאופציה להשתלבות במרחב, גם אם במקרה זה הנסיבות הן של השתלבות דכאנית”.

שנהב מראה את ההבדלים בהתייחסות ל-67′ דרך ניתוח כתביהם של שלושה סופרים: דויד גרוסמן, האשכנזי, שמעון בלס, המזרחי, וע’סאן כנפאני הפלסטיני: “דויד גרוסמן לא מבין איך זה קרה לנו, איך ביום אחד הפכנו ללאומנים, איך הפכנו לקלגסים של הפלסטינים. ככה הוא כותב ב’זמן הצהוב’ ויוצר תורת מוסר חדשה, שבגבולות 67′ ישראל צודקת, כי רק אז התחלנו להיות צהובים לפלסטינים. באמת רק אז התחיל השלטון על הפלסטינים? עד דצמבר 66′ ישראל הפעילה שלטון צבאי על הפלסטינים בתוך הקו הירוק.

“שמעון בלס כותב חודש אחרי המלחמה שזו ההזדמנות שלנו לצאת מתוך מדינת הגטו, כלומר, מה שגרוסמן מתאר כרגע הנורא – שמעון בלס, כסופר מזרחי, חוגג כרגע פתיחת המרחב. לא רק בגלל החזון האידיאולוגי של קיום משותף, אלא גם בגלל עניינים כלכליים פוליטיים: הוא יכול לפרסם בערבית, יש לו עם מי לדבר בערבית, להתווכח בערבית.

“סופר שלישי זה ע’סאן כנפאני. הוא כותב את ‘שב לחיפה’, שם הוא מתאר את הרגע המרגש שבו הגבול של הקו הירוק קורס והוא יכול לנסוע לראות את הבית שלו ואת הבן שלו שנשאר מאחור. השינוי הזה מוחק את מי שהקו הירוק הוא מדיניות אלימה בעבורו. כלומר, יש שלוש גישות ואנחנו אימצנו את גישת גרוסמן. זו עמדה שמכחישה את העובדה שישראל קיימת ומתקיימת בעולם ערבי”.

ניתוחו של שנהב, לפיו יש מרחב רצוף משני צדי הקו הירוק, מתעלם מההבדל התהומי שבין מעמדם של הפלסטינים תושבי ישראל, לבין תושבי השטחים, הפריבילגיות שמוענקות לראשונים, ואופי השלטון הצבאי שמוטל על האחרונים. לעומת השמאל שמתמקד בביקורת על השלטון הצבאי בשטחים, שנהב מותח קו ישיר בינו לבין המדיניות כלפי הערבים בישראל. לדידו, ההבדל בין היחס לפלסטינים של 67′ ושל 48′ אינו בהכרח משמעותי. “אזרחות לא מבטיחה שוויון ויש אזרחויות חלקיות”, הוא אומר. “כשאתה שולח מורים לבית ספר ערבי ממערב לקו הירוק רק אחרי שהם עברו תחקיר של השב”כ, אתה מייצר מערכת חינוך מעוותת. פלסטינית שאני מכיר קנתה בית עם בן זוגה בכרמיאל והיא ביקשה ממני להיות חתום במקומה או יחד איתה בטאבו. כששאלתי אותה למה, היא אמרה שהיא לא בטוחה שזה יישאר בידיה, שהיא לא יודעת אם יום אחד לא יהיה טרנספר. האיום הזה באלימות הוא חלק בלתי נפרד מתפיסת האזרחות, רוב הפלסטינים בתחומי הקו הירוק מפחדים מאפשרות כזאת. מהבחינה הזאת ליברמן והרעיון של ‘בלי נאמנות אין אזרחות’ הם לא דיסוננס. זה הייצוג האותנטי של רעיון המדינה היהודית והדמוקרטית, של האופן שבו אפשר להגדיר אזרחות באמצעים חדשים”.

היציאה מהארון

שנהב נולד בבאר שבע ב-52′ כיהודה שהרבני, להורים ילידי בגדד. אביו, בן למשפחת סוחרים, נהנה מקריירה משגשגת בקהילת המודיעין הודות לשליטתו בערבית. השכונה שבה גדל היתה מיועדת לאנשי ביטחון והתגוררו בה שתי משפחות של מהגרים מעיראק, ששימשו מורים לערבית. בהמשך עברה משפחתו של שנהב לשכונת נוה משכן, הסמוכה לצהלה, ולפתח תקוה, שם למד בבית הספר עד שהורחק ממנו בכיתה י’, אחרי שהעלה אכסניה באש.

“הייתי די עבריין”, הוא אומר. “אני זוכר שהכנסנו מזרנים לאכסניה ושרפנו אותה”. לאחר מכן, החל לעבוד בבניין, ורק לפני גיוסו השלים את הלימודים. בצבא שירת בחיל המודיעין. בגיל 22 התחתן עם בת למשפחה אשכנזית מבוססת. לפני החתונה, החלה אמה ללחוץ עליו לשנות את שם משפחתו, והוא אף שיכנע את שני הוריו, את אחיו ואת אחותו לעשות זאת.

במשך שנים הכירו רק מעטים את שמו הקודם של שנהב. ב-95′, כשהתראיין לתוכנית הלילה של קובי מידן, הוא נשאל מה היה שם המשפחה הקודם שלו ובלית ברירה השיב. “אתה יודע כמה זה קשה לצאת מהארון”, הוא אומר כיום. “אמרתי לו שהרבני, והתחלתי להזיע כאילו שהייתי צריך להגיד זין וכוס בטלוויזיה. זה ממש כמו יציאה מהארון, זה נתן לי אנרגיות ותחושה של שחרור והקלה. היכולת להפוך את השם ממשהו מצמצם למשהו מרחיב”.

כיום שנהב מתרגם מערבית סיפורים של הסופר הלבנוני מיכאל נועימה וכשהספר ייצא לאור יחתום לראשונה כיהודה שנהב-שהרבני. “כשצילצלתי לאמא שלי, ואמרתי לה שאני רוצה לספר לה משהו שאני חושב שישמח אותה, שאני מחזיר את השם לשהרבני, היא אמרה לי ‘בשביל מה’. אמרתי לה שהשינוי נראה לי טעות והיא ענתה בסמכות ‘שום טעות. לא היית מגיע למעמד בלי זה’ – עם דגש על המלה מעמד”.

אחרי השירות הצבאי למד שנהב לתואר ראשון בסוציולוגיה באוניברסיטת תל אביב ותעשייה וניהול בטכניון, מתוך כוונה לשמש יועץ לניהול. הוא המשיך ללימודי תואר שני ואת הדוקטורט, שהיה קריאה ביקורתית של תורות ניהול ויעילות, עשה באוניברסיטת סטנפורד בארצות הברית. כששב לישראל, החל ללמד בחוג לסוציולוגיה באוניברסיטת תל אביב ובשנים 95′-98′ אף עמד בראשו. בשנות ה-90 השתתף בקבוצה שהקימה את כתב העת “תיאוריה וביקורת”, שהוא עורכו כיום (הגיליון הבא יהיה האחרון שבעריכת שנהב).

ב-96′ פירסם שנהב במוסף זה את המאמר “קשר השתיקה”, שבו האשים את “ההיסטוריונים החדשים” בהתעלמות מהקיפוח של היהודים המזרחים. המאמר עורר סערה ממושכת ויותר מעשרים מאמרי תגובה עליו הופיעו אז ב”הארץ”. הבעיה שניסה שנהב להגדיר היא “נתק בין שתי זירות שונות: ההיסטוריונים החדשים של 48′ וההיסטוריונים החדשים של המזרחים. מי שעוסק בסכסוך לא עוסק במזרחים ולהפך, אין חיבור רעיוני בין השניים”.

למה שיהיה?

“אי אפשר להבין את הסכסוך בלי לדבר על החיבור הזה בין שני סוגים של פליטים ערבים – פלסטינים ויהודים. איך אפשר לדבר על שאלות של פליטות בלי לדבר על הפליטים היהודים הערבים? העובדה שבני מוריס מדבר על פליטים בלי לדבר על פליטים מזרחים היא ביטוי לאשכנזיות שלו, למבנה השיח הטהור של הסכסוך. באופן דומה, האנתרופולוגים והסוציולוגים שחוקרים את המזרחים כבר שישים שנה, שמדברים על מושבי עולים ועל תרבות מזרחית, מנתקים את שאלת הפלסטינים מהניתוח שלהם”.

בני מוריס טוען בתגובה שעניין הפליטים היהודים פשוט לא היה חלק ממחקרו. “כתבתי ספר על בעיית הפליטים הפלסטינים וזה היה הנושא”, הוא אומר. “בספר האחרון שלי, שייקרא בעברית ‘תש”ח’, הקדשתי כמה עמודים בדברי הסיכום לפליטי ארצות ערב מאז 48′ וקישרתי בין שני מקרי הפליטות. 48′ גרמה להתהוות בעיית פליטים פלסטינים, אבל גם לבעיית פליטים יהודים מארצות ערב. זו בעיה שהפסיקה להתקיים משום שהפליטים היהודים מארצות ערב נקלטו והפליטות שלהם נגמרה, בעוד שבעיית הפליטים הפלסטינים נותרה בעינה”.

שנהב טוען שבעיית הפליטים היהודים מארצות ערב לא נפתרה.

“זו בעיה שלו, יותר משזאת בעיה אמיתית. אני חושב שהם נקלטו בצרפת ובאנגליה וגם איכשהו בישראל. זה לקח זמן, זה היה תהליך כואב, אבל בסך הכל הם נקלטו”.

הנוסטלגיה החדשה

העמדה ששנהב מבקר, זו שמאפיינת את גרוסמן ואנשי שמאל רבים אחרים, רובם אשכנזים, מתאפיינת בערגה למדינת ישראל כפי שהיתה לפני כיבוש השטחים ב-67′. געגועים אלה, “הנוסטלגיה החדשה” בלשון שנהב, הם “מצב תרבותי של אליטות יהודיות ממעמד הביניים הליברלי ורוב אינדיבידואלי דומם של פרופסיונלים”, הוא כותב בספרו: “טכנוקרטים, עובדים של השירות הציבורי, פרקליטות המדינה, אנשי אקדמיה במדעי החברה והרוח, אנשי משרד החוץ, גנרלים בדימוס ועיתונאים – רוב מצביעי קדימה, העבודה ומרצ”.

שנהב מונה נציגים רבים לנוסטלגיה החדשה, בהם יוסי ביילין, דן מרידור, חיים רמון, ציפי לבני, טליה ששון, אהרן ברק, רות גביזון, עמוס אילון, ארי שביט, עמוס שוקן, דן מרגלית, אמנון דנקנר ורבים נוספים. שנהב כותב כי געגועיהם של האוחזים ב”נוסטלגיה החדשה” אינם רק לישראל נטולת הגדה המערבית, אלא גם לישראל אשכנזית יותר ודתית פחות. הוא מביא שורה של ציטוטים שבהם המתגעגעים לתקופת שקדמה ל-67′ מביעים את סלידתם מצורות התנהגות בלתי-רציונליות של המתנחלים, שמנוגדות לערכיהם של מייסדי המדינה האשכנזים. בחלק ניכר מהביקורת שלהם על ההתנחלויות הם מתייחסים אל המתנחלים כאל מקשה אחת.

“פרדיגמת 67′ של השמאל הליברלי אינה נובעת אפוא רק מתוך פחד מפני הריבוי הדמוגרפי הפלסטיני”, מסיק שנהב, “אלא גם מתוך חרדה מפני הפיכתה של ישראל לחברה עם רוב מזרחי… זוהי שפתו של מי שבא למזרח התיכון לזמן קצר, שלא על מנת להתערות בו, אלא להתקיים בו כאורח. עמדה זו אינה רק בלתי מוסרית כלפי הפלסטינים, היא גם הרת אסון ליהודים עצמם. היא כופה עליהם חיים בתוך גטו עם תפיסת דמוקרטיה המבוססת על חוקי גזע ומצב חירום מתמיד”.

לכן חש שנהב מנוכר מהקבוצה הבולטת ביותר באקדמיה הישראלית ובחיי הרוח של תל אביב ורחוק מהם עוד יותר משהוא רחוק מאנשי הימין הקיצוני וממתנחלי הגדה המערבית. הוא החל לעמוד על כך בשנות פעילותו ב”קשת הדמוקרטית המזרחית”, שהוא היה ממקימיה ב-96′. אנשי הקשת לחמו נגד חוסר השוויון שממנו סובלים המזרחים בכלכלה הישראלית ובחלוקת נכסי המדינה, ובעיקר בקרקעות.

הקמת הקשת המזרחית, מספר שנהב כיום, התאפשרה הודות להסכמי אוסלו שיצרו את התחושה כי אפשר לעסוק במאבקים פוליטיים שאינם נוגעים לפלסטינים. השותפים לתנועה היו בחלקם אנשי ימין שהשקפותיהם ביחס לסכסוך עם הפלסטינים היו רחוקות מאלה של שנהב. “אני זוכר את עצמי בעבר כשמאל בנאלי”, מספר שנהב. “היתה לי תפיסה של שמאל אשכנזי רגיל, וההתנסות שלי בקשת הדמוקרטית המזרחית לאט לאט לימדה אותי איפה המכשלות במיקום של השמאל האשכנזי. אני זוכר שדיברתי באירוע פוליטי באוקטובר 2000 שהשתתפו בו שולמית אלוני ואורי אבנרי ואחרים, ואף אחד מהחברים שלי בקשת לא היה שם. חזרתי הביתה ולא ישנתי כל הלילה. אני זוכר את הבוקר שבו התעוררתי ואמרתי ‘מה אני עושה, איך יכולה להיות התהום הזאת?’ כשהזמינו אותי ב-2004 לדבר בכנס של ‘יש גבול’, מתוך 500 סרבנים היו ארבעה מזרחים. זו תופעה שאי-אפשר להתעלם ממנה. למי יש פריבילגיה להיות סרבן?”

המתנחלים הדפוקים

שנהב מתבסס בדבריו על ביקורתם של אנשי הקשת המזרחית את מפלגות השמאל, שבפועל ייצגו את בעלי ההון: “העמדה הסוציאל-דמוקרטית האשכנזית לא יכולה להכיל צדק הקצאתי אמיתי. מרצ, שמציגה את עצמה כמפלגת שמאל, נתמכת על ידי אלקטורט של בעלי אדמות. לפני הבחירות ניסו להקים שמאל חדש. אתה מסתכל על הגלריה הגברית, האשכנזית והמנותקת מהבנה אתנית וגזעית ושואל את עצמך איך נולד הדבר המוזר הזה. איך בעלי קרקעות ובעלי תאגידים יכולים להוות שמאל מעמדי, והם מכריזים על עצמם ככאלה. גם עמדתה של הקבוצה הזאת ביחס לפלסטינים קונסרבטיבית. מי בלע לקרבו את האדמות של הפלסטינים לאחר 48′ אם לא אנשי תנועת העבודה ומפ”ם בתוכם?

“כשהלכנו אל אופיר פינס, שהיה שר הפנים, לדבר איתו על גבולות בין יישובים – אמרנו לו שמתוקף תקנה הוא יכול להביא לצדק, אם יתן לכפר קרע את תחנת הדלק שלו – הוא אמר ‘אני לא יכול לבגוד באלקטורט שלי'”. משתתף נוסף בפגישה מאשר את דברי שנהב. פינס בתגובה: “על פניו, ההתבטאות של שנהב מופרכת ואין לה בסיס במציאות. הייתי בקשר לא מקרי ולא חד-פעמי עם הקשת המזרחית, היו דברים שהסכמתי איתם והיו דברים שלא. יש אכן מחלוקת נוקבת בין הקשת המזרחית לבין התנועה הקיבוצית בשאלת הקרקעות, אבל אני לא קיבוצניק”.

שנהב: “התובנה שאני מבקש להדגיש ולהוסיף היא שהשמאל החברתי הוא גם ימין מדיני. כששמואל הספרי אומר לארי שביט ‘אנחנו לאומנים של הקו הירוק, אנחנו בעד שתי מדינות לשני עמים אבל בתוך זה אנחנו לאומנים’ – האמירה הזאת משקפת את האופן שבו השמאל הציוני הוא במובנים רבים הרבה יותר לאומני מחלקים אחרים בציבור, והלאומנות הזאת בולטת במיוחד בשלד שהיא מחזיקה בארון, שאלת 48′”.

והימין לא לאומני? אנשי ימין לא רוצים מדינה יהודית חזקה?

“לא בהכרח כמו השמאל. אליעז כהן מכפר עציון אומר שאם לא נשרטט את הגבול על הקו הירוק, אז זכות השיבה של הפלסטינים ושל היהודים תהיה הדדית, ‘כמו שלי יש זכות שיבה לכפר עציון’, הוא אומר, ‘אין שום סיבה שלפלסטינים משכם לא תהיה זכות שיבה ליפו’. זו אוטופיה, אבל זו קבוצה שהיא הרבה יותר שמאלנית מאמנון רובינשטיין וארי שביט ויוסי ביילין ודויד גרוסמן, זה המקום שבו צריך להפוך את הקטגוריות ולייצר אותן בצורה אחרת.

“בשביל השמאל הציוני כל המתנחלים נראים אותו דבר וחושבים אותו דבר, כולם מלוכסני עיניים. אבל יש לפחות 250 אלף איש בהתנחלויות שהם המעמדות הנמוכים שהיו צריכים ויכולים להיות חלק מרכזי מהשמאל הישראלי. האנשים האלה גרים בשטחים, הם הנדפקים העיקריים של משטר מפא”י ושל הכלכלה הניאו ליברלית, שנדחפו לשם כתוצאה ישירה מהמבנה של אי השוויון בתוך ישראל. שרטוט הקו הירוק וגיבוש פתרון בהתאם לו הוא איום עליהם, איום שפינוי ימנע מהם את מדינת הרווחה שקיבלו”.

לפיכך, הסדר עתידי לא חייב להיות כרוך, לדעת שנהב, בפינוי כל ההתנחלויות, אפשרות שהוא מגדיר בספר “פנטזיה של השמאל שמכחיש את המציאות הפוליטית”. קשה לראות כיום מי יהיו השותפים הפלסטינים לפתרון שאינו כולל פינוי של ההתנחלויות, בשעה שהמאבק נגדן מהווה חלק מכריע בהתנגדות הפלסטינית, אך שנהב אופטימי גם בעניין זה. מבחינה היסטורית, הוא אינו רואה הבדל בין התיישבות משני עברי הקו הירוק, ההבדל נעוץ רק בכך שהפלסטינים הכירו בהתיישבות שממערב לו. “השמאל לא יכול לראות את העוול שנגרם למתנחלים”, הוא אומר. “אני לא בטוח שזה מוסרי לפנות דורות של אנשים שחיים שם. אני לא חושב שצריך לתקן עוול מוסרי אחד בעוול אחר”.

אתה חושב שיש שותפים פלסטינים לדרישה הזאת? איזה פלסטיני יסכים להסדר שלא כולל פינוי של ההתנחלויות? חלק משמעותי מההתנגדות הפלסטינית עוסק בקרקעות שההתנחלויות גוזלות.

“אם תהיה תביעה הדדית שתאפשר סוג של חילופי של שטחים ואדמות, אני לא רואה סיבה מיוחדת שלא להשאיר את ההתנחלויות שם. הדיונים האלה קיימים אצל מתנחלים כל הזמן, אני קורא ב’נקודה’ וב’מקור ראשון’ את השאלות על הנוכחות שלהם שם, אם היא מוסרית ומה העתיד שלה, רק שזה לא חשוף לציבור”.

בסוף הספר מציע שנהב שלושה פתרונות אפשריים לסכסוך, שמתבססים על ההנחה כי מקורו הוא במלחמת 48′ ולא ב-67′. שנהב מציג את המודל של “מדינת כל אזרחיה” על כל השטח, בניהול משותף של יהודים וערבים. באותה נשימה הוא גורס כי זה המודל המועדף פחות, שכן הוא אינו מתחשב בהבדלים שבין האינטרסים של הצדדים וייצור ביניהם מירוץ דמוגרפי להשגת רוב.

המודל המועדף על שנהב הוא “דמוקרטיה הסדרית”: חלוקה של האזור לשטחים קטנים שבהם יתגוררו קהילות דתיות ואזרחיות שונות, במבנה של קנטונים, שישמרו על עצמאות ויאוגדו במבנה רופף. גם אם פתרונות אלה נראים דמיוניים כיום, שנהב סבור ששינויי השנים האחרונות הפכו את פתרון שתי המדינות דמיוני עוד יותר. למעשה, הוא טוען, הפתרונות העתידיים מתעצבים כל העת. “זה לא שהכל מחכים שבן עמי יחזור מקמפ דיוויד עם הסכם. בינתיים יש העמקה של הכיבוש והשליטה על השטחים, השליטה בעזה מבחוץ ודרך ארגונים הומניטריים, היא השליטה הכי טובה שיכולה להיות. השינויים האלה מעבים את המרחב האחד. אנחנו לא חיים במדינה יהודית ודמוקרטית, אנחנו חיים במרחב אחד, שבו ישראל מפעילה ריבונות דה-פקטו מהים ועד הירדן, כולל שטחי סי ובי ואיי, בעזה וברמאללה. נוצרת מציאות שאי אפשר לנתק בינה לבין פתרונות”.

ואולי לא תהיה הכרעה? למה שהמצב הנוכחי לא יימשך?

“אנשים אולי ימשיכו לחיות כמה שנים ב’לסה פאסה’ מהים ועד הירדן, אולי אפילו עוד חמישים שנה. אבל בסוף תבוא המהפכה. אין לי ספק שהתהליך שקורה היום ילך ויתעבה ולא יאפשר חזרה לשתי מדינות”.*

פרופ’ יהודה שנהב טוען שאשכנזים הם שמקדמים במידה לא מבוטלת את רעיון ההפרדה מהפלסטינים. לדידו, ייתכן שלמזרחים יהיה קל יותר לחיות לצד פלסטינים במרחב דו-לאומי אחד: “זו עמדה שמזרחים יכולים לאמץ. אבא שלי וכל מי שהיה סביבו, כולם אנשי מערכת הביטחון, תוך שנייה אתה יכול לראות בהם ערבים”.

זה רלוונטי לדור צעיר יותר? הרי אין כמעט צעירים ממך שדוברים ערבית או קשורים לתרבות הזאת.

“יכול להיות שיש פה עניין דורי שאני קצת שבוי בו. אבל ההורים שלנו פתחו אופציה שאפשר לשחזר אותה, שיכולה להפוך לעמדה פוליטית. ולהפך: זה כמעט בנאלי, אבל נכון, שהאשכנזים הם אלה שהובילו את הרעיון שישראל היא סניף של אירופה. נראה מה הם יגידו כשהאיסלאם יהפוך לגורם מרכזי באירופה”.

The Main Reason for Israel’s Humanities Failure

04.02.21

Editorial note

The previous IAM post has dealt with the elements that contribute to the decline of the Humanities in higher learning institutions, such as political activism disguised as academics.

One of the main facilitators of political activism dressed in academic garb is the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute.

Van Leer often hosts discussions for “leftists,” who follow neo-Marxist, critical scholarship. For example, recently, Van Leer has held an event in memory of David Graeber, who was “one of the most fascinating and pioneering intellectuals on the renewed left [emphasis added] in the last decade.” Graeber, an “anthropologist and activist,” was the author of “groundbreaking books” such as Bullshit Jobs: A Theory, as well as Debt: The First 5,000 Years. The Van Leer discussion has dealt with his life and work. “His activism in the United States and the Middle East; His harsh critique of capitalism and his identification as an anarchist; His revolutionary view of money and value;” among others. Worth noting that Graeber was one of the founders of Occupy Wall Street. Clearly, there is not much academic work here but rather polemics. For the discussion, the organizers also invited Dr. Yaara Benger Alaluf from Academia for Equality, who specializes in “Exploring the production of relaxation in Club Med seaside resorts.” 

Also recently, Van Leer has held an event, “Philosophy at the end of the world – Hegel, Agamben and the day after.” According to the invitation, it is the second meeting to honor the publication of issue 53 of Theory and Criticism. The event questioned “Agamben and Hegel: Why should we read them, especially today? What in their total and all-encompassing philosophy can describe or interpret the current political moment—a moment of dismantling and lack of a way out, of confusion and error? What is the end of history that each of them predicted and how is it related to the end of a particular world order—and with it, also, the order of culture and meaning—that we are witnessing now? And what can come after it?” Not surprisingly, the end of the world order is referring to the former US President Donald Trump. Participants: Dr. Gal Katz, Columbia University, who already gave a talk at Van Leer in June 2019, titled “The Philosopher and the Political Sphere;” Shir Hacham, an independent researcher, a former Haaretz and Time Out contributor in arts and dance; Dr. Yoav Ronel, Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, Jerusalem, who teaches “representations of desire in western culture, through 20th century critical theory.” The host is Dr. Shaul Setter, the editor of Theory and Criticism

The previous edition of Theory and Criticism, number 52, titled “Critical Theory in the Era of the New Radical Right,” was also edited by Setter.  He wrote in the preface that critical theory is a “philosophical endeavor with noise at its heart. It is a noise generating enterprise—that is, intellectual activity that is not hemmed in by the boundaries of thought, of the kingdom of reason and imagination or of the ivory tower of institutional research and academic freedom.” Instead, he argues, “it is an endeavor whose movement echoes throughout the polis, takes place in the public sphere and is heard throughout the social sphere, raising its voice and seeking to transmit and disseminate it. Its center is the din of philosophy that is created by connecting thought to action, that is, to practice. It has been this way not only from the moment of its founding or its naming, but rather since 1845, the year in which a young intellectual who was exiled from his homeland jotted down some thoughts after reading a book; that is, since Marx’s theses on Feuerbach.”

By its own admission, Van Leer’s Theory and Criticism is a “journal for theoretical thought and critical study” founded in the early 1990s. It has dealt with “critical theory in local contexts.” Articles of “theoretical discussions and new forms of critique, and portray their demands from both scholarship and social praxis. They consider the fundamental questions of theory and criticism in light of the concrete changes in society—in Israel, with all its political and cultural issues, and elsewhere, from a comparative perspective and in a global context.” In effect, the journal has been a platform for the radical left, producing mountains of undetected polemical verbiage.

IAM reported about Van Leer before. Two years ago, IAM reported that Van Leer has been facilitating Holocaust inversion practiced for over a decade by a number of scholars whose aim is to minimize the scale of the catastrophe befallen on the Jews in WWII, by comparing the Holocaust to the Palestinian Nakba. This Holocaust equivalence serves two goals: It absolves the Palestinians and their Arab allies from any blame for starting a war that intended to destroy the nascent State of Israel, and it presents the former Jewish Holocaust victims as the “new” Nazi perpetrators. In Holocaust inversion, the Palestinians have become the “new Jews.”

Between 2017 and 2019, Van Leer facilitated another project, “Settler Colonialism and Resistance,” by a group of radical activists who discussed “a new understanding of the relations between the Zionist settlers and the local Arab-Palestinian population.” Among the participants were Lev Grinberg, Daniel DeMalach; Gadi Algazi; Khaled Anabtawi; Avishai Ehrlich; Hanna Herzog; Alexandre (Sandy) Kedar; Jacob (Kobi) Metzer; Mansour Nasasra; Tom Pessah; Areej Sabbagh-Khoury; Oren Shlomo; Na’aman Tal; Erez Tzfadia; Himmat Zu’bi’. Some of the participants are BDS supporters, and others are just anti-Israel activists.

It is easy to see that, in essence, many of the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute’s projects espouse the negation of the right of Jews to a Jewish state by describing it as a settler-colonial entity.   There are no academics on the various panels who can provide a rebuttal to the settler-colonial theory which has become dominant in universities in the West. 

But the ‘cherry on the icing’ is that the Council for Higher Education is housed on Van Leer Institute’s premises. There cannot be a more significant conflict of interests than this.

https://www.vanleer.org.il/en/events/philosophy-at-the-end-of-the-world-hegel-agamben-and-the-day-after/

Philosophy at the End of the World – Hegel, Agamben, and the Day After

Tuesday | 01/26/21 | 08:30 pm

Second meeting in honor of the publication of Issue 53 of Theory and
Criticism

Dr. Gal Katz, Shir Hacham, Dr. Yoav Ronel, Dr. Shaul Setter | 

Agamben and Hegel: Why should we read them, especially today?
What in their total and all-encompassing philosophy can describe or
interpret the current political moment—a moment of dismantling and
lack of a way out, of confusion and error? What is the end of history
that each of them predicted and how is it related to the end of a
particular world order—and with it, also, the order of culture and
meaning—that we are witnessing now? And what can come after it?

Participants

Dr. Gal Katz, Columbia University
Shir Hacham, independent scholar
Dr. Yoav Ronel, Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design, Jerusalem
Editor-in-chief of Theory and Criticism, Dr. Shaul Setter, moderator.


26 JANUARY AT 20:27פילוסופיה בסוף העולם – הגל, אגמבן והיום שאחרי // שידור חיThis video is now available to watchWatch Now

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

https://www.hum-il.com/message/0110200/

אירוע // שיחה: לראות מעבר ל”בולשיט” ערב לכבודו של האנתרופולוג והאנרכיסט דייוויד גרייבר [ון ליר, מקוון] 9.11.20

פרטים כלליים

סוג הודעה: אירועים

תאריך פרסום: 02-11-2020

מקוון / לא מקוון:

מיקום: מכון ון ליר ירושליםמקווןישראל

מועד: 09-11-2020 – 09-11-2020

מעניק מלגה/שכר: לא

כרוך בעלות: לא

אקדמיה/קהילה: אקדמיהקהילה

קהל יעד: חוקרים/ותסטודנטים/ותהקהל הרחב

שפות: עברית

פקולטות: מדעי הרוחמדעי החברה

דיסציפלינות: כלכלהסוציולוגיהאנתרופולוגיה

מחקר אינטרדיסציפלינרי: קפיטליזם / ליברליזם / סוציאליזםשוק, צרכנות

פרטי קשר

איל עפרון | מתאם פעילות לציבור, שיווק וקשרי חוץ | eyale@vanleer.org.il | 02-5605282

כתובת ההודעה: https://www.hum-il.com/message/0110200/

לראות מעבר ל”בולשיט”

ערב לכבודו של האנתרופולוג והאנרכיסט דייוויד גרייבר (2020-1961)

דייוויד גרייבּר שמת בפתאומיות בתחילת ספטמבר נמנה עם האינטלקטואלים החלוצים המרתקים ביותר בשמאל המתחדש בעשור האחרון. הוא היה אנתרופולוג ואקטיביסט, מחברם של ספרים מחוללי שינוי ובהםBullshit Jobs: A Theory ו-Debt: The First 5,000 Years. בערב הדיון נעסוק בשלל היבטים של חייו ועבודתו: האקטיביזם שלו בארצות הברית ובמזרח התיכון; עבודתו האנתרופולוגית רחבת ההיקף; ביקורתו החריפה על הקפיטליזם והזדהותו כאנרכיסט; השקפתו המהפכנית על כסף ועל ערך; ניסיונו להציע תפיסה מוסרית שונה של חוב ושל עבודה, וגישתו הייחודית ומעוררת התקווה ביחס להיסטוריה האנושית. 

שיחה עם:

ד”ר יערה בנגר אללוף, ארגון אקדמיה לשוויון

ד”ר ראמז עיד, האוניברסיטה הפתוחה

בהנחיית ד”ר אלי קוק, אוניברסיטת חיפה

9.11.20, 20:00-18:00

https://bit.ly/3iTUxr9

https://www.vanleer.org.il/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9C%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%A8-%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%98/

לראות מעבר ל”בולשיט”

ערב לכבודו של האנתרופולוג והאנרכיסט דייוויד גרייבר (2020-1961)

יום שני | 09/11/20 | בשעה 18:00

לראות מעבר ל

שיחה בשידור חי | 

דייוויד גרייבּר שמת בפתאומיות בתחילת ספטמבר נמנה עם האינטלקטואלים החלוצים המרתקים ביותר בשמאל המתחדש בעשור האחרון. הוא היה אנתרופולוג ואקטיביסט, מחברם של ספרים מחוללי שינוי ובהם Bullshit Jobs: A Theory ו-Debt: The First 5,000 Years. בערב הדיון נעסוק בשלל היבטים של חייו ועבודתו: האקטיביזם שלו בארצות הברית ובמזרח התיכון; עבודתו האנתרופולוגית רחבת ההיקף; ביקורתו החריפה על הקפיטליזם והזדהותו כאנרכיסט; השקפתו המהפכנית על כסף ועל ערך; ניסיונו להציע תפיסה מוסרית שונה של חוב ושל עבודה, וגישתו הייחודית ומעוררת התקווה ביחס להיסטוריה האנושית.

בהשתתפות

ד”ר יערה בנגר אללוף, ארגון אקדמיה לשוויון

ד”ר ראמז עיד, האוניברסיטה הפתוחה

בהנחיית ד”ר אלי קוק, אוניברסיטת חיפה

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

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

Project

Settler Colonialism and Resistance

The Settler Colonialism and Resistance Group met throughout 2017-2019to discuss a new understanding of the relations between the Zionist settlers and the local Arab-Palestinian population. In the first year the group discussed theoretical texts and the early work of its participants. In the second year the group focused on presentations of original research with the aim of publishing a collection of articles.

Led By

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

Participants

Gadi Algazi
Khaled Anabtawi
Avishai Ehrlich
Hanna Herzog
Alexandre (Sandy) Kedar
Jacob (Kobi) Metzer
Mansour Nasasra
Tom Pessah
Areej Sabbagh-Khoury
Oren Shlomo
Na’aman Tal
Erez Tzfadia
Himmat Zu’bi

Coordinator

Tom Mehager

Humanities in Decline

28.01.21

Editorial Note

In December 2020, the Israeli Council for Higher Education (CHE) asked the public to send suggestions for advancing the Humanities in higher education institutions. The CHE appointed a committee headed by a CHE member, Prof. Haviva Padia of the Department of Jewish History, Ben Gurion University.  The committee invites the public to write his/her position or proposal regarding ways to promote the Humanities in academia and the public in Israel. The proposals must be sent by email, no later than January 31, 2021, to Humanities-Committee@che.org.il.

The CHE public announcement has sparked a debate among members of the academic network Academia-IL. No one doubts the necessity of the Humanities, rather, the debate was more concerned with who decides what is considered important research that deserves public funding.

There is no doubt that the Humanities are essential, as students should be able to critically examine written texts. However, what has gone wrong with the Humanities is that political activists have seized the Humanities to advance their political agenda through the neo-Marxist, critical studies paradigm. Dozens of political activists masquerading as academics were recruited by their like-minded political activist peers to proliferate a particular political agenda as pioneered by Edward Said.

For example, the Walter-Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab Coexistence, established in 2002 at the School of Humanities at TAU, aims to create and promote a “critical discussion of issues related to the Jewish-Palestinian conflict and to coexistence in Israel.”  The Institution is involved in academic courses related to the impact on the peace process, land policies in the Negev desert, legal issues, among others, and “the occupation and its implication on Israeli society.” The Institution grants annual scholarships.   

Of late, the Walter-Lebach Institute has published “A call for applications for a grant to candidates on doctoral dissertation or thesis.” Shortly after, the Institute announced the publication of an article, “Half-Statelessness and Hannah Arendt’s Citizenship Model: The Case of Palestinian Citizens of Israel,” co-authored by Noa Gani, a Ph.D. student at the Hebrew University and Prof. Amal Jamal, the head of the Walter-Lebach Institute. The article explores Hannah Arendt’s “conceptualization of half-statelessness,” which, according to the authors, theorizes “the partial invasion of citizenship by characteristics of statelessness. It is a process of dehumanization.” The article uses Arendt’s conceptualization to “demonstrate the meaning of dehumanization by examining the reaction of Palestinian citizens of Israel to recent radicalization of state policies towards them.” The article also refers “to the anti-liberal legislation and the radicalization of political discourse in Israel during the last decade, leading to further deterioration in the civil status of Palestinian citizens.”  The co-authors describe how “Palestinian citizens of Israel have never been recognized as an indigenous national group. This misrecognition is most intensely manifested in the denial of having equal right to the land (Jamal, 2007). This denial is translated into the realization of the Zionist vision of creating exclusive Jewish sovereignty at the expense of negation and repression of Palestinian nationalism” The article’s proof is a citation of Knesset member Ayman Odeh.

Evidently, the article is a political exercise dressed up in academic garb. 

The Institution also held an event, “2019 Elections: New Hegemony or Adequate Representation of public positions?” in May 2019, inviting, again, Ayman Odeh, the leader of the Hadash party and Joint List alliance, and Michal Biran, member of the Labor Party, to speak, moderated by Prof. Amal Jamal. Hardly an academic or balanced debate. It is not surprising that the books the Institution publishes are: The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion in Israeli-Palestinian Relations (2020) Control and Thorn in It (2020) The Media Activities of National Minorities in the Algorithmic Age (2020) Palestinian Arab Organizations in Israeli Civil Society (2019) The Conflict – Sociological, Historical and Geopolitical Aspects (2019) Arab Civil Society In Israel (2017) The Nakba in the National Memory of Israel (2015) The Impact of the Occupation on Israeli Society (2013) Land, Democracy and Multi-Minority Relations (2013) Dialectic of Memory and Oblivion in Israeli Independence and the Palestinian Nakba (2010).

As can be seen, the Institution provides a one-sided political perspective that does not allow alternative voices.

The Institution also provides a link to another one-sided political event. In 2019 the Minerva Humanities Center at TAU had held a book launch for Idith Zertal’s “Refusal: The Duty of Obedience and the Right to Conscience,” published the year before. Speaking at the event were Adi Ophir, Gadi Algazi, Hagit Gur Ziv, Zehava Galon, Amal Jamal, Michael Sfard, Yishai Rosen-Zvi, and Yonatan Shapira. The event was filmed and uploaded to the TAU website.  Zertal, a highly controversial historian, has been accused of misrepresenting events surrounding the decision of Holocaust survivors to come to Israel. The speakers’ roster at this event is telling as well, many like Ophir and Algazi are leaders of the neo-Marxist, critical school, and some are from the Meretz Party.   

As for Zertal’s book on “Conscientious objection” and “Obedience and refusal,” she discusses the “thought of the refusal and right – and duty – of citizens to say ‘no’ to the government and the law; The intellectual, political, and cultural background of conscientious objectors; The concrete motives, anchored in time and place, of the refusal of conscience and its modes of action, its purposes, and its clashes with the institutions of the state and with its basic myths; And the ongoing controversy surrounding refusal in the public sphere – in the military, in the courts, in the media and academia.”   The book questions, “How does a person become a refuser? What are the individual, social and political conditions in which such an event matures and takes place? How does the refusal resonate in the public sphere and what does it attest to?” And argues that the “connection of conscientious objection to a democratic state is clear and can serve as a standard for the very democratic essence of a state. But the Israeli democracy haunts its conscientious objectors, especially since the occupation and its wars were their main motives. While the state of occupation is denied or considered the norms of the military, backed by the political and legal systems, defines conscientious objectors as an existential security threat, danger to democracy and the rule of law, and punishes accordingly: young Israelis, reservists or conscientious objectors before enlisting, are sent, since half a century for extended periods of time in the military prison.”   Zertal’s reading of the topic is biased and misguided, not to mention the lack of contextual understanding of the phenomenon. 

Unfortunately, the market for one-sided, Israel-bashing academic work is flourishing as many publishers compete with each other to publish books that reflect badly on Israel.   It is hardly a secret that since the publication of Said’s books, many in the Israeli and Western academy have devoted themselves to undermining the image of Israel while neglecting or soft-pedaling human rights abuses in the dictatorships of the Middle East. 

The CHE committee should fight the distortion of the political activists disguised as academics. IAM has been researching the phenomenon since 2004 and has collected numerous instances of such politicization.  IAM will provide more examples in the next several posts.

https://che.org.il/%D7%A4%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%99-%D7%94%D7%A8/

פנייה לציבור – קבלת הצעות לקידום מדעי הרוח באקדמיה

המועצה להשכלה גבוהה (מל”ג) והוועדה לתכנון ולתקצוב (ות”ת)מייחסות חשיבות רבה ביותר לקידומם של מדעי הרוח במוסדות להשכלה גבוהה באופן מערכתי. בשנים החולפות יזמו ות”ת ומל”ג מספר מהלכים במטרה לקדם את מדעי הרוח בראייה מערכתית ארוכת טווח וכללו את הנושא במסגרת התכנית הרב שנתית הנוכחית (תשע”ז- תשפ”א).בנובמבר 2020 הוקמה ועדת היגוי לקידום מדעי הרוח מקרב חברי מל”ג וות”ת בראשותה של חברת המל”ג, פרופ’ חביבה פדיה – המחלקה להיסטוריה של עם ישראל, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון בנגב.הוועדה התבקשה לגבש הצעה לתכנית עבודה מסודרת ואחודה, ובה המלצות קונקרטיות, תיעדוף, לוח זמנים ואופני יישום, לקידום תחום מדעי הרוח בהשכלה הגבוהה.הוועדה פונה לציבור ומזמינה את כל המעוניין להציג בכתב לוועדה את עמדתו או הצעתו בנוגע לדרכים לקידומם של מדעי הרוח באקדמיה ובציבור בישראל.את ההצעה יש להעביר בדואר אלקטרוני לכתובת Humanities-Committee@che.org.ilלא יאוחר מיום 31 ינואר 2021
=======================================

https://social-sciences.tau.ac.il/walter-libach/english

The Walter-Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab Coexistence was established in 2002 as part of the Social Science School, the School of Humanities, and the School of Education at Tel-Aviv University.  The Institution’s goal is to create and promote critical discussion of issues related to the Jewish-Palestinian conflict and to coexistence in Israel.  The Institution is involved in conventions, publications, and academic courses related to its core interests, including psychological factors and their impact on the peace process, third section activity in Israel, land policies in the Negev desert, legal issues, the occupation and its implication on Israeli society, and dilemmas of recognition in conflicts.  The Institution grants annual scholarships for outstanding students and researchers who focus on relevant issues, in addition to collaborations with other institutions and research centers.

https://social-sciences.tau.ac.il/walter-libach/call-for

קול קורא להגשת מועמדות לקבלת

מענק על עבודות דוקטורט או תזה

  • נושאי העבודות:
  1.  התפתחויות במערכת היחסים בין המדינה למיעוט הערבי בישראל בעשרים האחרונים.
  2. השלכות והשפעות הקורונה על החברה בישראל ובמיוחד בממשק בין החברה היהודית לערבית.
  3. המערכת הפוליטית הישראלית ומיקומם של האזרחים הערבים.
  4. מערכת המשפט וזכויות האזרחים הערבים.
  5.  האלימות בחברה הערבית ותפקידה של משטרת ישראל במניעתה. 
  6. השתלבותם של האזרחים הערבים במשק והכלכלה בישראל.
  • קריטריונים להגשת מועמדות:
    תלמידי/ות התואר השלישי והתואר השני, אשר מצויים/ות במהלך כתיבת עבודת דוקטורט לאחר שהצעת המחקר נשפטה ואושרה או תזה העוסקות בנושאים אלו, מוזמנים/ות להגיש את מועמדותם/ן לקבלת מענק כספי. המלגות הן בסך 12,000 ₪ לתלמידי/ות הדוקטורט ו- 5000 ₪ לתלמידי/ות התואר השני.
  1. ** תלמידי/ות הדוקטורט יהיו מחויבים/ות בכתיבת מאמר קצר בשפה העברית עבור המכון המבוסס על עבודתם/ן. המאמרים שיימצאו מתאימים ויעמדו בסטנדרטים המחקריים המתאימים יפורסמו במסגרת המכון לאחר שיעברו שיפוט אקדמי כמקובל.** כלל הזוכים/ות במלגות יתחייבו להגיש עותק של עבודתם/ן למכון בתום הכתיבה ולציין את קבלת המלגה בדברי התודות.

הגשת מועמדות: יש להגיש את הפריטים הבאים בקובץ PDF אחד:

  1. נושא העבודה ותקציר בהיקף של עד 5 עמודים, הכולל את רציונל המחקר, מסגרתו התיאורטית, סקירת ספרות קצרה, מתודולוגיה, מבנה המחקר ואופן ביצועו. יש להקפיד להפריד בין חלקי התקציר בצורה ברורה.
  2. אישור על הצעת העבודה מרשויות אקדמיות מתאימות )אישור מעבר לשלב ב’ לדוקטורנטים ואישור הצעת התיזה למסטרנטים(. המלגה איננה מיועדת למי שכבר מסר/ה את העבודה לשיפוט.
  3.  שני מכתבי המלצה )אחד ממנחה/ת העבודה(. מכתבי ההמלצה אמורים להישלח על ידי הממליצים ישירות למייל המכון.
  4. קורות חיים אקדמיים.
  5. מידע על מלגות ופרסים נוספים שהוענקו עבור העבודה. למגישים בפעם השנייה, חשוב לציין זאת ולדאוג להמלצות מעודכנות.
  6. פרטים אישיים: יש לציין על הבקשה שם מלא, כתובת, מס’ טלפון, מס’ ת.ז. וכתובת דואר אלקטרוני.

את כל החומרים המפורטים לעיל יש להגיש ב- 2 עותקים בדואר רגיל וכן למייל המכון בקובץ אחד מרוכז בפורמט PDF, לא יאוחר מתאריך ה- 15/01/2021.

כתובת למשלוח: מכון וולטר ליבך לחקר הדו-קיום היהודי-ערבי, בניין נפתלי, קומה 5, הפקולטה למדעי החברה, אוניברסיטת תל אביב, תל אביב, 6997801 lebachinst@tauex.tau.ac.il

=====================================
https://social-sciences.tau.ac.il/walter-libach/publications
מכון וולטר ליבךהפקולטה למדעי החברה ע”ש גרשון גורדוןאוניברסיטת תל אביב

פרסומים

חוקתיות, כינון חוקה וריבונות- מבט תיאורטי והשוואתי (2020)

חוקתיות, כינון חוקה וריבונות- מבט תיאורטי והשוואתי (2020)

הפוליטיקה של הכלה והדרה ביחסי ישראלים ופלסטינים (2020)

הפוליטיקה של הכלה והדרה ביחסי ישראלים ופלסטינים (2020)

שליטה וקוץ בה- תמורות במדיניות המדינה כלפי אזרחיה הערבים והשפעתן על התנהגותם

שליטה וקוץ בה (2020)

הפעילות התקשורתית של מיעוטים לאומיים בעידן האלגוריתמי

הפעילות התקשורתית של מיעוטים לאומיים בעידן האלגוריתמי (2020)

ארגונים ערביים פלסטיניים בחברה האזרחית בישראל

ארגונים ערביים פלסטיניים בחברה האזרחית בישראל (2019)

הסכסוך- היבטים סוציולוגיים, היסטוריים וגיאו- פוליטיים

הסכסוך- היבטים סוציולוגיים, היסטוריים וגיאו- פוליטיים (2019)

החברה האזרחית הערבית בישראל

החברה האזרחית הערבית בישראל (2017)

הנכבה בזכרון הלאומי של ישראל (2015)

הנכבה בזכרון הלאומי של ישראל (2015)

השפעת הכיבוש על החברה הישראלית (2013)

השפעת הכיבוש על החברה הישראלית (2013)

קרקע, דמוקרטיה ויחסי רב מיעוט (2013)

קרקע, דמוקרטיה ויחסי רב מיעוט (2013)

דיאלקטיקה של זיכרון ושכחה בעצמאות הישראלית ובנכבה הפסלטינית: נקודת מבט עכשווית

דיאלקטיקה של זיכרון ושכחה בעצמאות הישראלית ובנכבה הפסלטינית (2010)

רב-תרבותיות ואתגרי האזרחות הדיפרנציאלית בישראל

רב-תרבותיות ואתגרי האזרחות הדיפרנציאלית בישראל (2007)

קישורים שימושיים

היכנסו לעמוד הפייסבוק החדש של מכון וולטר ליבךצפו בהרצאה בנושא בחירות 2019: הגמוניה חדשה או ייצוג הולם של עמדות הציבור?! בהשתתפות ח”כ איימן עודה וגב’ מיכל בירןערב עיון ושיח עם צאת הספר “סירוב: חובת הציות וזכות המצפון” מאת עדית זרטלישראל והפלסטינים – לקראת הכרעות גורליות? יום עיון פרי שיתוף פעולה בין מכון וולטר ליבך ומרכז תמי שטינמץ למחקרי שלום.

================================================================
http://video.tau.ac.il/events/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=9569:election-2019&Itemid=560

Tel Aviv University
TAU WEBCAST

  בחירות 2019: הגמוניה חדשה או ייצוג הולם של עמדות הציבור?  

איימן עודה

מיכל בירן

מנחה: פרופ’ אמל ג’מאל

  • Location: אולם ונצואלה
  • Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2019

Published inבחירות 2019: הגמוניה חדשה או ייצוג הולם של עמדות הציבור?


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

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13629395.2020.1824377

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fmed20
Mediterranean Politics
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fmed20
Half-Statelessness and Hannah Arendt’s
Citizenship Model: The Case of Palestinian Citizens
of Israel
Noa Gani & Amal Jamal
To cite this article: Noa Gani & Amal Jamal (2020): Half-Statelessness and Hannah Arendt’s
Citizenship Model: The Case of Palestinian Citizens of Israel, Mediterranean Politics, DOI:
10.1080/13629395.2020.1824377
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2020.1824377
Published online: 23 Sep 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 4
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Half-Statelessness and Hannah Arendt’s Citizenship
Model: The Case of Palestinian Citizens of Israel
Noa Gani  a and Amal Jamal  b
aThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel; bSchool of Political Science, Government and
International Affairs, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
ABSTRACT
This article explores Hannah Arendt’s conceptualization of half-statelessness,
theorized as the partial invasion of citizenship by characteristics of statelessness.
It is a process of dehumanization, since according to Arendt, human beings
can realize their humanness only within the confines of genuine citizenship.
Explicating Arendt’s conceptualization of half-statelessness helps us better understand
her dynamic citizenship theory and better explain contemporary developments,
characterizing ethnic national states in which populist trends lead to
gradual substantial revocation of national minorities’ citizenship status. We illustrate
the analytical advantages of Arendt’s conceptualization and demonstrate
the meaning of dehumanization by examining the reaction of Palestinian citizens
of Israel to recent radicalization of state policies towards them.
KEYWORDS Hannah Arendt; citizenship; half-statelessness; dehumanization; israel; palestinian minority

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

https://kotar.cet.ac.il/KotarApp/Index/Book.aspx?nBookID=105482521

סירוב : חובת הציות וזכות המצפון : מסה

מחבר: עדית זרטל שנת ההוצאה:  2018 מילות מפתח: סרבנות גיוס ושירות צבאי; סרבנות מטעמי מצפון; סרבני גיוס מטעמי מצפון; סרבני מלחמה; סרבנות פוליטית מה קורה לאדם שנוף מולדתו הושחת ונגזל ממנו, שמדינתו וחוקיה השתעבדו לאי־חוקיות ולאי־צדק? האם עליו לציית אוטומטית לתביעות המדינה או לדבוק בחופש המצפון וכבוד־האדם שלו ולסרב, מכוח אהבת המולדת שלו? סירוב מצפוני הוא אירוע נדיר שמעטים מסוגלים לו. כיצד נעשה אדם לסרבן? מהם התנאים האינדיווידואליים, החברתיים והפוליטיים, שבהם מבשיל אירוע כזה ומתחולל? איך מהדהד הסירוב במרחב הציבורי ומה הוא מעיד עליו? זיקתו של הסירוב המצפוני למדינה הדמוקרטית ברורה ויכולה לשמש תו־תקן לעצם מהותה הדמוקרטית של מדינה. אולם הדמוקרטיה הישראלית רודפת את סרבני המצפון שלה, במיוחד מאז היו הכיבוש ומלחמותיו למניעיהם העיקריים. שעה שמצב הכיבוש מוכחש או נחשב לנורמטיבי הצבא, בגיבּוּיָן של המערכות הפוליטית והמשפטית, מגדיר את סרבני המצפון כאיום ביטחוני קיומי, סכנה לדמוקרטיה ולשלטון החוק, ומענישם בהתאם: צעירים וצעירות ישראלים, חיילי מילואים או סרבני־חִיּוּל טרם גיוס, המסרבים לשרת בצבא כובש, משוגרים זה חצי מאה לפרקי זמן ממושכים בכלא הצבאי. ציות וסירוב; מַחְשֶׁבֶת הסירוב והזכות – והחובה – של אזרחים לומר “לא” לשלטון ולחוק; הרקע האינטלקטואלי, הפוליטי והתרבותי של סרבנות המצפון; המניעים הקונקרטיים, המעוגנים בזמן ובמקום, של סרבנות המצפון ואופני הפעולה שלה, תכליותיה, והתנגשויותיה עם מוסדות המדינה ועם מיתוסֵי היסוד שלה; והפולמוס המתמשך המתנהל סביב הסירוב במרחב הציבורי – בצבא, בבתי המשפט, בתקשורת ובאקדמיה – הם נושאי הדיון בספר מעמיק, סוחף וחיוני זה. אל הספרנושא/נושאים: , שלטון וממשלפוליטיקה וממשלתוכן הספר:

עמודים:12345678101214

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

Tel Aviv University

Searchסירוב -  חובת הציות וזכות המצפון

סירוב – חובת הציות וזכות המצפון

תאריך: 6.1.19

דברי ברכה

דברי ברכה

  • Lecturer(s) יו”ר: אורי לנדסברג, מרכז מינרבה למדעי רוח, אוניברסיטת תל אביב
  • Location אולם רוזנברג
  • Date Sunday, 06 January 2019

Published in סירוב – חובת הציות וזכות המצפון

עדי אופיר

עדי אופיר

  • Lecturer(s) עדי אופיר, מכון קוגוט למדעי הרוח, אוניברסיטת בראון
  • Location אולם רוזנברג
  • Date Sunday, 06 January 2019

Published in סירוב – חובת הציות וזכות המצפון

חגית גור זיו

חגית גור זיו

  • Lecturer(s) חגית גור זיו, המחלקה לחינוך לגיל הרך, מכללת סמינר הקיבוצים
  • Location אולם רוזנברג
  • Date Sunday, 06 January 2019

Published in סירוב – חובת הציות וזכות המצפון

מיכאל ספרד

מיכאל ספרד

  • Lecturer(s) מיכאל ספרד, עורך דין
  • Location אולם רוזנברג
  • Date Sunday, 06 January 2019

Published in סירוב – חובת הציות וזכות המצפון

מושב א’ – דיון

מושב א' - דיון

  • Location אולם רוזנברג
  • Date Sunday, 06 January 2019

Published in סירוב – חובת הציות וזכות המצפון

יונתן שפירא

יונתן שפירא

  • Location אולם רוזנברג
  • Date Sunday, 06 January 2019

Published in סירוב – חובת הציות וזכות המצפון

גדי אלגזי

גדי אלגזי

  • Lecturer(s) גדי אלגזי, החוג להיסטוריה כללית, אוניברסיטת תל אביב
  • Location אולם רוזנברג
  • Date Sunday, 06 January 2019

Published in סירוב – חובת הציות וזכות המצפון

זהבה גלאון

זהבה גלאון

  • Lecturer(s) זהבה גלאון, יו”ר מרצ לשעבר
  • Location אולם רוזנברג
  • Date Sunday, 06 January 2019

Published in סירוב – חובת הציות וזכות המצפון

אמל ג’מאל

אמל ג'מאל

  • Lecturer(s) אמל ג’מאל, בית הספר למדע המדינה, ממשל ויחסים בינלואמיים, אוניברסיטת תל אביב
  • Location אולם רוזנברג
  • Date Sunday, 06 January 2019

Published in סירוב – חובת הציות וזכות המצפון

עדית זרטל

עדית זרטל

  • Lecturer(s) עדית זרטל, מחברת הספר “סירוב – חובת הציות וזכות המצפון”
  • Location אולם רוזנברג
  • Date Sunday, 06 January 2019

Published in סירוב – חובת הציות וזכות המצפון

יונתן שפירא

יונתן שפיר

  • Location אולם רוזנברג
  • Date Sunday, 06 January 2019

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

Uri Goren (Greenblatt) who died in 2017, was a member of the Gideonim (specialists of the Haganah in Morse code communication between Palestine and the Diaspora, from both ships and land stations); commander of the illegal immigrant ship “Latrun” during the British Mandate period; a colonel in the IDF who commanded the technological unit of the Intelligence Division, and the first director of the company ECI.

On Both Sides of the Crypto By Uri Goren Translated by Aryeh Malkin, Kibbutz Ein Dor April 2010
http://uri-goren.com/files/crypto_final.pdf

Page 45

Another Look at Aliya: Idith Zertal
Idith Zertal, born at Kibbutz Ein Shemer, is a leading historian in the stream of those who deny Zionism and preach a different view of it and of the State of Israel. They are called the ”New Historians”. I came across her name and her ideas in an article published in the newspaper Haaretz, which referred to her book
“The Jews’ Gold” 1 – the result of her research. I learned from that article, that it was the author’s opinion that the leadership of the Jewish settlements in Palestine, with Ben Gurion at its head, brought the remnants of the Holocaust to Palestine for the purpose of using them to increase the fighting forces, in preparation for the War of Independence which was bound to come. In other words, they were to be cannon fodder!
I wrote Idith a letter in which I expressed my amazement in a very polite language. I received an answer from her, thanking me for the letter and suggesting that I read the book itself, after which we could meet and discuss it again. I purchased the book and read all of the more than 500 pages, but I ended up very much angrier than I had been after reading only the article.
The book describes the rescue of the remnants of the Holocaust in a way which would make any anti-Zionist and anti-Semite proud. She ignores the fact that no other country in the world agreed to allow the entry of Jews and that they had been left without homes, without families and without hope. Zertal describes the leaders of the Yishuv as a bunch of cruel individuals working in devious ways and forcing desperate people to come to Palestine. Indeed, having no choice, they are brought on rotting and dangerous ships,

1 Translation of the Hebrew title; it was published in English under the title: From Catastrophe to Power: The Holocaust Survivors and the Emergence of Israel

under sub-human conditions, they arrive in this foreign country and are thrown into a desperate war, in the course of which many of them are killed. She describes the cruelty of the young Israelis, the Palyam and the soldiers of the Jewish Brigade and other branches of service in bringing these ‘slave ships’ to Palestine.
I did not find in the book any supporting testimonials; not from one ma’apil nor from one Palyamnik such as I. I know how strongly the desire of the remnants of the Holocaust was to come to Palestine and how disappointed they were if their turn was delayed. The “Exodus” is the best example of this. After arriving in Palestine and then being sent back to France, they were offered refuge there, yet only a few of the weakest individuals took up the offer. Sick people and women with advanced pregnancy were the only ones to leave the vessel. They also found a means to return to Israel at a later date. In a telephone conversation with Zertal I expressed surprise that she did not interview any ma’apilim or any of those who accompanied them. Her peculiar answer was: “History is based on written material and not on interviews.” I said that may be correct as regards ancient history but it is ridiculous when there are many who are still living that experienced an event. Our discussion became more severe and was discontinued. I was cut off by her for some time after that, but I wrote her a letter and detailed my criticism of her book.

A few years later I was invited to participate as a speaker in a seminar on Aliya Bet at Kibbutz Ma’ale HaChamisha. Idith Zertal was to lecture at the seminar. The organizer of the seminar asked me if my name could also be included as a speaker and I agreed. I suggested, however, that if my name was published then Idith was likely to beg to be excused from appearing. That is exactly what happened. In my lecture I told my own personal story after which I expressed my anger at Idith’s book and accused her of telling a bunch of lies. I finished my diatribe against her with a very severe sentence: In Zertal’s description of the actions of Ben Gurion and the leadership of the Yishuv, the only accusation missing is that Ben Gurion encouraged Hitler to wipe out the Jews so that we would be able to convince the remainder to come with us to Palestine, where they could act as ‘cannon fodder’. I admit that I exaggerated, but I was mad!
The letter exchange with Dr. Idith Zertal is enclosed in appendix A.

Appendix A: Letter to Dr. Idith Zertal and her reply
June 17, 1996
Dr. Idith Zertal
Editorial Board of “Times” [Hebrew: Zmanim]
Department for the Study of Zionism
Tel Aviv University, Chaim Levanon Street, Tel Aviv
Shalom Idith;
I read and reread an article by Dalia Karpel dealing with your book, and among other subjects, with the matter of the Aliya movement (1945 – 1948) and the role played by the leaders of the Yishuv (the Jewish settlement in Palestine), the Mosad for Aliya Bet and the Palyam in its organization. I tend to believe that the author (Karpel) misquoted you or did not interpret you correctly. If otherwise, then I am completely confused and my request is that you give me a private lesson in the history of the Holocaust and “illegal immigration”. I am willing to pay any price you name for such a lesson, if it will clear up the confusion in which I find myself.
I am a Sabra born in 1926 and when I became 19 and was a communications person in the Hagana, I was called to the offices of the “Mosad” in Tel Aviv, where they offered me to join their operation and to go to Europe, where I would work together with other Aliya Bet delegates. Although my parents had a farm to take
174 Uri Goren
care of and my older brother was already in Europe, as a member of the Jewish Brigade, my parents urged me to accept the challenge. That is how it came about that I left Palestine by a devious route, (described by Lova Eliav in his book, “The Vessel Ulua”), arrived in Italy and continued from there to Southern France. From a wireless operator I became the manager of a camp, where immigrants were being prepared and trained for Aliya. Following that, I was commander of the immigrant vessel “Latrun”, which ended up with the immigrants and I being sent to the Cyprus detention camps. I returned to Europe and once again was appointed to take charge of the immigrant camp “Grand Arénas”. It was here that the immigrants, who later sailed on the “Exodus” were gathered; I met these same immigrants again when they arrived at Port de Bouc, on the deportation ships.
You can understand from the short review of this chapter in my life, that I have had the opportunity to meet thousands of the survivors of the Holocaust, and as a young Sabra I was appalled and deeply affected by what I saw. I heard many of their stories during days and nights that I spent with them and tried to ease their paths as best I could. As a result I earned the thanks and the good will of many of them and have maintained contact with some until the present.
This in brief, is part of my story, which is similar to that of many of my friends in the Palyam, the Machal, the Jewish Brigade and
On Both Sides of the Crypto 175
other groups of volunteers, who had contact with the survivors. I would now be extremely grateful to you if you explained your view to me. I shall present my questions as concisely as possible: If I understood correctly (perhaps I did not), in your research you criticize the actions of the leaders of the Yishuv, the Mosad for Aliya Bet and the one who stood at its head, Shaul Avigur, and the men of the Palyam, (I was one of them during a part of my career). At the end of WW II hundreds of thousands of survivors found themselves destitute and homeless and there was no country in the whole world that was willing to take them or to assist them in their hour of need. On the contrary; they closed their gates before them (including of course, those of Palestine).
A colorless man (as Karpel says you describe him), Shaul Avigur, answered the call of the leadership of the Yishuv, and created the Mosad for Aliya Bet, an amazing organization which spread its branches through many of the countries of ravaged Europe, and took the survivors of the Holocaust under its wing. It did its best to rehabilitate them and brought them from inland Europe to the shores of the Mediterranean, supplied them with their basic needs, bought ships and brought them safely to the shores of Palestine. About 140,000 refugees were brought to Palestine in this manner and this – in no small way – contributed to the establishment of the State of Israel, in which you and I live today.
176 Uri Goren
I lived with the survivors of the Holocaust for three years and I can truthfully say that their greatest wish and their greatest hope was to be able to come to Palestine, the Land of Israel. To attain this goal they were ready to face the most extreme hardships. The physical conditions on the immigrant vessels were atrocious. But I bear witness that I and my friends, who worked with me in preparing the vessels, did everything possible on our part to ease the suffering of the passengers. When I was commander of the “Latrun”, I spent hours in the hold of the vessel and tried to encourage the survivors and make their journey a bit more comfortable. My Palyam friends on other vessels did the very same thing.
Moreover, before every voyage we explained to the survivors exactly what the conditions of the voyage would be like. We knew from experience though, that no difficulty would convince them to forego the trip. If, for some reason we would refuse to take on a passenger because of that person’s state of health or some other reason, the person would plead and beg and sometimes even threaten us, trying to convince us not to strike him from the list of passengers.
The case of the “Exodus” can serve as a model for research. 4,500 passengers were returned to Port de Bouc by the deportation ships. The French authorities, under the pressure of the British, invited them to come ashore, where they would be granted asylum.
On Both Sides of the Crypto 177
Nevertheless, none but a few who were very sick agreed to leave the ships. The rest went back to Hamburg, in Germany, to another detention camp. I was amazed when, not long after, I met a goodly number of them in a transition camp of ours in southern France. These survivors who had been through all that they had been through, were ready to make the terrible journey once again on a Hagana vessel. Forty years later, in 1986 I believe, the survivors of the “Exodus” had a convention in the “Culture Hall” of Tel Aviv. I was overwrought with emotion to see so many healthy and happy people with their families and offspring who came to be present at that meeting. They and the Palyamnikim who brought them are ingredients in a typical cross-section of the present Israeli population. Their children are successful farmers, scientists, businessmen and industrialists. Almost all of them have made their way and found their niche and are proud members of the Israeli community. Those that recognize me point me out to their children and say: “He brought me to Palestine.” That is my reward.
Idith, if I understood you correctly, you claim in your research that the men of the Mosad and the Palyam used the ma’apilim (the immigrants) for their own political and other purposes. I just cannot understand such a statement. First and most important: because I know how strongly the ma’apilim felt about coming to Palestine. You might say that those that fought and fell in the War of Independence were also merely pawns in the hands of the leadership of the Yishuv. Among those who fell was Gur, the son
178 Uri Goren
of that ‘colorless man’, Shaul Avigur. What I have written here is merely a smattering, which I will sum up with a few thoughts: What would historians have said if the leadership of the Yishuv had not mobilized to save the lives of the remnants of the Holocaust? I and my friends are really hurt and insulted by the thoughts expressed in your research. Most of us volunteered to do what we did, and did our jobs with the utmost devotion. I went to Europe with a suitcase of clothes from my closet and returned in a shirt and a pair of short pants. I did not think that I was doing something outstanding, but to present us as exploiters?!? What would have happened to the remnants of the Holocaust if the Yishuv in Palestine had not opened its arms to take them in? The real heroes of this mass immigration were the ma’apilim themselves. No one knows that better than we, the ones who accompanied them.
Shaul Avigur was a wise and well-balanced leader. I would hate to have seen someone who pulled weighty decisions ‘out of his sleeve’ in his place. If he was calculating and careful in making a decision, then that is paying him a compliment. Where did you get your inside information from, by the way? Might I suggest that you take a poll; that is a popular thing to do nowadays. Question the ma’apilim living in Israel today and ask them, what they think of the whole Aliya Bet operation. Best do this quickly because time is running out and the biological clock is ticking away. I shall be grateful to you if you would study these pages and react. I would
On Both Sides of the Crypto 179
be more than happy to discuss this with you personally. I am of course willing to pay for the time you devote to this subject.
Thank you, and cordial greetings,
Uri Goren
Dr. Idith Zertal’s letter of reply
June 19th, 1996
Shalom Uri Goren,
Firstly, thank you for your letter. It is easy to see that you wrote it from your heart, with emotion and even with pain. I do not wish, nor can I remain inattentive to it. At any rate, the style and the gentlemanliness of your letter is very much better than those of the vulgar type that appeared in the supplement of “Haaretz”, following an interview with me. I will try to answer your questions within the limits of this letter.
The interview was really terrible and left me feeling frustrated. I tried to prevent its being published but could not. It had been readied for publishing and it was election week, so the editors had nothing suitable with which to replace it. All I can say to you is that much that was said was abbreviated or removed from its context, and many quotes were actually misquotes. For every ten sentences of written material, only one sentence appeared, leaving
180 Uri Goren
only the extreme impression, a vulgar condensation of a complicated subject. This is not my style or my way of expressing myself. However, having agreed to an interview, I decided not to voice my complaint about the result in public, nor to complain of the injustice that had been done me. I have heard politicians complain about their having been misunderstood and having their words taken out of context; I preferred to let it pass in silence.
You may have noticed that I have not reacted to the vulgar letters that were published. I haven’t because: a) I believe that everyone has the right to his own opinion, and the right to express it; b) I cannot argue about feelings, or with memories or what people think they remember; c) Most important, no one bothered to read my book before they wrote their reaction to it.
Now I address you and your reaction. You say that you are ready to pay any price for a lesson in history from me. Uri Goren, you are not serious. For seventy shekels you can purchase my book which has 674 pages and more than one hundred more pages of notes and bibliography. Had you read the book, a good number of your questions would have been answered, and you might have also learned that my knowledge of the subject is extensive. (Allow me to mention that the work on my doctorate received the designation, “cum laude”). You would have found that a good deal of what you pointed out appears in the book.
I must assume that there may be some errors in the book, and there is room for some argument relating to my interpretation of some events, but I assure you that it was written only after thorough research and also after I developed a personal proximity and involvement with the subject. I tried to maintain a high standard of intellectual honesty. I am certain that had read the book you would have found that many things are even more complicated than you imagined. You might even found some facts and material that were not known to you and you might even agreed with some of my conclusions. What surprises me about the book is how little people are ready to learn more about the past, and think that they already ‘know it all’. I am surprised at the aggressiveness expressed in the letters and the inability to be ready to listen and perhaps learn something new. Is it really too much of an intellectual effort to ask of you to read my book? I would then be happy to discuss it with you and even to debate it.
As a rule, historical research is not a copy of what people recall, or the retelling of what people were once told and recall. Decent historical research involves critical analysis, sometimes painful analysis of texts and documents of the related period. This of course includes protocols of the period dealt with; decisions taken at that time as well as correspondence. Such critical analysis applied years after the event itself, when compared to the memories of those who were there at the time, usually leads to a problematic situation, at least, and sometimes to outright confrontation. Those who were present at an event of the past usually do not have all the information and the background to the particular event, and they are bound to be biased by a personal attitude to the people or to the matter involved.
What I have written here is also only ‘the tip of the iceberg’. My thoughts on historical discipline and on writing history are topics upon which numerous books have been written, and this subject is the main focus of my academic and intellectual endeavor today. Nothing that I have written has been done off-handed, everything has been done only after deep thought and consideration of all the material that I have on hand. My book stands on its own merits; read it and then judge it.
Until then, I wish you all the best, and I thank you once again for your letter.
Dr. Idith Zertal

The Battle over the Meaning of anti-Semitism

21.01.21

Editorial Note

Even before Joe Biden was sworn as the new president, pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel groups, among them academics, have urged to abandon the widely accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of anti-Semitism. They hope that the Democratic administration would undo Trump’s Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, issued on December 11, 2019.  

Trump’s Executive Order stated: “My Administration is committed to combating the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world.  Anti-Semitic incidents have increased since 2013, and students, in particular, continue to face anti Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses.” As a result, “Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin.”

The Executive Order instructed agencies charged with enforcing Title VI to consider the IHRA Definition, which states:  

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.  Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The examples identified by IHRA “might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent.” 

Trump ordered that “the head of each agency charged with enforcing Title VI shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, identifying additional nondiscrimination authorities within its enforcement authority with respect to which the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism could be considered.”

The U.K. has followed suit. As IAM reported on October 15, 2020, Gavin Williamson, the Education Secretary, has warned universities that they could have their funding cut if they refuse to adopt the IHRA definition. He noted “too many disturbing incidents of anti-Semitism on campus and a lack of willingness by too many universities to confront this.” He added that “While many universities have rightly been quick over the summer to demonstrate their readiness to take action against other forms of racism, it is frankly disturbing that so many are dragging their feet on the matter of anti-Semitism.”  Williamson has asked university officials to consider directing their Office for Students to impose a new regulatory condition of registration using the IHRA Definition. Otherwise, they will face suspension of funding.

Soon after Trump’s Executive Order was announced, the media reported that “the move appears to be targeting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement,” which encourages boycott against Israel “for what it deems violations of international law.” BDS groups on college campuses hold annual events like “Israeli Apartheid Week” to push for Palestinian rights. The critics argued that Trump might use the order to “pander to Jewish constituents” or “as a goodwill gesture toward Israel,” which “tries to combat anti-Semitism and the BDS movement around the world.” Others worried that the “broadened definition of anti-Semitism” could infringe on free speech.

One such critic was Yousef Munayyer, the executive director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, who said that the move would “silence Palestinian rights activism” because “Many Israeli apartheid apologists… are looking to silence a debate they know they can’t win.”

Evidently, many pro-Palestinians are putting all their weight behind the campaign to cancel the IHRA Definition. Omar Barghouti, the Qatari born Palestinian and one of the key activists in the BDS movement, would speak in a Zoom briefing on Sat, 23 January 2021, titled “how to oppose the IHRA definition across the UK, and Gavin Williamson’s attempt to impose it in England.” Worth noting, Barghouti lives in Israel and has studied at Tel Aviv University for nearly a decade. Other briefing participants are Ben Jamal, Naomi Wimborne Idrissi, Jonathan Rosenhead, Salma Karmi-Ayyoub, Tom Hickey, Mark Abel, Ghada Karmi, and Richard Kuper. The Zoom briefing is organized and hosted by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP). 

The purpose is to discuss how to “understand and resist” the pressure on universities and colleges to adopt the “contentious” IHRA Definition and “the Gavin Williamson’s attempt to force universities to comply through the threat of financial penalties.” The briefing will “address both the abuse of the definition as a means of silencing Palestine advocacy, and the attack on academic freedom and university autonomy.”  The briefing aims to “provide a toolkit for negotiating with managements, preparing motions or statements or talks on the definition, and campaigning amongst staff and students.”

Also, BRICUP intends to discuss the “misuse” of the IHRA definition, which “conflicts with the responsibilities of universities under the Equality and Education Acts,” and the potential impact on “freedom of academic staff to teach and research in their fields.” Students’ ability to debate issues on Palestine/Israel and to “interrogate the nature of Zionism.” How staff and Academic Boards in universities, and trade unions in colleges and elsewhere, “can resist the adoption of the definition by their institutions, and how they can defend Palestine advocacy in the face of the definition.”

Members of BRICUP perceive the IHRA Definition as “inadequate” because “It fails to capture some of the most virulent and most insidious forms of the disease; and its ambiguity and lack of precision leaves it seriously defective for use for either disciplinary, regulatory or legal purposes. It is also mired in controversy as an unsubtle attempt to block campaigns over the suppression of Palestinian rights by allowing them to become targeted as antisemitic.” BRICUP argues that “Palestinians have long warned that the widespread adoption of the definition and its examples would block campaigns over the suppression of Palestinian rights in just this manner.”   

Interestingly, however, there are no clauses in the IHRA definition which infringe on Palestinian rights, nor does it mention BDS. The only three clauses that could affect Palestinians are:  “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor;” “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;” and “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Supporting the IHRA Definition is Kenneth L. Marcus, the author of the book “The Definition of Anti-Semitism.”  He noted that, as Vice President, Biden has spoken about the need to address anti-Semitism. Marcus suggested two new tools that can help President Biden fighting anti-Semitism. First, the legislation passed by the US Congress in late December elevate the State Department’s special envoy on anti-Semitism to ambassadorial status. Such a move should enable the Biden administration to fight anti-Semitism more effectively on a global scale. Second, the European Commission and IHRA released a new handbook presenting the IHRA Working Definition within the context of twenty-two real-world anti-Semitic incidents and crimes. 

Marcus’s proposal is useful. In order to fight anti-Semitism, any incident suspected as anti-Semitic should be evaluated with the framework of the IHRA Working Definition to clarify whether it is anti-Semitic or not. Quite possibly, some pro-Palestinian activism on and off-campus may be considered anti-Semitic, a prospect that has fueled their efforts to do away with the IHRA Definition. 

Date And Time       Sat, 23 January 2021       12:30 – 15:15 IST

Location

Online Event

How to oppose the IHRA definition across the UK, and Gavin Williamson’s attempt to impose it in England.

About this Event

Omar Barghouti • Ben Jamal • Naomi Wimborne Idrissi • Jonathan Rosenhead • Salma Karmi-Ayyoub • Tom Hickey • Mark Abel • Ghada Karmi • Richard Kuper

Organised and hosted by BRICUP (British Committee for the Universities of Palestine)

This is a Zoom briefing on how to understand and resist the pressure on universities and colleges across the country to adopt the contentious IHRA Definition of Antisemitism. In England this has now taken a new form: the attempt by the Secretary of State, Gavin Williamson, to force universities to comply through the threat of financial penalties.

The briefing will address both the abuse of the definition as a means of silencing Palestine advocacy, and the attack on academic freedom and university autonomy which Wiliamson’s demand represents. And it is designed to provide a toolkit for negotiating with managements, preparing motions or statements or talks on the definition, and campaigning amongst staff and students.

Registered participants will receive informative documents in advance, and will be sent log-on details on the day before the event.

The briefing will cover

  • the origin and misuse of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism;
  • how the IHRA definition conflicts with the responsibilities of universities under the Equality and Education Acts, and the legal status of Gavin Williamson’s threat;
  • the potential impact of adopting the definition on university autonomy, and on the freedom of academic staff to teach and research in their fields – especially but not only if they involve the study of the Middle East;
  • the potential impact of the definition on students’ ability to debate Palestine/Israel issues on university campuses, and to interrogate the nature of Zionism; and
  • how individual staff and Academic Boards in universities, and trade unions in colleges and elsewhere, can resist the adoption of the definition by their institutions, and how they can defend Palestine advocacy in the face of the definition.

Programme

Introductory remarks Jonathan Rosenhead  (British Committee for the Universities of Palestine – BRICUP)

The context  Ben Jamal   (Palestine Solidarity Campaign – PSC)

Omar Barghouti   (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel – PACBI)

Session One

Chair and respondent  Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi  (Free Speech on Israel)

Jonathan Rosenhead  What’s wrong with the IHRA Definition?

Salma Karmi-Ayyoub   (Barrister and Consultant on Human Rights)  The legal status of the IHRA definition, and of Williamson’s threat

Q&A

Session Two

Chair and respondent   Ghada Karmi   (Author, Activist and Academic)

Tom Hickey   (BRICUP)   The definition and its impact on research, teaching and debate about Palestine

Mark Abel   (University of Brighton UCU)   Defending Palestine advocacy and academic freedom

Q&A

Closing remarks

Richard Kuper (Jewish Voice for Labour and socialist publisher)   and  Jonathan Rosenhead  (BRICUP)  

  Participants may find the latest edition of the BRICUP Newsletter (no.138) helpful. This and all previous issues can be accessed on the BRICUP website.  

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

https://www.algemeiner.com/2021/01/12/left-wing-jewish-groups-rejection-of-holocaust-alliance-antisemitism-definition-meets-criticism/

  Left-Wing Jewish Groups’ Rejection of Holocaust Alliance Antisemitism Definition Meets Criticism  

  by Algemeiner StaffJANUARY 12, 2021 6:19 PM

A statement from a coalition of progressive Jewish groups rejecting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism because it included anti-Zionism among its examples encountered criticism on social media on Tuesday.

The statement from the Progressive Israel Network, which includes the left-wing lobby group J Street, argued that the definition — which has been adopted by dozens of governments, NGOs, sporting organizations and other civic institutions around the world — stifles “legitimate free speech, criticism of Israeli government actions, and advocacy for Palestinian rights.”

The statement acknowledged that there “can be no doubt that some anti-Zionists and critics of Israeli policy can sometimes cross the line into antisemitism.” However, it went on to describe as “harmful overreach” the US State Department’s “unambiguous declarations that  ‘anti-Zionism is antisemitism’ and that ‘the Global BDS Campaign [is] a manifestation of antisemitism.’”

The statement echoed similar objections to the IHRA definition expressed by pro-Palestinian groups.

The words “Zionism” and “anti-Zionism” do not appear in the actual definition, which emphasizes that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

In an article this week for the British journal Fathom, Dave Rich — director of policy for the Community Security Trust (CST) of the UK Jewish community — pointed out that IHRA definition’s examples mentioning both Jews and Israel include: “‘Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust’; ‘Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’; ‘Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis’; or ‘Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.’”

Of the definitions critics, Rich wrote, “Do [they] really intend to claim that these examples suppress legitimate, non-antisemitic criticism of the State of Israel? If that is the case, let them try. They will struggle to persuade many people of their argument.”

Mainstream Jewish groups in the US support the IHRA definition in full. Anti Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said on Twitter on Monday that the definition “is a useful tool in fighting #antisemitism & does not restrict legitimate criticism of Israel.”

Continued Greenblatt: “To be clear, antisemitism referencing Israel still is antisemitism.”

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

https://www.jns.org/opinion/biden-has-new-tools-to-fight-anti-semitism/

Biden has new tools to fight anti-Semitism

Working with allies who have demonstrated their commitment to human-rights values, the president-elect can use the new anti-Semitism ambassador to strengthen American international leadership.By Kenneth L. Marcus

(January 8, 2021 / JNS) President-elect Joe Biden has two new tools that can help him in his professed priority to strengthen international ties, support human rights and combat anti-Semitism. The new tools play well to Biden’s foreign-relations experience and enduring belief in internationalism, which favors intergovernmental alliances, democratic cooperation and a liberal rule-based order.

First, in late December, Congress passed legislation elevating the State Department’s special envoy on anti-Semitism to ambassadorial status. This should enable the Biden administration to fight anti-Semitism more effectively on a global scale.

The outgoing special envoy, Elan Carr, did a remarkable job raising public awareness about the world’s oldest hatred. His predecessors in prior administrations—Ira Forman, Hannah Rosenthal and Greg Rickman—were also strong.

The enhanced position should enable Biden to succeed Carr with a high-profile successor who can work even more effectively with foreign peers. The candidates reportedly under consideration are highly qualified, including the Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman and Sharon Nazarian.

Second, just today, the European Commission and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) released an excellent new handbook on fighting anti-Semitism. It presents the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, along with its guiding examples and relates those to the contexts of 22 real-world anti-Semitic incidents and crimes. The European Union had already called on its member states, as recently as December 2020, to use this definition to identify anti-Semitic incidents.

The handbook is issued to bolster this call within the European Union and to show how the working definition, including its guiding examples, can be used as a powerful defense against anti-Semitism. Its strength is in its real-world examples and best practices for policymakers.

This European contribution will reinforce longstanding U.S. efforts to make the working definition more widely adopted as the global standard. The George W. Bush administration had used a predecessor version of the IHRA definition for international affairs. The Obama administration had developed its own, nearly identical definition for this same purpose. The Trump administration adopted the IHRA definition by executive order, applying it domestically as well as internationally.

While the European Commission’s directives apply, as its name suggests, to the European Union, the United States is an IHRA member-state so the document applies here as well. This gives important elevation to the status of the IHRA definition in this country. While the Trump administration tended to go its own way, asserting leadership through mechanisms such as the Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, the Biden team gravitates more towards international efforts such as this one.

The handbook observes that the working definition has been used by parliaments, governments, ministries, courts, law-enforcement agencies, city councils, civil-society organizations and (crucially) universities. For U.S. domestic purposes, the most important section addresses higher education, which has been a flashpoint for anti-Jewish incidents here.

It also observes that anti-Semitism in educational institutions often remains “invisible, unaddressed and unchallenged.” This is especially true when it is guised as anti-Zionism or criticism of Israel. This is a key reason why definitions are needed. Notably, the U.S. government began using the Working Definition in its oversight of higher administration during the outgoing administration.

The handbook reveals that the working definition is quickly gaining higher-education traction worldwide. For example, the German Rectors’ Conference, representing 94 percent of students at German universities, adopted the definition, declaring that it “provides a clear basis for recognizing hatred of Jews and is thus an important tool in combating it.” The rectors observed that the definition “takes into account” Israel-related anti-Semitism. The Romanian Ministry of Education promotes the adoption, by universities, of a code of conduct on anti-Semitism that incorporates the definition. Cambridge University decided, in November 2020, to adopt the definition as a “test to establish whether behavior that is in breach of the University’s rules is anti-Semitic.”

Although U.S. universities have lagged behind, they are now beginning to follow their European peers. For example, in August 2020, Florida State University’s president publicly endorsed the working definition and its contemporary examples. And in September 2020, New York University agreed to incorporate the IHRA definition into its revised non-discrimination and anti-harassment policy as part of its settlement agreement with the U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. These institutions are overcoming political resistance from critics of Israel, as well as erroneous charges that the definition would stifle free debate. Used properly, the definition can facilitate free speech while educating all participants in the ways that some speech can be hurtful and some conduct hateful.

These new tools can help Biden integrate domestic and international agendas. The former U.S. vice president has spoken passionately about the need to address anti-Semitism. Working with allies who have demonstrated with this new handbook their commitment to the human-rights values that he champions, he can use the new anti-Semitism ambassador to strengthen American international leadership.

Kenneth L. Marcus is founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and author of “The Definition of Anti-Semitism.” He served as Assistant U.S. Secretary of Education for Civil Rights (2018-2020).

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

https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/why-are-people-fighting-the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism-655642

Why are people fighting the IHRA definition of antisemitism?

Here’s what the IHRA definition says, why its supporters see it as a key for fighting Jew-hatred and why its critics are fighting it.

By BEN SALES/JTA   JANUARY 16, 2021 11:47

antisemitism signifies hatred of Jews and the ways that hatred is perpetuated through age-old conspiracy theories and their modern variants. But what about when that hatred is expressed through rhetoric about the Jewish state? Is anti-Zionism antisemitism?
Those questions have divided American Jews in recent years — and are doing so again this week.
Establishment Jewish groups want Joe Biden’s administration to treat some anti-Israel speech as antisemitism. Progressive Jewish groups disagree, worried about chilling or criminalizing legitimate criticism of Israeli policy.
At the center of the debate is a 500-word “working definition” of antisemitism, published in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA. That definition seeks to provide a guide to which statements or actions qualify as antisemitism.
It ranges from stereotypes about Jews to incitement of violence to Holocaust denial. A growing list of countries, international agencies, universities and sports teams have adopted the definition in an effort to help them recognize Jew-hatred.
But its provisions on rhetoric around Israel have sparked contentious debate, which was heightened last year when President Donald Trump signed an executive order essentially adopting the working definition as a reference for adjudicating civil rights complaints on campus. This debate has continued even as the IHRA has emphasized that the definition is not legally binding.
Here’s what the IHRA definition says, why its supporters see it as a key for fighting Jew-hatred and why its critics are fighting it.
The definition is an effort to describe an age-old hatred.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is an international network of academics, museum heads and nonprofit leaders from 34 countries that promotes Holocaust research and education.
In 2016, facing rising antisemitism around the world, the alliance drafted a definition of antisemitism that was aimed at helping countries, institutions and organizations recognize when it was taking place, and monitor and record it. The IHRA definition was based on an earlier one formulated in 2005 by a European Union agency.
The later effort was prompted by “a surge in antisemitic incidents in Western Europe, with attacks on Jewish targets including schools and synagogues,” reads a pamphlet published by the American Jewish Committee advocating for the working definition. “Governments were slow to recognize them, let alone respond to them.”
The document aims to help countries do that and covers a range of different ways that hatred of Jews can manifest.
According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” and that antisemitism could take physical or rhetorical form and be directed at Jews as well as non-Jews, in addition to property and institutions.
The document lists 11 ways that antisemitism could take shape. They include calling for Jews to be killed, advancing enduring Jewish stereotypes about conspiracy and control, blaming Jews as a group for the actions of individuals or various forms of denying the Holocaust.
Six of the 11 examples have to do principally with certain kinds of rhetoric around Israel. They include:

Accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel or to a global Jewish agenda than to their home countries.
Denying Jews the right to self-determination or calling Israel a “racist endeavor.”
Applying a double standard to Israel that isn’t applied to other countries.
Applying classic antisemitic smears, like the blood libel, to Israel.
Comparing Israel to the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions.

The definition says antisemitism “frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for ‘why things go wrong.’”
It is increasingly being seen as the guidebook for fighting antisemitism across the globe.
Since it was drafted, the working definition has gained currency in a growing number of nations and organizations. To date, 28 countries — mostly in Europe — have adopted the definition to help them determine what constitutes antisemitism.
In December, the Council of the European Union invited the bloc’s 27 member states to adopt the definition. Various other pan-European bodies have endorsed it as well, and in 2018 U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the definition can “can serve as a basis for law enforcement, as well as preventive policies.”
Some nongovernmental institutions — such as universities, soccer teams and, recently, an international Muslim clerical council — have also adopted the definition as a way to identify antisemitism. Last year, 145 Jewish and pro-Israel organizations wrote a letter to Facebook encouraging the platform to use the definition “as the cornerstone of Facebook’s hate speech policy regarding antisemitism.”
The U.S. State Department uses a similar definition of antisemitism, which it adopted in 2010. President George W. Bush’s State Department had endorsed the definition’s predecessor in 2007 as an “adequate initial guide” to antisemitism.
The Trump administration was even more reliant on the definition. Last year, an executive order by Trump instructed the Executive Branch to consider the IHRA definition, including its 11 examples, when investigating civil rights complaints — including those filed to the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights regarding alleged discrimination on campus.
On Tuesday, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a coalition of establishment Jewish groups, sent a letter to Biden asking him to adopt Trump’s policy regarding the IHRA definition.
“We believe that all federal departments and agencies should, in their work, consider the IHRA working definition of antisemitism (with examples),” says the letter, which was sent on Jan. 12 and first reported by Jewish Insider. “We urge your administration to maintain and build upon these policies of the last three presidents.”
Critics, especially Palestinians and their advocates, say the IHRA definition inhibits free speech.
As adoption of the IHRA definition has spread, so have protests against it from coalitions of activists and academics.
The definition’s opponents say its clauses on Israel will have a chilling effect on debate around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They worry that in condemning some forms of anti-Israel speech, the definition will serve to label all critics of Israel, or pro-Palestinian activists, as antisemites.
“The effort to combat antisemitism is being misused and exploited to instead suppress legitimate free speech, criticism of Israeli government actions, and advocacy for Palestinian rights,” reads a statement opposing adoption of the IHRA definition made Jan. 12 by a coalition of American Jewish organizations with progressive positions on Israel.
Palestinians have said that the Israel provisions, including the one that bans calling Israel racist, serve to make Israel immune to criticism for its treatment of Palestinians and for what they view as its violation of international law.
“To level the charge of antisemitism against anyone who regards the existing state of Israel as racist, notwithstanding the actual institutional and constitutional discrimination upon which it is based, amounts to granting Israel absolute impunity,” a group of 122 Palestinian academics and writers wrote in The Guardian. “The IHRA definition and the way it has been deployed prohibit any discussion of the Israeli state as based on ethno-religious discrimination.”
In 2018, British Jews slammed the country’s Labour Party for adopting the definition but initially refusing to include several of the Israel-related provisions. At the time, the party was embroiled in controversy over mounting allegations of antisemitism against its officials and particularly its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a longtime harsh critic of Israel.
Debate over the definition has flared again in the United Kingdom after the country’s education secretary instructed universities to adopt the definition. While Oxford and Cambridge have adopted the definition in recent weeks, according to The Guardian, a letter published by eight prominent British lawyers last week argues against adopting the definition.
Defenders point to the definition’s nuance on Israel and support for free speech.
The definition’s advocates say the definition distinguishes between legitimate criticism of Israel and instances where rhetoric either crosses the line into antisemitism or uses critique of the Jewish state as a front for hatred of Jews.
The definition makes clear that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
The AJC pamphlet says the definition concerns itself only with “where and how anti-Israel animus can become a form of antisemitism, separate and apart from criticism of Israel,” and that “its careful wording leaves a wide berth for sharp and vigorous criticism of Israel’s government and policies.”
What’s more, the definition itself states that it is “non-legally binding,” and in introductions to the brochure, officials stress that point to argue that the definition should not be an obstacle to free speech.
“Non-legally binding in its nature, the working definition is helpful in public discourse as well as training for media, educators and public authorities, without impeding the legal right to freedom of speech,” writes Katharina von Schnurbein, European Commission coordinator on combating antisemitism.
What was supposed to be a helpful guide has become a instrument of division.
The irony in all this is that the definition was supposed to help resolve debates over what constitutes antisemitism, not start them. But the definition has become divisive as activists have sought to give it the force of law — something that, according to one of the definition’s authors, was never supposed to happen.
“It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code,” Kenneth Stern, director of the Center for the Study of Hate at Bard College, wrote in a 2019 Guardian op-ed opposing Trump’s executive order.
Stern added that he fears right-wing pro-Israel groups “will hunt political speech with which they disagree, and threaten to bring legal cases. I’m worried administrators will now have a strong motivation to suppress, or at least condemn, political speech for fear of litigation.”
Some pro-Israel advocates have also sought to widen the definition’s scope. In a New York Times op-ed about Trump’s executive order, White House senior adviser Jared Kushner appeared to interpret the IHRA definition more expansively.
Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, wrote that the definition “makes clear” that “Anti-Zionism is antisemitism” — though the word “Zionism” does not appear in the definition itself. In employing the definition, he wrote, the executive order prevented students from harassing Jews under the guise of criticizing Israel.
“It has become fashionable among Jew haters to characterize any discriminatory behavior — no matter how loathsome — not as criticism of Jews, but of Israel,” he wrote. “This is a lie. Especially on college campuses, where discrimination, harassment and intimidation of Jewish students has become commonplace and is routinely, but wrongly, justified.”
All of this debate is now associated with the definition. That’s why the question of whether the U.S. should keep using it as its framework for identifying antisemitism has become one of the first open disputes among American Jews regarding the Biden administration.

=====================================================
https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-how-israel-is-harming-the-war-on-antisemitism-1.9459655
https://theworldnews.net/il-news/how-israel-is-harming-the-war-on-antisemitism

How Israel is harming the war on antisemitism

Noa LandauPublished at 04:30

Behind the scenes, a stormy argument is taking place in the Jewish world between two camps that were aptly defined by the late Prof. Yehuda Elkana – the one that, ever since the Holocaust, has been saying “never again,” and the one that has been saying “never again to us.” Recently, this issue has been the focus of the first public battle within the American Jewish community in the run-up to Joe Biden’s inauguration as president.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is an international project that seeks to define what antisemitism is for countries and organizations worldwide in order to help them fight it, legally and educationally. On the face of it, this is a worthy goal. But the definition IHRA adopted in 2016 has become the subject of a fierce political controversy, with the Israeli government orchestrating and intensifying the drama.

The reason is the definition’s focus on examples of the “new antisemitism” against Israel as a Jewish collective. Or in other words, on whether criticism of Israel that reaches the point of anti-Zionism is necessarily antisemitic.

Thus, for instance, its examples of antisemitism include “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” An especially deceptive example, however, is “applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” After all, the Israeli-Palestinian situation is a very specific one, and so, presumably, is the criticism aimed at it.

These examples have sparked concern among many individuals and groups, including liberal Jewish organizations, that IHRA’s definition infringes on freedom of expression in a way that allows criticism of Israel to be branded antisemitic. And Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has proven in recent years that this concern is justified.

Netanyahu, the Strategic Affairs Ministry under its previous minister, Gilad Erdan, the Foreign Ministry (which has made promoting the IHRA definition a supreme diplomatic goal), and Jewish organizations funded by Israel have all argued repeatedly, citing IHRA, that the BDS movement, for example, is antisemitic. Israel has thereby proven that IHRA’s definition of antisemitism indeed has a political aspect.

In addition, the Netanyahu government has deliberately blurred the Green Line between criticism of Israel and criticism of the settlements, thereby further fanning the controversy. U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration then added fuel to the fire when it announced that it planned to label important human rights organizations like Amnesty International “antisemitic.”

Since the IHRA definition was drafted, 28 countries and numerous organizations, including universities and sports associations, have adopted it, with encouragement from the Israel lobby. Last week, the European Commission even issued a nonbinding recommendation on the matter. Israel would dearly love for Facebook and Twitter to adopt it as well.

Last week, in a step that flew under the radar of the Israeli discourse, 10 liberal Jewish organizations, including J Street and the New Israel Fund, issued an unusual joint call for the Biden administration not to implement its predecessor’s pledge to enshrine the IHRA definition in law. This was in contrast to establishment Jewish organizations, which have been urging the Biden administration to adopt it.

The inauguration of a Democratic president provides an opportunity for Israel to reconsider, in light of the fact that its involvement is harming the war on antisemitism more than it is helping. The politicization of this issue is clearly an unwise, erroneous step that has also proven counterproductive; it is a battle that has actually served to strengthen the BDS movement.

===============================================
http://www.bricup.org.uk/documents/archive/BRICUPNewsletter138.pdf
BRICUP Newsletter 138
November-December 2020
www.bricup.org.uk
bricup@bricup.org.uk
CONTENTS
P 2. Special Issue of Molecules: An Ongoing Saga. Malcolm H. Levitt, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Southampton
P 4. Limiting free speech (on Israel) and Controlling Virtual Spaces:
Adam Abdulla, Apartheid off Campus, University of Leeds
P 5. Terrorism and false claims of ‘Islamo-leftism’ add to troubles on French university campuses
Robert Boyce- BRICUP
P 6. Undefining Antisemitism
Tom Hickey and Jonathan Rosenhead -BRICUP
P 9. A statement from 400+ Current UK Students on IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
Palestine Solidarity Campaign
P 10. Americans for Peace Now Refuses to Adopt ‘Weaponized’ Definition of Antisemitism
Editor
P 11. The University of Cambridge Adopts the IHRA Definition
Announcement P 11. Report on systematic targeting of Palestinian academia News from PACBI P 11. Israel lobby spreads more lies about Palestine groups at New York University
From the Electronic Intifada
P 11. BOOK REVIEW
Steven H. Miles, The Torture Doctors: Human Rights Crimes and the Road to Justice (.
Derek Summerfield
P 15. NEWS FROM OTHER CAMPAIGNS
P 15. SIGN THE COMMITMENT by
UK scholars to human rights in Palestine.
P 15. NOTICES
NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: We welcome comments from our Supporters on any of the issues raised in our newsletter
2
Special Issue of Molecules: An Ongoing Saga
Malcolm H. Levitt, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Southampton
Scientific publishing is a strange business. Publishing houses make profits through the following extraordinary business model: (1) hundreds of highly qualified professionals perform thousands of hours of academic and scientific research at the expense of the tax payers or charitable foundations, (2) they and their teams produce with great care scientific publications conforming to rigorous quality standards, (3) the research teams typeset their papers at their own expense using freely available software, to the specifications of the journal, (4) the paper is submitted to rigorous peer review by other highly qualified professionals, performed entirely without pay, (5) if successful, the authors’ institution pays a large fee to publish the article in one of the many thousands of scientific journals, with transfer of copyright to the publisher, (6) the authors or institution libraries buy back the rights to view or use the articles, even if they themselves did all the work and wrote the article. Steps (1) to (4) are performed entirely free, at no cost to the publishing house. Steps (5) and (6) result in huge profit for the publishers. It is all completely mad and has been for years. The scientific world is struggling like an insect in a spider’s web to break free from this insane model, but it is remarkably resilient, for reasons beyond the scope of this article.
Not surprisingly this, to put it mildly, attractive business model has attracted the attention of all sorts of dubious operators, some of them respectable and some of them less so. One of the big operators in this marketplace is called MDPI (https://www.mdpi.com/). Its boss is called Shu-Kun Lin (more on him later), and although it is largely based in China, it maintains a small office in Switzerland presumably for residency advantages. MDPI runs 283 scientific journals, and one of those is a Chemistry journal called Molecules. Molecules has itself several sections, one of them being Organic Chemistry. At some point in the summer, the Organic Chemistry section of Molecules opened a special issue on a particular branch of Chemistry with a Guest Editor called Dr Mindy Levine, who declared her affiliation as “Department of Chemical Sciences, Ariel University, 65 Ramat HaGolan Street, Ariel, Israel” (see https://www.mdpi.com/journal/molecules/special_issues/organic_fluorophores).
This contentious affiliation came to the attention of BRICUP and PACBI (The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel) in July. I was asked if I could help to raise the issue of the affiliation and I agreed. I thought the best way was to contact the editorial board of the special issue and request that the author’s affiliation is corrected to one meeting international standards. As the readers of this newsletter will know very well, Ariel is not in Israel. I should mention that I am a UK scientist with a lifetime of experience in chemistry and physics and my reading of the situation was that the best way to handle this issue was to avoid stirring up a political campaign, with open letters, press releases and the like, but to calmly raise the issue through the academic channels. My experience of the vast majority of scientists is that political campaigns or stunts are a big turn-off, with few exceptions. I know that this view may not be entirely consonant with BRICUP members, but that was, and remains, my reading of the situation.
While preparing to contact the editorial board I was astonished to discover that just the Organic Chemistry section of Molecules has 69 members. This is very unusual – the editorial boards of most journals have no more than 10-20 members. The reason that MDPI journals have enormous editorial boards is not because those members actually do anything. It’s seen as good for one’s CV to be on the editorial board of a journal. In return for the nominal kudos, one of the expectations of an editorial board member is that they contribute an article a year to the journal. Hence by appointing 69 scientists to the editorial board, the Organic Section of Molecules (note -just one section of a single journal) more or less ensures about 50 articles a year, together with its publication charges. Repeated over all sections of all 283 journals of MDPI, this constitutes a very nice stable profit for doing absolutely nothing except counting the income. Nice.
Anyway, I spent a good afternoon tracking down and emailing all 69 members. The email I sent was very restrained and professional in tone, and
3
merely proposed that the Guest Editor should be requested to correct her affiliation to one conforming to international law. I cited at least one UN resolution on the status of the occupied territories. I deliberately did not suggest a specific corrected affiliation since I did not think, and still do not think, that is a wise or appropriate thing to do. It’s likely that my view differs from many other BRICUP members here, but I do not consider myself qualified to propose the correct form of the affiliation of someone living in Ariel. However, I do consider it within my rights to point out that “Ariel, Israel” is not correct under international law.
I did not know at the time, but later came to know that the American Physical Society, an academic society that also publishes a raft of academic journals, some of them the best in the field, had already adopted an explicit policy on the acceptable form of affiliations, for example “Ariel University, Ariel, West Bank”, see https://journals.aps.org/prl/authors/independent-nations#gaza. If I had known this, I would have used that information.
Anyway, after sending that email, nothing appeared to happen, except that I received two or three supportive responses from members of the editorial board. However, on 14 September, I was copied in to an email from the section managing editor of Molecules to one of the editorial board members, stating that “Our leader contacted Dr Levine to discuss, and Dr Levine disagreed to change her affiliation. And in order to avoid further mistakes, they decided to close her special issue and remove her information from our journal website.” Indeed, the reference to the special issue had disappeared from the journal website.
This small victory proved to be temporary. The subsequent developments are quite confusing, but I think instructive. My inclination was to bank this small victory, and start to chip away, using a similar low-key behind-the-scenes approach wherever the same issue cropped up again. Maybe eventually enough momentum could be built up to open up the campaign and make it more public. However, I felt that the time was not right. That cautious view was definitely not shared by PACBI, and in my opinion what followed was a textbook case of overplaying one’s hand, although many others will disagree with me on that.
Quite rightly, this was seen primarily as a PACBI issue (and indeed, they had originally raised the issue with BRICUP who had got me involved.) But, in going for the declaration of a big victory with attendant press releases and open letters, the gains were lost. In my view it was a case of misguided overreach. A Zoom call between several of us ended up with an agreement to publish a press release and an open letter (although my recollection of the call seems to differ a bit from the others.) PACBI issued a press release which contained the following phrases: “Nobel Chemistry Laureate George P Smith and Royal Society Fellow Malcolm H Levitt congratulate journal on principled decision”. In a letter to the editors, they urged the journal to “correctly and factually” indicate the professor’s affiliation as “Ariel University, illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel, Occupied Palestinian Territory”. see https://noarielties.org/2020/09/28/scientific-journal-refuses-normalization-of-illegal-israeli-settlement-based-ariel-university/.
Although I have omitted some of the intermediate text, the press release can certainly be read as meaning that I, and also George P Smith, demanded that the journal corrected the affiliation to include “illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel”. As stated above, that is not strictly accurate. I never suggested such an affiliation, and I would not have done so. To be fair, I agreed to sign this press release, having failed to read it closely enough.
Possibly the only people who read the press release were at the offices of the Jerusalem Post in Israel. They published an article on 5 October stating that “The group is led by Prof. George Smith, winner of the 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, and Prof. Malcolm Levitt, a Fellow of the Royal Society. The group asked the journal to change the address to say “Ariel University, illegal Israeli settlement of Ariel, Occupied Palestinian Territory’.” As you can imagine from my views above, I was not at all happy about this. In fact, I felt that I and George were now branded as well-meaning but misguided idiots indulging in a stunt, which was of course, precisely the intention of the Jerusalem Post. George and I immediately received, as expected, a good portion of hate email. More importantly, the fuss caused the journal to reverse its decision. Indeed, the special issue has been reinstated (link above) and
4
will now appear with “Ariel, Israel” as the affiliation of the Guest Editor.
There is a curious sequel. George Smith, who is indeed a Nobel Laureate and a quite extraordinary person, managed to get in contact with Shu-Kun Lin, the director of MDPI. He asked him in a measured and polite email to reconsider the decision to reinstate the special issue. He received this terse reply from the man himself: “If your guys are scholars please do research. The political issue is not your business.” George and I discussed this, and I followed up with a polite email to Lin which sneakily informed him that George was a Nobel Prize winner and that maybe someone had hacked his (Lin’s) account since his email was so out of character. To my astonishment I got a prompt response from Lin apologising for his email to George, saying that he was very busy and had responded hastily, etc., and that he would consider the issue further, in light of the APS policy (see above). However, nothing has happened. That’s where we are now.
I think that for BRICUP members there is quite a bit to consider and discuss here. Did the cautious and low-key approach lead to a small but concrete gain which was thrown away? Or was the loss of the small gain a small price to pay for the attendant publicity and coverage? I have my own view.
Limiting free speech (on Israel) and Controlling Virtual Spaces:
How voices are shut down, dissent limited and topics taken off the agenda.
Adam Abdulla, Apartheid off Campus, University of Leeds
Universities and students’ unions should be the bastions of free speech and academic debate; they are meant to be open spaces for debate where faculty and students are encouraged to engage in critical discussions around issues that shape our world. It would seem, however, that some issues are more desirable than others and that some voices are more equal than others. Have we discovered the limit of free speech on western campuses and are we entering a time when arbitrary censorship of dissent will be the hallmark of higher education with virtual spaces curated by ‘big tech’? More particularly, what are the implications of marginalising Palestinian and Muslim voices in academic institutions that are also materially complicit in the continuation of Israeli violations of international law, at a time when the fight against racism and decolonisation is used as a marketing technique by universities both in the UK and the US?
In late October 2020, Zoom unilaterally deleted an online event which was originally going to be co-hosted by the Leeds University Union Palestine Solidarity Group (PSG) titled: ‘We Will Not Be Silent with Leila Khaled’. The event was in solidarity with the Palestinian feminist, freedom fighter and organiser who was prevented by the company from participating in an online panel on feminism and marginalisation of women’s voices and dissent on 23 September. The panel was organised by Professor Rabab Abdulhadi of the San Francisco State University, which failed to support Professor Abdulhadi and bowed to pressures from pro-Israel legal groups and Zoom.
Professor Abdulhadi and the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (USACBI) thereupon urged solidarity groups at universities across the world to take action and organise online events to demonstrate their resistance to Zoom censorship and pressure from Zionist lobbying groups. The various groups were invited to show a video of Leila Khaled speaking on various occasions about her people’s resistance to the Israeli occupation and colonisation of their land, which has been going on continuously for nearly a hundred years with the support of major Western powers (notably the UK and US). Rising to prominence as a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in the 70s, Leila Khaled was the first woman to hijack an aeroplane and was the feminist face of the armed struggle against the Israeli military Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Labelled a terrorist by some, today she is an advocate of the boycott of Israel, recalling the successful campaign against Apartheid South Africa and the global solidarity with the ANC’s armed struggle. Given the historical context and Leila Khaled’s long-held support for voluntary non-violent BDS, the cancellation of her platform and the silencing of her voice should disturb every progressive
5
academic and student who cares about the struggle for global justice and academic freedom.
After deleting the event, Zoom went on to disable the present author’s private account. In response to the Zoom censorship and pressure from the Leeds University Union (LUU), the organisers decided that PSG would not hold the event. Instead it was held by Apartheid Off Campus (a network of UK student activists), an organisation unaffiliated to the University of Leeds or the LUU. Despite this, an article appeared in the Daily Telegraph (27.10.20) falsely claiming that the events was ‘organised by the Leeds University Palestine Solidarity Group’, and stating that ‘The university has launched an investigation into how the webinar took place despite the society [Leeds PSG] having been denied permission to host it.’
This controversy comes only a few months after the LUU failed to protect the author from racist, Islamophobic smears circulated, in secret, by two senior committee members of Leeds University Jewish Society to more than 200 student societies at the Union during the final weeks of student executive elections. The smears included accusing the author of being linked to ‘terrorists’ and implying that I am a threat to the Jewish community on Leeds campus. In reaction to the smear, an open letter to the LUU and in support of the author was signed by more than 500 students and academics across the UK within days.
Additionally, two Jewish colleagues penned a second letter, complaining to the LUU and defending the author from the bogus claims. The LUU investigated the matter and penalised the authors of the smear but failed to deliver on its promise to revise its policies with special attention to the issues that pertain to POC and Muslim students. The recent behaviour of the LUU has left some students feeling excluded and marginalised by their union at a particularly difficult time for all. Indeed, being Muslim and Palestinian at this university it is a constant struggle to have one’s voice heard and perspectives respected. Unfortunately, this sort of treatment of pro-Palestine voices does not come as a surprise.
The University of Leeds is known to be complicit in the continuation of Israeli violations of international law in Occupied East Jerusalem. Despite being forced by student activists in 2018 to divest from a number of complicit companies and recently urged by sabbatical officers in the students’ union immediately to cut its ties to the Hebrew University, Leeds still maintains the institutional connection. The Hebrew University’s student accommodation in Jerusalem is partially built on illegally annexed Palestinian land, which amounts to a war crime under international law. It has also been accused of systematically racist treatment of Palestinian students and the surrounding neighbourhood.
This recent spike in censorship should be a warning light to everyone who cares about their ability to criticise institutional racism and engage in non-violent forms of resistance to oppression. Dissent and free critical academic thought are the basis for any movement that aims to change the status quo and motivate mass solidarity, whether for the Palestinian struggle for liberation, the Black Liberation struggle or the struggle of the indigenous peoples of the Americas against continuous oppression and ongoing land theft. We must unite in our efforts and recognise that oppression and violence come in more than just a physical form.
Marginalisation, epistemic violence and denial of agency are forms of violence that complement its physical counterpart. They must not be tolerated at institutions that claim to champion equality and diversity.
Terrorism and false claims of ‘Islamo-leftism’ add to troubles on French university campuses
Robert Boyce
A series of terrorist attacks in France carried out by lone perpetrators, culminating in the brutal beheading of a middle school teacher on 16 October has had serious consequences for free speech in the country’s universities. One threat comes from conservative academics who have intensified their campaign against what they call ‘Islamo-leftism’. This is an extremely vague term which in substance amounts to an attack on French Muslims who seek to maintain their religious and cultural traditions, academics who engage in post-colonial studies which allegedly encourages ‘separatism’ among ethnic minorities, and the social sciences in general. On 22 October the Minister of National Education, citing the
6
example of ‘Carlos the Jackal’, another solitary terrorist of no less than 45 years ago, publicly denounced ‘Islamo-leftism’. He claimed that the dangerous ideas that contributed to ‘Islamo-leftism’, having originated in the United States, were spreading like a virus through French universities and were responsible for the current bout of terrorism. Almost immediately several hundred academics signed a petition in support of the Minister, followed by a more measured counter-petition denouncing this threat to free speech, teaching and research on campus. (The counter-manifesto can be found here )
In the midst of this controversy the French government adopted a bill on financing for future academic research which includes a clause that would inflict a year in prison and a fine of 7,500 euros on anyone who ‘disrupts the harmony’ of a university campus and three years in prison and a fine of 45,000 euros on groups who cause disruption. Rather than denounce this hopelessly vague charge, the Minister for Higher Education attempted to minimise this assault on free speech by lamely suggesting first, that there was really nothing new in the legislation which begged the question why it was introduced, and second, that the law would only be enforced against individuals coming from outside the university and was unlikely to be applied because university presidents would decide whether the police should intervene on campus, although this is not what the law actually states. Not surprisingly these assurances failed to dissuade the association of university presidents from declaring ‘no confidence’ in the Minister and requesting the Prime Minister to replace her.
Neither assault has directly targeted campus advocates of Palestinian human rights. But it is significant that the academic at the centre of the ‘Islamo-leftism’ campaign, the philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff, has also been the leading populariser in France of the argument that anti-Zionism is the ‘new antisemitism’ and that leftist critics of Israel are joined in an unholy alliance with Muslimists. It seems highly likely therefore that the ‘Islamo-leftism’ campaign will soon fix on supporters of Palestine. It also seems only a matter of time before pro-Palestinian activists who challenge the presence of Israeli agents on campus find themselves charged with the crime of ‘disrupting the harmony’ of their university.
ON THE IHRA DEFINITION
Undefining Antisemitism
A comprehensive survey of key contributions so far to the debate on the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
Tom Hickey and Jonathan Rosenhead
This is an account of an ongoing campaign in which BRICUP is deeply involved. This means, first that some of the facts may have changed before you read this, and second, that some identifying details of individuals and institutions are omitted.
Beware, Rogue Minister
In October Gavin Williamson, the Secretary of State for Education told English universities that they must adopt in complete form the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) ‘working definition’ of antisemitism by Christmas, or face financial penalties. This instruction has caused widespread consternation among university managements. They know he has no powers to instruct them on matters of internal governance, and many of them doubt that he has the powers to take any of their money away in such a cause. However, to deliberately go against the minister, particularly one not known for subtlety (or even competence) is not done lightly. For many Vice-Chancellors, ducking and weaving might be the highest form of resistance.
A Freedom of Information request has revealed that Williamson’s initiative was not preceded by any civil service preparation. There are no policy papers within the Ministry on this subject – no departmental research on the current state of adoption, no systematic information gathering, no assessment of the consequences of the policy in terms of Departmental objectives, no checking that his proposed action wasn’t ultra vires. That is, it’s a personal political objective masquerading as considered government policy.
These circumstances don’t make the definition any less of a threat to university autonomy. But they do alter the balance of political and legal leverage and advantage in the ongoing tussle between the institutions and the Minister. BRICUP is engaged with other organisations to strengthen the hand of those within all of our
7
universities that want no truck with this definition, a campaign we will describe below.
Deconstructing the Definition
The IHRA definition itself remains what it always was: inadequate as a definition of antisemitism. It fails to capture some of the most virulent and most insidious forms of the disease; and its ambiguity and lack of precision leaves it seriously defective for use for either disciplinary, regulatory or legal purposes. It is also mired in controversy as an unsubtle attempt to block campaigns over the suppression of Palestinian rights by allowing them to become targeted as antisemitic.
As a definition, it has been widely criticised, but it is the illustrative examples attached to it that have been seen as most damaging. Their conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism has been noted with disapproval by the Institute of Race Relations; by eminent legal experts including ex-Court of Appeal Judge Sir Stephen Sedley; by Liberty; by leading academic experts on anti-Semitism, including Anthony Lerman and Brian Klug; by 40 global Jewish social justice organisations, and by more than 80 UK-based BAME groups. The most recent authoritative demolition of the definition, in this case specifically focused on Williamson’s attempt to impose it on universities, is that of David Feldman, Director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism at Birkbeck College, University of London. It was published as we were completing this article.
A legal opinion from distinguished QC Hugh Tomlinson has pointed out that restrictive use of the definition would violate both the European Convention on Human Rights’ and universities’ statutory duties under the Education Act 1986. In his conclusion, Tomlinson points to these issues which universities need to take extremely seriously:
“that public authorities cannot lawfully act in a way which is inconsistent with the European Convention on Human Rights’ protection of freedom of expression; and
that under the Education Act 1986 universities in particular have a specific statutory duty to ensure freedom of speech expressed in the widest terms.”
Related concerns have been expressed in the opinion by Geoffrey Robinson QC who concludes
“[t]he IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not fit for any purpose that seeks to use it as an adjudicative standard. It is imprecise, confusing and open to misinterpretation and even manipulation.”
Even the definition’s lead author, Kenneth Stern, a US attorney and member of the American Jewish Committee Against Anti-Semitism, is opposed to this use. It wasn’t constructed with a view “to target or chill speech”, he has said; it was, rather, drafted with consistent data gathering in mind. Stern has complained that the definition “was never intended to be a campus hate speech code”, and that when so used it “is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself.” (Stern is due to speak at a meeting on December 14th.)
Yet that is precisely how it is now being used by Williamson in relation to university campuses; by local authorities in the UK to deny meeting venues to pro-Palestine advocacy groups; and by US Secretary of State Pompeo to attempt the proscription of charitable organisations that are critical of Israel, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam. Since President Trump’s Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, the IHRA definition has, in effect, been codified into law. It is being used in the Americas and in Europe to delegitimise the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. The general purpose is to silence the voice of Palestinians, and to prevent any criticism that requires Israel to meet the demands of international law.
Palestinians have long warned that the widespread adoption of the definition and its examples would block campaigns over the suppression of Palestinian rights in just this manner. In November this year, 122 Palestinian and Arab scholars, journalists and intellectuals published an impressive letter of protest in The Guardian. One of the points it makes is that the definition has mostly been deployed internationally against left-wing and human rights groups supporting Palestinian rights and specifically the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign. Perversely, they say, it also sidelines the very real threat to Jews coming from right-wing, white nationalist movements in Europe and the US.
8
Academic opposition
For those of us in the Academy there is an additional concern: that wherever it is adopted, the definition will become a lever for external interests to press for the abbreviation both of the right to free expression and of the freedom of scholarly inquiry. This pressure would impact most intensely on issues related to Israel and Palestine, but also be felt across a whole range of disciplines from history and politics through international relations, archaeology, cultural studies and psychology, to philosophy and jurisprudence.
This concern is not a theoretical possibility – it has already happened across the world. In the UK there are numerous cases in which academic colleagues have been challenged, often by outside bodies, alleging that the content of their lectures or publications is antisemitic according to the definition; in some cases this has led to formal internal disciplinary processes. In all cases to date these charges have been found to be without substance, but their negative effect on free scholarship and debate is not limited to those who have been targeted in this way.
Opposition to Williamson’s attempt to impose the definition on universities is rising. The feeling against it can be judged from messages circulated by staff at universities where possible adoption is threatened. One academic wrote this in a letter of concern to the management and Academic Board of her university:
When mobilised for political purposes alongside its illustrative examples, the definition deters criticism of Israeli law and of Israeli government policy and of the illegal occupation and settlement of the West Bank. It can be used to prevent critiques of Zionism as a political ideology that focusses on its role in the justification of the colonisation of Palestine, or on its relationship to the systematic discrimination against Palestinians in Israel.
Another wrote
… as someone who has suffered directly from continued armed Israeli aggression against my country, I find that to be denied the basic right even to criticise this violence through the peaceful production and dissemination of knowledge is an abnegation of any principle of justice.
Concern amongst academics is not limited to the curtailment of academic freedom for research on, and teaching about, the Israel-Palestine conflict. Once that Rubicon is crossed the omens are that the move will be followed in the medium term by other government interventions to influence the diet of provision (the educational ethos of institutions, the range of disciplines supported, the character and purpose of degree programmes, and even the details of syllabuses). The beginning of an onslaught on teaching based on critical race theory is a pointer to the direction of travel.
Another staff letter of dissent argued,
I am very concerned that a concession by the University … to the threat from the Secretary of State for Education in the UK would have serious implications for the status of our Institution as an autonomous site of learning and research. For this reason alone, even were there no other grounds for its rejection, the IHRA definition should not be adopted by the University.
Opposition in universities to the adoption of the IHRA definition has been widespread. In some, this has taken the form of senior academics, and those who teach and research in the most immediately affected areas, writing letters of concern to their Academic Boards. Elsewhere it has involved adopting motions at branches of the University and Colleges Union (UCU) that are critical of the definition and urge their local Academic Boards and Councils to reject the instruction from the Secretary of State, and to defy his threat of financial penalties.
In one institution in which the Academic Board last year rejected the IHRA definition as unfit, the (majority lay) Council overrode that decision and announced its adoption, though with added caveats giving rhetorical support to the ideal of free speech. The response of the Academic Board was to set up an impressive and broad Working Group to consider how the situation should be resolved. As we write the Working Group’s report, the product of almost a year of intensive work, is about to be considered by the Academic Board that established it. This could become a test case for the definition, and for the right to academic rather than government control of universities’ internal processes.
9
UCU opposition
The UCU branch at another university made a submission to its local management which argued that the intervention by the Secretary of State was improper and that adoption would both be incompatible with the public duty of a university, and would also create legal and industrial jeopardy for the institution. Furthermore the adoption of the IHRA definition will embroil the University in a potentially unending series of procedural challenges to the authority of its management, in a potential series of industrial disputes as the UCU is obliged to defend its members against interventions forced on the management by malevolent or innocent but misguided external forces, in the exacerbation of differences of opinion amongst its staff, and in the inevitability of legal action that seeks either to force the implementation of one interpretation of the definition or on the contrary to protect staff and students from inappropriate managerial censure provoked by malicious accusations of antisemitism. Free Speech on Israel
BRICUP has been playing a central role in this campaign, together with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Free Speech on Israel (FSoI) and Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL). The three groups have jointly written to all Vice-Chancellors in the UK explaining the case against adoption of the definition, and urging a defence of academic freedom for staff and open discussion and freedom of assembly on the issue of Palestine. For institutions that have already adopted the definition, the letter was necessarily somewhat different. It asked what measures had been put in place to protect staff from malicious accusations, protect Palestinian students and their supporters from attempts to prevent campus discussions, and preserve the freedom of scholars to research the history and practices of the Middle East, and design and teach courses without fear of scurrilous attempts at intimidation.
Separately, BRICUP has written to every UCU branch in the HE sector to explain the case against the definition, to register the motions against the IHRA definition passed at successive UCU Congresses, to urge the branches to make representations to their local managements and Academic Boards, and to promise vigorously to defend any members who fall foul of malicious allegations based on the definition. It has offered UCU branch officers and activists the following model motion for debate in their branches:
This branch notes:
the Secretary of State’s attempt to force universities to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism through threats of financial penalty; that the definition has been criticized as both inadequate and dangerous by eminent lawyers and experts on antisemitism;
that its illustrative examples conflate antisemitism with criticism of Israel and Zionism;
that it has already been used to discipline colleagues’ teaching and research, and against campus meetings.
The branch believes that:
this intervention threatens university autonomy;
the definition threatens academic freedom, and seeks to outlaw support for Palestinian resistance, and specifically the BDS campaign.
The branch resolves to:
defend members and students facing malicious accusations of antisemitism;
urge Academic Board and Senate/Council to reject the definition;
circulate the BRICUP statement to all UCU members, and members of AB and Council;
organise a members’ campus (or Zoom) meeting on Palestine, Settler Colonialism, and the Threat to Academic Freedom.
If BRICUP supporters and Newsletter readers would like further information on how you might contribute to this campaign by raising the issue in your own university or school, or in your UCU branch, please contact us at j.rosenhead@lse.ac.uk .
A statement from 400+ Current UK Students on IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
As students in the UK, we are deeply concerned that the space to bring the facts of the past and ongoing dispossession faced by Palestinians into the public domain, including in UK universities,
10
is under severe threat by the adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism with its attached examples.
We believe that the IHRA definition is a threat to the fundamental right for Palestinians to describe their lived experience of oppression. The discredited definition, and specifically its illustrative examples, conflates anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of the laws, policies and constitutional order of the State of Israel.
We are therefore gravely concerned by the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson’s, announcement that he is actively exploring measures to force universities to adopt the definition, including cutting their access to funding streams. The vast majority of UK universities have so far rightly withstood pressure to adopt.
As a broad coalition of Palestinian civil society organisations warned back in 2018, the discredited IHRA examples erase Palestinian history and shield Israel’s far-right regime of occupation and oppression by conflating discrimination against Jews on the one hand with legitimate critiques of Israel’s policies and system of injustice on the other.
The concerns raised about by Palestinian civil society around the definition, and its illustrative examples, are shared by the Institute of Race Relations; eminent lawyers including ex-Court of Appeal Judge Sir Stephen Sedley; civil rights organisation Liberty; leading academic experts on antisemitism Anthony Lerman and Brian Klug; 40 global Jewish social justice organisations; and more than 80 UK-based BAME groups.
These concerns are not merely academic; they have unfortunately been substantiated by many examples across the globe.
The right of Palestinians to accurately describe their experiences of dispossession and oppression, to criticise the nature and structure of the state that continues to oppress them and to openly criticise the ideology of Zionism which informs the actions, policies and laws of that state, is a core right, protected under numerous international laws and conventions, including Article 10 of the European Convention for Human Rights.
Likewise we affirm the rights of all students, alongside all UK citizens, to study and disseminate information around the constitutional order and structure of the State of Israel, as well as to stand in solidarity with Palestinians facing continued dispossession and oppression, including through advocacy for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against the State of Israel until it complies with international law. As recently upheld by the European Court for Human Rights, advocating for boycott is a protected right under Article 10.
Attempts to suppress our right to bring information about Palestinian history into the public domain violate our right to free expression, and serve to render Palestinians invisible as a people. These attempts also contradict our academic freedom to learn, discuss, question and test received wisdom.
We call on UK Universities to unequivocally protect our right to describe the facts of Palestinian oppression, to describe Israel’s laws, policies and actions as racist or as constituting apartheid; to criticise the political ideology of Zionism and to call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel as nonviolent measures of accountability to bring about its compliance with its obligations under international law and its respect for Palestinian rights.
Signed
If you are a UK student, and would like to add your name to the letter, you can do so here
Americans for Peace Now Refuses to Adopt ‘Weaponized’ Definition of Antisemitism
Editor
Americans for Peace Now, a Jewish non-profit organisation, whose stated aim is to help find a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is refusing a request from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organisations to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism on the grounds that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition is ‘already being abused to quash legitimate criticism and activism directed at Israeli government policies’
See here * for further details
11
*Haaretz is currently offering a promotion which gives a first months subscription for just $1
The University of Cambridge Adopts the IHRA Definition
Announcement
On November 4th, the General Board of the University agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition on antisemitism in full, with clarifications recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 2016.
OTHER NEWS News from PACBI Monday , Dec 7th A November 2020 report from Scholarsatrisk (Scholars at Risk Academic Freedom Monitoring Project) documents Israel’s systematic targeting of Palestinian academia via: ▪️ House raids and detention without trial or charge of scholars & students ▪️ Movement/travel restrictions and visa denials ▪️ Barring imports of equipment & books
For more information, go to https://t.co/wCAPOJOn57 (https://twitter.com/PACBI/status/1335987903873372165?s=03)
Israel lobby spreads more lies about Palestine groups at New York University
From the Electronic Intifada, 23 October 2020
New York University has agreed to settle with the US Department of Education over allegations that the university had not appropriately responded to claims of anti-Semitism.
Two attorneys filed the complaint last year on behalf of a student who alleged that she faced “two years of extreme anti-Semitism on the NYU campus which has created an intolerable and unlawful hostile atmosphere for Jewish students.”
Echoing previous attempts by Israel advocates to silence Palestinian rights activists on campuses, the complaint accused Students for Justice in Palestine of creating the “hostile” climate due to the group’s criticism of Israel and its state ideology Zionism. But in the end, Israel lobby groups seeking censorship and punishment of Palestinian rights advocates barely got what they came for. The university has committed to tackling bigotry against Jews – but, notably, it has not explicitly conceded any undertaking to prevent criticism of Israel.
Read the full article here
MEDICAL CAMPAIGN
BOOK REVIEW
Steven H. Miles, The Torture Doctors: Human Rights Crimes and the Road to Justice (Georgetown University Press 2020), ISBN 9781626167520, 224 pages.
Reprinted from the Human Rights Quarterly
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/773457
Derek Summerfield
During the Middle Ages in Europe torture drew a distinction from its association with confessed truth, repentance, and salvation, yet by 1874 Victor Hugo could write that “torture has ceased to exist.” This magisterial book reminds us how much torture has outlived its obituarists, noting in the Preface that the US Office of Refugee Resettlement estimates that 500,000 torture survivors live in the United States alone. It would seem astonishing to the average citizen that a practice so noxious, the ostensible province of the barbarian—the very antithesis of the professed values and public reputation of the medical profession—should have so intimately involved doctors in so many countries, not least in Western democracies. Steven Miles sets out to exhaustively document and interrogate this role, a vital ethical task.
He starts with examples—from Haiti, Malawi, Syria, Turkmenistan, Ivory Coast, Bosnia, Rwanda—where the torturers-in-chief were
12
physicians themselves—before going on to the Nazi doctors and their trial at Nuremburg in 1946–1947. He describes a striking aftermath—the election in 1992 of Dr. Hans Sewering of Germany to the Presidency of the World Medical Association (WMA). The WMA had been specifically created after World War II as the official watchdog of the ethical behaviour of doctors worldwide. During the war Dr. Sewering had been in the SS, the Nazi organization most responsible for genocidal killings, and had dispatched over 900 disabled children to their deaths. It is telling—touching on the core question of impunity running through the whole book—that after the war Dr. Sewering experienced no challenge to his career and rose to be president of the German Medical Association. However, the WMA Presidency was exposed as a step too far and Sewering was forced to stand down. But in 2008, fifteen years later, he was awarded Germany’s highest medical honor. His obituary did not mention his Nazi past.
The WMA’s Declaration of Tokyo is the seminal anti-torture text for doctors. This makes it clear that the ethical duties of a doctor go well beyond not directly participating, or not being in the room where the torture is taking place. Whenever he encounters or thinks he encounters torture the doctor has a duty to protest, speak out, and protect the detainee. If he is a working member of a unit whose methods during interrogation include torture, he is in what Amnesty International has called “institutional complicity” with such practices, and this cannot be fudged.
Why do doctors collude with torture? The medical advisor in the Nazi doctors’ trial concluded that a morally lazy careerism lay at the core of most physicians guilty in this way. I think it is much deeper than that, touching on matters of personal identity. In a famous lecture on “Politics as a Vocation,” the sociologist Max Weber distinguished between an “ethic of responsibility” and an “ethic of conviction.” (1) By “ethic of responsibility,” Weber meant conformity to professional standards and accountability. In our profession this means the ethical standards by which doctors should practice, including a commitment to factual evidence— standards determined by peer opinion, by patients and public, employers, and the licensing authority. By “ethic of conviction,” Weber was identifying actions that were inspired by personally valued ideals, political or other philosophies, or identities. In my thirty-five years of anti-torture human rights work, and with an emphasis on the collusion of doctors, I have witnessed how regularly, in doctors, an ethic of conviction trumped an ethic of responsibility, even in matters of grave human rights abuse.
I will give two personal examples. First, in the early 1990s when I was principal psychiatrist at the Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture in London, we documented in the medical journal, The Lancet, accounts of the torture of Turkish Kurds (a persecuted people in that country) given to us directly after they had sought asylum in the UK. This prompted a number of Turkish doctors to publish protesting letters in The Lancet. One began memorably:” No state tortures its citizens unless it has to.” Second, in 1999 Professor Eran Dolev, then Head of Ethics of the Israeli Medical Association, told a visiting delegation from the Medical Foundation for Victims of Torture interviewing him that “what’s a couple of broken fingers?” in the interrogation of a Palestinian detainee for the information this could yield. (2) It seems to me that Professor Dolev and the Turkish doctor were both expressing Weber’s ethics of conviction, that doctors were doctors but also citizens, and here saw patriotism and loyalty to the state as the higher value and what was expected of them.
Moreover, Dolev was Head of Ethics, no less: what kind of ethical leadership had he been offering, for example, to the Israeli physician implicated in the Nader Qumsieh case in 1993, documented by Amnesty International?(3) Five days after his arrest, Qumsieh was brought to a medical center in Be’er Sheva, where a urologist diagnosed a torn scrotum and bleeding. Qumsieh testified that he had been beaten during interrogation and kicked in the testicles. The urologist later received a call from the Israeli military, and as a result wrote a second report which he antedated by two days, without further examination of the patient. In it he recorded that “according to the patient, he fell downstairs two days before he came to the emergency room.” This time his medical findings were recorded as: “superficial haematoma in the scrotal area, which corresponds to local bruises sustained between 2 and 5 days prior to the examination.”(3) The urologist’s original report disappeared from Qumsieh’s medical file.
13
These issues, sometimes referred to as the “dual loyalty” question, come through strongly in Miles’s account of United States health professionals like Larry James and James Mitchell in defence of their active roles at the heart of the “enhanced interrogation” program in the United States post-9/11. These professionals knew what they were doing, and were doing it willingly, unthreatened and uncoerced. There is a significant distinction to be drawn here: in many highly repressive states, protesting or refusing to cooperate is dangerous, and silence a survival strategy. In the 1990s in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the director of the Al-Basra military hospital and a doctor at Saddam Hospital in Nasiriyah were both executed for refusing to carry out punitive amputations ordered by the authorities for those caught evading the draft or for other offenses.
In drawing a global map of torture doctors, Miles describes physician complicity as a “pandemic.” Doctors monitor torture, fail to record injuries, and write medical reports which do not record torture, or attribute injuries to an innocent cause, as in the Qumsieh case above. Miles writes that it is reasonable to estimate that torture doctors ply their trade in more than 100 countries. Taking the specific example of the UK, he describes a troubled history regarding medically supervised flogging during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. His view that the UK and the British Medical Association have been reticent on the matter of holding torture doctors accountable is one I would entirely endorse. In 1976 the European Commission of Human Rights ruled that the UK was using techniques on prisoners in Northern Ireland that constituted “inhuman and degrading treatment” and “torture.” In 2014 two authoritative organizations—the European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights, and Public Interest Lawyers—detailed a total of fifty-eight allegations of UK doctors’ involvement in the torture of Iraqi prisoners between 2003 and 2008. In one case, from the Al Shaibah Detention Centre, the victim related that he told the doctor about the beatings he had suffered but the doctor made no comment. He told me he thought I had a stomach ulcer. He said this without examining me. . . . I told him that I had never had anything wrong with my stomach before, until the soldier had smashed me in it with the hammer. . . . My t-shirt and shorts were covered in blood from the beatings to my face and in particular my nose. The doctor could clearly see this and didn’t ask me about it. I told him about the injury I had received to my nose and that I thought it was broken because it was so swollen but he didn’t do or say anything.
In only one Iraqi case has a UK military doctor, Derek Keilloh, been brought to account, being eventually struck off the medical register. Miles comments that “the penalty against Keilloh appears to be unique in the long history of British complicity with torture.” This was in the case of the torture-murder of Baha Mousa, a hotel receptionist, in Basra in 2003. His head was covered by a bag for twenty-four hours and a group of soldiers beat and kicked him. He died of asphyxia with at least ninety-three injuries evident all over his body. Dr. Keilloh (who had unsuccessfully attempted to resuscitate Mousa) did not report his bodily injuries.
Miles ends the book with an extended account of what is the nub of the matter: accountability, and its flipside, impunity. We may wonder why only one case was brought against a UK doctor in relation to the war in Iraq when there was evidence against as many as fifty-eight. Why were the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council so silent, and initiated no proactive work to investigate credible allegations about the conduct of member doctors? In the US we witness the refusal of the American Psychological Association (APA) to respond to cast-iron evidence of complicity in torture by one of their members. By way of deeper implication, Miles tells us that in 2005 the APA was in covert collaboration with military intelligence officials specifically to create a cover for psychologists in the program, in effect licensing them to do what they had to do. Are national medical associations proactive in any country in relation to opposing state torture, and in ensuring their member doctors behave ethically in terms of the WMA Declaration of Tokyo? To pluck another example from the book, one survey found that three quarters of India’s physicians had seen a tortured person and one seventh had witnessed torture. What role is the Indian Medical Association playing in its silence and inactivity regarding such matters? It is hard not to conclude that national medical associations, and comparable bodies like the APA, function at base as buttresses and shields of the state and its policies. The effect of this, explicit or implicit, is to impart legitimacy
14
and support for what is being done, and to those who do it to hint that in the world of realpolitik medical ethical codes are largely window dressing. What this then instills is a sense of impunity, so vividly illustrated in the case material in the book.
Beyond national medical associations lies the WMA. The WMA calls itself an “independent confederation” of currently 111 national medical associations. Some associations claim that their WMA membership is of itself evidence of their ethical probity. But in practice, does the WMA provide real leadership regarding doctors and torture, part of its core mandate as I noted earlier? Is it proactive and even-handed in investigating incriminating evidence from credible human rights sources? To these questions I offer my own experience as convener of a campaign regarding the well documented complicity of Israeli doctors with torture in interrogation units, shielded by the Israeli Medical Association (IMA). The IMA is a member of the WMA. In 2009, 725 physicians from forty-three countries made a joint submission to the WMA, attaching a dense evidence base—from Amnesty and other international NGOs, but chiefly comprising detailed case studies (some with the involved doctors’ names) compiled by the well-respected Israeli NGOs Physicians for Human Rights Israel and the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel. (4)(5)(6)) The result? No acknowledgement, even of receipt of the dossier, and only later we heard indirectly from WMA Council Chair, Dr. Edward Hill, that the WMA would definitely not respond to the material. But there was a response of a different kind, a libel lawsuit initiated in London against me personally as convener by the WMA President himself (Dr. Yoram Blachar). At the time Dr. Blachar was also the IMA President, as he had been in 1997 when he defended Israeli practices in a letter to the Lancet. He wrote that “the guidelines on interrogation recommend only that ‘moderate physical pressure’ be sanctioned. Even this is restricted to cases defined in terms of a ‘ticking bomb.’”(7) Yet in 1994 the UN Committee Against Torture had reiterated that “moderate physical pressure” was indeed torture, and also outlawed the “ticking bomb” justification. Here we witness the president of a national medical association defending torture in the pages of a famous medical journal. Our subsequent submissions spanned the terms of office of two further WMA presidents, but with the same result. The WMA is in violation of its own mandate, which is to ensure that its member associations adhere to its codes, but it seems it will not act when the case is Israel, nor I suggest if it was the UK or other influential Western states.(8)
Miles says that the WMA and others should craft and endorse procedural guidelines to help medical licensing boards convene and conduct hearings. This is right, but assumes a shared probity and a process free from political pressures—on the evidence in his book, it is very unlikely. And there is one bullet Miles doesn’t bite on regarding the WMA: the WMA is composed of national medical associations, so what happens when one of those is the principal accused party? And how free is the WMA of political influences? From our experience, the WMA is hollowed out and does not fulfill the ethical purposes for which it was created. (9) Overall, the evidence suggests that there is no effective supervision of the ethical behaviour of doctors worldwide, nor much political momentum to rectify the situation. Perhaps there never was. As Miles says, “a complete lack of accountability is the norm.” This is a mournful note to conclude on, but The Torture Doctors is a work of great scholarship, an essential piece of documentation and likely to be a seminal work.
1. Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation (1965)
2. Bamber H, Gordon E, Heilbronn R, Forrest D. ‘Attitudes to torture’, Journal of Royal Society of Medicine 2002;95:271-2
3. https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/009/1993/en
4. “Ticking Bombs”. Public Committee Against Torture in Israel/ Physicians for Human Rights Israel. 2007. http:www. stoptorture.org.il/en-node/69.
5. Doctoring the Evidence, Abandoning the Victim: the Involvement of Medical Professionals in Torture and Ill-treatment in Israel. Public Committee Against Torture in Israel/ Physicians for Human Rights-Israel. stoptorture.org.il 2011. https://stoptorture.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Doctoring-the-Evidence.
6. Adameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association. Adameer collects hard evidence on
15
torture and ill-treatment committed against Palestinian detainees. 2019.
http://www.addameer.org/news/addameer-collects-hard-evidence-torture-and-ill-treatment-committed-against-palestinian
7. Blachar Y. ‘The truth about Israeli medical ethics’, Lancet 1997;350:1247
8. Summerfield D. ‘The WMA speaks out on Iran but not on Israel. Why not?’
BMJ 2009;339:b4635
9 https://electronicintifada.net/content/global-medical-watchdog-complicit-israeli..
NEWS FROM OTHER CAMPAIGNS
Association of Academics for the Respect of International Law in Palestine (AURDIP),
US Campaign for the academic and Cultural boycott of Israel (USACBI)
Belgian Campaign for the Academic Boycott of Israel (BACBI) See their November newsletter here
SIGN THE COMMITMENT
by UK Scholars to human rights in Palestine
This commitment, which has been signed by over 700 academics across UK’s higher education system, is not to accept invitations for academic visits to Israel, not to act as referees in activities related to Israel academic institutions, or cooperate in any other way with Israeli universities.
It is a response to the appeal for such action by Palestinian academics and civil society due to the deep complicity of Israeli academic institutions in Israeli violations of international law. Signatories here have pledged to continue their commitment until Israel complies with international law, and respects Palestinian human rights. For more information, and to sign, go to http://www.commitment4p.com
NOTICES
Speakers: We are always willing to help provide speakers for meetings. All such requests and any comments or suggestions concerning this Newsletter are welcome.
Email them to: newsletter@bricup.org.uk
Register as a supporter of BRICUP
You can register as a supporter of BRICUP, and of the academic and cultural boycott of Israel, by completing this form.
We recognise that many individuals may wish to support our aims by private actions without wishing to be publicly identified. Supporters receive our regular newsletter by email and receive occasional emails giving details of urgent developments and of ways to support our activities. We do not disclose the names of our supporters to anyone outside BRICUP or share them with any other organisation.
Financial support for BRICUP
here
We welcome one-off donations, but we can plan our work much better if people pledge regular payments by standing order.
You can download a standing order form here.
One-off donations may be made by sending a cheque to the Treasurer, at BRICUP, BM
BRICUP, London, WC1N 3XX, UK or by making a bank transfer to BRICUP at Sort Code 08-92-99
Account Number 65156591
IBAN = GB20 CPBK 0892 9965 1565 91 BIC = CPBK GB22
If you use the direct funds transfer mechanism, please confirm the transaction by sending an explanatory email

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

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-combating-anti-semitism/

EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism

 LAW & JUSTICE

 Issued on: December 11, 2019



By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  My Administration is committed to combating the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world.  Anti-Semitic incidents have increased since 2013, and students, in particular, continue to face anti Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance.  While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices.  Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin.

It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI.

Sec. 2.  Ensuring Robust Enforcement of Title VI.  (a)  In enforcing Title VI, and identifying evidence of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, all executive departments and agencies (agencies) charged with enforcing Title VI shall consider the following:

(i)   the non-legally binding working definition of anti Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which states, “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.  Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”; and

(ii)  the “Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism” identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent.

(b)  In considering the materials described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of this section, agencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment.  As with all other Title VI complaints, the inquiry into whether a particular act constitutes discrimination prohibited by Title VI will require a detailed analysis of the allegations.

Sec. 3.  Additional Authorities Prohibiting Anti-Semitic Discrimination.  Within 120 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency charged with enforcing Title VI shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, identifying additional nondiscrimination authorities within its enforcement authority with respect to which the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism could be considered.

Sec. 4.  Rule of Construction.  Nothing in this order shall be construed to alter the evidentiary requirements pursuant to which an agency makes a determination that conduct, including harassment, amounts to actionable discrimination, or to diminish or infringe upon the rights protected under any other provision of law.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.   (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

 DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 11, 2019.

======================================================
https://www.businessinsider.com/american-jews-response-trump-executive-order-judaism-as-nationality-2019-12

Many American Jews are worried Trump’s executive order on anti-Semitism would do more harm than good

Rosie Perper Dec 12, 2019, 4:41 AM
The annual national Hanukkah menorah-lighting ceremony on the White House Ellipse in December 2010. MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday with the goal of combatting anti-Semitism on college campus.
Three administration officials told The New York Times that the order would threaten to withhold federal funding for colleges and universities that fail to combat discrimination on their campuses.
Critics of the executive order included many Jewish people, who took umbrage with the order for several reasons.
On Wednesday, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and a White House senior adviser, published an op-ed in The New York Times about the executive order, which was signed by Trump.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday with the goal of combatting anti-Semitism on college campus.

However, The New York Times reported on Tuesday, citing three administration officials, that the executive order would classify Judaism as a race or nationality instead of just a religion — setting off a firestorm.

According to The Times’ report, the order would threaten to withhold federal funding for colleges or universities that fail to combat discrimination of minority students on their campuses.

The Times described the logic of the order this way:

“Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the department can withhold funding from any college or educational program that discriminates ‘on the ground of race, color, or national origin.’ Religion was not included among the protected categories, so Mr. Trump’s order will have the effect of embracing an argument that Jews are a people or a race with a collective national origin in the Middle East, like Italian Americans or Polish Americans.”

The move appears to be targeting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which encourages various forms of boycott against Israel for what it deems violations of international law. The group, which has become popular on college campuses, holds annual events like “Israeli Apartheid Week” to push for Palestinian rights.

Though not all Jews are Israeli citizens and not all Israeli citizens are Jewish, some Jewish groups argue that BDS activism fosters harassment or intimidation of Jews and Israel supporters on campus.

Some critics suggested that Trump might use the order to pander to Jewish constituents or as a goodwill gesture toward Israel, a close ally, as the country’s government tries to combat anti-Semitism and the BDS movement around the world. Others worried about the broadened definition of anti-Semitism would infringe on free speech.

Yousef Munayyer, the executive director of the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights, told The Times that the move would “silence Palestinian rights activism.”

“Many Israeli apartheid apologists, Trump included, are looking to silence a debate they know they can’t win,” Munayyer said.

On Wednesday, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and a White House senior adviser, published an op-ed in The New York Times clarifying the executive order.

“When news of the impending executive order leaked, many rushed to criticize it without understanding its purpose. The executive order does not define Jews as a nationality. It merely says that to the extent that Jews are discriminated against for ethnic, racial or national characteristics, they are entitled to protection by the anti-discrimination law.”

But notably, the group most vocally against the measure reported in The Times appears to be Jewish people themselves

Halie Soifer, the executive director of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said on Tuesday that Trump’s executive order represented “the height of hypocrisy.”

“If President Trump truly wanted to address the scourge of anti-Semitism he helped to create, he would accept responsibility for his role emboldening white nationalism, perpetuating anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and repeating stereotypes that have led to violence targeting Jews,” she said in a statement. “Instead, President Trump continues to view Israel and anti-Semitism solely through a political lens, which he attempts to use to his political advantage.”

She added: “President Trump is more interested in symbolic gestures that politicize Israel and use Jews as political pawns than actually doing something meaningful to ensure our security and that of Israel. The timing of this signing reveals this is a PR stunt, plain and simple.”

Others, including Jews, expressed similar outrage on social media.

The actress and former “Saturday Night Live” cast member Michaela Watkins said on Twitter that Trump’s reclassification of Judaism mirrored sentiments used by white nationalists and Nazi Germany.

“This is antisemitism of the highest order,” she said.

—Michaela Watkins (@michaelaWat) December 11, 2019

Some said the order appeared to question whether Jews are really American.

Kelly Weill, a journalist for The Daily Beast, tweeted that it “gestures at ethno-nationalizing American Jews right out of their country.”

Leah Litman, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan, tweeted that the order questioned the nationality of American Jews.

“Is this what we’re calling an executive order that purports to define american jews as … some nationality other than american?” Litman said.

—Michael Weiss (@michaeldweiss) December 11, 2019

Other people on social media said the move would put them in danger of anti-Semitic backlash.

—danielle weisberg (@danielleweisber) December 11, 2019

—IfNotNow🔥 (@IfNotNowOrg) December 11, 2019

Still others on social media, including Jews and non-Jews, said the order itself was anti-Semitic.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Violent anti-Semitic attacks have spiked to levels unseen in decades. Researchers at Tel Aviv University in Israel said in May that attacks targeting Jews worldwide rose by 13% in 2018, to nearly 400 cases. About one in four took place in the US.

The Anti-Defamation League said it found 1,879 anti-Semitic incidents reported throughout the US in 2018.