Last week, the Palestinian feminist academic Prof. Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian resigned from her position at the Hebrew University, where she served as Lawrence D. Biele Chair in Law at the Faculty of Law-Institute of Criminology and the School of Social Work and Public Welfare.
IAM reported on her case that Shalhoub-Kevorkian said in a March 9, 2024 podcast, “yes it’s time to abolish Zionism, this is where I’m going today, just abolish Zionism. Well, it can’t continue, it cannot, it’s criminal, it’s criminal. Only by abolishing Zionism, we can continue, this is what I see… they [the Israelis] will use everything to further kill, it’s a killing machine and it’s a necro, political regime that can survive only on the erasure of Palestinians… the body of the Palestinian, the living body, the dead body, the cut to pieces body, are all capital in the hands of this Zionist entity and of course, they will use any lie, they started with babies, they continued with rape, they will continue with million other lies, every day with another story, we stopped believing them. I hope that the world will stop believing them.”
Arab media also reported the case. The largest Arab media company, headquartered in London, named The New Arab and its affiliate site Arab 48, which belongs to the Qatari-ownedFadaat Media, stated that in the Podcast, Shalhoub-Kevorkian detailed her experience of “working and living under the Israeli occupation” and “spoke about the genocide in Gaza.” Consequently, she was suspended from teaching by the end of the semester in March and then briefly arrested in April for charges of “incitement for her vocal anti-war and anti-Zionist stance.”
In an interview, Alaa Mahajna, Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s defense lawyer, said, “Professor Shalhoub-Kevorkian made the decision early on… that it was impossible for her to work at a university defining itself as Zionist, but which at the same time talked about freedom of expression and education.” Her lawyer also said that Shalhoub-Kevorkian received compensation from the university for “its behavior towards her.” Her decision to resign was due to “conditions which have been created in the Israeli universities, which consider themselves to be Zionist, and criminalize those opposed this.”
Her latest article, “How Should We Read This War?” was published in May in the newsletter The New York War Crimes’ Nakba Day Edition, published by The New York Crimes Company, bearing the slogan, “Revolution and Resistance Until Liberation and Return.” Shalhoub-Kevorkian wrote: “We witness actual, overt academic oppression as they willfully ignore professional academic behavioral standards and freedom of expression in broad daylight. We see the USA, Germany, France, Britain and other western nations interfering in their universities, denying the right of freedom of expression to all except for those in power. All this calls into question the universality of academic freedom as well as the discourse of equality and justice. Zionism, moreover, benefits from anti-Zionism which it equates with anti-Semitism in order to silence ‘moderates’ and in doing so, erects an ideological barrier against any consideration of the Palestinian cause, in order to prevent thinking of a way out of the crisis beyond an exclusionary and substitutional logic toward the Other. The farcical show put on by the US Congress criticizing university presidents, resulting in the resignation more than one of them, has created a punitive system that works on behalf of the occupier. The ‘policies’ that have labeled symbols such as the keffiyeh — or the Arabic — language as provocative have allowed events such as the shooting of Palestinian youths in Vermont, resulting in one of them being paralyzed. All this state terrorism, this thought terrorism — the real, ongoing threats that we thinkers and researchers face today — result in greater determination on our part to refuse white racist violence, to hold fast to our human principles, to refuse genocide. The questions do not end here: there are struggles over truth, over numbers, over the validity of data, over scientific accuracy, over dates by voices that knowledge ultimately determined by the occupying forces.”
After hearing that Shalhoub-Kevorkian has resigned, a group of academics from the Hebrew University wrote in protest a public letter on August 29, 2024, to Prof. Asher Cohen, President of the Hebrew University, and Prof. Tamir Shafer, Rector of the Hebrew University. They stated, “We, members of the academic staff and administrators at the Hebrew University, learned with great sadness from the media about the retirement of our colleague Prof. Nadra Shalhoub Kevorkian from the Hebrew University, ending decades of studies, teaching and research. Her resignation followed a nearly year-long negative campaign, which included public letters from the university management and colleagues who sought to denounce and ostracize her, publications in the media, and even a continuous and humiliating police investigation (including an all-night arrest). Regardless of our positions in this particular case, we see her retirement and the moves that led to this move as a fatal blow to the Hebrew University and its academic freedom. Along the way, starting from the beginning of the affair in October, the university administration sided with the accusers of Prof. Shalhoub-Kevorkian and, in an unusual move, suspended her from teaching at the end of the first semester.”
According to the letter, “All this, without examining her words in depth and while making statements to the media that harmed her, her good name and her personal safety. The media took sentences out of context, distorted her words and attributed things to her that she did not say, and the university’s statements condemned her in blatant violation of the accepted rules of criticism within free academic research. In an academic setting such as ours, it is possible to deal with different positions, some of which are critical and shocking and not necessarily pleasant to the ear, to express disagreement if necessary but still maintain every guard for freedom of expression and academic freedom. Instead of listening to the words of Prof. Shalhoub-Kevorkian and dealing with her claims to the letter, the management chose to deal with half-truths and sweeping generalizations. When she was invited to a police investigation based on her academic articles (absurd in itself), the university publicly disowned her and not a single representative of the university stood by her side during any of the humiliating police investigations she was required to attend. Even now, the news of Prof. Shalhoub Kevorkian’s retirement is being celebrated in the media, with the addition of lies and half-truths and in violation of her privacy. “
The letter ended: “We hereby express our deep disappointment with the university administration, and our fear for our safety and the safety of our colleagues and students in the difficult days ahead of us. The painful end of this affair is a silent and paralyzing message for all university researchers, not least for Palestinian researchers. As written in the letter of the faculty members to the management in April, this year it was Nadera that was put on the dock without a defender, and tomorrow it will be each and every one of us.”
The undersigned are Prof. Amos Goldberg, Prof. Abigail Jacobson, Prof. Shlomi Segal, Prof. Liat Kuzma, and Dr. Einat Rubinstein.
Worth noting that Prof. Amos Goldberg, who signed this letter, has abused his scholarship in Holocaust Studies by equating the tragedy of the Jews in the Holocaust to the self-inflicted Palestinian Nakba. That the murder of six million Jews is comparable to the Nakba reflects the dominance of the post-modern neo-Marxist, critical scholarship in the social sciences. As IAM repeatedly noted, this approach does not require empirical evidence to prove a theory. Hence, Goldberg recently claimed that Israel is conducting a genocide in Gaza.
Shalhoub-Kevorkian abused her scholarship; she has become an anti-Israel activist whose academic writings besmirched Israel without providing evidence-based proof.
Not surprisingly, Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s lawyer told the Arab media, “Professor Kevorkian has received many offers from well-known and prestigious educational institutions across the world, including Harvard University in the US, and many other academic institutions… and she will continue her career in one of the world’s prestigious institutions.”
As in the case of a number of Israeli scholars who made a career of bashing Israel, such as Ilan Pappe, Neve Gordon, Ariella Azoulay, and others, Shalhoub-Kevorkian receives a boost to her career with a position in a prestigious university abroad.
Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian: Hebrew University professor resigns due to ‘Zionism’s hold on Israeli universities’
Palestinian scholar Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian has left The Hebrew University of Jerusalem due to her rejection of Zionist ideology’s hold over Israeli academia.
Ameer Ali Bweerat 30 August, 2024
Renowned Palestinian feminist academic Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian has resigned from her post at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem saying this was due to her rejection of Zionism and its “control” of Israeli academia in the wake of Israel’s “genocidal” war on Gaza.
The news of Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s resignation circulated on Wednesday as far-right organisations – such as the self-styled human rights group Btsalmo (In His Image) – celebrated her departure from the major Israeli institution.
Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s decision comes following an intensive public campaign of intimidation against her after she signed a November petition calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
Following her signing of the petition, which was also endorsed by over 1,000 researchers across the world, the Hebrew University asked her to “find another academic home”.
She was then suspended from teaching in March and briefly arrested in April for charges relating to “incitement” for her vocal anti-war and anti-Zionist stance.
Her defence lawyer Alaa Mahajna told The New Arab’s affiliate site Arab 48: “Professor Shalhoub-Kevorkian made the decision early on […] that it was impossible for her to work at a university defining itself as Zionist, but which at the same time talked about freedom of expression and education”.
He explained that she had taken her decision before and informed the university she would not be continuing her employment there in the new academic year.
Israeli media and organisations such as Btsalmo put Shalhoub-Kevorkian’s resignation down to the pressure placed on her by figures and organisations who condemned her anti-Zionist positions and her description of Israel’s war on Gaza as “genocidal”.
However, Mahajna clarified that the scholar had in fact based her decision on what was happening more broadly in Israeli academia, namely, the hold of Zionist ideology over universities, as well as the political persecution of those deviating from this ideology, and the prohibition of free speech.
The campaign of harassment against Shalhoub-Kevorkian reached its peak on 12 March 2024 when the Hebrew University temporarily suspended her teaching duties due to her stance against the war on Gaza and other anti-Zionist positions she had expressed in a podcast aired on March 9.
In the podcast episode named “There is so much love in Palestine”, Shalhoub-Kevorkian detailed her own experiences of working and living under the Israeli occupation and spoke about the genocide in Gaza, the Israeli authorities’ withholding of bodies, and settler violence.
Shalhoub-Kevorkian was later arrested from her home in the Armenian quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem on 18 April 2024, and her home was ransacked by police.
However, she was released after appearing before the Jerusalem District Court despite the police’s appeal against the court decision.
The police claimed that Shalhoub-Kevorkian had engaged in “serious incitement against the State of Israel by making statements against Zionism and even claiming that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza Strip,” and noted the “significant influence” her statements have.
Despite her release, she was subjected to several further interrogations at a police station in Jerusalem.
While her decision to resign was not recent, Mahajna explained that the news had been circulated publicly on Wednesday, after proceedings against Shalhoub-Kevorkian had continued in recent months.
“The right-wing organisation Btsalmo had filed a complaint to the university’s ethics committee against Professor Kevorkian in May, and we responded that they had no authority to submit a complaint against [her], and the university administration agreed”.
He added: “Btsalmo is a right-wing extremist organisation with a racist agenda against Arab citizens, which focuses its efforts and activity against Arab academics in Israeli educational institutions.
“The work of this fascist and racist organisation is to constantly persecute Arabs to satisfy the extremist Israeli right.”
Mahajna said that Shalhoub-Kevorkian had received compensation from the university for its behaviour towards her, and ultimately her decision was due to “conditions which have been created in the Israeli universities, which consider themselves to be Zionist, and criminalize those opposed this”.
Regarding her academic future, Mahajna said: “Professor Kevorkian has received many offers from well-known and prestigious educational institutions across the world, including Harvard University in the US, and many other academic institutions […] and she will continue her career in one of the world’s prestigious institutions.”
This is an edited translation with additional reporting. To read the original article click here.
In this essay, the noted Palestinian feminist scholar and activist Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian asks how to “read this war” — that is, how to understand the present nakba and genocide. This is far from a purely theoretical venture for Shalhoub-Kevorkian, but one that is central to forging paths for resistance and solidarity in the face of Zionist destruction. In March 2024, Shalhoub-Kevorkian was suspended from her position at the Hebrew University. Despite being reinstated after international outcry, she was arrested by Israeli police the following month and subjected to torture in police detention before her release.
This essay was first published in Arabic in December 2023 and appears here for the first time in English translation.
The last question Ghassan Kana fani asks at the end of his book Men in the Sun is: Why didn’t you bang on the sides of the water tank? Those who do not dare bang on the sides of the water tank die, because banging and shouting imply a hope for life. So what, then, does Ghassan Kanafani’s cry mean? Do remaining silent and cowardly, seeking stability, meekly yielding to despotism, and surrendering to exploitation mean death between the burning walls of the tank? The ethical task is psychological,
“… even the rules of analysis have all failed us.”
political — all-encompassing. The economic task is a necro-political challenge to economies of life and death that face indigenous people today. These two sets of challenges face Palestinian researchers at every step. How can we not bang on the sides of the tank ever louder, especially when we witness and painfully live through the ongoing butchery of our compatriots in Gaza; when we face the loss of our loved-ones, our children, our men, our women, our students, our colleagues, our doctors, our journalists, our society, our future…
How can we go on breathing every day when we live through the horror of abandonment and are subjected to continuous crimes? How do we build up our refusal as we sink under the weight of our patriotic, our intellectual, our lived social-psychological concerns. How do we find answers for our steadfast generations and our future in the face of a policy of endless genocide?
How do we read this war, with all its horrors — particularly in view of the fact that our chronology starts with the colonial settler project and its boundless criminality? Do we read this war in the context of physical injuries, such as those described by Dr. Ghassan Abu Sitta, to understand that these injuries are a confirmation of the criminality of the massacres of the colonial settler project? Should we walk together from the Baptist Hospital [aka Al Ahli Arab Hospital –trans.] to the Shifa Hospital, to the pediatric hospitals that were subsequently bombarded, to the cancer hospital and the Health Services Centers, and consider the significance of their targeting? And then to the Khodaj Center where we see continued mutilation of Palestinian bodies, and from there to babies in the neonatal units deprived of oxygen, their bodies left to rot.
Doesn’t this way of reading events suggest that the bodies of our children — the sons and daughters of our people — their dismemberment, their uprooting, their pain and its treatment are the political capital that feeds this massacre and this project? Or should we read this war through the military-political action in its spectacular approach to criminality, and the endless American support of these crimes, as well as the British assistance in these endeavors with Britain’s declaration that it would assist in the war against our people by providing military intelligence and espionage?
Or through the militarized political support of America and its use of veto power — in addition to both its overt and covert means of support and its insistence on dehumanizing Palestinian men and women? Or should we read it by looking at Israel and its current state of shock — with its crimes of revenge, and its surveillance and legal pursuit of the daughters and sons of our people? Or by looking at the violence visited upon Palestinian political prisoners, at the use of our children and adolescents as a weapon against us, in addition the re-imprisonment of freed prisoners? By looking at the shedding of the mask of democracy and civilization? Should we look at Israel and observe its desire for revenge?
in spite of the solidarity of the actual Arab peoples? The loss of political will of the Arab regimes underscores the vital importance of the people taking the cause to the street in order to shake and weaken immoral “law and order,” both locally and internationally. Or should we read it through the Palestinian Resistance shouting against and resisting the mutilation of both the living and the dead, shouting its opposition to systematic ethnic cleansing, proudly displaying its involvement in self-defense, demanding the right to live and to do so in dignity? movements the world over, demanding an end to the massacre and calling for a ceasefire?
***
We must consider all these decisions we have to consider. We face great challenges, as even the rules of analysis — its terminology, its criteria, methods of interaction, thought processes, the public statements — have all failed us. As an example, the methods of speech and analysis of such prominent thinkers as Judith Butler, Žižek, Habermas and others have supported the criminals by failing to understand the present crimes in their colonial context. They have
***
Or should we read this war through the manifestation of the total unmasking of the colonial settler project throughout the entirety of our Palestine? Or through the abandonment of nations — Arab ones in particular — that have not only lost political will but who, to the contrary, have worked towards marginalization of the Palestinian cause through normalization with Israel, along with continued, systematic uprooting and massacres
Or should we read it through an analysis of worldwide solidarity, and the refusal of people across the world, as exhibited by demonstrations
analyzed the issues through preconceived notions, those of a white racist mindset, when discussing an occupied nation and comply with the imposed “codes of obedience.” I can also assert that they are profiting from the situation; they are watchful of the specter of our occupiers enmity, and fear the punishment and losses associated with any opposition to them. Laws, norms, universal principles of international law, criminology, the study of genocide, feminism, medical sciences as well as military codes of conduct have all evaporated when it comes to Palestine, and more specifically when it comes to Gaza. Ideological conceptions and practices have whittled away principles like the “right to self-defense,” the “innocence of defenseless citizens,” like “child protection policies” or the “enforcement of international laws and norms” — their application now limited to one party only. These laws and norms have, in fact, always sacrificed Palestinian lives and bodies. They ignore the justice of their cause and their right to resistance in favor of the lie of “values and norms” that bear no relationship to humanity or socio-political justice — thus unveiling the lies told about the morally deficient system of “human rights.” Because the Palestinian, in the lexicon of world politics and Zionist hegemony, is not only seen as nonhuman but as non-animal as well, non-deserving of compassion. Palestinian children are non-children, undeserving of protection, of saving, of medical care. The law has been used only in favor of those in power. There are those who deserve to be grieved and there are those who don’t deserve grief. The conversation about what is just, about morality, about “fairness” and “justice”, that preceded this televised massacre have yielded to the influence and the diktats of McCarthyite Zionism. The truth is revealed. We have seen, for instance, what they have done to universities in this country [Israel – trans.], starting with the militarization of academia and academic research, campaigns of violent arrests (which existed previously but under the pretext of legality, whereas now no such pretext is needed). We witness actual, overt academic oppression as they willfully ignore professional academic behavioral standards and freedom of expression in broad daylight. We see the USA, Germany, France, Britain and other western nations interfering in their universities, denying the right of freedom of expression to all except for those in power. All this calls into question the universality of academic freedom as well as the discourse of equality and justice. Zionism, moreover, benefits from anti-Zionism which it equates with anti-Semitism in order to silence “moderates” and in doing so, erects an ideological barrier against any consideration of the Palestinian cause, in order to prevent thinking of a way out of the crisis beyond an exclusionary and substitutional logic toward the Other. The farcical show put on by the US Congress criticizing university presidents, resulting in the resignation more than one of them, has created a punitive system that works on behalf of the occupier. The “policies” that have labeled symbols such as the keffiyeh — or the Arabic — language as provocative have allowed events such as the shooting of Palestinian youths in Vermont, resulting in one of them being paralyzed. All this state terrorism, this thought terrorism — the real, ongoing threats that we thinkers and researchers face today — result in greater determination on our part to refuse white racist violence, to hold fast to our human principles, to refuse genocide. The questions do not end here: there are struggles over truth, over numbers, over the validity of data, over scientific accuracy, over dates by voices that knowledge ultimately determined by the occupying forces. Here in our Palestine, the failures of our times are embodied
There is a loss of moral compass, starting with the colonial-settler project and genocide, collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, racism, and continuing with what is termed “religious extremism” within and outside of the state, including the violence of Christian Zionism, where the concept of Amalek legitimizes our extermination via religious teachings and allegations. The continued massacres and even the so called “cohabitation” and peace, reconciliation, the rapprochement between the two people, pluralism and multiculturalism along with other forms of racist psychological warfare are playing with our minds and persons with the goal of depriving us of life and land, and are used for the type of silencing that legitimizes death and makes it inevitable, including death in “the tank.” Except that today we refuse not to bang on the tank. We decide to forcefully and solidly build liberation discourse and movements, and to end the deep-seated occupation. In 2023 truth stood naked in Gaza, and exposed the genocidal war, which included cutting off water and medicine, eviscerating human beings, trees, rocks. The genocide deployed psychological warfare, with its mercurial local and foreign dynamics, with racist and criminal standards, with its violation of the body, of life, leading up to death of Palestinians Genocidal methods, in Israel’s genocide on Gaza, are numerous. They include forced migration and extermination and deliberate targeting and stripping of men. Not that they can ever diminish the dignity of the Palestinian man, but precisely because they have failed to paralyze Palestinian society’s historical and current refusal of eradication. These methods prove their systematic ideological terror and underscore their intention to target our social fabric and societal bonds, to dehumanize our life force and our love, to deny childhood from our children, to target parenthood, to destroy the sanctum of the homes that bring us together and provide us with shelter, to level those homes, the schools, the universities, the hospitals, the playing fields, the cities, the mosques, the churches. They eradicate universal ethics (if there were ever any, because what is happening in Gaza has exposed the truth), to the point that state terrorism is now clearly revealed, visible and audible to all. Today we are left to wonder: when will the global appetite for genocide against the Palestinian who refuses to accept the laws of the jungle and rises up in resistance, refusing eradication, be sated? Resistance carries a price, and our history and our present bear the marks and the burden of a terrible pain.
***
But today we urgently need the following: First, Palestinians’ refusal of humiliation is our identity, our journey and our future. Our heads are held high, as we proclaim in our slogan, “Raise your voice high, death rather than humiliation, raise your voice, raise your voice, the one who cheers doesn’t die.” Second, Palestinian’s love of life is our path forward, a uniting factor that brings us together psychologically, morally, intellectually and politically. Because as Rafif Zeyada said, “We teach life” and as Mahmoud Darwish said, “We love life even if we have no access to it.” Third, to stress the importance of strengthening Palestinian awareness to the ways of the enemy’s propaganda. As Waleed Daqqa taught us, “we mustn’t forget that this is a war against the intellect”. Fourth, to analyze and to challenge, both intellectually and politically, the question as to how the world, with all its laws, standards and ethics, failed us and ignored our voices in the midst of the unseen massacres of Deir Yassin, El Tantoura, Lod, and others, up to Gaza today, even as the massacres are broadcast on television and other media. We need to resist the politics and discourses that enable and support these violent narratives. Fifth, to stress the importance of collaborative thought in order to build practical, analytical and liberatory policies today. I insist on the need for an abolitionist politics, which warrants profound and serious study such that we may offer liberatory political and intellectual analysis. The banging on the walls of the tank has become a matter of life and death in the midst of this carnage. Among the questions we pose ourselves now is: how is each of us to act in this moment? Where do we start and how do we proceed in our abolitionist and liberatory struggle in face of the Zionist genocide? Are there moral-political tenets we need to adopt together? How do we consistently stress today, together, that we refuse to accept militarized approaches and criminal judicial pursuits? Stop the massacres, stop the genocide! How do we struggle together, struggle along with unity and wisdom as we were taught by Kanafani. What is the role of each one of us in this struggle?
***
What should we do? What kind of movement do we initiate politically, intellectually, in terms of research, curriculum? How do we explain our narrative in the face of state terrorism and its supporters and those who work tirelessly to block the critical output of our intellectuals, thinkers and researchers, in the face of those who work in opposition to our resistance, whose condemnation of our efforts builds a barrier to understanding our political project? Our cause today, yes, our Palestinian cause, is the battleground that will define where our times are heading in terms of morals, in terms of work and life. We need to expose this history and today’s destructive political reality and we need to dismantle both of them. We need to dissect state violence in the Palestinian coroner’s morgue, we need to dissect those behaviors that were brought to attention by my dear colleague, the Gazan doctor Ghassan Abu Sitta, along with our activists, our children, our men, our women, our correspondents. We need to expose the authorities and the destructive powers of the state and its allies as so many of our activists and researchers, our pundits, our politicians have, and we need to bang on the walls of that tank… Yes, we need to bang on the walls of that tank not only to offer an alternative critical analysis of the facts, but in order to liberate our people and our Palestine, and to put an end to this genocide.
אני מצרפת מכתב שכתבנו להנהלה בעקבות פרישתה של נאדירה שלהוב קבורקיאן אתמול. המכתב עוסק בהתנהלות האוניברסיטה בעניין, ומביע חשש לחופש הדיבור, החופש האקדמי ובטחוננו כולנו.
Prof. Abigail Jacobson Eliahu Eilath Chair in the History of the Muslim Peoples Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies Academic Director, MA Honors Program in the HumanitiesThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem abigail.jacobson@mail.huji.ac.ilhttps://shamash.academia.edu
29 באוגוסט 2024
לכבוד:
פרופ’ אשר כהן, נשיא האוניברסיטה העברית
פרופ’ תמיר שפר, רקטור האוניברסיטה העברית
אנחנו, חברות וחברי סגל אקדמי ומנהלי באוניברסיטה העברית, למדנו בצער רב מהתקשורת על פרישתה של עמיתתנו פרופ׳ נאדרה שלהוב קבורקיאן מהאוניברסיטה העברית, בתום עשרות שנים של לימודים, הוראה ומחקר. פרישתה באה בעקבות מסע השחרה בן קרוב לשנה, שכלל מכתבים פומביים של הנהלת האוניברסיטה ושל קולגות שביקשו להוקיע ולנדות אותה, פרסומים בתקשורת ואף חקירה משטרתית מתמשכת ומשפילה (כולל מעצר למשך לילה שלם). ללא קשר לעמדותינו במקרה הפרטי הזה, אנחנו רואים בפרישתה ובמהלכים שהובילו למהלך זה מכה אנושה לאוניברסיטה העברית ולחופש האקדמי בה.
לאורך הדרך, החל מראשית הפרשה בחודש אוקטובר, התייצבה הנהלת האוניברסיטה לצד מאשימיה של פרופ’ שלהוב קבורקיאן ובצעד חריג השעתה אותה מהוראה בסוף הסמסטר הראשון. כל זאת מבלי לבחון את דבריה לעומקם ותוך יציאה בהצהרות לתקשורת שפגעו בה, בשמה הטוב ובבטחונה האישי. התקשורת הוציאה משפטים מהקשרם, עיוותה את דבריה וייחסה לה דברים שלא אמרה, והצהרות האוניברסיטה גינו אותה תוך הפרה בוטה של כללי הביקורת המקובלים במסגרת מחקר אקדמי חופשי. במסגרת אקדמית כשלנו ניתן להתמודד עם עמדות שונות, חלקן ביקורתיות ומטלטלות ולא בהכרח נעימות לאוזן, להביע חוסר הסכמה במידת הצורך אך עדיין לשמור מכל משמר על חופש ביטוי ועל חופש אקדמי. במקום להאזין לדבריה של פרופ’ שלהוב קבורקיאן ולהתמודד עם טענותיה לגופן, בחרה ההנהלה להתמודד עם חצאי אמיתות והכללות גורפות. כאשר היא הוזמנה לחקירה משטרתית על סמך מאמריה האקדמים (דבר אבסורדי לכשעצמו), האוניברסיטה התנערה ממנה בפומבי ואף נציג של האוניברסיטה לא התייצב לצידה במשך אף אחת מחקירות המשטרה המשפילות שאליהן נדרשה להתייצב. גם עתה, הידיעה על פרישתה של פרופ’ שלהוב קבורקיאן נחגגת בתקשורת, בתוספת שקרים וחצאי אמיתות ותוך פגיעה בפרטיותה.
אנחנו מבטאים בזאת את אכזבתנו העמוקה מהנהלת האוניברסיטה, ואת חששנו לבטחוננו ולבטחונם של עמיתינו ותלמידינו בימים הקשים שעוד צפויים לנו. הסיום הכואב של פרשה זו הוא מסר משתיק ומשתק עבור חוקרי וחוקרות האוניברסיטה כולם, לא כל שכן עבור חוקרות וחוקרים פלסטינים. כפי שנכתב במכתב חברי הסגל להנהלה באפריל, השנה זו היתה נאדרה שהועמדה ללא מגן על ספסל הנאשמים, ומחר זה יהיה כל אחד ואחת מאיתנו.
After many years of failure, the BDS movement has started to see success on Australian campuses.
One avenue of entrance is Australia’s National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), a not-for-profit trade union for Australian tertiary education. NTEU has close to 30,000 members and offices on campuses at most universities.
In a regional vote in mid-July 2024, the NTEU ACT Division, an NTEU branch, held a General Meeting to consider supporting an Academic Boycott of Israel, in line with the guidelines of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), and to make that a policy recommendation to NTEU National Council. More than 80 percent of members supported the motion titled “NTEU support for the Academic Boycott of Israel.”
The motion explains that “On 7 October 2023, Hamas’ terror attacks on Israel resulted in the killing and abduction of Israeli civilians. The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) has condemned these attacks, called for a ceasefire, and called for the release of hostages. The Israeli response to the 7 October 2023 attacks has also drawn widespread condemnation. The International Court of Justice found on 26 January 2024 that South Africa had established a plausible case that Israel has engaged in genocide in Gaza. On 20 May 2024, prosecutors from the International Criminal Court announced they were seeking arrest warrants for Hamas leaders and Israeli leaders, alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel has also failed to comply with international law in relation to an International Court of Justice ruling on 24 May 2024 that Israel must immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah.”
The motion goes on to note: “Since the beginning of the conflict, tens of thousands of civilians have been killed. At the same time, education has been systematically destroyed in Gaza. Every university in Gaza has been destroyed, and many educators and students are among the casualties. The destruction of Palestinian education has been referred to as a ‘scholasticide’. Palestinian civil society has called on the international community to respond to ongoing oppression and occupation by engaging in the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).”
There were earlier signs that a change was coming. The official position of the NTEU, titled “NTEU Statement on Israel and Palestine,” from October 20, 2023, states that “NTEU supports the policies and statements… that call for an end to violence in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and for the creation of an independent Palestinian State. The quest for a comprehensive peace between Israel and Palestine, based on the co-existence in conditions of security of two sovereign, independent and viable states, requires renewed international attention and support as a highest and urgent priority.” NTEU supports “An end to the occupation of Palestine; Development of a just and sustainable peace in accordance with resolutions 242 and 338 of the UN Security Council; In accordance with 2 above, removal of illegal settlements, withdrawal of Israel from all Palestinian lands and the dismantling of the separation wall; and Immediate recognition by all countries of Palestine as a sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, confirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in a freed and independent Palestine.”
The NTEU calls the Australian Government to “Recognise Palestine as a sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital; Until such time as Israel has withdrawn from all Palestinian lands, all illegal settlements are removed, and the separation wall is dismantled: Cease the strengthening of trade relations, including any Free Trade Agreement, with the state of Israel; and Suspend all military and intelligence ties and co-operation with the state of Israel; and Restore aid funding to the occupied Palestinian territories and immediately implement an additional and comprehensive humanitarian aid program for Gaza following the destruction of water, electricity and medical services and the resultant humanitarian catastrophe. Further, NTEU supports the work of Union Aid Abroad (APHEDA) and calls on all members to contribute through APHEDA to the aid effort in Gaza and the West Bank by donating.”
Later, the NTEU posted an announcement titled “University action and solidarity with Gaza: Supporting human rights and academic freedom,” published on May 10, 2024, stating that the NTEU “calls for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, condemns the use of starvation as a weapon, urges the Australian government to halt military trade with Israel, and advocates for a two-state solution to secure a just and sustainable peace.” NTEU “condemns the horrific impact of the war on the higher education community in Gaza, and recognizes the responsibility that Australian universities have to a global higher education community that champions human rights, peace, and democratic debate. We therefore, call on Australian universities to: Explore and implement practical support measures for affected Palestinian educational institutions, their faculties and students, such as the provision of resources, partnerships and institutional scholarships.”
In particular, “Critically review, disclose and divest from research and commercial partnerships with firms and entities directly involved in military support for the war on Gaza. Ensure that Enterprise Agreements and policies protecting academic and intellectual freedom are clearly communicated and vigorously enforced.”
Equally important, the NTEU states that it demands to “Critically review any university’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s definition of antisemitism, which itself constitutes a challenge to academic freedom.”
Moreover, NTEU is currently running a national campaign to encourage UniSuper to divest from Elbit Systems. UniSuper is a not-for-profit company whose shareholders are 37 Australian universities. It is governed by a corporate trustee named UniSuper Limited. All the Australian universities are represented on the Consultative Committee of UniSuper. In a public letter to Peter Chun, the CEO of UniSuper, NTEU wrote, “We note that UniSuper has a small investment in Elbit Systems, a weapons company that is one of the largest suppliers of military technology to the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). Given that the IDF is responsible for the death of over 35,000 civilians in Gaza since October last year, UniSuper’s holding in this company is clearly inconsistent with the fund’s values as an ethical investor, and can only damage UniSuper’s hard-won reputation. Based on this, we the undersigned call on UniSuper to divest in total from Elbit Systems and to work with other profit-for-member super funds to divest from Elbit Systems.”
The NTEU ACT Division, as stated in the motion passed in mid-July 2024, has used the rather novel accusation of scholasticide. According to Scholars Against the War in Palestine, a pro-Palestinian solidarity group, scholasticide was first coined by Professor Karma Nabulsi, a Palestinian expert on the laws of war at Oxford University. Nabulsi conceptualized it in 2009 in the context of the “Israeli assault on Gaza, Palestine,” but also with reference to “a pattern of Israeli colonial attacks on Palestinian scholars, students, and educational institutions going back to the Nakba of 1948, and expanding after the 1967 war on Palestine and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon.”
As happens with the US campuses, Qatari money bolsters anti-Israel activism on Australian campuses. Jonathan Muir, former Australian ambassador to Qatar, spoke to the media in early 2022, noting that cooperation in education remains significant in the Qatar-Australia bilateral relations, undertaking various projects between academic institutions. More specifically, “Qatar and Australia have done a number of research projects – between Qatar Foundation, Qatar University, and about 23 Australian universities over the past few years.”
For an unknown reason, Australia’s NTEU adopted the false narrative of the Palestinians, which blames Israel for sabotaging the creation of a Palestinian state. The NTEU has never mentioned the numerous opportunities that the Palestinians had to create a state, nor the enormous effort that Iran mounted to sabotage the Oslo peace process and other opportunities.
Even worse, the NTEU has rejected the Working Definition of Antisemitism, which was adopted widely.
Instead of boycotting Israel, Australia and other Western countries should find out who is behind the calls to boycott Israel and turn the table against them. Better still, Western governments should censure Qatar for sponsoring terrorism.
NTEU ACT members vote to support Academic Boycott of Israel
Motion supported by more than 80 per cent at Division General Meeting
NTEU ACT Division held a General Meeting of members on Monday 15 July 2024 to consider whether to support an Academic Boycott of Israel in line with the guidelines of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), and to make that a policy recommendation to NTEU National Council.
More than 80 per cent of members supported the following motion:
Motion: NTEU support for the Academic Boycott of Israel
Preamble: On 7 October 2023, Hamas’ terror attacks on Israel resulted in the killing and abduction of Israeli civilians. The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) has condemned these attacks, called for a ceasefire, and called for the release of hostages.
The Israeli response to the 7 October 2023 attacks has also drawn widespread condemnation. The International Court of Justice found on 26 January 2024 that South Africa had established a plausible case that Israel has engaged in genocide in Gaza. On 20 May 2024, prosecutors from the International Criminal Court announced they were seeking arrest warrants for Hamas leaders and Israeli leaders, alleging war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel has also failed to comply with international law in relation to an International Court of Justice ruling on 24 May 2024 that Israel must immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah.
Since the beginning of the conflict, tens of thousands of civilians have been killed.
At the same time, education has been systematically destroyed in Gaza. Every university in Gaza has been destroyed, and many educators and students are among the casualties. The destruction of Palestinian education has been referred to as a ‘scholasticide’.
NTEU policy positions on international issues are determined at the national level – by National Council as the NTEU’s highest decision-making body, and by National Executive in between meetings of National Council. A Division General Meeting can recommend policy positions for consideration by National Council or National Executive in accordance with Rule 21.1 and Rule 22.3 of the NTEU Rules.
NTEU ACT Division notes:
NTEU position on Israel and Palestine (NTEU Policy Manual, see ‘Israel and Palestine’ under ‘International’);
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) statement on Gaza, noting that NTEU is affiliated with ACTU (ACTU statement, 22 April 2024);
Education International (EI) statement ‘Global Student Forum and Education International joint statement on Palestine protests on university campuses’, noting that NTEU is affiliated with EI (EI statement, 3 May 2024);
NTEU statement ‘University action and solidarity with Gaza: Supporting human rights and academic freedom’ (NTEU national statement, 10 May 2024); and
This meeting of NTEU ACT Division members, in accordance with Rule 21.1 and Rule 22.3 of the NTEU Rules, makes the following policy recommendation to 2024 NTEU National Council:
UNSW and University of Melbourne NTEU branches pass BDS motions in landslide votes
In landslide votes, they each called on their respective universities to endorse an academic boycott, divestment from weapons and arms manufacturers and end its relationships with Israeli universities, in accordance with the demands of Palestinians.
On Tuesday August 20, the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) branch at UNSW passed a motion endorsing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) while the Melbourne NTEU branch meeting took place today with 315 people present and a 97% vote in favour.
In landslide votes, they each called on their respective universities to endorse an academic boycott, divestment from weapons and arms manufacturers and end its relationships with Israeli universities, in accordance with the demands of Palestinians.
The UNSW deemed the motion as befitting an “urgency of action” given the International Court of Justice (ICJ) preliminary ruling that Israel is “plausibly committing genocide”, as well as the destruction of all universities in Gaza and the targeting of academics.
The UniMelb motion similarly noted that Israel is “committing genocide in the Gaza Strip” detailing the physical, human, scholastic, medical, and institutional facets, and backed the 19 July by the ICJ which confirmed that Israel is “responsible for the crime of apartheid” and its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories.
They emphasised the “direct involvement of Israeli universities in perpetuating genocide in Gaza and Israeli apartheid, through their roles in weapons research and military training”, and therefore UniMelb’s institutional ties to universities and “weapons manufacturers that arm or support Israel and other repressive regimes.”
As such, the “potential exposure of staff and students to moral and even legal censure” via this connection to war crimes was highlighted, and that because of the ICJ’s ruling for states, there is an obligation for all institutions to “not to enter economic, trade, or investment relations with Israel” that assist and maintain Israel’s occupation.
The UNSW NTEU demanded that Management:
Disclose total monetary figures awarded to UNSW in research contracts with complicit companies
Disclose subject matter of said research
Cut ties with all organisations enabling violence in Gaza
Establish international scholarships for Palestinians arriving from Gaza and partnerships with Palestinian academics and universities
Replace the funding of all staff whose positions depend on arms manufacturers with research for the public good
Ensure protest on campus and academic freedom in relation to Palestine is protected
The UniMelb motion shared the aforementioned demands, in addition to calling for:
Management to cut ties with and cease partnerships with “the defence industry/sector, the weapons industry and militaries in general”, including research collaborations
Amendments to its Gift Policy “to abstain from accepting gifts from donors in the defence sector”
Amendment to its anti-racism commitment by ending its adoption of the controversial (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism which conflates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism
Join the Scholars at Risk program and host endangered Palestinian academics
Both branches specified that this motion “does not prevent collaboration with individual academics” rather any collaborations with Israeli universities or those “officially mediated” by Israeli institutions.
The UNSW branch also reiterated that “support for Palestine and a commitment to justice is union business” having previously passed motions condemning the 2021 forced evictions of Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah, and another in solidarity with Palestinians experiencing genocidal violence after the October 7 attack, calling for an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian aid.
Following a Government Information (Public Access) Act 2009, UNSW was revealed to have ties to companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, who have research contracts with the US Department of Airforce, Army, and the Navy, and institutional partnerships with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design.Similarly, UniMelb is known to have ties to Lockheed Martin, Boeing and BAE Systems, and partnerships with the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Technion — Israel Institute of Technology.
When asked to comment on the passing of the motion, a spokesperson for UNSW said they are “committed to driving positive societal impact which includes contributing to the security and cohesion of Australia and the wider global community.”
They reiterated their unequivocal support for academic freedom and commitment to “conducting and managing research responsibly and with integrity” including in “joint research and collaboration with international research partners… critical to Australia’s success, security and advancement.”
“The University’s mandatory disclosure scheme for foreign affiliations and partnerships enables consideration of potential risks of our international engagements and fulfilment of our disclosure obligations to government.”
The spokesperson also spoke to the establishment of an Environmental Social Governance (ESG) Advisory Group which will “further focus alignment and reporting” on “environmental, social and governance goals and outcomes” as well as review “investment frameworks, supply chains, policies, procedures and practices… [and] more proactive and transparent reporting.”
David Gonzalez, NTEU branch president at UniMelb said in a press release that “staff and students have been surveilled, silenced and intimidated repeatedly by University management when expressing views against the death and destruction unfolding in Gaza.”
Gonzalez went on to address Chancellor Jane Hansen and Vice-Chancellor Duncan Maskell, asking them to end the University’s “institutional support of a genocide” and “stop asking staff to be complicit.”
Both NTEU branches concluded by calling for a widespread pressure campaign on the University and called upon NTEU branches across Australia to pass similar motions.
USyd’s NTEU branch passed a motion in favour of an academic institutional boycott of Israel on May 9 of this year, which also provided the basis for UniMelb’s motion.
‘No exchange with Technion, they help Israel drop their bombs’: Students protest medical school’s exchange program with Technion
The Faculty of Medicine currently has an exchange program with Israeli Institute of Technology – Technion – in occupied Palestine, the institute behind the D9 bulldozers used to demolish stolen Palestinian neighbourhoods and hide graves in Gaza.
At 1pm on Wednesday August 21, students and staff gathered in front of F23 to protest the University of Sydney’s ongoing ties with Israeli universities.
The Faculty of Medicine currently has an exchange program with Israeli Institute of Technology – Technion – in occupied Palestine, the institute behind the D9 bulldozers used to demolish stolen Palestinian neighbourhoods and hide graves in Gaza.
The rally opened with chants of “Mark Scott, can’t you hear, we won’t build your weapons here,” and “Uni is for education, not for Gaza’s decimation,” led by Midhat Jafri, a member of Students Against War (SAW). Rally chair, Vieve Carsnew (SAW) opened by linking the struggles of Indigenous peoples in Australia and Palestine, and condemning Vice-Chancellor Mark Scott for his response to the Student General Meeting where he called those in attendance “terrorist sympathisers”.
The first speaker, Daej Arab, spoke about his experience with the movement as a member of staff in the Faculty of Medicine. He said he was inspired by the students rallying outside F23, and that the rally had brought him out to do something he had never done before.
Arab condemned the medical school’s pretence that the exchange program is harmless, and called upon Mark Scott to listen to the results of the SGM, NTEU votes and the 250 medicine students who have petitioned to end this exchange agreement. He concluded by saying “Mark Scott will be gone in three years with his millions, but we will still be here supporting Palestine.”
The rally then marched down Eastern Avenue and Physics Road towards the Nanoscience building, where Jacob Starling (SAW) condemned Mark Scott for maintaining the many ties with Israel despite the high death toll in Gaza.
Starling linked the Gaza Solidarity Encampment to the introduction of the Campus Access Policy, saying that students have succeeded in scaring management, and continued to do so with the SGM, and the unauthorised stall day on July 31st. He further linked USYD’s ties to the Australian government’s complicity in US imperialism, saying that the true terrorist supporters are the bosses who ignore the workers and line their pockets with genocide. Starling ended by urging mass mobilisation, calling for “thousands of students to disrupt business as usual” until demands are met.
Vieves Carnsew then led the rally to the Susan Wakil building, where security refused protesters entry and locked the front door. The third and final speaker, Tawhid, a medicine student, opened by saying “I am disgusted I can study here in this building yesterday, but cannot protest here today.”
He explained the Gazan origin of the gauze he used in class the day before, mourning the fact that Gazan doctors don’t have access to their own invention and instead must use t-shirts and other material to tend to deadly wounds.
Tawhid condemned the virtue signalling of the University’s empty reconciliation with First Nations Australians, while profiting off of the genocide both here and in Palestine. He said that he “[does] not consent to [his] student fees going towards the killing of Palestinians” and hopes that he is the last cohort of this university to wonder who his fees are killing today.
After the rally, students and staff who were scheduled to use the facilities in the Susan Wakil building were outraged at the front door being locked. One student was seen in a verbal argument with security over the protest being locked out of the building.
More than 600 Melbourne University students attended a mass meeting and rally on 15 August to demand that the university end its complicity in the genocide in Gaza. The meeting was the largest pro-Palestine action ever held on the campus.
Oskar Martin, Students for Palestine member and Indigenous socialist, moved the meeting’s only motion. It called on the administration to “fully divest from weapons companies and cut all ties with the state of Israel, Israeli corporations and Israeli academic institutions in line with the global boycott, divestment, sanctions movement”.
In his speech, Martin condemned the university, arguing that “what matters most to them is investments that boost their portfolios and power”. He then turned his fire on the officials in the University of Melbourne Student Union. “The student union didn’t want this meeting to happen. They previously backtracked on supporting BDS … but we kept fighting and we won!”
The student politicians who control the student union are mostly from factions associated with the Australian Labor Party. Despite their pretending to champion students’ rights and democracy, their approach to the special general meeting was one of sabotage.
Students for Palestine activists gathered the signatures of 1,200 students to demand the union call a special general meeting on Palestine, as the constitution requires. In response, the union hired lawyers from Labor-aligned law firm Slater and Gordon to find a legal basis to prevent the meeting happening.
The union has form in this regard. In 2022 the union adopted a motion in support of Palestine and the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel. But after legal action brought by Liberal Party-aligned student Justin Riazaty, the union abandoned its position.
The lawsuit was settled in February this year after the union agreed, in the middle of a genocide, to rescind its support for Palestine and pay Riazaty tens of thousands of dollars. The student union has since sought to censor pro-Palestine activity in the union, prohibiting office-bearers from using their budgets and social media to oppose Israel’s genocide.
But their winning streak ended on Thursday afternoon. The student union officials watched, aghast, as hundreds of students descended on the amphitheatre wearing keffiyehs, waving Palestinian flags and holding placards inscribed on one side with “Unimelb must divest” and on the other “Students for Palestine”.
“Disclose, divest, we will not stop, we will not rest!”, the students roared. Cheers and impromptu speeches echoed around the amphitheatre as student union staff sought shelter behind a barricade they had set up to prevent Students for Palestine activists from reaching the stage.
From the stage, I opened the meeting (to the president’s horror), and the floor was ours. “Put your hand up if you’re here today to stand against Israel, to stand against our government, to stand against our university and to fight for a free Palestine!”, I asked the crowd. A sea of hands shot up in response. Chants of “Free, free Palestine” and “From the river to the sea” made the meeting feel more like an open-air rally.
At one point the student union president tried to address the crowd to explain why the union hadn’t done more to publicly support Palestine. She was heckled, “You voted to rescind the motion!”, and quickly vacated the stage.
Students hadn’t come to this action for mealy-mouthed words or empty platitudes. We get that from the federal Labor government every day. The crowd was electric with righteous indignation at our university’s complicity in genocide. Yasmeen Atieh, a Palestinian socialist and member of Students for Palestine, told the crowd:
“All over the world, students and workers have stood up to their universities and governments, declaring that we will not sit silent whilst people are being killed. Estimates are now that 186,000 have likely been murdered. From opposing the war in Vietnam to fighting against South African apartheid, students have been at the forefront of movements to spark change for decades. And today we’re making history again. Every one of us is making our voices heard, telling the university that it needs to divest. We are telling our government, the Labor Party, that we will not stop and we will not rest until Palestine is free.”
Students overwhelmingly voted up the motion, followed by a victory march to the vice-chancellor’s office, where we stuck our petitions to his office surrounds, warning: “We’ll be back!”
It was a victorious day for Palestine solidarity activism, and a credit to all the activists who refused to accept the union’s cowardice on Palestine, who refused to give up and who campaigned tirelessly to make the meeting a success.
Palestine and Inner West Council: a panel on the case for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)
Arguing against the premise that Palestine is not an issue for local government and is about “rates, road and rubbish”, Griffiths said that in this case, rates matter more than ever, as they are going towards companies complicit in, and profiteering off of genocide in Palestine.
June 23, 2024On Sunday, June 23, Dylan Griffiths, an Inner West councillor in the Djarrawunang/Ashfield ward, Palestine Justice Movement, BDS Youth, and Unionists for Palestine held a panel at the Marrickville Pavilion advocating for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) within the Inner West council.Arguing against the premise that Palestine is not an issue for local government and is about “rates, road and rubbish”, Griffiths said that in this case, rates matter more than ever, as they are going towards companies complicit in, and profiteering off of genocide in Palestine.He then spoke about the two ceasefire motions before the Council in November and December 2023, and the open letter put forth by Antony D’Adam MLC and Greens Member for Newtown Jenny Leong. In particular, the stance of Labor councillors and their vote against the motion was spotlighted, with Green Left having reported details from the meeting, and the minutes publicly available. Griffiths then made the point that the final November motion (“Inner West Council supports ceasefire in Gaza”) only came to fruition after public backlash and the resignation of the Inner West Multicultural Committee.Tasneen Shubarta of BDS Youth explained their role in empowering youth to end the illegal occupation through “achievable wins” as strategically determined by the BDS national committee. This includes the implementation of Israeli Apartheid Week on university campuses and targeted boycotts against companies like Intel, Sodastream, and Elbit Systems. Shubarta described the BDS movement as “nonviolent and opposed to discrimination”, based on the South African model which saw divestment as a “recognised tool for change.”Hewlett-Packard (HP) was deemed relevant to the Inner West Council investment portfolio, as well as the Council being serviced digitally by HP. It was argued that if this is the case in one council, it is likely a standard across other councils. HP is directly involved in supplying technology to the Israeli military such as the tiered ID card system and is the exclusive provider of computers for the Israel Defence Forces.Shubarta stated that councils must:
Audit their investment portfolio, disclose and divest
Pledge for an apartheid free zone
Review policies and ethical practices on an annual basis
Ahmad Abadla, a Palestinian activist from Khan Younis, summarised the legal case for BDS, and spoke of his lived experience in Gaza, particularly four weeks before October 7 and the start of the genocide.“Gaza is beautiful and will remain beautiful despite the wholesale destruction,” Abadla said, elaborating on his amazement at the ability of Palestinians to find hope and a will to live.Abadla identified BDS as the best method for people in the West to help Palestinians, and spoke to its narrow beginnings, often deemed “fraught”. He spoke to the history of Jewish businesses being targeted by real antisemites in the 1930s and that Zionists have weaponised this trauma to limit the potential of BDS when it is “one of the most potent tools available for Palestine.”He continued that under the Genocide Convention, private individuals, corporate actors, and city councils must not be complicit, meaning “there may be real legal and financial consequences for being linked to Israel’s crimes and genocide against Palestinians.”Abadla implored the Inner West Council to adopt and call for BDS to prevent and punish Israel’s war crimes and genocide, concluding that “if Gaza doesn’t win, we will all lose our conscience and humanity”.Antony Loewenstein, local resident and author of The Palestine Laboratory: How Israel Exports the Technology of Occupation Around the World (2023), who advocated for a BDS motion proposed in 2011 at the then-Marrickville council spoke next. Loewenstein argued that BDS scares those who oppose it, and so they believe that they can demonise it by framing it as anti-Israel and antisemitic. He then stated that change will not come from a sudden mass movement of Israelis from within, but from an outside movement like BDS applying pressure, similar to the outside forces that were one of the reasons for the fall of apartheid in South Africa. Lowenstein continued that Israel is petrified of BDS, since it spends massive funds to counter it, and is supported by the US, which has made BDS illegal in over 30 states. He elaborated on the reasoning for BDS, with corporations like Starbucks and McDonalds having supported Israel long before October 7, and that Israel is one of the top 10 arms industries in the world, battle testing its weapons on Palestinians before being sold globally to other countries to deal with their minorities. He spoke to the criticism of 2011 which viewed BDS as repeating the attacks on Jewish businesses like in Nazi Germany. Loewenstein asserted that BDS is “not going after Jewish people for being Jewish, but for associating and partnering with Israel”, and that all councils must have a Palestinian-led BDS movement. Lowenstein concluded by predicting that many Western states and elites will remain in support of Israel but that civil society and public opinion are being swayed, especially in the 18-35 age bracket.What are the next steps?
Inner West Council’s relation with HP will be questioned by Griffiths in a council meeting in August.
Community group Inner West 4 Palestinehas been formed and its first meeting will occur next Friday, June 28 at the Marrickville Library.
The process of auditing and disclosure of relationships with complicit companies.
A motion in the City of Sydney Council will be presented on Monday night at Sydney Town Hall, with a rally outside and bike riders cycling in support.
100 seats were filled up, as people stood outside on the lawns of the Marrickville Pavilion to listen to the panel. Many also participated in the open discussion at the end, including USyd student campers and National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) members.
Various observations were made including that Marrickville is the only Australian city to have a sister city in Bethlehem.
The following suggestions were made to amplify BDS goals:
Mobilise community members to attend council meetings and pressure councillors or threaten the loss of their seat in the coming elections in September.
Check where your superannuation funds are being invested in.
Send submissions for the council’s anti-racism framework, emphasising all First Nations involvement and justice.
Rejection of the IHRA definition of antisemitism as it harms the Palestinian solidarity movement.
One NTEU member also suggested an on-the-spot vote for the council to adopt a BDS policy, which saw every attendee put up their hand in support.
It was concluded that contrary to as many would claim, local government has a significant part to play in pushing for BDS.
A livestream of the panel can be found on BDS Youth’s Instagram.
As an active affiliate of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and Education International, the global confederation of education unions (EI), NTEU supports the policies and statements of both organisations that call for an end to violence in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories and for the creation of an independent Palestinian State. The quest for a comprehensive peace between Israel and Palestine, based on the co-existence in conditions of security of two sovereign, independent and viable states, requires renewed international attention and support as a highest and urgent priority.
NTEU supports:
An end to the occupation of Palestine;
Development of a just and sustainable peace in accordance with resolutions 242 and 338 of the UN Security Council;
In accordance with 2 above, removal of illegal settlements, withdrawal of Israel from all Palestinian lands and the dismantling of the separation wall; and
Immediate recognition by all countries of Palestine as a sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, confirming the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in a freed and independent Palestine.
In accordance with these principle calls on the Australian Government to:
Recognise Palestine as a sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital;
Until such time as Israel has withdrawn from all Palestinian lands, all illegal settlements are removed, and the separation wall is dismantled:
Cease the strengthening of trade relations, including any Free Trade Agreement, with the state of Israel; and
Suspend all military and intelligence ties and co-operation with the state of Israel; and
Restore aid funding to the occupied Palestinian territories and immediately implement an additional and comprehensive humanitarian aid program for Gaza following the destruction of water, electricity and medical services and the resultant humanitarian catastrophe.
Further, NTEU supports the work of Union Aid Abroad (APHEDA) and calls on all members to contribute through APHEDA to the aid effort in Gaza and the West Bank by donating at https://palestinecovid.raisely.com
The “ACTU statement on Gaza” released 22 April 2024 which calls for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza, condemns the use of starvation as a weapon, urges the Australian government to halt military trade with Israel, and advocates for a two-state solution to secure a just and sustainable peace; and
and reaffirms the Union’s longstanding view that the right to peaceful protest, freedom of expression, and academic freedom are fundamental to the character of universities.
NTEU joins with many others in Palestine, Israel, Australia and internationally to reiterate demands for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, unrestricted access to humanitarian aid, and the lifting of the siege of Gaza.
NTEU condemns the horrific impact of the war on the higher education community in Gaza, and recognises the responsibility that Australian universities have to a global higher education community that champions human rights, peace, and democratic debate.
We therefore, call on Australian universities to:
Explore and implement practical support measures for affected Palestinian educational institutions, their faculties and students, such as the provision of resources, partnerships and institutional scholarships.
Critically review, disclose and divest from research and commercial partnerships with firms and entities directly involved in military support for the war on Gaza.
Ensure that Enterprise Agreements and policies protecting academic and intellectual freedom are clearly communicated and vigorously enforced.
Critically review any university’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s definition of antisemitism, which itself constitutes a challenge to academic freedom
This constitutes the NTEU’s position and remains in place until amended, withdrawn or replaced by the National Executive or a future National Council.
We note that UniSuper has a small investment in Elbit Systems, a weapons company that is one of the largest suppliers of military technology to the Israel Defence Forces (IDF).
Given that the IDF is responsible for the death of over 35,000 civilians in Gaza since October last year, UniSuper’s holding in this company is clearly inconsistent with the fund’s values as an ethical investor, and can only damage UniSuper’s hard-won reputation.
Based on this, we the undersigned call on UniSuper to divest in total from Elbit Systems and to work with other profit-for-member super funds to divest from Elbit Systems.
First Name * Last Name * Email Address * Mobile * 04xxxxxxxx no spaces State/Territory * – Select – Current Employer – None – Are you a member of UniSUper Yes No Are you an NTEU member? Email Opt In I would like to stay informed about the campaign to divest form Elbit Systems and other NTEU campaigns.
This campaign is hosted by NTEU. We will protect your privacy, and keep you informed about this campaign and others.
Scholasticide is a term that was first coined by Professor Karma Nabulsi, an Oxford don and Palestinian expert on the laws of war. She conceptualized it in the context of the Israeli assault on Gaza, Palestine in 2009, but also with reference to a pattern of Israeli colonial attacks on Palestinian scholars, students, and educational institutions going back to the Nakba of 1948, and expanding after the 1967 war on Palestine and the 1982 invasion of Lebanon.
The term combines the Latin prefix schola, meaning school, and the Latin suffix cide, meaning killing. Nabulsi used it to describe the “systematic destruction of Palestinian education by Israel” to counter a tradition of Palestinian learning. That tradition, Nabulsi observed, reflected the enormous “role and power of education in an occupied society” in which freedom of thought “posits possibilities, open horizons”, contrasting sharply with “the apartheid wall, the shackling checkpoints, [and] the choking prisons”. Recognizing “how important education is to the Palestinian tradition and the Palestinian revolution”, Nabulsi noted that Israeli colonial policymakers “cannot abide it and have to destroy it.”
During the latest Israeli genocidal war on Gaza, Palestine in 2023/2024, scholasticide has intensified on an unprecedented scale. Israeli colonial policy in Gaza has now shifted from a focus on systematic destruction to total annihilation of education. There is, indeed, an intimate relationship between genocide and scholasticide. Raphael Lamkin, the pioneering Polish Jewish legal scholar who first defined genocide and played a key role in inserting the concept into international law, saw genocide as an effort to “undermine the fundamental basis of the social order.” Key to this effort, in Lamkin’s conception, was the assault on the cultures of national, ethnic, racial, or religious collectivities.
Scholasticide is comprised of any of the following acts that entail systemic destruction, in whole or in part, of the educational life of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group: 1) Killings and assassinations of university and school teachers, students, staff, and administrators. 2) Causing bodily or mental harm to university and school teachers, students, staff, and administrators. 3) Arresting, detaining, and incarcerating university and school teachers, students, staff, and administrators. 4) Systematic harassment, bullying, intimidation of university and school teachers, students, staff, and administrators. 5) Bombarding and demolishing educational institutions. 6) Destroying and/or looting of teaching and research resources including libraries, archives, and laboratories, as well as facilities supporting the educational process, including playgrounds, sports fields, performance venues, cafeterias, and residence halls. 7) Impeding the import of essential materials for rebuilding damaged schools and universities. 8) Obstructing the creation of new educational structures. 9) Besieging schools and universities and using them as barracks, logistics bases, operational headquarters, weapons and ammunition caches, detention and interrogation centers. 10) Closing educational institutions and/or disrupting their daily operations. 11) Invading educational institutions. 12) Restricting faculty, student, and staff access to educational institutions. 13) Denying education to political prisoners including child detainees. 14) Hindering access to the internet, disrupting the provision of electricity, and preventing free entry of educational supplies including books and laboratory equipment. 15) Blocking the hiring of academic staff and denying them entry to their institutions through visa denial and other restrictions. 16) Revoking residency rights of students or academics who may pursue educational opportunities abroad. 17) Preventing scholarly exchange in all its forms. 18) Disrupting international and domestic funding of educational institutions. All of these acts are currently being carried out to devastating effect in Gaza, Palestine. They are part and parcel of the genocidal effort to impede the reproduction of the social order in that occupied territory, as part of a broader effort to render it uninhabitable, hence paving the way for its comprehensive ethnic cleansing. Many of these acts have long been practiced against educational institutions and communities in the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, and some are experienced by Palestinian citizens of the Israeli State.
Qatar / QatarEducation key part of Qatar-Australia relations: envoy
Joey Aguilar
Published on March 07, 2022 | 10:55 PM
Co-operation in the field of education remains to be a significant part of the Qatar-Australia bilateral relations, undertaking various projects between academic institutions of the two countries, Australian ambassador Jonathan Muir has said. Speaking to reporters recently, the envoy said Qatar and Australia have done a number of research projects – between Qatar Foundation, Qatar University, and about 23 Australian universities over the past few years. Citing the reopening of Australia’s borders to the world, Muir said that students in Qatar will have the opportunity to study in Australia, which he noted has the 3rd largest number of international students around the world after the US and the UK. “It is important that Qatari students and students in the Qatari community more broadly know that Australia is open for business. Like many countries, we were closed for a long time to new students for a couple of years. Australia is consistently ranked in the top 10 for students around the world,” Muir said. He noted that many students from various countries go to Australia – renowned for its excellent education system – taking up courses like engineering, marketing, and business, among others. Muir said that there are many potential scopes for co-operation between Qatar and Australia in the education field, as well as in trade and investment, and culture. Noting that Australia enjoys a “great trading relationship” with trade volume reaching QR5.5bn in 2021, he pointed out that Aviation services remained Qatar’s top export to Australia, bringing goods not only to the country but also through Europe and the Middle East. Qatar Airways, the envoy pointed out, plays a key role in this co-operation and has been bringing travellers from Qatar and other parts of the world. He urged citizens and residents to visit Australia this summer.
Since its founding in 2004, IAM has been reporting on the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine (BRICUP), a campaign for academic and cultural boycott of Israel. BRICUP emerged in England in response to the Palestinian call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel, making its debut in 2002 in an open letter to The Guardian. The letter was signed by Steven and Hilary Rose, two Jewish academics (husband and wife), the founders of BRICUP. At the time, they were professors of biology at the Open University and social policy at the University of Bradford, respectively. In their letter, they called for a boycott of Israeli institutions. The launch of BRICUP was announced at a conference at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in 2004.
BRICUP’s Mission is “to support Palestinian universities, staff and students” and “to oppose the continued illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands with its concomitant breaches of international conventions of human rights, its refusal to accept UN resolutions or rulings of the International Court, and its persistent suppression of Palestinian academic freedoms.” BRICUP will “Continue to pressure the UK government to exclude Israel from joint academic and scientific activity. Develop a policy which encourages individual academics to break their professional links with Israel.” BRICUP encourages “Refusing research collaborations with Israeli institutions or to referee papers or grant applications issuing from such institutions; Refusing to attend academic conferences in Israel; Supporting Israeli academic colleagues working with Palestinian colleagues in their demand for self-determination and academic freedom.” BRICUP urges to “Work within our trades unions and professional organizations in support of such actions; Explore forms of support for Palestinian academic colleagues.”
BRICUP has worked hard to involve other countries. Recently, the organization announced that “German academics publish ‘Archive of Silence’ that lists instances of censorship on Palestine.” BRICUP described the project: “As Germany continues to arrest dozens of Jewish people (specifically for protesting genocide, as a concept and with reference to the Gaza genocide ), academics have documented a giant spreadsheet of all the canceled speakers and scholars in Germany of those who also oppose genocide.”
Archive of Silence is a collection of “cancellation/silencing” cases and is continuously updated. Readers are encouraged to contribute by submitting cases via email. The list of incidents includes 156 cases of both academic and cultural events starting from October 8, 2023, to this day.
Here are a few recent cases that IAM compiled from the Archives:
Case 151, from June 7, 2024: “Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) has removed Geraldine Rauch, President of the Technical University Berlin, from his circle of advisors of the “Zukunftsrat” due to accusations from CDU and Springer press leveled against her for liking a post on X that contains an image associating Netanyahu with Nazi symbols. Members of the Academic Senat and politicians up to federal level had additionally called for her resignation as the President of TU.”
Case 149, from June 04, 2024: “The University of Heidelberg canceled the event ‘Palestinian activism and (German) Media’ with activists Hebh Jamal and Mahmud Abu-Odeh that was to take place as part of the seminar ‘#Islam: Religious Dynamics in Online Spaces’ out of fear of ‘political agitation’ by the speakers.”
Case 137, from May 30, 2024: “The Humboldt University requested that the open event ‘Being a doctor where there are no more hospitals’, organized by Decolonize Charité, would be closed to the public. Additionally, they requested that the bags of all participants are checked by security for ‘spray paints/cans, colors, weapons including pocket knives, batons or objects that can be used as such’.”
Case 143, from May 08, 2024: “The University of Düsseldorf imposed severe restrictions on an event about the Nakba by requesting a security concept from the organizing student group Die Linke.SDS. In addition to asking them to preliminarily lay out how they would deal with criminal and/or antisemitic statements, they demanded them to hire a professional security service for the event. Due to the student groups’ lack of funds for a security service and the short-term nature of the requests, the event had to be canceled.”
Case 129, from April 01, 2024: “UdK Berlin decided not to renew Tirdad Zolghadr’s contract as a guest professor at its Graduate School despite a previous verbal agreement that the position would be extended until September 2025.” The Archives of Silence explained that the decision was taken in a vote “that was subject to backroom pressure and bureaucratic trickery, assumably because of his support for the student protests against the genocide in Gaza. The university has not given any explanation for this.”
Case 130, from April 05, 2024: “University of Cologne disinvites Jewish-American philosopher Nancy Fraser from visiting professorship over her signing the open letter Philosophy for Palestine.” The Instagram account of Archives of Silence details this story: “On April 5, 2024, the University of Cologne announced that its award of the Albertus Magnus Professorship to Nancy Fraser had been rescinded. The reason provided for this decision was that Prof. Fraser signed the open letter, Philosophy for Palestine, in November 2023, alongside over 400 philosophy professors from around the world. The letter expressed solidarity with Palestinians, condemned the massacres in Gaza perpetrated by Israeli forces, and called for an academic and cultural boycott of Israeli institutions. Nancy Fraser is Professor of Political and Social Science and Professor of Philosophy at the New School in New York. She is widely considered as a successor to Hannah Arendt and one of the most important intellectuals of the present era.”
Archive of Silence cited an interview with Jacobin, where Fraser stated, “It is a clear violation of the university’s own stated policy as well as of the […] values of academic freedom, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, and open discussion. Whatever complicated rationalizations are being given as to why this proceeding allegedly doesn’t violate those values ring hollow to me. This also sends a very strong signal to all people in the university and scholars around the world: if you dare, say, express certain views on certain political subjects, you will not be welcome here [in Germany]. It has a chilling effect on people’s freedom of political speech… I also think that it’s so important that Germans understand something of the complexity and breadth of Judaism, its history, its perspective. They are sort of signing on with this idea of an unconditional pledge of allegiance to Israel, that that’s the German responsibility – unqualified support for the state of Israel. Given what Israel is currently up to, this is a betrayal of what I would call the most important and weighty aspects of Judaism as a history, a perspective, and a body of thought.” Archive of Silence added, “The disinvitation faced immediate backlash from academics worldwide.”
A thorough search of the full list of the Archives shows the “cancellation/silencing” is not about promoting Palestinian culture, as BRICUP suggested. Rather, BRICUP and the German group are all about delegitimizing Israel, an act of antisemitic hatred defined by double standards. There are numerous conflicts around the world where thousands of lives have been lost. Yet academics have not organized delegitimization and calls for boycotts, no matter how brutal the fight has been, as the cases of Sudan and the Russian invasion of Ukraine demonstrate.
IAM has repeatedly pointed out that anti-Israel propagandists prefer to use Jews to avoid accusations of antisemitism. The BRICUP and the German Archives of Silence are a case in point. But this strategy is outdated. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, which many countries adopted, makes clear that the ethnicity of the anti-Israel activists is irrelevant. What matters is the persistent double standards that have created much of the antisemitic tropes from antiquity to the present day.
German academics publish “Archive of Silence” listing instances of censorship on Palestine
20 February 2024
As Germany continues to arrest dozens of Jewish people (specifically for protesting genocide, as a concept and with reference to the Gaza genocide ), academics have documented a giant spreadsheet of all the canceled speakers and scholars in Germany of those who also oppose genocide. It’s called the “Archive of Silence“.
Archive of Silence – Cancellation & Silencing Public List
This list is provided for informational purposes only and is not exhaustive. It does not guarantee complete accuracy, as the dates mentioned are, in some cases, the exact date of cancellation, while in others, they represent the date of the first available information about cancellation/silencing. Please be aware that this list is a work in progress and will be continuously updated to reflect the most current and accurate information available. Users are encouraged to verify details independently and consider this list as a general reference rather than a definitive source. If you notice missing cases, you can contribute by submitting them to us via the email address archiveofsilence@protonmail.com, and we will add them to the list.
1
08.10.23
ARTE/BR
Malcolm Ohanwe
German state television terminates contract with Malcolm Ohanwe after supporting Palestine on X
Documenta director Andreas Hoffmann distances himself from Reza Afisina und Iswanto Hartono for liking the video of a Palestine demo in Berlin. They remove their likes and say that it was a mistake.
A planned exhibition of Halima Aziz’s works as part of the Palestinian Film Festival was canceled after a defamatory report by Ruhrbarone. The Palestinian Film Festival has been postponed indefinitely.
16
17.10.23
TD Berlin – Monologfestival
Team of “Mein Bedrohliches Gedicht“
Monologfestival cancels performance of “My Threatening Poem”, a play about the Palestinian poet Dareen Tatour and her time in Israeli Prison
17
18.10.23
ARD
Journalists working for ARD
ARD allegedly sends internal document with new language regulation on the Middle East conflict to avoid criticism of Israel and questions about the history of the recent escalation. ARD has confirmed that there was a new language regulation, but has not confirmed the authenticity of the leaked document (»Glossar Berichterstattung Nahostkonflikt. Zur internen Nutzung. Stand 18.10.2023«)
18
19.10.23
Upday (Axel Springer)
Employees at Upday
Upday, a news app owned by the Axel Springer, gave instructions to prioritize the Israeli perspective and minimize Palestinian civilian deaths in coverage
Charité management found out about the cooperation between the Muslim Students group and the NGO Islamic Relief on October 22. On October 26, the group was dissolved by the Charité students’ superordinate association, and the working group’s website has been unavailable ever since.
Mena Prison Forum, UMAM Documentation and Research, medico International
Organisers postpone three day event “Understanding Prison Carceral Culture and Human Rights in the MENA Region / 30.11.–2.12. / HAU2″ due to “the situation in the Gaza Strip, the instability and threat of violence in Lebanon and the highly emotional public debate”
Anthropologist Ghassan Hage reported on X on Nov. 8 that he was nominated for a German scholarship/award, but the nominators were asked to comment on his “BDS sympathies” and the committee is not sure if he can be awarded.
37
09.11.23
Komitee des Weltgebetstages der Frauen in Deutschland, Deutscher Koordinierungsrat der Gesellschaften für christlich-jüdische Zusammenarbeit
Halima Aziz
The World Day of Prayer committee in Germany censored specific materials planned for the World Day of Prayer in 2024, including a cover image created by artist Halima Aziz. This image depicts three Palestinian women adorned with jewelry shaped like keys around their necks and ears. Initially created for global distribution, the artwork aimed to elevate the voices of Palestinian women during the World Day of Prayer. Titled Praying Palestinian Women, the painting was selected by the international committee to represent the event’s theme. However, the German committee deemed the image antisemitic and accused Halima Aziz of failing to distance herself from Hamas. Other countries kept using the original material and image.
40
09.11.23
Philipps-Universität Marburg
Revolutionäre Linke & Jüdische Stimme für einen gerechten Frieden in Nahost
University of Marburg denies acces to room for a lecture about anti-Semitism due to Palestine stance of organizers
41
10.11.23
Deutschlandfunk Kultur
Iris Hefets
Deutschlandfunk Kultur disinvites Iris Hefets from a radio discussion about the war in Gaza.
42
11.11.23
Institut für Zukunft
Guest
Guest asked to remove kuffiyeh in the club or leave the venue due to a complaint from another guest who claimed to feel “unsafe” in the presence of her scarf
Thamil V. Ananthavinayagan’s chapter for a book on decolonial jurisprudence and practice in Germany was rejected by Decolonize Berlin for its discussion of Germany’s culpability in the ongoing genocide against Palestinians
46
15.11.23
ACHT BRÜCKEN Festival Köln
Sharif Sehnaoui, Karkhana
Three concerts that were planned for 2024 were canceled because of the artist’s support for BDS. One of the concerts by Karkhana was canceled by ACHT BRÜCKEN Festival.
47
15.11.23
RBB
Deborah Feldman
Deborah Feldman got disinvited from an RBB Radioshow.
48
15.11.23
Schloss Elmau
Deborah Feldman
Deborah Feldman got disinvited from a reading at Schloss Elmau.
49
15.11.23
Die Zeit
Deborah Feldman
Die Zeit made the first big interview with Feldman but canceled the publishing.
50
15.11.23
Frankfurt Book Fair
Deborah Feldman
Got disinvited from an event at the Frankfurt Book Fair.
51
15.11.23
Heinrich Böll Foundation
Speakers of Feminist Voices Connected
The Böll Foundation cancels the “Feminist Voices Connected” conference, because of the situation in Gaza and the “polarized atmosphere in Germany”.
52
16.11.23
Documenta 16
Selection committee (Bracha Lichtenberg Ettinger, Ranjit Hoskoté, Simon Njami, Gong Yan, Kathrin Rhomberg & María Inés Rodríguez)
Smear campaign against Ranjit Hoskoté (Indian poet and critic), member of the Documenta curator commission, due to him having signed a BDS letter in 2019. Hoskoté then resigned. The rest of the Documenta 16 selection committee collectively resigns afterwards.
53
16.11.23
Universität Regensburg
Vincent Bevins
University of Regensburg rescinded its invitation to Vincent Bevins to give the keynote address at an interdisciplinary conference and present his new book, due to pro-Palestine posts on social media
54
18.11.23
Club Eschschloraque
Liad Hussein Kantorowicz
A concert by Israeli performance artist Liad Kantorowicz planned for 25.11 was approved by Club Eschschloraque in Berlin on the condition that she is not allowed to speak, only sing. The concert happened, although with limitations in artistic freedom.
Biennale für aktuelle Fotografie 2024 canceled after one of the curators, Shahidul Alam, made social media posts that organizers deemed antisemitic
62
22.11.23
WDR
WDR Journalists
WDR retracts a previously published text in their children’s magazine on the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict following criticism and accusations of being ‘one-sided’.
63
24.11.23
Neue Welle (club in Leipzig)
DJ Zeynep
Zeynep cancels performance and residency after Leipzig club investigates her Gaza-related social media posts
64
24.11.23
Saarland Museum
Candice Breitz
Saarland Museum cancels exhibition by Candice Breitz after “controversial statements” on Gaza war
65
25.11.23
München ist bunt!, Kultur im Trafo
Ilan Pappé, Salam Shalom, Jewish-Palestinian dialogue group, Women in Black
NRW police handed out brochures to schools encouraging educators to file a complaint with the police if a student says Israel is committing genocide, makes a comparison with the Holocaust, or uses the slogan “from the river to the sea.”
71
01.12.23
taz
Nadja Vancauwenberghe
Taz article with the title “Why won’t my german friends speak out against Israel’s war crimes in Gaza? An outsiders perplexed perspective” was written by Nadja Vancauwenberghe for taz, but the publication got canceled.
72
07.12.23
Sophiensæle Berlin
Dusty Whistles
Sophiensæle puts employee Dusty Whistles on leave following her intervention on December 7 in the context of the “Trust the Process” festival.
73
08.12.23
RWTH Aachen’s rector Ulrich Rüdiger
Phoebe Walton of Forensis / Forensic Architecture
Rector of RWTH (Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule) Aachen cancels lecture on police killings by Phoebe Walton of Forensis / Forensic Architecture (planned lecture was Monday 11.12.2023)
74
11.12.23
BMZ, Auswärtiges Amt
6 Palestinian NGOs (including Al-Haq)
BMZ and Federal Foreign Office terminate cooperation with 6 Palestinian NGOs under the pretext that, according to Israeli accusations, they are front organizations of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and have diverted aid funds to them. There was no evidence for these allegations.
Mykki Blanco gets disinvited from festival over her support for Palestine
77
14.12.23
SPD
Moheb Shafaqyar (DIE LINKE)
After a post critical of Israel on X, Moheb Shafaqyar, under pressure from the SPD faction, announced his resignation as deputy BVV chairman of Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg
78
18.12.23
BERTINI-Preis
Marione Ingram
Talks by holocaust survivor Marione Ingram were ‘postponed’ by BERTINI-Preis due to her protesting with a sign saying “Stop Genocide in Gaza”. She was supposed to address students receiving awards recognizing their commitment to social justice activism.
79
19.12.23
Freie Universität Berlin
FU students for a Free Palestine
FU Berlin used armed police to forcibly evict a non-violent, pro-Palestinian occupation of a lecture hall by a group of students.
A professor of museology announces in an e-mail that he will exclude people who are critical of Israel from his courses.
83
09.01.24
Staatliche Hochschule für Gestaltung Karlsruhe
Adam Broomberg
Karlsruhe University of Arts bans visiting professor Adam Broomberg from teaching after immense pressure from German government and the right wing press in reaction to Broombergs anti-Zionist posts on social media.
84
12.01.24
Universität zu Köln
Student at Uni Köln
Student is banned from the University of Cologne for two days for sharing an Instagram story with the slogan “from the river to the sea”. Court overturns decision.
85
12.01.24
Universität zu Köln
Muslim student
A Muslim student was attacked by a group of white students who accused her of antisemitism, presuming she was behind the broadcasting of a recording that emerged from a speaker, drawing attention to the situation in Gaza. They called the police, who were racist and violent towards her. Additionally, the university banned her from entering the premises (Hausverbot).
86
13.01.24
Städtepartnerschaftsverein Köln-Bethlehem
Palästina Filmtage Köln
On October 16, Städtepartnerschaftsverein Köln-Bethlehem postponed Palästina Filmtage Köln, rescheduling the festival to take place from January 13 to 16 with a revised program. Notably, the film ‘Tantura’ has been removed from the lineup and there have been complaints on social media about a perceived one-sided selection in favor of Israeli perspectives.
87
17.01.24
Bundeskunsthalle Bonn
Daniela Ortiz
Bundeskunsthalle Bonn installed signs next to Daniela Ortiz’s artwork The ABC of Racist Europe framing it as “antisemitic”. They further organized an event on January 17, 2024, discussing the alleged antisemitism without any communication with the artist.
88
18.01.24
radioeins (rbb)
Jürgen Zimmerer
Historian Jürgen Zimmerer refuses an interview with radioeins “Die Profis” on the topic “Why the war in German South West Africa remains relevant for later history” because the moderator insisted not to talk about Namibia’s position on South Africa’s lawsuit agains Israel in the preliminary discussion, stating it was anti-Semitic.
89
22.01.24
Universität Münster
Cine Club
The University of Münser postponed a screening of the documentary Roadmap to Apartheid (2012) after pressure from the Young Forum of the German-Israeli Society Council. They reschedueled the screening to take place on February 5 in the presence of state security of Germany. The students occupied a room in the university to screen the film independently on January 31. Ultimately, the rescheduled screening was also cancelled.
90
23.01.24
Region Hannover
Emilia Roig
Region Hannover postpones the regional women’s New Year’s reception and disinvites the Jewish speaker Emilia Roig due to her “anti-Israel stance”
91
23.01.24
German police
Taqadum Al-Khatib
German police summons Princeton University and Berlin Free University researcher, Taqadum Al-Khatib, for interrogation after he published a post on his X account stating that “Surviving a Holocaust doesn’t give you the right to enact another.”
DJ Fár’s set at T-Keller was interrupted by a white German man for playing a song by Sorah titled “Palestine Will Be Free”
95
30.01.24
Museum in Germany
Johanna Tagada Hoffbeck
An unknown museum expresses their shock about a post by Johanna Tagada Hoffbeck on her Instagram which shows a badge with the words “Free Palestine”. They critique the artist’s political statement in what they consider “a non-political” field, add that they can only sign “Free Palestine from Hamas” and state their scepticism about their collaboration. Tagada Hoffbeck thus decides to cancel her upcoming solo exhibtion at the museum.
96
31.01.24
Evangelische Akademie Frankfurt
Combatants for Peace, Osama Elewat & Rotem Levin
The Protestant Academy in Frankfurt took down the video of an event by the Palestinian-Israeli group Combatants for Peace after facing criticism for their use of the term “apartheid” in reference to Israel.
97
31.01.24
Haus37, Stadt Freiburg
DIE LINKE Freiburg
Event “Über Palästina sprechen” was cancelled by two venues.
98
01.02.24
Universität Freiburg
Fachschaft Islamwissenschaft Uni Freiburg
The University of Freiburg revoked the room for a screening of Not Just Your Picture – The Story of the Kilani Family that was organized by the Fachschaft Islamwissenschaft. The documentary tells the story of two German-Palestinian siblings whose father was killed by an Israeli airstrike during attacks on Gaza in 2014, and the screening was to be followed by a discussion with Ramsis Kilani, one of the two siblings.
99
01.02.24
City of Munich (councillors from the Greens/Rosa Liste and SPD/Volt)
Munich Peace Conference
City of Munich withdraws 6.500 € funding for the Munich Peace Conference last minute.The Greens specifically pointed to the “one-sided” views of speakers Yanis Varoufakis and Clare Daly, who have pro-Palestine stances.
100
02.02.24
Syndikat-Kollektiv
Palestine Speaks/ healthcare workers’ meeting
Syndikat-Kollektiv cancels the venue for a healthcare workers’ meeting scheduled in Berlin on February 3 upon learning that Palestine Speaks mobilized for the event.
101
02.02.24
Transmediale
Varia, Constant, TITiPI, Digital Discomfort Workgroup
Transmediale doesn’t allow the participants of the panel “Anti-Colonial Tech through Resistance and Discomforts” to explicitly show their solidarity with Palestine. In consequence, they withdraw.
102
06.02.24
AdBK München
Jumana Manna
Juamana Manna’s application for the extension of her guest professorship got rejected due to unfounded accusations of antisemitism made by the German press.
A bot called Rose, made by Soldarische Föderation (a leftist networking center for telegram group admins), kicks out pro-Palestinian users from leftist Telegram groups.
105
08.02.24
Jüdische Allgemeine
Kaya Yanar
Charges of incitement to hatred are raised after Jüdische Allgemeine frames Kaya Yanar’s YouTube video about Israel’s crimes and lies as antisemitic.
106
09.02.24
Universität Mainz
Linke Liste & Sozialistischer Deutscher Studentenbund (SDS)
The University of Mainz accused Linke Liste and SDS of antisemitism after an event where they labeled Israel’s attacks on Palestinian civilians as genocide. Consequently, the university banned both student groups from hosting future events and using university rooms.
107
10.02.24
Hamburger Bahnhof
Group of activists
The Hamburger Bahnhof canceled the final day of the 100-hour-long performative reading of Hannah Arendt’s “The Origins of Totalitarianism” after a group of activists peacefully disrupted the event on Saturday evening in protest against the presence of Mirjam Wenzel, director of the Jüdisches Museum Frankfurt, known for her Zionist stance. Hamburger Bahnhof accused the acitivsts of violence and hate speech in their subsequent statement. Some of the activists were criminalized and reported to the police as a consequence of that framing.
Location of the event “Wie kann Palästina befreit werden” got canceled.
111
16.02.24
German-Israeli Society Passau, Im Tirtzu, University Passau
Combatants for Peace
The University of Passau canceled an event by Combatants for Peace following immense pressure from the German-Israeli Society and the Israeli right-wing organization Im Tirtzu. Prior to this, the organizers were threatened that the event would be canceled if they did not accept the speakers proposed by these groups.
112
16.02.24
International Conference for Intimacy Coordination 2024
Workshop & panel organizers
After a speaker raised concerns during a panel about participating in the ICIC2024 due to the call for a strike against Germany, a complaint was made to the conference organizers and they were told to refrain from “making divisive statements that can or have caused harm in our community”. The members of the panel on African perspectives on intimacy consequently withdrew. ➔ ICIC2024 published a statement in response.
113
17.02.24
Antenne Münster
Palästina Antikolonial
Antenne Münster censors radio show with Palästina Antikolonial
Sweat Music cancels DJ Mama Snake’s gig at the launch of Sweat Festival at Fridas Pier in Stuttgart, citing the artist’s support of BDS and their statements regarding ‘the events in Israel’ as the reason.
Johanna Hedva’s solo exhibition got canceled because they wanted to use the phrase “undeniable genocide” in the press release to situate the exhibition in the context of what is happening right now.
120
01.03.24
BGA Oldenburg
Jüdische Stimme, BDS Initiative Oldenburg, Palästinensische Gemeinde in Oldenburg
After pressure from BGA Oldenburg, the venue for the lecture “What does Zionism have to do with the genocide in Gaza?” by Wieland Hoban was canceled. The organizers decided to hold the event online through Instagram nonetheless.
121
03.03.24
Unknown venue
Student collective Not in our name ASH (Alice Salomon Hochschule)
The venue for an event organized by Not in our name ASH was canceled just four days before the scheduled date due to intimidation by a group accusing the organizers of antisemitism. The event happened on March 3 at a different location.
122
10.03.24
Bretterbude
Yuna & obszolenz
Bretterbude cancels gig by Yuna and obszolenz at ShadesOfTechno due to their Palestine solidarity
123
12.03.24
VHS Heilbronn
Moshe Zuckermann
After pressure from DIG Heilbronn, VHS Heilbronn dropped out as co-organizer of a discussion with Israeli historian Moshe Zuckermann due to fear of criticism. The event took place in a different vernue, organized by Heilbronn Peace Council on its own behalf.
124
18.03.24
Akademie der Künste
Enad Marouf
Enad Marouf, recipient of the Will Grohmann Prize, was treated disrespectfully during the award ceremony at Akademie der Künste after he spoke up against the systemic dehumanisation of Palestinians and brought attention to “a plausible genocide” on stage.
125
18.03.24
RAA Berlin (Regional Centre for Education, Integration and Democracy)
Juval Carasso got beaten by police and is now punished with 25 days in prison or a fine of €2,000 for calling the brochure Mythos#Israel1948 anti-Palestinian propaganda during the launch event at Bajszel in September 2023.
127
26.03.24
Berliner Sparkasse
Jüdische Stimme für einen gerechten Frieden in Nahost
Berliner Sparkasse suspends the bank account of Jüdische Stimme and demands they state the names of their members and addresses without giving a reason why.
128
30.03.24
leo:16 Kultur- und Kneipenkollektiv, Münster
Solidarity concert organizers
A request from students to hold a Palestine solidarity concert at the leftist bar Leo:16 in Münster was left unanswered for weeks and finally rejected by the bar collective.
129
01.04.24
UdK Berlin
Tirdad Zolghadr
UdK Berlin decided not to renew Tirdad Zolghadr’s contract as a guest professor at its Graduate School despite a previous verbal agreement that it would go until September 2025. This was decided in a vote that was subject to backroom pressure and bureaucratic trickery, assumably because of his support for the student protests against the genocide in Gaza. The university has not given any explanation for this.
SWR dismisses Helen Fares from moderating the digital dialogue format “MixTalk” due to “her extreme policial positions” after she posted a video on Instagram using the app “No Thanks” which helps identify products by companies that support Israel.
132
12.04.24
German Police
Palästina Kongress, Ghassan Abu-Sittah, Salman Abu Sitta
German police switched off power to the venue holding the Palestine Congress when Salman Abu Sitta began speaking online and canceled the three-day conference. British-Palestinian speaker and doctor Ghassan Abu Sittah had earlier been denied entry into Germany to attend the event.
Mädchen*zentren Alia und Phantalisa / FRIEDA-Frauen*-zentrum e.V.
District office Friedrichshain-Kreuzberg closed down the two girls* facilities Alia and Phantalisa over workers’ social media activity and activism in solidarity with Palestinians
135
21.04.24
Bennohaus Münster
Jüdische Stimme für einen gerechten Frieden in Nahost, Revolutionäre Linke, Palästina Antikolonial
The managing director of Bennohaus Münster cancelled an event with Wieland Hoban, chairman of the Jewish Voice, on the topic “What is anti-Semitism?” that was to take place on April 26.
136
22.04.24
Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel
Wieland Hoban (Jüdische Stimme)
Kiel University cancelled the room for an event with Wieland Hoban, chairman of the Jewish Voice, on the topic „Palestine solidarity & repression“ that was to take place on April 24. The event was organized by Students for Palestine Kiel, Solidarischen Hilfe Kiel and DKP.
137
24.04.24
S. Fischer Verlag
Lana Bastašić
S. Fischer Verlag, Lana Bastašić’s former publisher, cancelled her reading at the bookshop LeseGlück in Berlin without informing her. Bastašić had terminated her contracts with S. Fischer Verlag in January 2024 over their failure “to be vocal about the ongoing genocide happening in Gaza” and their silence “on the systemic and systematic censorship happeing in Germany”.
136
26.04.24
Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg
Palestinian students at the University of Magdeburg
Palestinian students at the University of Magdeburg received an email from the university, telling them that they’ve been recategorized as “stateless” due to governmental “changes in the statistical requirements.” After facing criticism, the university reversed their decision, stating, “this procedure turned out to be unnecessary at the present time and will therefore not be implemented.”
139
02.05.24
Union International Club
Nathan Thrall
An event titled “Life, Death, Tragedy in Israel and Palestine” with Jewish-American author Nathan Thrall was canceled last minute by the host Union International Club in Frankfurt without an official explanation. The panel, which was organized by Bard College Berlin, was then moved to an alternative location (medico-Haus) and took place on May 7, 2024.
140
04.05.24
Institut für Zukunft, Trip Festival
Deli Girls
Ahead of a gig by techno-punk band Deli Girls at Leipzig’s IfZ as part of TRIP Festival, the venue and festival staff expressed discomfort and passive aggressive behaviour towards the band’s request to project pro-Palestine visuals during their set, asking, “Free Palestine from what” and pointing to the festival’s no-flag policy. They ended up not projecting the visuals and Deli Girls thus played harsh noise instead of their own material as a form of protest.
141
06.05.24
Universität Göttingen
Zivilgesellschaft für Gerechtigkeit Göttingen, Students for Palestine Göttingen, MERA25 Deutschland
The University of Göttingen banned the planned lecture “Gaza: The ongoing genocide in the context of the Nakba” at Stadtlabor at short notice due to “fire safety and security concerns”.
142
06.05.24
SO36
Interventionistische Linke Berlin
SO36 canceled the event “War in Gaza – Peace Perspectives from the Region” with Israeli and Palestinian speakers at short notice. The reason given was that they wanted to respect the Holocaust Remembrance Day Yom HaShoa and therefore refrain from discussing Israel in their venue on this day, despite the fact that the clash of dates had been pointed out by the organisers of the Interventionist Left from the outset.
143
08.05.24
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
Die Linke.SDS Düsseldorf
The University of Düsseldorf imposed severe restrictions on an event about the Nakba by requesting a security concept from the organizing student group Die Linke.SDS. In addition to asking them to preliminarily lay out how they would deal with criminal and/or antisemitic statements, they demanded them to hire a professional security service for the event. Due to the student groups’ lack of funds for a security service and the short-term nature of the requests, the event had to be canceled.
144
13.05.24
Federal Ministry of Education (BMBF), Bettina Stark-Watzinger (FDP), Sabine Döring (CDU)
Lecturers at Berlin universities who signed an open letter against police violence and in support of freedom of assembly and freedom of expression at universities
The Federal Ministry of Education (BMBF) requested an internal review of whether funding can be canceled for critical university lecturers. The explicit reason for the review was an open letter from university lecturers against the eviction of a temporary pro-Palestinian occupation of Berlin’s Free University (FU) in which they spoke out against police violence and in support of freedom of assembly and freedom of expression at universities. The Federal Education Minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger (FDP), who had publicly criticized the open letter and questioned whether the lecturers “stand on the ground of the constitution,” later claimed that she was unaware of the request to review the cancellation of funding and consequently retired her State Secretary, Sabine Döring (CDU), who initiated the review.
145
25.05.24
Approximation Festival
Kelly Moran
Pianist Kelly Moran expressed her solidarity with Palestine and dedicated two pieces to the children in Gaza shortly before the end of her performance at Approximation Festival in Düsseldorf. According to Volker Bertelmann (curator of the festival, who is also known as Hauschka), she broke an agreement not to make a political statement on stage. He said, that she “crossed a line” and that he would not invite her again.
146
25.05.24
JugendKULTURcafé Franzmann
Robyn Caskets, Ms AyRan
After a pro-Palestinian performance by German-Palestinian drag queen Robyn Caskets for Düsseldorf pride at JugendKULTURcafé Franzmann, the performer received harsh backlash for using visuals that are also used by BDS. Another pro-Palestinian performance by drag queen Ms AyRan was censored for not reflecting the political values of the venue.
147
29.05.24
KvU – Kirche von Unten
Internationalist Queer Pride Berlin, fluid.vision
KvU made the last minute decision not to host the event “Fluidity” anymore. The event organized by fluid.vision focussed on queer resistance and was to raise funds for the Internationalist Queer Pride Berlin (IQP). Despite the fact that the soli cause was clear from the beginning, KvU stated that they do not want to support the donation goal anymore due to alleged “antisemitic incidents at IQP in the last three years” and IQP’s collaboration with the groups Palestine Speaks and Berlin against Pinkwashing.
137
30.05.24
Humboldt-Universität Berlin
Decolonise Charité Berlin
The Humboldt University requested that the open event “Being a doctor where there are no more hospitals”, organized by Decolonize Charité, is no more open to the public and refused entry to external participants. Additionally, they requested that the bags of all participants are checked by security for “spray paints/cans, colours, weapons including pocket knives, batons or objects that can be used as such”.
149
04.06.24
Universität Heidelberg
Hebh Jamal, Mahmud Abu-Odeh
The University of Heidelberg canceled the event “Palestinian activism and (German) Media” with activists Hebh Jamal and Mahmud Abu-Odeh that was to take place as part of the seminar “#Islam: Religious Dynamics in Online Spaces” out of fear of “political agitation” by the speakers.
150
05.06.24
Student competition organised by the Landtag Baden-Württemberg
Judith Scheytt
A member of the state parliament of Baden-Württemberg asked awardee Judith Scheytt and her friend not to wear their keffiyehs when taking a photo with the president of the state parliament during the award ceremony of the student competition for political engagement organised by the state parliament of Baden-Württemberg and the regional centre for political education Baden-Württemberg.
151
07.06.24
Olaf Scholz (SPD), Friedrich Merz (CDU)
TU president Geraldine Rauch
Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) has removed Geraldine Rauch, President of the Technical University Berlin, from his circle of advisors of the “Zukunftsrat” due to accusations from CDU and Springer press levelled against her for liking a post on X that contains an image associating Netanyahu with Nazi symbols. Members of the Academic Senat and politicians up to federal level had additionally called for her resignation as the President of TU.
152
08.06.24
Ract!festival
Visitors of Ract!festival 2024
Ract!festival asked visitors to refrain from wearing a keffiyeh in order to “enable a largely conflict-free festival”, despite initially allowing it.
A visitor of Humboldt Forum was asked by security to remove a tote bag with Palestinian symbols (watermelon & fishnet design) or to leave. The Humboldt Forum later responded, saying that they “do not tolerate political symbols that trivialize violence or discriminate against groups of people. In our view, the melon on the bag is not such a symbol and should not have been flagged by security.”
155
18.06.24
Gymnasium Tiergarten
Graduates of the Gymnasium Tiergarten
The Berlin high school “Gymnasium Tiergarten” canceled the ceremonial awarding of graduation certificates to its students due to fear of pro-Palestine protests and students wearing keffiyeh.
156
21.07.24
CSD Köln
Palästina-Solidarität Köln
Palästina-Solidarität Köln was denied participation in the Cologne CSD because the organisers felt that the Palestine issue did not “fit into the overall picture”. When reminding the organizers of this year’s motto “Human Rights” and the fact that CSD is a demonstration, they offered a “compromise” and said that Palästina-Solidarität Köln can join the march, but without any reference to Palestine (no melons, kufiyas or banners).
Supporting plausible acts of genocide: Red lines and the failure of German Middle Eastern Studies
Benjamin Schuetze, Arnold Bergstraesser Institute (ABI) Freiburg, Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies (FRIAS), Germany
Since the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on January 26, 2024, it is official that Germany, the perpetrator of the largest genocide ever deliberately executed, is one of the primary supporters of what the principal judicial organ of the United Nation has described as plausibly amounting to genocide.[1] German support for Israel’s onslaught on Gaza stretches from an intervention in front of the ICJ; a 10-fold increase of German military exports to Israel,[2] including tank ammunition;[3] an unparalleled crackdown on pro-Palestine protests due to ‘possible antisemitism’;[4] the decision to not approve new funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in Gaza in light of unsubstantiated Israeli claims that employees had aided Hamas;[5] and the assurance of unconditional support for Israel by effectively the entire German political elite – as expressed in the unanimous parliamentary approval of a motion that assures Israel of Germany’s ‘full solidarity and any support needed’.[6]
It is hard to overestimate the scale of human suffering that Germany’s unconditional backing of Israel has enabled and caused, and continues to do. First and foremost, Germany has willingly made itself complicit in the killing of – at the time of writing – at least 31,045 Palestinians, including more than 12,300 children, in the destruction of more than half of Gaza’s homes and all of Gaza’s universities, and in the forced displacement of more than 85% of the total population of Gaza.[7] It would take four times the space of this essay to merely spell out the first names of all Palestinian children killed by the Israeli military over the past months. While German political and military support for Israel is nothing new, the audacity with which German politicians and members of the public legitimise said support with claims of moral authority, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of Israeli war crimes, and criminalize any criticism of those crimes, is new. The latter include indiscriminate attacks on civilians, deliberate starvation, looting, torturing and genocidal language.[8] Evidence for it is abundantly available for everybody to see, including via videos, tweets and testimonies by Israeli soldiers, who proudly record themselves blowing up Palestinian homes in honour of the birthdays of their loved ones, and who use tanks to deliberately run over civilians alive, mutilate dead bodies, and shoot unarmed civilians.[9]
This is remarkable because for decades Germany has celebrated itself for its culture of remembrance and its acknowledgment of responsibility for the Holocaust. However, Germany’s culture of remembrance is first and foremost about Germany itself and about desired self-understandings. German atonement for the Holocaust did not emerge from, nor does it go hand in hand with, a full and unconditional embrace of international human rights, regardless of the current government’s claims of pursuing a value-based foreign policy. The ongoing colonial amnesia and widespread ignorance vis-à-vis ‘Germany’s other genocide’ – the killing of 75,000 Herero and Nama in today’s Namibia – are a case in point.[10] Germany’s almost exclusive focus on the Holocaust has enabled blatant ignorance of German colonial crimes. Insistence on the Holocaust’s singularity or exceptionality – while emotionally understandable given its monstrous scale – is analytically problematic, as it takes the Holocaust out of ‘normal history’, separating it, as remarked by Raz Segal, from ‘the piles of bodies and destroyed cultures that European imperialism and colonialism […] had left around the world in the preceding few centuries,’[11] and ignoring the prevalence of genocidal tendencies in Germany long before 1933, as well as racist continuities that stretch until today. Also, as stated by Michael Wildt, it ‘blocks an appropriate culture of remembrance, which should be open and ‘multidirectional’.’[12]
The dominant understanding of the Holocaust is centred around the elimination of six million European Jews. This narrative sidelines and relegates to lesser importance the German mass killing of people with disabilities, LGBT people, and Soviet prisoners of war, as well as the Romani genocide (porajmos).[13] This narrow definition of the Holocaust is a crucial first step in constructing Israel, the self-proclaimed homeland of all Jews worldwide, as ‘the Holocaust’s happy ending for Germans,’ as pointedly stated by German Jewish journalist Emily Dische-Becker.[14] For German political elites, Israel appears to constitute a source of redemption. Anything that challenges this and/or Israel’s own supposed moral authority might potentially open the floodgates to the uncomfortable realisation that antisemitism, racism and genocidal tendencies have shaped and continue to shape German politics much more profoundly than merely for the twelve years of Nazi rule.
The main character in Germany’s culture of remembrance are not the victims of past German crimes, but Germany itself, and desired self-understandings that revolve around German innocence, civilisation and moral authority. These are protected at all costs. While the monstrosity of the Holocaust is clearly irreconcilable with this, the open acknowledgment of said monstrosity and the almost exclusive centring of Germany’s institutionalised culture of remembrance around it has bizarrely been turned into just another sign of Germany’s moral superiority.[15] The process of doing so requires simple answers to complex questions, such as the mentioned narrow definition of the Holocaust, the equation of Judaism with Israel, and the repression of dissenting Jewish voices, as well as various acts of silencing, open disregard and omission, such as the mentioned colonial amnesia. Together, they facilitate easily implementable political acts and rituals that supposedly provide continuous evidence of Germany’s moral superiority, in reality however merely illustrate the extent to which German society and politics is deeply German-centric and marked by structural racism.
In this context, a number of red lines have emerged. Their combined effect is the continuous upholding of images of German redemption, civilisation and moral authority, irrespective of German support for what could plausibly amount to genocide. Since the October 7 Hamas attacks, these red lines have solidified at lightning speed, and are increasingly reminiscent of authoritarian contexts. One such red line is the use of well-established academic terminology, such as ‘genocide’, ‘Nakba’, ‘settler colonialism’ and ‘apartheid’. Comparisons of ongoing Israeli violence to the war crimes committed by Nazi Germany constitute another marked red line, as illustrated by the cases of Masha Gessen and Ghassan Hage.[16] Further, observation of a Palestinian right to resist Israeli occupation, and support, but also already merely indicating understanding for the non-violent Boycott, Divestment and Sanction (BDS) movement can be added as a third distinct red line. A fourth one concerns the question of contextualisation. Contextualisation, which is distinctively different from legitimisation, is arguably to quite some extent what social science research fundamentally is about. German mainstream discourse, however, not only insists on framing Israel’s ongoing horrific war on Gaza within the context of Hamas’s violent assault on October 7, it effectively seeks to legitimise the former by continuously centring the latter. This becomes all the more problematic as the insistence on the need for contextualisation is deployed selectively. References to the context of decades of Israeli occupation, within which both the Hamas attacks and the ongoing war on Gaza occur(red), are thus mostly avoided.
The upholding of these red lines and the associated discursive protection of German moral authority in the face of active political and material support for Israeli war crimes draws on a number of highly disturbing intersecting dynamics. These are based on the dangerous and factually incorrect equation of Judaism with Israel, and include the externalisation of German antisemitism onto Arabs, the criminalisation of pro-Palestine activism and Palestinian identity, the normalisation of Islamophobia, and a full-scale attack on postcolonial approaches. When it comes to responding to these worrying trends, there is no beating around the bush: we must state directly that German Middle Eastern Studies as a discipline has failed. Despite better knowledge and safe job contracts (at least in the case of the not insignificant number of Germany-based professors of Islamic law, Arabic language, and history, geography, economics and politics of the Middle East and North Africa), German Middle Eastern Studies excels in acquiescence, silence and/or absence from public engagement. This is not to say that individual scholars have not publicly taken a principled stance – but the field as a whole has failed its most existential challenge.
Jannis Grimm has argued that, in Germany, showing empathy for both Israeli and Palestinian victims of political violence ‘is a tricky balancing act’, and insisted that, in light of increasingly polarising debates, ‘universities must remain places of dialogue’.[17] The November 2023 statement ‘Principles of solidarity,’ in which Nicole Deitelhoff, Rainer Forst, Klaus Günther and Jürgen Habermas expressed the narrow limits of their solidarity, by fundamentally refusing to even engage ongoing discussions among genocide scholars about whether the legal standards for genocide have been met,[18] was followed, in early December, by a much more balanced analysis by Hanna Pfeifer and Irene Weipert-Fenner.[19] Both this article and the one by Grimm are important contributions, but primarily argue in favour of a more differentiated and balanced discussion. While both articles were, in the German context, much needed interventions, the ICJ decision and the escalating death toll among Palestinians warrant more critical assessments. The arguably most powerful latest intervention by a Germany-based Middle Eastern Studies scholar dates back to summer 2023, when Muriel Asseburg, in an interview, observed that many Palestinians accuse ‘the West’ of double standards, insisted on the legitimacy of certain forms of Palestinian resistance against Israeli occupation, and expressed her understanding of BDS.[20] While Asseburg immediately became the target of a defamation campaign, including accusations of antisemitism by the Israeli embassy, she, luckily, also received significant official and public backing. Whether she would have received such support after October 7 is troublingly unclear.
It is clear that public interventions that challenge the above-mentioned red lines come at a cost. Given the scale of the dynamics that we are currently bearing witness to, each and every one of us, however, must do more to resist. This counts all the more for Germany-based Middle Eastern Studies scholars and/or political scientists, including this author, but especially for those on permanent contracts. This is not to say that all of the aforementioned dynamics can easily be overturned by a discipline that is seen as exotic by the mainstream and, when compared to others, remains rather small. Still, the relative silence of Germany-based professors of Middle Eastern studies, especially politics, is deeply troubling. It testifies to a widespread tendency to remain passive, to best avoid the topic of Israel/Palestine, and to certainly not seek to proactively impact public debate by adopting what may be seen as a controversial position.
But if an ICJ decision about the plausibility of Israel committing genocide does not make a scholar publicly speak out against unconditional German support for Israel, what will? What purpose does a state-funded expert in Arabic language have, who remains stuck in the ivory tower when politicians representing that state contemplate the generic prohibition of Arabic slogans at public protests?[21] What purpose has a renowned scholar of Ottoman and/or Arab history who fails to publicly speak out against the open distortion and/or negation of simple historical facts in state-funded exhibitions?[22]What purpose have scholars working on decoloniality, who are only decolonial in funding applications, or selectively on those topics where there is no controversy to be feared? What about an expert of MENA politics, who remains silent when politicians from the biggest German political party suggest withdrawing citizenship from anti-Semites, but in doing so only mean those with dual citizenship, i.e. Arab immigrants?[23] There is no lack of expertise, there is a lack of courage to take a principled stance against the large-scale dehumanisation of Arabs and Muslims, and the ongoing mass murder of Palestinians.
Given the extent to which almost all German political parties have adopted Islamophobic and/or anti-Arab discourses,[24] public engagement by Germany-based scholars studying Islam, the Arab world, and/or postcolonial politics is not anymore an option, but a duty. Resistance must occur on a number of fronts, including defending academic freedoms much more proactively, and imparting knowledge about the Arab world to German society at large, as well as to politicians and decision-makers in particular, who far too often still lack even basic knowledge of politics in the Arab world and orientalise it. The public showing of exhibitions about the Nakba,[25] and the establishment of more school and university exchange programs with the Arab world are only some examples of what is highly needed.
A key reason behind the silence of German Middle Eastern Studies is the widespread but incorrect and dangerous equation of Israel with Judaism and, relatedly, of antizionism with antisemitism, and the concomitant levels of self-censorship when it comes to publicly discussing Israel/Palestine. The German parliament’s designation of the BDS movement as anti-Semitic and public adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism – as opposed to the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism,[26] which provides much clearer guidance to identify and fight antisemitism – have heavily restricted freedom of speech on Israel/Palestine.[27] With its heavy focus on Israel, the IHRA definition helps gradually redefine antisemitism so that Germany can now, in light of its unconditional support for Israel and in light of initiatives like Strike Germany, bizarrely portray itself as victim of antisemitism.[28] Contrary to this, the state-condoned repression of Jewish voices in solidarity with Palestine however only barely conceals the German establishment’s own antisemitism.[29]
Antisemitism is thriving in Germany. For instance, ‘Jew’ is widely used as an insult in schoolyards.[30] Last year it was leaked that the Deputy Minister-President of Bavaria circulated an anti-Semitic pamphlet in his school days. Despite this, his party was re-elected with an increase of the vote. According to official figures, 83% of recorded violent anti-Semitic acts in Germany in 2022 were committed by the far-right.[31] It goes without saying that antisemitism must be fought no matter the context. If, however, critique of Israeli politics is almost automatically met with accusations of antisemitism, something is seriously going wrong.[32] This development has reached a point whereby the German mainstream has increasingly adopted the generic labelling of any critic of the occupation as anti-Semites, similar to, among other actors, the Israeli far-right.[33] It is hard to top the absurdity of non-Jewish German bureaucrats accusing Jews in solidarity with Palestine of antisemitism.[34]
Besides the active silencing of Jewish voices in the name of fighting antisemitism, German authorities have gone so far as to enable Berlin schools to prohibit mere indicators of Palestinian identity, such as the wearing of the Kuffiyah and the use of ‘free Palestine’ stickers or slogans.[35] The police in North Rhine-Westphalia started circulating an information brochure to regional schools, in which it states that accusing Israel of committing a genocide may constitute hate speech and may thus be indictable as a criminal offense.[36] If the ICJ was based 200 km further east of The Hague, its judges might face legal issues. In Germany, using well-established academic terminology, quoting the principal judicial organ of the UN and/or merely being Palestinian is widely interpreted as support for terrorism and/or antisemitism. According to an initiative for research on antisemitism based at the University of Trier, ‘Stop the genocide in Gaza’ is an anti-Semitic slogan.[37] Local Berlin authorities introduced a brochure to school programs that trivialises the Nakba. An exhibition on the establishment of Israel, officially supported by the Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Antisemitism, claims that the primary reason for Palestinian expulsion and flight in 1948 was ‘general fear of the threat of war’,[38] instead of deliberate ethnic cleansing, as is historically proven.[39] Among other places, the library of the University of Freiburg hosted this exhibition, which also reproduces the colonial trope of an empty Palestine that was available for Jewish colonisation. The term settler colonialism, which effectively is, as stated by the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES) a ‘descriptor of the policies of dispossession and displacement implemented by the Israeli state against Palestinians’,[40] evokes similar reactions as the term apartheid, which the German government rejects outright, despite Amnesty International (among many other human rights organisations) providing ample evidence for its applicability in the case of Israel/Palestine.[41]
The criminalisation and/or public condemnation of terminology such as ‘genocide’, ‘Nakba’, ‘settler colonialism’ and ‘apartheid’ renders meaningful conversations about Palestine practically impossible. An ever-growing archive of cancelled public events, awards and/or job contracts gives testimony to the scale of ongoing attacks on academic freedom.[42] The idea that Israel could be a perpetrator of genocide fundamentally clashes with the German state’s self-understanding as defender of international human rights and its embrace of Israeli security as part of its own reason of state. As a consequence, German politicians and mainstream media fiercely police the use of the above terminology and almost instinctively insist on Israel as victim of genocide. As such, it can be portrayed as both the logical recipient of unconditional support and an easy source for moral redemption. Discursive framings matter, plausibly genocidal acts don’t.
Thus far, the most powerful and vocal resistance to the German state’s direct support of plausible acts of genocide comes from outside the political establishment. Creative artists, as well as Arab and Jewish activists, journalists, lawyers and intellectuals have been among the most prominent voices of dissent.[43] Instead of providing such critical Arab and Jewish voices with a platform, mainstream debate is, with a few exceptions, characterised by the silencing of Arab voices and the policing of Jewish ones, i.e. the integration of those who are pro-Zionist, and the turning of Anti-Zionist ones into passive objects to be patronised. At the core of public German debate are (non-Jewish) Germans who seek to speak on behalf of minorities, and who police Jewishness, anti-Semitism, and what is deemed to be acceptable terminology. Just as the ‘Antideutsche’ ‘weaponise the fetishisation of Jews through their obsessive Zionism,’ as stated by Rachael Shapiro,[44] the far-right use their support for Israel as entrance ticket into the mainstream.
In theory, German Middle Eastern Studies would be well equipped to offer a counterweight to the above-described developments. However, fear of reprisals and the curious persistence of the belief that scholarship can and should be apolitical have thus far prevented any form of more vocal public engagement by the German Middle Eastern Studies Association (DAVO). This institutional silence has only helped worsen an already toxic German public debate on the Arab world at large and Palestine, Palestinian suffering and the Palestinian right to resist Israeli occupation in particular. While promising efforts are under way to hopefully soon establish a DAVO Committee on Academic Freedom (CAF), akin to similar already existing committees operated by both BRISMES and MESA, the level of institutional and individual reluctance is considerable. What is certain is that if/when established, a DAVO CAF would have a lot of work to do.
[24] Mustafa, Imad, 2023, Der Islam gehört (nicht) zu Deutschland: Islam und antimuslimischer Rassismus in Parteiensystem und Bundestag (Bielefeld: transcript).
[27] The German Rectors’ Conference called for the adoption of the IHRA definition at all German universities, ‘Kein Platz für Antisemitismus‘, Entschließung der HRK-MItgliederversammlung, 19 November 2019.
On August 12, 2024, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) released a new Statement on Academic Boycotts, written and unanimously approved by the AAUP Committee A on Academic Freedom and adopted on August 9 by the AAUP’s governing Council.
The new statement reconsiders the 2006 AAUP opposition to academic boycotts.
The newly revised policy maintains that “academic boycotts are not in themselves violations of academic freedom and can instead be legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education.” The AAUP recognizes that “when faculty members choose to support academic boycotts, they can legitimately seek to protect and advance academic freedom and the fundamental rights of colleagues and students who are living and working under circumstances that violate academic freedom and one or more of those rights. In such contexts, academic boycotts are not in themselves violations of academic freedom.”
According to the AAUP, the “freedom to produce and exchange knowledge depends upon the guarantee of other basic freedoms and human rights, among them the rights to life, liberty, security of person, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, and the rights to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one’s residence.”
The statement argues that “individual faculty members and students should be free to weigh, assess, and debate the specific circumstances giving rise to calls for systematic academic boycotts and to make their own choices regarding their participation in them.”
Also stating, “a faculty member’s choice to support or oppose academic boycotts should not itself be the basis of formal reprisal.”
The AAUP “reiterates that academic boycotts should neither involve any political or religious litmus tests nor target individual scholars and teachers engaged in ordinary academic practices, such as publishing scholarship, delivering lectures and conference presentations, or participating in research collaborations.” For the AAUP, “Academic boycotts should target only institutions of higher education that themselves violate academic freedom or the fundamental rights upon which academic freedom depends.”
It is the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which is behind the new move. According to its publication, it has “long held that academic exchange should be freely conducted without regard to political or religious viewpoint. On that basis, since its 2006 report On Academic Boycotts, the committee has opposed academic boycotts and encouraged faculty and academic associations to “seek alternative means, less inimical to the principle of academic freedom, to pursue their concerns.” At the same time, according to Committee A, the AAUP has “recognize[d] the right of individual faculty members and groups of academics not to cooperate with other individual faculty members or academic institutions with whom or with which they disagree… when such noncooperation takes the form of a systematic academic boycott, it threatens the principles of free expression and communication on which we collectively depend.”
“While we reaffirm Committee A’s commitment to the free exchange of knowledge, regardless of political or religious viewpoint, we also recognize that the committee’s position opposing academic boycotts has been controversial, contested, and used to compromise academic freedom.” The AAUP “position deserves reconsideration and clarification.”
According to Committee A, “the Association’s own history is “complex” and “includes support for campus strikes, support for divestiture during the anti-apartheid campaigns in South Africa, and a questioning of the requirement of institutional neutrality during the Vietnam War.”
Committee A recognizes that when “faculty members choose to support academic boycotts, they can legitimately seek to protect and advance the academic freedom and fundamental rights of colleagues and students who are living and working under circumstances that violate that freedom and one or more of those rights. In such contexts, academic boycotts are not in themselves violations of academic freedom; rather, they can be considered legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education.”
The “freedom to produce and exchange knowledge depends upon the guarantee of other basic freedoms, including the rights to life, liberty, security of person, and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention; the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; the right to hold opinions without interference; the right to freedom of expression; the right to participate in public affairs; the right to equal protection and effective protection against discrimination; the right to freedom of association; the right to peaceful assembly; the right to work; the right to participate in cultural life; the right to education; and the rights to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one’s residence. Not all of our academic colleagues and students in the United States and around the world are afforded these fundamental rights.”
Interestingly, Rana Jaleel, the chair of Committee A, is a pro-Palestinian activist. In a 2016 AAUP publication titled “November-December 2016: Race on Campus,” Jaleel published an article, “Teaching Palestine: The importance of bringing the Israel-Palestine conflict into the mainstream.” She stated, “the AAUP must, in the name of academic freedom, continue to push back against legislation and campus policies that cast any critique or less than favorable academic assessment of the Israeli state as discriminatory.” In plain English, Jaleel and other activists have turned their classes and writings into the propaganda arm of the Palestinians. Even worse, Jaleel is a signatory of the petition “Endorsers of the US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel.”
The widely-read Inside of Higher Educationemphasized the significance of the change under the title “AAUP Ends Two Decades Opposition to Academic Boycotts.” The author described “the AAUP’s now-abandoned statement opposing academic boycotts shows how the organization found it necessary, from the beginning, to thread the needle on what kinds of protests it deemed acceptable.”
Critics have pointed out the ongoing social science revolution, which turned from post-WWII positivism to activism. As well known, in positivism, social sciences were committed to detailed empirical research to reach conclusions. The currently dominant neo-Marxist, critical theory has little interest in empirical reality because of what it describes as the cultural hegemony of the ruling classes. To unmask the “true reality,” scholars must apply more “intuitive methods” like ideologically driven ontology and epistemology. The influx of activist faculty, notably in sociology, political science, and Middle East Studies, many of Middle Eastern origins caused a wholesale delegitimization of Israel. Worse, in a manifestation of double standards – the hallmark of antisemitism – the activist scholars have not attempted to censure Iran and Arab societies where violations of human rights are widespread. In Iran, for example, women who refuse to wear the hijab are arrested, some even killed, and gays are executed by hanging. In some Arab societies, LGBTQ live often in hiding; ironically, Palestinian LGBTQ have sought refuge in Israel.
Clearly, the AAUP is becoming not only an anti-Israel podium but also unacademic. By arguing that “academic boycotts are not in themselves violations of academic freedom,” the AAUP contradicts the essence of academic freedom. The whole academic world will lose once academics start boycotting each other due to politics.
The AAUP has released a new Statement on Academic Boycotts, which was written and unanimously approved by Committee A on Academic Freedom and adopted by the AAUP’s governing Council on August 9.
The new statement reconsiders the AAUP’s prior categorical opposition to academic boycotts set forth in the 2006 report On Academic Boycotts. The AAUP’s revised policy maintains that academic boycotts are not in themselves violations of academic freedom and can instead be legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education. The statement recognizes that when faculty members choose to support academic boycotts, they can legitimately seek to protect and advance academic freedom and the fundamental rights of colleagues and students who are living and working under circumstances that violate academic freedom and one or more of those rights. In such contexts, academic boycotts are not in themselves violations of academic freedom.
The freedom to produce and exchange knowledge depends upon the guarantee of other basic freedoms and human rights, among them the rights to life, liberty, security of person, freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention, and the rights to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one’s residence. The statement concludes that individual faculty members and students should be free to weigh, assess, and debate the specific circumstances giving rise to calls for systematic academic boycotts and to make their own choices regarding their participation in them. Further, it holds that a faculty member’s choice to support or oppose academic boycotts should not itself be the basis of formal reprisal.
The statement reiterates that academic boycotts should neither involve any political or religious litmus tests nor target individual scholars and teachers engaged in ordinary academic practices, such as publishing scholarship, delivering lectures and conference presentations, or participating in research collaborations. Academic boycotts should target only institutions of higher education that themselves violate academic freedom or the fundamental rights upon which academic freedom depends.
The following statement was approved by the AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure in July 2024 and adopted by the Association’s Council in August 2024. It supersedes Committee A’s 2006 report On Academic Boycotts.
The AAUP’s Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure has long held that academic exchange should be freely conducted without regard to political or religious viewpoint. On that basis, since its 2006 report On Academic Boycotts, the committee has opposed academic boycotts and encouraged faculty and academic associations to “seek alternative means, less inimical to the principle of academic freedom, to pursue their concerns.”1 At the same time, as Committee A observed in that report, the AAUP has “recognize[d] the right of individual faculty members and groups of academics not to cooperate with other individual faculty members or academic institutions with whom or with which they disagree.” Yet, the committee continued, “when such noncooperation takes the form of a systematic academic boycott, it threatens the principles of free expression and communication on which we collectively depend.”2 While we reaffirm Committee A’s commitment to the free exchange of knowledge, regardless of political or religious viewpoint, we also recognize that the committee’s position opposing academic boycotts has been controversial, contested, and used to compromise academic freedom. We therefore believe that this position deserves reconsideration and clarification.
Academic freedom and productive debate may not always be appropriately secured by a categorical position that disregards nuance and is inattentive to context. As Committee A’s 2006 report observed, the Association’s own history is “complex” and “includes support for campus strikes, support for divestiture during the anti-apartheid campaigns in South Africa, and a questioning of the requirement of institutional neutrality during the Vietnam War.”3 The report also quoted comments made by Nelson Mandela to the African National Congress: “In some cases . . . it might be correct to boycott, and in others it might be unwise and dangerous. In still other cases another weapon of political struggle might be preferred. A demonstration, a protest march, a strike, or civil disobedience might be resorted to, all depending on the actual conditions at the given time.”4
Committee A recognizes that when faculty members choose to support academic boycotts, they can legitimately seek to protect and advance the academic freedom and fundamental rights of colleagues and students who are living and working under circumstances that violate that freedom and one or more of those rights. In such contexts, academic boycotts are not in themselves violations of academic freedom; rather, they can be considered legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education. The freedom to produce and exchange knowledge depends upon the guarantee of other basic freedoms, including the rights to life, liberty, security of person, and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention; the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; the right to hold opinions without interference; the right to freedom of expression; the right to participate in public affairs; the right to equal protection and effective protection against discrimination; the right to freedom of association; the right to peaceful assembly; the right to work; the right to participate in cultural life; the right to education; and the rights to liberty of movement and freedom to choose one’s residence. Not all of our academic colleagues and students in the United States and around the world are afforded these fundamental rights.
Committee A therefore holds that individual faculty members and students should be free to weigh, assess, and debate the specific circumstances giving rise to calls for systematic academic boycotts and to make their own choices regarding their participation in them. To do otherwise contravenes academic freedom. Faculty members’ choices to support or oppose academic boycotts should not themselves be the basis of formal reprisal.5 While such choices may be criticized and debated, faculty members and students should not face institutional or governmental censorship or discipline for participating in academic boycotts, for declining to do so, or for criticizing and debating the choices of those with whom they disagree. The decision to participate in an academic boycott should be situationally sensitive and consider the full range of alternative tactics available to achieve the desired goals. We reiterate that academic boycotts should neither involve any political or religious litmus tests nor target individual scholars and teachers engaged in ordinary academic practices, such as publishing scholarship, delivering lectures and conference presentations, or participating in research collaborations. Academic boycotts should target only institutions of higher education that themselves violate academic freedom or the fundamental rights upon which academic freedom depends.
4. Nelson Mandela, No Easy Walk to Freedom(London: Heinemann Educational, 1990), 63, quoted in “On Academic Boycotts,” 42.
5. See also “Committee A Statement on Extramural Utterances,” Policy Documents and Reports, 11th ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2015), 31.
AAUP Ends Two-Decade Opposition to Academic Boycotts
In 2005, the American Association of University Professors spoke out against this form of protest amid calls for scholars to spurn Israeli institutions. Now, the group says boycotts “can be considered legitimate tactical responses.”
The American Association of University Professors has dropped its categorical opposition to academic boycotts.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | American Association of University Professors
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has dropped its nearly 20-year-old categorical opposition to academic boycotts, in which scholars and scholarly groups refuse to work or associate with targeted universities. The reversal, just like the earlier statement, comes amid war between Israelis and Palestinians.
In 2005, near the end of the second intifada, a Palestinian uprising, the AAUP denounced such boycotts; the following year, it said they “strike directly at the free exchange of ideas.” That statement has now been replaced by one saying boycotts “can be considered legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education.” The new statement doesn’t mention Israel, Palestine or other current events—but the timing isn’t coincidental.
The new position says that “when faculty members choose to support academic boycotts, they can legitimately seek to protect and advance the academic freedom and fundamental rights of colleagues and students who are living and working under circumstances that violate that freedom and one or more of those rights.”
The AAUP is both a union and a national faculty group that establishes widely adopted policies defining and safeguarding academic freedom and tenure. Its Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure voted to approve the new stance in July, and the group’s national Council voted to approve it Friday.
The old policy had “been reportedly used to squelch academic freedom,” said Rana Jaleel, chair of Committee A. Now, “what we’re saying is that we trust our members—our faculty on the ground who are doing the organizing work—to assess, weigh and decide whether or not they want to participate in academic boycotts,” she said.
The AAUP’s new statement still says boycotts shouldn’t “involve any political or religious litmus tests nor target individual scholars and teachers engaged in ordinary academic practices,” such as conference presentations. It says such “boycotts should target only institutions of higher education that themselves violate academic freedom or the fundamental rights upon which academic freedom depends.”
“Freedom to produce and exchange knowledge depends upon the guarantee of other basic freedoms,” the document says—including, among others, the freedom to live, the freedom from arbitrary arrest and the freedom of movement.
Both two decades ago and today, the organization’s statements on academic boycotts have come amid calls from Palestinian supporters to boycott Israel—academically, economically and otherwise. Despite the AAUP’s past opposition, some major discipline-based U.S. scholarly associations have endorsed academic boycotts of Israel: the American Studies Association did so around a decade ago, and the American Anthropological Association joined last year.
The AAUP, while it called for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza in February and has now dropped its opposition to academic boycotts, hasn’t gone as far as specifically endorsing an academic boycott of Israeli universities or the broader boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
The importance of bringing the Israel-Palestine conflict into the mainstream.
By Rana Jaleel
I teach courses that reflect my work in critical queer, feminist, and ethnic studies, security studies, and law. In all of my classes, I teach about Palestine. When I tell colleagues this, I tend to hear one of the following in reply:
1. That’s brave; I avoid it like the plague.
2. You are going to get in trouble.
But teaching Palestine is not about bravery or troublemaking. It is about academic freedom—about the ability to conduct research and teach about a topic of global import without undue constraint.
For any account of the historical and contemporary politics of race in the United States, the issue of Palestine has been and remains a significant, if at times overlooked, subject. US civil rights–era activist groups—including the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Black Panthers—advocated global racial justice platforms that viewed Palestinian problems as racial problems akin to their own. More recently, the Israel-Palestine conflict has emerged as a key element of the Black Lives Matter “Vision for Black Lives” policy platform (which calls for the cessation of US funding and military aid to the Israeli state and dubs its treatment of Palestinians “genocide”). The issue has also arisen in more conventional venues, proving contentious at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
Yet despite the fact that the Israel-Palestine conflict is unequivocally a mainstream political and social issue, on many campuses, it is almost too fraught to mention.
BDS and Beyond
The AAUP categorically condemns academic boycotts on the grounds that they inhibit the free exchange of ideas and are therefore prima facie violations of academic freedom (although this position is a matter of no small amount of internal debate; see, for example, the lively exchange in volume 4 of the AAUP’s Journal of Academic Freedom, published in 2013). But initiatives developed by opponents of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement have smuggled in proposals and regulations that undermine the very academic freedoms they purport to defend. These include campus policy and mission statements that equate anti-Zionist and other criticisms of certain Israeli state actions with anti-Semitism. Undertaken in the name of antidiscrimination, these policies can chill classroom discussion of Israel and Palestine—especially as nationwide legislative efforts to forestall BDS activism embrace this same logic.
Over the last several years, a groundswell of legislation introduced at the local, state, and federal levels has taken aim at human rights activism related to Palestine, specifically BDS. According to Jewish Voice for Peace, as of August 2016, twenty-two states had introduced or passed anti-BDS legislation that seeks to deny public funding to organizations that choose to participate in the BDS movement. This year alone saw anti-BDS laws enacted in Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Similar legislative initiatives are being organized in dozens of other states. Meanwhile, in New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed an anti-BDS executive order, and in New Jersey, another anti-BDS bill passed the legislature. Eugene Kontorovich, a law professor at Northwestern University who has consulted with groups advancing anti-BDS legislation, describes the turn to legal activism as an attempt to “use state contracting power to fight back against racism.”
These efforts have bolstered campus-oriented initiatives that deny the distinction between critical perspectives on Zionism or Israeli state policies and anti-Semitism. The same logic lends credence to projects like Canary Mission, the latest in a line of anonymous blacklisting sites designed to intimidate students, faculty members, and community activists engaged in Palestine solidarity work. Canary Mission has used Twitter to reach these students’ employers and prospective graduate departments, claiming that members of Students for Justice in Palestine are racist and anti-Semitic and that they support terrorists.
At the institutional level, in March 2016 the University of California Board of Regents proffered a document intended to reaffirm antidiscrimination as a core institutional tenet by restating the mission of the University of California. These “Principles against Intolerance,” however, identified only one specific form of discrimination (anti-Semitism), and early iterations of the principles essentially equated anti- Zionism with anti-Semitism. All ten UC academic senate divisional chairs as well as many individual faculty members cosigned a statement in response, noting that the document as written would be “counterproductive . . . insofar as it reinforces the perception that those in charge of the university take discrimination against some groups more seriously than discrimination against others.” The responding statement also urged the regents to refrain from altering the mission statement of the University of California system absent “the same tests and discussions as the mission of the 1970s,” which had included extensive consultation with systemwide faculty, staff, student, and other university community members.
Both Canary Mission and the “Principles against Intolerance” (and its incursions on shared governance) are the fruit of a collective unease about discussing Israel and Palestine that has been cultivated through the collapse of critique into (illegal) discrimination. In today’s climate, it is personally and professionally risky to participate in activist or academic work on Israel and Palestine in or out of the classroom. This situation endangers meaningful engagement with race, including the comprehensive study and discussion of global antiracist social movements. These tensions resurface each quarter in my classroom.
In the Classroom
Like it or not, discussion of Israel and Palestine is a necessary component of any course that aims to cover contemporary thinking in critical ethnic and queer studies. Critical ethnic studies scholars grapple with global racial solidarity platforms of the sort offered by Black Lives Matter and indigenous activists. Like certain US civil rights–era activists before them, these activists link the logic that fuels US racial injustices domestically with a global foreign policy animated by racial hierarchies, now including the US military funding of the Israeli state. Queer studies scholars—particularly those whose research involves sexuality and transnational social movements—have produced multifaceted works that follow what happens when gay movements, often historically oppositional or even antagonistic to state interests, succeed in wooing the state to their side. The recent and unprecedented successes of these movements have given scholars a lot to talk about: How are states now championing sexual rights in ways that can mask other forms of oppression, including racial and migrant oppression? What steps may democratic states take in the name of security (including the protection of sexual and racial minorities)? What are the possibilities and limits of contemporary global racial and sexual solidarity campaigns?
Each quarter, my classes engage with these questions in the US and Canadian, Western European, and Israeli contexts because these states and regions broadcast their embrace of certain LGBTQ issues to signal a larger dedication to democratic rule. Often, states undertake this signaling to refute legitimate criticisms of the state’s repressive policies against other marginalized groups, especially racialized minorities. Queer activists and scholars call this practice “pinkwashing” and use the term to mark the limits of who gets protected, whose and what types of “diversity” (racial, sexual, or otherwise) are valued within liberal multicultural democracy. The Obama administration, for example, has praised queer DREAMers even as US Immigration and Customs Enforcement deports a record number of migrants and detains transgendered ones under deplorable conditions. Similarly, through its state-sponsored “Brand Israel” campaign, Israel seeks to establish itself as a “Mecca” and global destination for LGBTQ persons—unless those LGBTQ persons happen to be Palestinian. In short, the advent of same-sex sexual rights as a state agenda has opened new vistas of global activism and scholarship that require critical examination— not unthinking or automatic acceptance or rejection—in and out of the classroom.
But before introducing this scholarship in my courses, I have to establish and defend the necessity and propriety of speaking about Israel and Palestine at all. In the current political climate, some students come into the classroom already equating any criticism of Israeli state policy with anti-Semitism. This, in turn, makes it difficult for them to enter classroom discussions in which simplistic media representations of the Israel-Palestine conflict as a purely ethnoreligious antagonism are displaced, disrupted, or in any way complicated. Some classroom statements that have provoked shock, tears, deadening silence, and rage from students from a range of political and ideological persuasions include the following:
1. There is a Palestinian diaspora.
2. There are Jewish Arabs and Christian Arabs, Jewish Palestinians and Christian Palestinians. And there are Druze, Samaritans, migrant workers (who come primarily from the Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand and often labor in substandard conditions), and African refugees, among others, who reside in Israel and Palestine and are affected by their respective laws and policies.
3. Sharia is neither a uniform nor a unified body of law.
4. Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are both severe social problems.
5. US-based social justice activism has historically linked and continues to link domestic racial oppression, including black oppression, to global racial struggles, including Palestinian ones.
These are statements of fact, well established by vast bodies of scholarship. What’s disturbing is not that students (and faculty) don’t know these particular facts. What’s disturbing is that clear moral lines have been drawn in ways that place facts beyond the discursive pale, where they have come to be seen as traumatic psychological triggers rather than as subjects of academic inquiry or political debate.
This has little to do with any shortcoming on the part of the students, who are overwhelmingly serious thinkers and above all striving to be good people, and everything to do with the political and cultural context in which we find ourselves—one that can perversely curtail academic freedom in the name of a hollow concept of antidiscrimination that supplants equity or justice concerns with behavioral policing and speech prohibitions. Here, a neutral civility (read: silence) in the face of Palestinian human rights abuse is recompense for an anti-Semitism that spans centuries. Here, the prescribed, purportedly antiracist response to the long-standing problem of global anti-Semitism amounts functionally to silence in the face of state violence.
Everyone researching, teaching, or otherwise engaged in any discussion of race at the university, however, deserves better. And some of the work to make “better” a possibility must start on our campuses and within our professional organizations, including the AAUP. Whatever one believes about BDS, faculty and other academic workers should be concerned with how the idea of its unlawfulness has at times transmogrified into the presumed incorrectness—even racist illegality— of discussions or analyses that do not begin and end with an at least tacit endorsement of the Israeli state. For some wings of queer studies, for example, this silencing essentially amounts to a silencing of disciplinary work. When one of the tasks of queer studies scholars is to analyze how certain notions of sexual freedom can become a vehicle (for better or worse) of state power, no state or institution can emerge entirely unscathed. And if a core tenet of a functioning democracy is robust political dissension and critique, no one should expect, desire, or require affirmation of or complicity with state action as proof of another’s nondiscriminatory bona fides.
For these reasons, when we talk about race on campus, Israel and Palestine should be considered. And in order for Israel and Palestine to be considered adequately, the AAUP must, in the name of academic freedom, continue to push back against legislation and campus policies that cast any critique or less than favorable academic assessment of the Israeli state as discriminatory. To insist on the academic freedom necessary to speak, teach, and conduct research about Israel and Palestine is to preserve a condition of learning. It is to ensure the intellectual space necessary to consider how to live in an interconnected world and how to produce the kinds of knowledge that can be responsive to and responsibly engaged with it. Most crucially, to insist on that academic freedom is to acknowledge and refuse to obscure a history of global antiracist work and social justice organizing premised on the core belief that people share interests that connect them across identity groups and state membership designations. That’s a lesson as good as lost if evidence of antiracist thinking on and off campus continues to require deference to, if not praise of, the state.
Rana Jaleel is assistant professor of gender, sexuality, and women’s studies at the University of California, Davis. She is also a member of the AAUP’s Committee on Women in the Academic Profession.
Since its foundation in 2004, Israel Academia Monitor has reported on numerous cases of academic boycotts. Indeed, some of the early advocates of BDS were Israeli academics, such as Prof. Rachel Giora, Dr. Anat Matar, and Prof. Ilan Pappe, among others. The Israeli academic community and the government were very slow to respond to these challenges. The upheaval on campus in the United States and Europe changed this attitude. Currently, several efforts are emerging to combat the threats of academic boycotts.
On July 9, 2024, The Lobby for Higher Education held a meeting in the Knesset titled “The State of Campuses in the USA and Boycott Campaigns: Challenges and Opportunities for the Israeli Higher Education System.”
The Israeli Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology published an announcement titled “The Higher Education Lobby in the Knesset,” which received little media attention.
The Higher Education Lobby meeting was chaired by MK Ze’ev Elkin and MK Eli Dallal. The Lobby dealt with the state of higher education under the threat of boycotts. Gila Gamaliel, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, said, “Calls for a boycott have devastating consequences for the freedom of research and international cooperation on our part, and it is a matter of long-term potential damage. We will not stand by while Israel’s research and academic centers are under a gnawing attack from Israel’s economic and security strength.” The heads of higher education institutions, ministers, and members of the Knesset also participated in the discussion.
Minister Gamaliel referred to the increasing calls for a boycott that have devastating consequences for the freedom of research and may harm high-tech, technological, defense, and medical industries – which depend on academic research. The Minister informed the lobby that she defined the fight against the boycott as a top priority issue in her Ministry’s activities with the intention of protecting Israeli research. Israeli researchers are, according to her, “under a gnawing attack against Israel’s economic and security strength.” Following her remarks, the Minister reviewed her Ministry’s activities to curb the destructive consequences of an academic boycott in the Israeli and international arena, which includes formulating and approving an operative decision-making proposal in the Ministerial Committee for Innovation and Science chaired by her in the amount of NIS 90 million for the purposes of a legal fight against the boycotts; conducting scientific conferences in Israel; exposure of programs in Israel for students from abroad, promotion of binational research, exposure of tours in Israel for senior researchers and teams from academic institutions abroad.
The Minister also announced she is working to form an international front against boycotts and manifestations of anti-Semitism in the academic and scientific arena, as she did recently in her meeting with her German counterpart, who stated: “There must be no place for hatred of Israel and hatred of Jews,” and that “Jewish students and lecturers must be able to feel safe.”
Minister Gamliel assured the heads of higher education institutions that the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology will act resolutely to ensure that the scientific boycott does not harm Israeli education and research and that Israeli researchers and students can continue to create and lead in their fields despite the challenges.
Another effort to fight the boycott comes from the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. The Technion’s Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy Research has recently established a task force to collect data on academic boycott activities worldwide, analyze them, and suggest ways to confront them. As the Samuel Neaman Institute notes, “Since the Hamas attack on October 7th, 2023, there has been an increase in reports of anti-Israel activities on campuses worldwide.” The task force addresses the issue under the banner “Scholar Shield.” It includes the following team members: Prof. Boaz Golany,Prof. Rivka Carmi,Tsipy Buchnik,Ella Barzani,Oshrat Katz Shacham,Golan Tamir, and Prof. Yair Goldberg. The task force collaborates with the Council of University Heads (VERA), the Council of College Heads (VARAM), relevant government ministries, and other stakeholders.
Responding to the boycott calls, the Israeli association of scholars, “BaShaar – Academic Community for Israeli Society,” published their position paper on July 9, 2024, titled “The Academic Boycott on Israel.” It states that BaShaar “views with great concern the expanding trends in academia worldwide to boycott Israeli academia. The calls for a boycott are a central part of the wave of riots and demonstrations that sweep campuses. In some cases, these calls reveal blind antisemitism, anti-Israelism and often even blind support of Hamas terror organization, its atrocities and its charter which calls for the destruction of Israel. These trends should be fought vehemently.” BaShaar added it “condemns supporters of the murderous terrorist organization Hamas, the rising manifestations of anti-Semitism against Jews just because they are Jews, the anti-Israelism that denies any right of the State of Israel to exist, and the incitement and boycott movement.”
BaShaar stated there are some liberal scholars who are not blindly Antisemitic or anti-Israel. Such scholars do support the calls for a boycott out of “critical response to Israel’s policies and activities in Gaza and the genuine concern for the tens of thousands of Gazan casualties, many of them non-involved civilians, men, women and children in this terrible war and the demand to guarantee the needed humanitarian help.”
BaShaar then argued that even in such cases, the “call for boycott is unjustified.” BaShaar said, “Regardless of one’s views concerning the policies of the Israeli government, they do not justify an academic boycott. Science and humanities should serve as bridges between people and nations. Academic values and ethos including freedom of thought and expression, tolerance, equality and progress are now under attack in many countries, including Israel. Israeli universities are committed to these values, as declared by academic staff, academic organizations and university managements. An academic boycott joins such attacks and undermines these cherished values.” BaShaar ended by calling “upon our colleagues worldwide: while one may certainly express her or his criticism and strong concern about Israeli policies and actions, it should not follow the road of boycott.
However, upon announcing the newly established Scholar Shield on the pages of Academia-IL-Bashaar, two messages surfaced from Israeli academics. The first arrived from Prof. (emerita) Outi Bat-El Foux, Department of Linguistics, Tel-Aviv University, who wrote, “There are no Israeli academics who act against Israel, but there are people who interpret the words and actions of academics as activity against Israel and as anti-Semitism. Even those who advocate a boycott of academic institutions do so for Israel, and not against it, with the true intention that the boycott will cause the government to behave with a certain degree of sanity.” The second message that followed arrived from Hanna Herzog, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Tel Aviv University, who wrote, “I agree with what Outi wrote. Still, I was amazed to receive this email – is this what the Neaman Institution was created for? To be part of the Shin Bet or any other state body. And all for money. Where did we get to?”
Bat-El Foux’s comments are sheer sophistry with its twisted logic and turgid prose. BDS, in her opinion, “would cause the government to behave with a certain degree of sanity.” In other words, she considers the Israeli response to the murderous attack of Hamas on October 7 “insane,” as opposed to the “sane” behavior of Hamas. Herzog’s comment lamenting that the Neaman Institute is “part of the Shin Bet” is even more egregious. The BDS crowd made no secret of their desire to degrade Israel’s leading role in advanced technology in a variety of fields, including medicine, environmentally friendly agriculture, and environmental amelioration. Not incidentally, many of the scientific-military developments, including the Iron Dome, saved the lives of countless Israelis from targeted attacks of Iran and its proxies on the civilian population. Israel’s enemies would want nothing more than to degrade the technological advantage of a country surrounded by existential threat.
IAM welcomes the new initiatives to fight BDS abroad. However, since some Israeli academics have supported a boycott against Israeli institutions for decades, the lesson is clear: the efforts to combat BDS should start at home.
שרת החדשנות המדע והטכנולוגיה גילה גמליאל בישיבת שדולת ההשכלה הגבוהה בכנסת: “לקריאות לחרם השלכות הרסניות על חופש המחקר ושיתוף הפעולה הבינלאומי מצדנו, ומדובר בנזק פוטנציאלי ארוך טווח. לא נעמוד מנגד בעוד מרכזי המחקר והאקדמיה בישראל נמצאים תחת מתקפה המכרסמת בעוצמתה הכלכלית וביטחונית של ישראל.”
תאריך:
29.07.2024
שרת החדשנות, מדע וטכנולוגיה גילה גמליאל השתתפה היום (ג’) בישיבת שדולת ההשכלה הגבוהה בכנסת בראשות ח”כ אלקין וח”כ אלי דלל שעסקה במצב ההשכלה הגבוהה תחת איום החרם. בדיון בהשתתפות ראשי מוסדות ההשכלה הגבוהה בישראל, שרים וחברי כנסת התייחסה השרה גמליאל לקריאות המתגברות לחרם המביאות להשלכות הרסניות על חופש המחקר ועלולות לפגוע בהיי-טק ובתעשיות טכנולוגיות, ביטחוניות ורפואיות – התלויות במחקר האקדמי. השרה עדכנה את המשתתפים כי הגדירה את המאבק בחרם כנושא בעדיפות עליונה בפעילות משרדה מתוך כוונה להגן על המחקר הישראלי, על החוקרות והחוקרים הישראלים הנמצאים לדבריה “תחת מתקפה המכרסמת בעוצמתה הכלכלית וביטחונית של ישראל”.
בהמשך דבריה סקרה השרה את פעילות משרדה לבלימת ההשלכות ההרסניות של חרם אקדמי בזירה הישראלית והבינלאומית הכוללת גיבוש ואישור הצעת מחליטים אופרטיבית בוועדת שרים לחדשנות ומדע בראשותה בסך 90 מיליון ₪ לצורכי מאבק משפטי בחרם; ביצוע כנסים מדעיים בישראל; תוכניות חשיפה בישראל לסטודנטים מחו״ל, קידום מחקר דו לאומי סיורי חשיפה בישראל לחוקרים בכירים ומנהלים ממוסדות אקדמיים בחו״ל. בו בזמן השרה עידכנה כי היא פועלת לגיבוש חזית מאבק בינלאומית בחרמות ובגילויי האנטישמיות בזירה האקדמית והמדעית כפי שעשתה לאחרונה בפגישתה עם מקבילתה הגרמנית שהצהירה: “אסור שיהיה מקום לשנאת ישראל ושנאת יהודים״, וכי ״סטודנטים ומרצים יהודים חייבים להיות מסוגלים להרגיש בטוחים״. השרה גמליאל הבטיחה לראשי המוסדות להשכלה גבוהה כי משרד החדשנות, מדע וטכנולוגיה יפעל בנחישות להבטיח כי החרם המדעי לא יפגע בהשכלה ובמחקר הישראלי וכי החוקרים והסטודנטים הישראלים יוכלו להמשיך ליצור ולהוביל בתחומם, למרות האתגרים.
If you come across any instances of an academic boycott targeting Israelis (such as academic faculty members, post-doctoral students, or students) or academic institutions in Israel, please report them using the following link: https://surveys.sni.technion.ac.il/survey/index.php/893414
The BDS movement has been active globally for over two decades. The movement operates on multiple fronts, including economic, political, academic, and cultural. Since the Hamas attack on October 7, there has been a significant increase in anti-Israel activities on campuses across the USA, Canada, Australia, and Western and Northern Europe. Students, faculty, and even some university administrators have organized protest camps, marches, roadblocks, and have forcibly prevented Israelis and Jews from entering parts of the campus. Additionally, there have been calls for halting student exchanges with Israel and banning Israeli researchers from submitting proposals to national and international foundations. These developments compel Israeli universities and the government to evaluate the potential consequences of the BDS movement’s escalated actions. This includes examining the practical, scientific, academic, legal, and economic implications and exploring measures to mitigate their impact. Recognizing the potential harm of an academic boycott on Israel, the Samuel Neaman Institute has established an ad-hoc task force to address the issue under the concept of SCHOLAR SHIELD. This team collaborates with the University Heads’ Committee, relevant government ministries, and other organizations.
Following the Hamas attack on October 7th, there has been a notable surge in anti-Israel activities on university campuses worldwide. This surge is being manifested through protest encampments, marches, blockades, preventing the access of Israeli and Jewish students and faculty to sites on campuses and more. Academic BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) supporters are calling for the severance of research collaborations with Israeli scientists and academic institutions, termination of student exchange programs, excluding Israeli researchers from submitting proposals to national and international research funds, cessation of investments by universities endowment funds in Israeli companies etc. Institutional Response
The escalating academic boycott, either implicit or explicit, necessitates proactive measures by universities and government agencies to both assess the potential impact and address the needs involved in combating it. To this effect, the Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy Research has formed a task force entitled “Scholar Shield”. This task force collaborates with the Council of University Heads (VERA), the Council of College Heads (VARAM), relevant government ministries, and other stakeholders. Project Objectives & Approach
The project aims to collect data on BDS initiatives, analyze it and develop insights that would help individual researchers, university leadership teams, the Council for Higher Education and government ministries thwart the boycott attempts and mitigate their impact.
Key Activities
Mapping BDS Incidents
• Incident Reporting system
• Data Mining
Information Center
• Mapping BDS Initiatives
• Creating Global Network
Knowledge accessibility & Dissemination
• Dashboard • Dynamic Toolbox • Periodic Reports
Research Focus
The collected data and accumulated knowledge will enable the project team to address critical research and policy questions, such as:
• Identification of countries/universities with stronger BDS impacts and trends over time.
• Analysis of Israeli universities’ exposure to academic BDS and trends over time.
• Examination of research fields more vulnerable to academic BDS and trends over time.
• Quantification of the overall impact of academic BDS on Israeli academia, including economic damages.
• Identification of effective responses and best practices in tackling the phenomenon.
Since the Hamas attack on October 7th, 2023, there has been an increase in reports of anti-Israel activities on campuses worldwide. The Samuel Neaman Institute for National Policy Research has established a task force whose purpose is to collect data on academic boycott activities worldwide, analyze it and suggest ways to confront it. To support the team, the Neaman Institute has created an infrastructure over time and from various sources.
The following questionnaire aims to assist the task force in gathering information about this phenomenon and its scope, enabling analysis, insights and recommendations for action.
If you have experienced or encountered an academic BDS incident, we would appreciate your participation in filling out the questionnaire.
Your contribution to this research is important!
Please note that all information received from the questionnaire will be used solely by the Samuel Institute team for processing and analysis purposes. No personal data will be shared with external entities without your explicit consent. The Samuel Institute is committed to full confidentiality and protection.
Best regards,
Boaz Golany, Senior Research Fellow at the Samuel Neaman Institute and Professor at the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology
Rivka Carmi, Senior Research Fellow at the Samuel Neaman Institute and Emeritus Professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
For more information and a list of useful sources, visit the project page on the Neaman Institute website:
Position Paper | The Academic Boycott on Israel | 9.7.24
“BaShaar – Academic Community for Israeli Society”* views with great concern the expanding trends in academia worldwide to boycott Israeli academia. The calls for a boycott are a central part of the wave of riots and demonstrations that sweep campuses.
In some cases, these calls reveal blind antisemitism, anti-Israelism and often even blind support of Hamas terror organization, its atrocities and its charter which calls for the destruction of Israel. These trends should be fought vehemently. “BaShaar” condemns supporters of the murderous terrorist organization Hamas, the rising manifestations of anti-Semitism against Jews just because they are Jews, the anti-Israelism that denies any right of the State of Israel to exist, and the incitement and boycott movement.
There are, however, liberal colleagues who are not blindly anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. These scholars support the calls for boycott out of critical response to Israel’s policies and activities in Gaza and the genuine concern for the tens of thousands of Gazan casualties, many of them non-involved civilians, men, women and children in this terrible war and the demand to guarantee the needed humanitarian help. “BaShaar” argues that even in these cases, the call for boycott is unjustified.
“BaShaar” has demanded in the past and continues to demand that the Israeli government should refrain, as much as possible, even during war, from acts that harm (even unintentionally) the civilian population, and act in accordance with the laws of war. Humanitarian aid, shelter, food, and medical care must be ensured for the civilian population. Additionally, the Israeli government must formulate a strategic plan for the release of the remaining 120 hostages, as a first priority, to ensure the safety of Israelis in general and the displaced communities in particular, to significantly weaken Hamas, and to look for ways for a future Palestinian management of the Gaza Strip for the benefit of its people. A responsible handling of these issues by the Israeli government is necessary for ending the war and building a better peaceful future for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Regardless of one’s views concerning the policies of the Israeli government, they do not justify an academic boycott. Science and humanities should serve as bridges between people and nations. Academic values and ethos including freedom of thought and expression, tolerance, equality and progress are now under attack in many countries, including Israel. Israeli universities are committed to these values, as declared by academic staff, academic organizations and university managements. An academic boycott joins such attacks and undermines these cherished values.
We, therefore, call upon our colleagues worldwide: while one may certainly express her or his criticism and strong concern about Israeli policies and actions, it should not follow the road of boycott.
We call on academia and research institutions worldwide to fight against and oppose any manifestation of racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and anti-Israel views. We urge members of the international academic community to ensure that the academic space is a safe space for all and to denounce and eradicate any activity that endangers personal and institutional security.
As members of the Israeli academic community in Israel and internationally, we are increasingly alarmed by the recent institutional attempts to boycott Israeli academics and implement bans within organizations and institutions on collaborating with Israelis. This includes attempts to exclude Israeli colleagues from existing grant projects; the cancellation of student exchange programs involving Israeli partners; and the cancellation of lectures by Israeli faculty. We are also witnessing attempts to eject Israelis from academic forums and working groups and a range of other actions by international colleagues to diminish the visibility of lectures by Israeli faculty and otherwise air-brushing out references to their home institutions’ location in Israel.
To date, all of Israel’s institutions of higher education are reporting numerous cases. Most of these cases have originated in Europe, but we are witnessing a growing number in the U.S., Canada, and Australia.
First and foremost, institutionally imposed boycotts as imposed for example by Ghent University break the clear boundaries safeguarding the academic freedom of the faculty within these institutions. We find it unacceptable for a university to ban its faculty from pursuing their research based on the political decisions of its management. We call on our colleagues within these universities to uphold their own academic freedom and resist calls to break ties with their colleagues.
We further call on all academic colleagues of all nationalities to join us in calling for the cessation of boycott attempts against Israeli academics, on both legal and ethical grounds, and thus uphold the fundamental principles of professional conduct and academic freedom. Moreover, we strenuously call for the global research community to enhance communication, dialogue, and collaboration as a powerful tool that can foster peaceful resolution of conflicts and improve the lives of all.
We are heartened by the European Commission’s stance that the termination of grants within the Horizon Europe Programme with Israeli researchers on the basis of their nationality “would be improper and would amount to discrimination prohibited under the Association agreement” of Horizon Europe.[1] The letter’s author, EU research and innovation commissioner Dr. Iliana Ivanova, made this statement in a reply to a letter by Flemish universities. Dr. Ivanova’s letter comes in the wake of decisions by a series of these universities to suspend research ties with Israel.
We appreciate the clear voices of objection to boycott, to discrimination against Israeli researchers[2]. The collective will of all members of academia who care about academic freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom from discrimination is critical, particularly in the face of crisis.
The global academic research community, which engages in the overall pursuit of knowledge for the betterment of humanity, is a critical player in the pursuit of solutions to conflict. Both the bonds brokered in the research process (the means to the end) and the insights and discoveries that emanate from it (the end itself) are essential in the common mission to advance and improve the state of humanity, in all countries and territories, and for all peoples.
———- Forwarded message ——— From: Dana Barnett Date: Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 11:23 AM Subject: Re: [Academia-IL-Bashaar] טופס לדיווח על מקרים של חרם אקדמי To:
לכבוד: אלה ברזני, צוות חרמות ברזל, מוסד שמואל נאמן.
שלום רב,
אני מנכלית עמותת מוניטור האקדמיה הישראלית.
בשנת 2004 פתחנו אתר אינטרנט ומאז אנחנו אוספים חומרים מהאינטרנט ומפרסמים פוסטים על אנשי אקדמיה שפועלים נגד ישראל, דה לגיטימציה לישראל, קוראים לחרם, ואנטישמיות.
אנחנו גם מתייחסים אל אנשי אקדמיה ישראלים מהאוניברסיטאות בארץ הפועלים נגד ישראל.
יתכן וזה ישמע תמוה אבל ישנם אנשי אקדמיה ישראלים שעבור הטבות וצ׳ופרים קראו לחרם נגד ישראל, כבר מתחילת שנות האלפיים.
אני חוקרת את התופעה כבר עשרים שנה וכתבתי על כך דוקטורט ומאמרים אקדמיים.
———- Forwarded message ——— From: Outi Bat-El Foux<obatel@tauex.tau.ac.il> Date: Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [Academia-IL-Bashaar] טופס לדיווח על מקרים של חרם אקדמי To:
הרשו לי לציין שאתר מוניטור מזעזע, אבל בשם חופש הדיבור יש לו זכות קיום. אין אנשי אקדמיה ישראלים שפועלים נגד ישראל, אבל יש אנשים שמפרשים את דבריהם ומעשיהם של אנשי אקדמיה כפעילות נגד ישראל וכאנטישמיות. גם אלה שדוגלים בחרם על מוסדות אקדמיים עושים זאת למען ישראל, ולא נגדה, מתוך כוונה אמיתית שהחרם יגרום לממשלה לנהוג במידה מסוימת של שפיות. Prof. (emerita) Outi Bat-El | Department of Linguistics | Tel-Aviv University | Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel | obatel@tauex.tau.ac.il | www.outibatel.com
———- Forwarded message ——— From: Hanna Herzog<hherzog@tauex.tau.ac.il> Date: Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 11:41 AM Subject: RE: [Academia-IL-Bashaar] טופס לדיווח על מקרים של חרם אקדמי To:
מסכימה עם מה שאותי כתבה.
ובכל זאת, נדהמתי לקבל דוא”ל זה – בשביל זה נוצר מוסד נאמן ? להיות חלק מהשב”ק או כל גוף מדינתי אחר.
Mohammad Elias Feroz is an Afghani PhD student at the University of Innsbruck in Austria. His research area is the history of Israel and Palestine, as well as “cultures of remembrance and their role within national identity constructions.” Feroz “studied in Jerusalem and Cairo as part of exchange programs in order to delve deeper into the modern history of the Middle East and to study Arabic and Hebrew.”
Feroz is also a team member of the Islamic Forum Innsbruck (IFI). The IFI’s mission is “Creating science-based and context-related educational spaces for all… Creating open spaces for discourse in our ideologically pluralistic and democratic society… Promoting intercultural and interreligious activities and encounters to cultivate peaceful coexistence. “O mankind, We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may recognize one another…” (Quran 49:13) We introduce ourselves … We are a group of young adults who live in Innsbruck and live their Muslim life there as part of the pluralistic Austrian society. Our community is characterized by our roots in different cultures, traditions and spiritual orientations and draws strength from this for a diverse and open coexistence. We came together mainly through studying together at the University of Innsbruck, especially at the Institute for Islamic Theology and Religious Education.”
Feroz is a freelance writer and teacher in Austria. One of his earlier articles was a piece for TRT World, a Turkish media, titled “Are Austrian politicians responsible for increased anti-Muslim hate crimes?”
In February, Feroz published an article with the anti-Israel websiteMondoweiss, titled “Thirty years after Baruch Goldstein’s massacre, his followers are now carrying out a genocide.” Where he discussed how thirty years have gone since “Baruch Goldstein carried out his massacre of Palestinian worshippers in Hebron. His legacy of bloodshed continues in Gaza and the West Bank as his followers are now in power.” For Feroz, this is like an “Orwellian novel: a Minister of National Security distributing weapons and advocating for ethnic cleansing.” By “’encouraging’ Palestinians to leave the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — a euphemism for ethnic cleansing and a continuation of the Nakba that began in 1948.” Feroz argues, “Since the beginning of the war, around 30,000 people have been killed in Gaza. In the West Bank, the number of deaths due to violent settlers is also rising. At least 400 Palestinians have been killed since October 7, and more than 7,000 have been detained. After a shooting by Palestinian gunmen at a checkpoint in Jerusalem, in which an Israeli also died.”
But in his most recent article last week, he interviewed Prof. Amos Goldberg, a Hebrew University expert in Holocaust Studies and a radical-leftist activist. Feroz described Goldberg as a “leading critic of Israel’s war in Gaza, which he calls genocide.” In his interview, he “explained why the term applies.”
Goldberg told Feroz, “I’ve lived my entire life in Jerusalem as an activist and academic, acting and writing in hopes of change. In a coedited book with my friend and colleague Professor Bashir Bashir, The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History, and in other articles we wrote, we envisioned an egalitarian binational solution. This solution emphasizes equal rights for all, both collective and individual. This vision now feels more remote than science fiction. The two-state solution is also just a smoke screen used by the international community, as there is no realistic path to achieving a viable two-state solution that grants Palestinians their rights. The expansion of settlements has left no room for it, and the idea of two equal states is not even considered. Even the most progressive proposals from the Israeli left and the international community fall short of the minimum level of dignity, sovereignty, and independence that Palestinians can accept. Within Israeli society, racism, violence, militarism, and a narcissistic focus on Israeli suffering alone are so prevalent that there is almost no public support for any solution other than more force and killing.”
Goldberg continues, “The status quo is unsustainable and will continue to lead to more violence. Israel, which was never a full democracy to begin with, is losing even its partial democratic features. Today there are more or less 7.5 million Jews and 7.5 million Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea under Israeli control. The former enjoy full rights while the latter enjoy no rights or partial rights. The Israeli Jewish society is becoming more militant, expansionist, and authoritarian. Germany, the US, and most Western countries have contributed significantly to the current dead end. I’m very pessimistic and depressed about the future.” I say this with great sadness because Israel is my society and my home. Nevertheless, history has shown us that the future can be unpredictable, and perhaps things will change for the better, but this requires immense international pressure. This abstract notion is my only hope.”
In April, Goldberg published an article in Local Call, in which he “concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza are genocidal.” He wrote, “In the case of Gaza, the ‘safe haven zones’ have often become death traps and deliberate extermination zones, and in these refuges Israel deliberately starves out the population. For this reason, there are quite a few commentators who believe that ethnic cleansing is the goal of the fighting in Gaza.”
Goldberg ended his article by referring to an article he wrote in 2011 in Haaretz about the genocide in Southwest Africa, where he concluded, “We can learn from the Herero and Nama genocide how colonial domination, based on a sense of cultural and racial superiority, can spill over, in the face of local rebellion, into horrific crimes such as mass expulsion, ethnic cleansing and genocide. The case of the Herero rebellion should serve as a horrifying warning sign for us here in Israel, which has already known one Nakba in its history.”
For the last forty years, a growing number of Israeli academics and activists have been persuaded by their Western colleagues that it is possible to reach an agreement with the Palestinians. However, because some Palestinian factions decided to embrace a radical Islamist agenda, the path to agreement is not feasible. Goldberg is a clear example of someone who has been misled all these years.
The problem with Goldberg’s theory is that he does not find any fault with the Palestinians, he blames Israel alone and cannot acknowledge any wrongdoing by the Palestinians, not even by Hamas. Goldberg’s decision to give an interview illustrates this point: Muhammad Elias Feroz, who pretends to promote “intercultural and interreligious activities and encounters to cultivate peaceful coexistence,” is promoting an outright anti-Israel agenda. Goldberg, as an expert on Holocaust Studies, is falsifying the truth to suit this politics at the expense of the Israeli taxpayers who pay his salary.
Israeli historian Amos Goldberg has been a leading critic of Israel’s war in Gaza, which he calls genocide. In an interview, he told Jacobin why the term applies — and why the international community needs to wake up to this reality.
Over nine months since Hamas’s October 7 attacks slaughtered over a thousand Israelis, there is still no end in sight in Palestine. Israel’s war in the name of physically eliminating Hamas has reduced much of the Gaza Strip to rubble and killed tens of thousands of people, in their large majority civilians. Even if the war did end tomorrow, much of Gaza would be uninhabitable for years.
This new level of escalation — and the extent of the destruction in Gaza — have sparked debate about whether Israel’s actions should be classified as genocide. This was the accusation raised by South Africa’s case before the International Court of Justice, later joined by Spain, Belgium, and Mexico. The question remains controversial among experts, but ever more of them agree that such an assessment is at least plausible. In Israel itself, most of the population is united behind its army. But there surely are critics of the war.
Amos Goldberg is an associate professor at the Department of Jewish History and Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In April, an article by him was published in Local Call, in which he concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza are genocidal. In the following interview, he speaks about his views and conclusions regarding the ongoing war, the situation in the West Bank, and the future of Israel-Palestine.
Elias Feroz
A few weeks ago, you described Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocide” against the Palestinian population there. Can you briefly explain which specific definition of genocide you are applying, and why you think it is important to use the term to describe what is happening in Gaza?
Amos Goldberg
I wrote an article in Hebrew titled “Yes, It Is a Genocide” in a magazine called Sicha Mekommit, which means Local Call. It was then translated into English and circulated widely.
I acknowledge that this is a serious allegation, and I don’t take it lightly. It was very difficult for me to write this article, because it is also about my people and my society. As a part of this society, I also bare responsibility for what is happening. The magnitude of the atrocities and destruction in Israel on October 7 were unprecedented. It took me some time to be able to digest what was happening and to be able to articulate what I saw unfolding in front of my eyes. But once you see what is happening, you cannot be silent anymore. Even if it is agonizing and painful for me, my readers, or Israeli society, the debate must start somewhere.I acknowledge that this is a serious allegation, and I don’t take it lightly.
There are various definitions of genocide but only one is globally accepted and that is the Genocide Convention’s [The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide], which was adopted by the UN in December 1948. It’s a legal definition, but still vague and open to interpretation, which is why it was and still is criticized. The convention describes genocide as a crime committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. The intent to annihilate is crucial — though it does not have to be full annihilation; it can be “in whole or in part.”
The definition has been criticized for its omission of other categories, such as political groups, which the Soviet Union opposed. By the same token, the convention does not specify “cultural genocide,” because the US feared being accused of committing genocide against its own indigenous population. Including cultural aspects in the conventions was very important for the Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide” and lobbied for it in the UN, but he was forced to compromise in order to get the convention approved.
Ultimately, the definition put forward by the convention was the outcome of a certain political and historical moment in the UN, when the Global South had very few representatives and the US and USSR dominated. Nevertheless, most scholars refer to this definition when they speak about genocide today. Many coined additional terms like democide, ethnocide, politicide, etc. (which are not legal anyhow) or turned away from definitions all together. But the basic widely accepted definition is the legal one from the convention.
Elias Feroz
Your article also mentions other examples of genocide, such as in Bosnia, Armenia, or the Herero and Nama genocide in what is today Namibia. Around 8,000 Bosnians were killed in Srebrenica, while anywhere between several hundred thousand to 1.5 million people are thought to have perished in the Armenian genocide. You also emphasize that not every genocide has to result in the horrors of the Holocaust. At what point in the current war were you sure that Israel’s actions in Gaza had become genocidal?
Amos Goldberg
As a historian, if you look at the overall picture, you have all the elements of genocide. There is clear intent: the president, the prime minister, the minister of defense, and many high-ranking military officers have expressed that very openly. We have seen countless incitements to turn Gaza into rubble, claims that there are no innocent people there, etc. Popular calls for the destruction of Gaza are heard from all quarters of society and the political leadership. A radical atmosphere of dehumanization of the Palestinians prevails in Israeli society to an extent that I can’t remember in my fifty-eight years of living here.
The outcome is as would be expected: tens of thousands of innocent children, women, and men killed or injured, the almost-total destruction of infrastructure, intentional starvation and the blocking of humanitarian aid, mass graves of which we still don’t know the full extent, mass displacement, etc. There is also reliable testimony of summary executions, not to mention the numerous bombings of civilians in so-called “safe zones.” Gaza as we knew it does not exist anymore. Thus, the outcome fits perfectly with the intentions. To understand the full scale of this destruction and cruelty, I recommend reading Dr Lee Mordechai’s report, which is the most comprehensive and updated record of what has been happening in Gaza since October 7.
A radical atmosphere of dehumanization of the Palestinians prevails in Israeli society to an extent that I can’t remember in my fifty-eight years of living here.
For mass killings to be considered genocide it does not have to be a total annihilation. As we already mentioned the definition states explicitly that destroying a group in whole or in part could be considered genocide. This is what happened in Srebrenica as you mentioned, or in the case of the Rohingya in Myanmar.
I admit that, at first, I was reluctant to call it genocide, and sought any indication to convince myself that it is not. No one wants to see themselves as part of a genocidal society. But there was explicit intent, a systematic pattern, and a genocidal outcome — so, I came to the conclusion that this is exactly what genocide looks like. And once you come to this conclusion, you cannot remain silent.
Elias Feroz
How do your students, colleagues, or friends react when you elaborate on your conclusions?
Amos Goldberg
As I have mentioned before, I wrote my article in Hebrew. I didn’t write it in English because I primarily wanted Israelis to confront it and to help my society overcome the denial and the impulse not to see what is happening in Gaza. I would say that denial is part of all genocidal processes and acts of mass violence.
Some students were very angry at me for my article, but others thanked me. Some colleagues argued with me, and one even wrote on Facebook that he hopes that students will not attend my classes anymore. Others agreed with me, while some told me that I gave them food for thought. There are also people who disagree with me, but whom I at least managed to convince that the allegation of genocide is not an absurd allegation motivated by antisemitism.
Elias Feroz
In Germany, Israel’s universities are often seen as a bastion of resistance against the [Benjamin] Netanyahu government. What is the mood like on Israeli campuses right now?
Amos Goldberg
It is true that the universities are a bastion of opposition to the Netanyahu government. This started with the judicial overhaul before the war. Many voices within the universities are speaking up against the war, although many actively support it, or even encourage the government to increase the already inhumane pressure on Gaza.
Many of those who oppose the war do so primarily because of the hostages — which is a very worthy cause — but only a minority in Israel acknowledges the inhumane and criminal nature of the war as such. I should also stress the many displays of solidarity between Jews and Palestinians that happened in the universities. Nevertheless, overall, I would say that, as institutions, the universities failed this test of their morality and their obligations to free speech, humanism, and the critical analysis of reality in times of crisis.
Tel Aviv University and its president, Ariel Porat, might be an exception, as he for the most part stood up for free speech, but on the whole, there is an atmosphere of fear and suppression. This is particularly true for Palestinian professors and students, who feel they cannot even express any kind of public empathy toward their brothers and sisters in Gaza. There is no room for their feelings or their perspectives on campus, in the public sphere, or on social media.
Denial is part of all genocidal processes and acts of mass violence.
Some professors — Jews included — have lost their jobs in colleges for expressing legitimate criticisms, but others who did not lose their jobs were harassed. The most well-known incident happened to Professor Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian, a world-renowned Palestinian professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem known for her outspoken views on genocide and Zionism. She was suspended by the university from teaching for a short while. She faced harassment from colleagues and threats, and was even arrested and detained for two days. Police interrogated her several times. Her critique might have sounded harsh and unpleasant to most Israeli ears, but it is still legitimate and, in my opinion, for the most part very true. She is now waiting to see whether she will be indicted for “incitement” based also on her peer-reviewed academic articles.
Another worrying development is the National Union of Israeli Students’ promotion of a controversial bill that would oblige universities to summarily fire anyone, including tenured professors, for practically any criticism of the state or army which the education minister considers to be “incitement.” Not all local student unions, including the chapter at Hebrew University, support the bill, and the universities themselves are also vehemently opposing it. I hope the bill fails, but the government coalition is pushing it hard, together with parts of the opposition. It is truly shameful that students in the Israeli academic community are pushing for such a draconian, totalitarian measure, and it is frightening to think about the outcomes should the bill indeed pass.
Elias Feroz
Your own university rejects the allegations of genocide against Israel, but on the other hand, immediately labeled the Hamas attack on October 7 as such. What is your opinion? Did October 7 meet the criteria to qualify as a genocide?
Amos Goldberg
I agree with most UN and other assessments, including the current warrants issued by the [International Criminal Court] chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, which state that the Hamas attack was horrendous and criminal, involving war crimes and crimes against humanity. Though some consider it a genocidal act, I don’t think so. I believe it was a terrible crime, particularly the targeting of civilians, the destruction of the kibbutzim, and the taking of hostages, including children. However, calling it genocide stretches the definition to the point of meaninglessness.
The university explicitly rejected the term genocide with regard to Israel’s actions when condemning Nadera Shalhoub-Kevorkian. They stated that it was outrageous to call it genocide, despite many legal experts, historians, and genocide experts like Raz Segal, Marion Kaplan, Victoria Sanford, Ronald Suny, and Francesca Albanese using the term. Other prominent experts, such as Omer Bartov, believe that the situation may be on course to become a genocide.
We also know that the highest court on earth, the International Court of Justice, ruled in January on several provisional measures while stating that it is indeed plausible that the rights of the Palestinians according to the Genocide Convention were violated, or, in other words, that it is plausible that what is happening in Gaza is a genocide.
As academics, our role is to examine facts and draw conclusions, not to reject terms ideologically.
I think the dismissal of the term genocide to describe Israel’s actions as “baseless” is a grave mistake. As academics, our role is to examine facts and draw conclusions, not to reject terms ideologically. While one might conclude that it is not in fact genocide, it is not baseless to call it so, given the evidence and so many experts who have reached the same conclusion. Dismissing it as outrageous without considering the facts and the arguments contradicts our academic commitment to the truth.
Elias Feroz
The German government also rejects the genocide allegations and supports Israel at the International Court of Justice. Since October 7, a number of Palestinians and Israelis who are critical of Israel’s war conduct have seen their voices silenced or even been banned from entering the country. Given your own opinion on the war, do you think the German government is drawing the wrong lessons from history?
Amos Goldberg
Yes, Germany is drawing the wrong lessons from history. The German government and most German media are biased, wrong, and hypocritical when it comes to Israel’s crimes against Palestinians. This stance is not new. Germany supports Israel and its narrative due to the idea of a German Staatsräson, or reason of state, which ties the state’s legitimacy to its support for Israel. It’s not only that they don’t want to see what is happening. They actively refuse to see! This unwavering support, seen as a carte blanche for Israel’s actions, including what I view as genocide, is not good for Israel.
Germany, the country that committed the Holocaust under Nazi rule, should stand for universal values. “Never again” must apply to all. Almost 30 percent of Israel’s ammunition and arms imports come from Germany. This helps neither Palestinians nor Israelis.Germany is drawing the wrong lessons from history.
The issue of Germany suppressing free speech predates the current war, as the German state considers almost any critique of Israel, including criticism expressed by Jews, antisemitic. The German media and government deliberately ignore the reality in Israel and Palestine, enabling Israel to commit crimes and continue its apartheid, annexation, occupation, and settlement policies. I do not believe that Germany’s actions help Israel. On the contrary, they push Israeli society further toward an abyss from which it may not be able to recover.
Elias Feroz
Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, recently announced that he wanted to turn the cities and villages of the West Bank into ruins, like the Gaza Strip. While most of the world’s attention is focused on Gaza, the situation in the West Bank is also spiraling out of control, with growing attacks on the Palestinian population and moves by the Israeli government to expand settlements there. Is this part of a unified strategy?
Amos Goldberg
The government and many settlers and their supporters see the war as an opportunity to expand settlements, take over land, and expel Palestinians. More than five hundred Palestinians in the Occupied Territories have been killed by the Israeli army and settlers since the war started.
I’m part of an Israeli group called Jordan Valley Activists that tries to protect Palestinian shepherd communities and help them maintain their land and livelihoods. I’ve witnessed settler violence firsthand. Just recently, a horrific incident occurred in which settlers seemingly from Shadmot Mehola attacked Palestinian shepherds and farmers, stealing a car, breaking all its windows, hitting people and injuring them, and constantly terrorizing and harassing them. It’s clear that the settlers are taking advantage of the war to expand their territory, expel Palestinians from their land, particularly in Zone C of the West Bank, and “Judaize” the territory.
In many cases, the army and police support the settlers’ actions, either actively or passively, by deliberately not intervening nor holding the perpetrators accountable. The police does not serve the rule of law but rather the lawless settlers. Hence, the attackers almost never have to show up in court. The US and other countries ultimately placed sanctions on those settlers because they understood that the Israeli legal system would rarely hold them accountable.
In 2017, Bezalel Smotrich published something called the “Decisive Plan,” which offered Palestinians two options: accept living under apartheid or leave. He actually threatened to annihilate Palestinians who decide to oppose these two options. This plan, designed by high-ranking politicians, enjoys widespread support. I suspect that even if not formally adopted by the current government, its spirit determines its policy.
Elias Feroz
High levels of support for the war among the Israeli population are evidenced by almost all available polling data, but at the same time, protests for a cease-fire and Netanyahu’s resignation are also growing. Is the mood in Israel beginning to shift?
Amos Goldberg
The mood is changing bit by bit, as many understand that the only way to bring back the hostages is by reaching a permanent cease-fire. Some also don’t see the point of the war anymore. However, the majority still supports the war and is undoubtedly completely blind to the crimes Israel is committing in Gaza.
One positive thing I want to point out is that organizations like the Jordan Valley Activists, which I mentioned before, or grassroots movements like Standing Together are growing as well, although these are very small groups compared to the rest of society. A notable action by Standing Together involved the escorting of humanitarian aid convoys, which were being blocked and vandalized by settlers and right-wingers, to Gaza. The minister of national security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, even ordered police not to protect the convoys, allowing the vandalism to happen. Standing Together activists protected the trucks until they reached the Gaza border crossing.
The mood is changing bit by bit, as many understand that the only way to bring back the hostages is by reaching a permanent cease-fire.
This movement consists mainly of Jews and Arabs from within the 1948 borders, who protest the war and demand the freeing of the hostages, because they understand that the war will not lead us anywhere and that both sides are indeed paying a huge price. However, these voices are heavily suppressed by the government, the police, and even local officials — such as the mayor of Haifa, Yona Yahav, who said that demonstrations against the war should not take place in his city Haifa.
Elias Feroz
What future do you see for Israel–Palestine after the war? What will its long-term effects be?
Amos Goldberg
Nothing good will come from this war, and I see no way out of this dead end. I’ve lived my entire life in Jerusalem as an activist and academic, acting and writing in hopes of change. In a coedited book with my friend and colleague Professor Bashir Bashir, The Holocaust and the Nakba: A New Grammar of Trauma and History, and in other articles we wrote, we envisioned an egalitarian binational solution. This solution emphasizes equal rights for all, both collective and individual. This vision now feels more remote than science fiction.
The two-state solution is also just a smoke screen used by the international community, as there is no realistic path to achieving a viable two-state solution that grants Palestinians their rights. The expansion of settlements has left no room for it, and the idea of two equal states is not even considered. Even the most progressive proposals from the Israeli left and the international community fall short of the minimum level of dignity, sovereignty, and independence that Palestinians can accept. Within Israeli society, racism, violence, militarism, and a narcissistic focus on Israeli suffering alone are so prevalent that there is almost no public support for any solution other than more force and killing.
The status quo is unsustainable and will continue to lead to more violence. Israel, which was never a full democracy to begin with, is losing even its partial democratic features. Today there are more or less 7.5 million Jews and 7.5 million Palestinians between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea under Israeli control. The former enjoy full rights while the latter enjoy no rights or partial rights. The Israeli Jewish society is becoming more militant, expansionist, and authoritarian. Germany, the US, and most Western countries have contributed significantly to the current dead end. I’m very pessimistic and depressed about the future. I say this with great sadness because Israel is my society and my home.
Nevertheless, history has shown us that the future can be unpredictable, and perhaps things will change for the better, but this requires immense international pressure. This abstract notion is my only hope.
Thirty years after Baruch Goldstein’s massacre, his followers are now carrying out a genocide
It has been thirty years since Baruch Goldstein carried out his massacre of Palestinian worshippers in Hebron. His legacy of bloodshed continues in Gaza and the West Bank as his followers are now in power.
Thirty years ago, on February 25, 1994, the Zionist terrorist Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinian worshippers and injured another 125 inside the Ibrahimi Mosque in the old city of Hebron. Today, Israel’s Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, and other admirers of the mass murderer, continue his legacy by calling for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank.
Last year, Ben-Gvir praised the terrorist Goldstein in a speech on the memorial day of Israeli Independence at a yeshiva (a Jewish religious educational institution), which was founded by another extremist called Meir Kahane. Kahane and Goldstein (both originally from the United States) dreamed of a Jewish theocracy that would extend far beyond the borders of Palestine. Their idea of “Greater Israel” included parts of today’s Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt as a place exclusively for Jews. To politically implement the expulsion of Arab Palestinians, Kahane founded the right-wing extremist Jewish Orthodox party, “Kach,” in 1971, which was declared a terrorist organization and banned by the Israeli government in 1994 after Goldstein’s terror attack.
Today, however, Zionist hatred towards Palestinians lives on and is stronger than ever. After all, Ben-Gvir himself was part of the right-wing Kach organization, and his speeches advocating for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, whether in Gaza or other Palestinian territories, demonstrate that he continues to remain loyal to the racist ideologies of his two idols. His party, Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”), is the ideological successor to the right-wing Kach organization.
Ben-Gvir lives with his family in an illegal settlement in the West Bank called Kiryat Arba, where Goldstein also resided and where he is buried. Apart from the fact that Ben-Gvir is not just anyone, but a leading politician in the current Israeli government, he cannot be regarded as an exception. Even before October 7, other members of the Israeli government, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, used genocidal language. In March of last year, he called for the eradication of the Palestinian town of Huwwara.
This does not prevent the United States and Germany from continuing to unconditionally support Israel’s most right-wing government in history. A few days ago, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz responded at the Munich Security Conference to the question of what evidence he relies on when claiming that Israel is abiding by international law in Gaza by stating: “We are asking that they [i.e. Israel] do so, and we are constantly discussing this question…”
One wonders with whom the German government is engaging in these discussions. Netanyahu, who rejects a two-state solution? Ben-Gvir, who calls for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the West Bank? Or Bezalel Smotrich, who also threatened to wipe out Palestinian cities?
Meanwhile, the next escalation is already looming, as Ben-Gvir does not cease to provoke. The Muslim fasting month of Ramadan is just around the corner, and he stated just recently that residents of the West Bank should be denied entrance to the al-Aqsa Mosque, which is the third most important mosque in Islam. In a speech last month at a conference in Jerusalem, he spoke about “encouraging” Palestinians to leave the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — a euphemism for ethnic cleansing and a continuation of the Nakba that began in 1948.
Furthermore, Netanyahu threatens to attack Rafah during Ramadan, where 1.5 million refugees are located. In the meantime, food prices continue to skyrocket. Since the beginning of the war, around 30,000 people have been killed in Gaza. In the West Bank, the number of deaths due to violent settlers is also rising. At least 400 Palestinians have been killed since October 7, and more than 7,000 have been detained. After a shooting by Palestinian gunmen at a checkpoint in Jerusalem, in which an Israeli also died, Ben-Gvir once again advocated for the distribution of weapons to Israeli civilians and settlers.
In Israel and Palestine, the tragedy of war and occupation often resembles an Orwellian novel: a Minister of National Security distributing weapons and advocating for ethnic cleansing. Yet, irony also permeates Goldstein’s biography. Despite studying medicine in the United States, he, instead of saving lives, ruthlessly killed and injured innocent worshippers — also during the month of Ramadan. His legacy of bloodshed persists even 30 years after his death. However, in contrast to the past, his beliefs now find greater acceptance within Israeli society, extending to the highest echelons of the government.
*****
Elias Feroz
Elias Feroz is a PhD student at the University of Innsbruck in Austria whose research area is the history of Israel and Palestine, as well as cultures of remembrance and their role within national identity constructions. Feroz studied in Jerusalem and Cairo as part of exchange programs in order to delve deeper into the modern history of the Middle East and to study Arabic and Hebrew.
In most cases of genocide, from Bosnia to Namibia, from Rwanda to Armenia, the perpetrators of the murder said they were acting in self-defence. The fact that what is happening in Gaza does not resemble the Holocaust, writes Holocaust scholar Amos Goldberg, does not mean that it is not genocide
*Amos Goldberg is a Holocaust and genocide researcher at the Hebrew University, whose book VeZcharta — And Thou Shalt Remember: Five Critical Readings in Israeli Holocaust Remembrance will be published by Resling in the coming weeks.
Yes, it is genocide. It is so difficult and painful to admit it, but despite all that, and despite all our efforts to think otherwise, after six months of brutal war we can no longer avoid this conclusion. Jewish history will henceforth be stained with the mark of Cain for the “most horrible of crimes,” which cannot be erased from its forehead. As such, this is the way it will be viewed in history’s judgment for generations to come.
From a legal point of view, there is still no telling what the International Court of Justice in The Hague will decide, although in light of its temporary rulings so far and in light of increasing prevalence of reports by jurists, international organisations, and investigative journalists, the trajectory of the prospective judgement seems quite clear.
As early as January 26, the ICJ ruled overwhelmingly (14–2) that Israel may be committing genocide in Gaza. On 28 March, following Israel’s deliberate starvation of the Gazan populace in Gaza, the court issued additional orders (this time by a vote of 15–1, with the only dissent coming from Israeli Judge Aharon Barak) calling on Israel not to deny Palestinians their rights which are protected under the Genocide Convention.
The well-argued, and well-reasoned report by UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, reached a slightly more determined conclusion and is another layer in establishing the understanding that Israel is indeed committing genocide. Israeli academic Dr. Lee Mordechai’s detailed and periodically updated report [Heb], which collects information on the level of Israeli violence in Gaza, reached the same conclusion. Leading academics such as Jeffrey Sachs, a professor of economics at Columbia University (and a Jew with a warm attitude toward traditional Zionism), with whom heads of state all over the world regularly consult on international issues, speaks of the Israeli genocide as something taken for granted.
Excellent investigative reports such as those [Heb] of Yuval Avraham in Local Call, and especially his recent investigation of the artificial intelligence systems used by the military in selecting targets and carrying out the assassinations, further deepen this accusation. The fact that the military allowed, for example, the killing of 300 innocent people and the destruction of an entire residential quarter in order to take out one Hamas brigade commander shows that military targets are almost incidental targets for killing civilians and that every Palestinian in Gaza is a target for killing. This is the logic of genocide.
Yes. I know, they are all antisemites or self-hating Jews. Only we, Israelis, whose minds are fed by the IDF Spokesperson’s announcements and exposed only to the images sifted for us by the Israeli media, see reality as it is. As if interminable literature had not been written about the social and cultural denial mechanisms of societies committing serious war crimes. Israel is really a paradigmatic case of such societies, a case that will still be taught in every university seminar in the world dealing with the subject.
It will be several years before the court in The Hague will hand down its verdict, but we must not look at the catastrophic situation purely through legal lenses. What is happening in Gaza is genocide because the level and pace of indiscriminate killing, destruction, mass expulsions, displacement, famine, executions, the wiping out of cultural and religious institutions, the crushing of elites (including the killing of journalists), and the sweeping dehumanisation of the Palestinians — create an overall picture of genocide, of a deliberate conscious crushing of Palestinian existence in Gaza.
In the way we normally understand such concepts, Palestinian Gaza as a geographical-political-cultural-human complex no longer exists. Genocide is the deliberate annihilation of a collective or part of it — not all of its individuals. And that’s what’s happening in Gaza. The result is undoubtedly genocide. The numerous declarations of extermination by senior Israeli government officials, and the general exterminating tone of the public discourse, rightly pointed out by Haaretz columnist Carolina Landsman, indicate that this was also the intention.
Israelis mistakenly think that to be viewed as such a genocide needs to look like the Holocaust. They imagine trains, gas chambers, crematoria, killing pits, concentration and extermination camps, and the systematic persecution to death of all members of the group of victims to the last one. An occurrence like this has indeed not taken place in Gaza. In a similar way to what happened in the Holocaust, most Israelis also imagine that the victims collective is not involved in violent activity or actual conflict, and that the murderers exterminate them because of an insane senseless ideology. This is also not the case with Gaza.
The brutal Hamas attack of October 7 was a heinous terrible crime. Some 1,200 people were killed or murdered, including more than 850 Israeli (and foreign) civilians, including many children and the elderly, some 240 live Israelis were abducted to Gaza, and atrocities such as rape were committed. This is an event with Profound, catastrophic, and lasting traumatic effects for many years, certainly for the direct victims and their immediate circle, but also for Israeli society as a whole. The attack forced Israel to respond in self-defence.
However, although each case of genocide has a different character, in the scope and features of the murder, the common denominator of most of them is that they were carried through out of an authentic sense of self-defence. Legally, an event cannot be both self-defence and genocide. These two legal categories are mutually exclusive. But historically, self-defence is not incompatible with genocide, but is usually one of its main causes, if not the main one.
In Srebrenica — on which the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia determined on two different levels that a genocide took place in July 1995 — “only” about 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and youths, over the age of 16, were murdered. The women and children had been expelled earlier.
The Bosnian Serb forces were responsible for the murder, their offensive took place in the midst of a bloody civil war, during which both sides committed war crimes (albeit immeasurably more by the Serbs) and which erupted following a unilateral decision by the Bosnian Croats and Muslims to break away from Yugoslavia and establish an independent Bosnian state, in which the Serbs were a minority.
Bosnian Serbs, with bleak past memories of persecution and murder from World War II, felt threatened. The complexity of the conflict, in which neither side was innocent, did not prevent the ICC from recognising the Srebrenica massacre as an act of genocide, which exceeded the other war crimes committed by the parties, since these crimes cannot justify genocide. The court explained that the Serbian forces intentionally destroyed, through murder, expulsion and destruction Bosnian-Muslim existence in Srebrenica. Today, by the way, Bosnian Muslims live there again, and some of the mosques that were destroyed have been reinstated. But the genocide continues to haunt the descendants of murderers and victims alike.
The case of Rwanda is totally different. There, for a long time, as part of the Belgian colonial control structure, based on divide and rule, the Tutsi minority group ruled, and it oppressed the Hutu majority group. However, in the 1960s the situation was reversed, and upon independence from Belgium in 1962, the Hutu took control of the country and adopted an oppressive and discriminatory policy against the Tutsi, this time too with the support of the former colonial powers.
Gradually, this policy became intolerable, and a brutal bloody civil war broke out in 1990, beginning with the invasion of a Tutsi army, the Rwanda Patriotic Front, consisting mainly of Tutsi who fled Rwanda after the fall of colonial rule. As a result, in the eyes of the Hutu regime, the Tutsi became collectively identified with an actual military enemy.
During the war, both sides committed serious crimes on Rwandan soil, as well as on the soil of neighboring countries to which the war spilled over. Neither side was absolutely innocent or absolutely evil. The civil war ended with the Arusha Accords, signed in 1993, which were supposed to involve Tutsi people in government institutions, the army, and state structures.
But these agreements collapsed, and in April 1994, Rwanda’s Hutu president’s plane was shot down. To this day, it is not known who shot down the plane, and it is believed that they were actually Hutu fighters. However, the Hutu were convinced that the crime had been committed by Tutsi resistance fighters, and this was perceived as a genuine threat to the country. The Tutsi genocide was on its way. The official rationale for the act of genocide was the need to remove the Tutsi existential threat once and for all.
The case of the Rohingya, which the Biden administration recently recognised as genocide, is very different again. Initially, after Myanmar (formerly Burma) independence in 1948, the Muslim Rohingya were seen as equal citizens and part of the mostly Buddhist national entity. But over the years, and especially after the establishment of the military dictatorship in 1962, Burmese nationalism was identified with several dominant ethnic groups, who were mainly Buddhist, of which the Rohingya were not a member.
In 1982 and thereafter, citizenship laws were enacted, stripping most Rohingya of their citizenship and their rights. They were viewed as foreigners and as a threat to the existence of the state. The Rohingya, among whom there have been small rebel groups in the past, made an effort not to be dragged into violent resistance, but in 2016 many felt they could not prevent their disenfranchisement, repression, state and mob violence against them, and their gradual expulsion, and an underground Rohingya movement attacked Myanmar police stations.
The reaction was brutal. Raids by Myanmar’s security forces expelled most Rohingya from their villages, many were massacred, and their villages completely obliterated. When in March 2022 Secretary of State Antony Blinken read out the statement at the Holocaust Museum in Washington 2022 acknowledging that what was done to Rohingya was genocide, he said that in 2016 and 2017, about 850,000 Rohingya were deported to Bangladesh and about 9,000 of them were murdered. This was enough to recognise what was done to Rohingya as the eighth such an occurrence that the United States views as a genocide, apart from the Holocaust. The Rohingya case reminds us of what many genocide scholars have established in terms of research, and is very relevant to the case of Gaza: a link between ethnic cleansing and genocide.
The connection between the two phenomena is twofold, and both are relevant to Gaza, where the vast majority of the population was expelled from their places of residence, and only Egypt’s refusal to absorb masses of Palestinians on its territory prevented them from leaving Gaza. On the one hand, ethnic cleansing signals the willingness to eliminate the enemy group at any cost and without compromise, and therefore easily slips into genocide or is part of it. On the other hand, ethnic cleansing usually creates conditions that enable or cause (e.g. disease and famine) the partial or complete extermination of the group of victims.
In the case of Gaza, the “safe haven zones” have often become death traps and deliberate extermination zones, and in these refuges Israel deliberately starves out the population. For this reason, there are quite a fewcommentators who believe that ethnic cleansing is the goal of the fighting in Gaza.
The genocide of Armenians during World War I also had a context. During the declining years of the Ottoman Empire, Armenians developed their own national identity and demanded self-determination. Their different religious and ethnic character, as well as their strategic location on the border between the Ottoman and Russian empires, made them a dangerous population in the eyes of the Ottoman authorities.
Horrific outbreaks of violence against the Armenians occurred as early as the end of the 19th century, and therefore some Armenians were indeed sympathetic to the Russians and saw them as potential liberators. Small Armenian-Russian groups even collaborated with the Russian army against the Turks, calling on their brethren across the border to join them, which led to an intensification of the sense of an existential threat in the eyes of the Ottoman regime. This sense of a threat, which developed during a deep crisis of the empire, was a major factor in the development of the Armenian Genocide, which also began a process of expulsion.
The first genocide of the twentieth century was also executed out of a concept of self-defense by the German settlers against the Herero and Nama people in southwest Africa (present-day Namibia). As a result of the severe repression by the German settlers, the locals rebelled and in a brutal attack murdered some 123 (perhaps more) unarmed men. The sense of threat in the small settler community, which numbered only a few thousand, was real, and Germany feared that it had lost its deterrence vis-à-vis the natives.
The response was in accordance with the perceived threat. Germany sent an army led by an unrestrained commander, and there, too, out of a sense of self-defence, most of these tribesmen were murdered between 1904 and 1908 — some by direct killing, some under conditions of hunger and thirst forced on them by the Germans (again by deportation, this time to the Omaka desert) and some in cruel internment and labour camps. Similar processes occurred during the expulsion and extermination of indigenous peoples in North America, especially during the 19th century.
In all these cases, the perpetrators of the genocide felt an existential threat, more or less justified, and the genocide came in response. The destruction of the collective of victims was not contrary to an act of self-defence, but from an authentic motive of self-defence.
In 2011, I had a short article [Heb] published in Haaretz about the genocide in Southwest Africa, concluding with the following words: “ We can learn from the Herero and Nama genocide how colonial domination, based on a sense of cultural and racial superiority, can spill over, in the face of local rebellion, into horrific crimes such as mass expulsion, ethnic cleansing and genocide. The case of the Herero rebellion should serve as a horrifying warning sign for us here in Israel, which has already known one Nakba in its history.”
About My Name is M. Elias Feroz an I am an Austrian writer. I received my Bachelor of Education in Lectureship and my subjects are History & Political Education and Islamic Religion. I speak English, German and (since my parents are originally from Afghanistan) also Dari. Currently, I’m also learning Arabic. My topics: – Islam and Islamic History – Middle East and “Muslim World” in general – Austria (politics etc.) – Education
Produced for TRT World Digital
Are Austrian politicians responsible for increased anti-Muslim hate crimes?
Are Austrian politicians responsible for increased anti-Muslim hate crimes?
The rise in hate crimes towards Muslims in Austria is part of a broader trend that has real and negative ramifications for their safety in Europe.
Elias Feroz
The Anti-Muslim Racism Report 2018 shows an increasing number of anti-Muslim incidents in Austria. The main target of these incidents were women. In 2017, a total of 309 incidents had been reported and in 2018, the number of reported events increased by 74 percent, which makes a total of 540 incidents.
Recently in Vienna, Austria, an older woman insulted a young Muslim lady and spat at her afterwards. “That is my country you wh**e!” the old woman shouted. She referred to the Muslim lady as an “animal” and “pig”.
The Muslim lady pointed out that she was born in Austria and that she is not going to leave her home country. The woman responded by shouting that the FPO (the Austrian Freedom Party, which is also part of the coalition government) would throw all of “them” (meaning Muslims) out.
Anti-Muslim racism is a daily problem in Austria and there is a risk that this behaviour is becoming increasingly normalised in the country’s political and social climate.
The Austrian government’s anti-Muslim smear campaign
Austria’s Federal Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, from the Christian Democratic People’s Party (OVP) strongly condemned the incident on Monday. He said: “A disgusting attack that I condemn in the strongest terms. In Austria, we stand for a respectful and peaceful coexistence of all religions!”
That might seem like a statesmanlike act from Kurz, but both he and FPO Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache are taking part in this smear campaign against Islam and its followers.
Their whole election campaign in 2017 was grounded in combatting “political Islam”, a term, which was not even defined or explained.
In public debate, it is striking that concepts and terms (such as Sharia or jihad) based in Islamic tradition are rarely explained. In most cases, words that are not known to the public at large are deliberately deployed to stir up confusion and anxiety in society.
Before using such terms, it is important to clarify them and convey the different views on the subject. The vagueness of the term benefits the very purpose of the Austrian government. It is easier to scapegoat somebody if the problem stays abstract. As a result, the wedge between Muslims and non-Muslims threatens to be driven deeper and deeper as politicians and other protagonists are continue to demonise Islam.
Links to the Christchurch terrorist
The far-right FPO has links with right-wing extremists such as the Identitarian Movement of Austria, which, it was recently revealed, received a significant donation of nearly $1700 from the Christchurch terrorist who attacked two mosques in New Zealand, killing 50 Muslims.
The Christchurch killer had networked internationally with several right-wing extremist groups, but so far, the clearest connection is with Vienna.
The terrorist wrote in his ‘manifesto’, which he posted online before the attack, that he had donated money to many nationalist groups and associations.
The leader of the Identitarian Movement of Austria, Martin Sellner, claimed he didn’t know that the donation was from the Christchurch assassin, but the link prompted a preliminary investigation into Sellner under Austria’s anti-terrorism laws.
Strache emphasises that his party has nothing to do with the Identitarian Movement, however he has repeatedly shared posts from the movement on his official Facebook page.
Photos from 2015 have also emerged showing Strache and members of the Identitarian Movement at the same table.
Both the chancellor and vice chancellor expressed their sympathy for the victims of Christchurch on the day of the terrorist attack via Twitter.
However, no such post appeared on their Facebook pages, ensuring there was no awkward backlash from their Facebook followers.
The Anti-Muslim Racism Report 2018 also shows that more than 50 percent of the reported anti-Muslim incidents occur online.
It is no secret that the FPO has carried out several anti-Muslim campaigns in the past.
The current Home Secretary Herbert Kickl is famous for using Nazi terminology against migrants and refugees. He also pulls the strings behind several anti-Muslim slogans such as “home instead of Islam.”
The opposition Social Democrats and liberal party JETZT have demanded Kickl’s resignation.
The government is carefully taking steps against Muslims and migrants. Kurz is arguing for the shutdown of Islamic kindergartens, saying they are dangerous. It once again highlights the unequal treatment of those with Islamic faith, compared to the followers of Christianity, Judaism or any other religion.
Islam is the very concern of Kurz and Strache and through the way they deal with Muslims and Islam, it is likely that the discrimination will only increase.
Elias Feroz is a freelance writer and teacher in Austria.
In what became a routine occurrence on German campuses, pro-Palestinian students protested the Gaza War while using vicious antisemitic tropes against Israel. At the beginning of May, the police cleared one such protest camp at the Free University of Berlin. Around a hundred Berlin teachers expressed their solidarity with the demonstrators in a “statement by teachers at Berlin universities.” The protest, especially faculty involvement, created a political controversy that reached Parliament.
In late June, the German Parliament, the Bundestag, held a discussion by the Committee on Education, Research, and Technology Assessment on the topic of “Combating Antisemitism in Educational and Research Institutions.” The public hearing featured eight experts who announced a unanimous call to fight antisemitism in educational and research institutions and criticized the pro-Palestinian protest camps in German universities. Jews must be able to live, learn, and study freely and safely, the experts demanded.
Elio Adler of the Values Initiative in the committee said, “Liberal democracy and society as a whole are currently under extreme pressure,” Some universities have become places where hostage-taking, terrorism and rape “are not only not mentioned or trivialized, but even glorified,” Adler added. The participants in such cases are encouraged by forces that are interested in destabilizing the Western world; the expert specifically mentioned Russia and Iran. Regarding the interests of the Palestinians, Adler found that they were merely being abused as a “political football” in order to “saw away at the pillars of our coexistence.”
Shila Erlbaum from the Central Council of Jews in Germany “strongly condemns antisemitic attacks on Jewish pupils, students and teachers.” According to her, pro-Palestinian protest camps at universities are nothing more than “externally controlled propaganda events for the ideology of Hamas,” for which some students make themselves “useful idiots,” she said. Erlbaum criticized the repeated attempts to legitimize antisemitism with supposed freedom of expression. She emphasized: “Antisemitism is not an opinion, but hatred.” She called for content about Judaism, antisemitism, and Israel to be included in compulsory school curricula.“
Dr. Felix Klein, Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Antisemitism said, “We are experiencing an absolutely untenable situation for Jews in educational institutions throughout Germany.” Jews are currently being prevented from exercising their fundamental right to education, he said. Klein expressly praised the work of the police, which is taking “consistent but also cautious action against so-called protest camps.” He called for real consequences for anti-Semitic statements and proposed measures at universities to prevent violations of the law at events, as well as the appointment of antisemitism officers at universities.
Susanne Krause-Hinrichs from the Foundation for Tolerance and International Understanding pointed out that antisemitism related to Israel has spread at German universities. Teachers have not been adequately trained in Israeli history. Even in the training of teachers, there is a lack of knowledge about Israel’s history and how to deal with anti-Semitic incidents in practice. The use of antisemitism commissioners could help here, said Krause-Hinrichs. There is also a lack of legal and constitutional basis for combating antisemitism and protecting Jews.
Stefan Müller from the Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences emphasized that antisemitism is a learned phenomenon and can, therefore, be changed. Since October 7, 2023, Jewish university members and students have been withdrawing from universities and are increasingly exposed to attacks. Müller called for the Jewish presence on campus to be secured and the visibility of Jewish life in academia to be strengthened institutionally and structurally. All university members must find an atmosphere at their institutes in which they can research, study and learn safely and free from fear and discrimination. He also called for reliable data and facts on the subject of antisemitism.
Noam Petri of the Jewish Student Union of Germany criticized the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic protests by students at German universities in recent weeks. Petri noted the hypocrisy and double standards applied: teachers who defended the anti-Jewish protests would not stand for similar treatment of anti-Muslim protest. While “Islamophobia “ is automatically applied to even the slightest criticism of Islamist terrorism, harsh attacks on Jews are considered free speech.
Walter Rosenthal of the German Rectors’ Conference explained that, according to a recent report by the Research and Information Center on Antisemitism (RIAS), ten percent of anti-Semitic incidents take place in cultural, scientific, and educational institutions. However, Jewish students, researchers, and employees must feel safe at universities under all circumstances. Universities must not be places of violence, antisemitism, and exclusion, but must be based on the free democratic basic order. Rosenthal demanded that the boycott of Israeli academic institutions must continue to be prevented.“
Samuel Salzborn of the Berlin School of Economics and Law explained that an “anti-Semitic mood of incitement” is noticeable in Berlin’s universities. He condemned the protest camps and threats against university presidents by the activists. Such actions are not just attacks against Jews but on the basic values of democracy.
Universities are places of controversy, exchange, and pluralism, but that is not what the activists are concerned about, but rather the massive intimidation of Jewish and Israeli students.
The German Federal Government is currently taking steps to fight antisemitism. Bettina Stark-Watzinger, the Federal Education Minister is considering introducing an antisemitism clause in scientific funding applications. “This is a debate that should be conducted with science in order to find the right path,” she told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Antisemitism should never be promoted with taxpayers’ money. At the same time, however, she reiterated that funding from her Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) would be awarded in exclusively science-led procedures according to excellence criteria and not according to political worldview.
The BMBF announced reviewing funding commitments to numerous university professors who signed a letter against the police clearing of an anti-Semitic and terror-glorifying protest camp in Berlin.
IAM will report on the developments in due course.
Experts agree: anti-Semitism in education and research must be combated
The Committee on Education, Research and Technology Assessment discussed the topic of ” Combating anti-Semitism in educational and research institutions ” in a public expert discussion on Wednesday, June 26, 2024. The eight invited experts unanimously called for the fight against anti-Semitism in educational and research institutions and criticized pro-Palestinian protest camps at German universities. Jews must be able to live, learn and study freely and safely, the experts demanded.
“Liberal democracy under extreme pressure”
Liberal democracy and society as a whole are currently under extreme pressure, said Elio Adler of the Values Initiative in the committee. Some universities have become places where hostage-taking, terrorism and rape “are not only not mentioned or trivialised, but even glorified,” said Adler.
The participants in such events are encouraged by forces that are interested in destabilizing the Western world; the expert specifically mentioned Russia and Iran. Regarding the interests of the Palestinians, Adler found that they were merely being abused as a “political football” in order to “saw away at the pillars of our coexistence.”
“Anti-Semitism is not an opinion, but hatred”
Shila Erlbaum from the Central Council of Jews in Germany strongly condemned anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish pupils, students and teachers. Pro-Palestinian protest camps at universities are nothing more than “externally controlled propaganda events for the ideology of Hamas” for which some students make themselves “useful idiots”.
Erlbaum criticized the repeated attempts to legitimize anti-Semitism with supposed freedom of expression and emphasized: “Anti-Semitism is not an opinion, but hatred.” She called for content about Judaism, anti-Semitism and Israel to be included in compulsory school curricula.
“Absolutely untenable situation”
“We are experiencing an absolutely untenable situation for Jews in educational institutions throughout Germany,” said Dr. Felix Klein, Federal Government Commissioner for Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Anti-Semitism. Jews are currently being prevented from exercising their fundamental right to education.
Klein expressly praised the work of the police, which is taking “consistent but also cautious action against so-called protest camps.” He called for consequences for anti-Semitic statements and measures at universities to prevent violations of the law at events, as well as the appointment of anti-Semitism officers at universities.
“There is a lack of knowledge about Israel’s history”
Susanne Krause-Hinrichs from the Foundation for Tolerance and International Understanding pointed out that anti-Semitism related to Israel has spread at German universities. Teachers have not been adequately trained in Israeli history. Even in the training of teachers, there is a lack of knowledge about Israel’s history and how to deal with anti-Semitic incidents in practice.
The use of anti-Semitism commissioners could help here, said Krause-Hinrichs. There is also a lack of legal and constitutional basis for combating anti-Semitism and protecting Jews.
“Ensuring Jewish presence on campus”
Stefan Müller from the FrankfurtUniversity of Applied Sciences emphasized that anti-Semitism is a learned phenomenon and can therefore be changed. Since October 7, 2023, Jewish university members and students have been withdrawing from universities and are increasingly exposed to attacks.
Müller called for the Jewish presence on campus to be secured and the visibility of Jewish life in academia to be strengthened institutionally and structurally. All university members must find an atmosphere at their institutes in which they can research, study and learn safely and free from fear and discrimination. He also called for reliable data and facts on the subject of anti-Semitism.
“You don’t surrender to extremists”
Noam Petri of the Jewish Student Union of Germany criticized the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic protests by students at German universities in recent weeks.
Petri critically noted that teachers who defended these protests would not be concerned about academic freedom if panel discussions were disrupted by protesters, institutes destroyed and students threatened with Islamist terror symbols. He also said: “You don’t capitulate to extremists, you fight them – and it’s high time.”
Walter Rosenthal of the German Rectors’ Conference explained that, according to a recent report by the Research and Information Center on Anti-Semitism (RIAS), ten percent of anti-Semitic incidents take place in cultural, scientific and educational institutions. However, Jewish students, researchers and employees must feel safe at universities under all circumstances.
Universities must not be places of violence, anti-Semitism and exclusion, but must be based on the free democratic basic order. Rosenthal demanded that the boycott of Israeli academic institutions must continue to be prevented.
“Anti-Semitic mood noticeable”
An “anti-Semitic mood of incitement” is noticeable in Berlin’s universities, explained Samuel Salzborn of the BerlinSchool of Economics and Law , condemning the protest camps and threats against university presidents by the activists. Such actions are attacks against Jews and on the basic values of democracy, criticized Salzborn.
Universities are places of controversy, exchange and pluralism, but that is not what the activists are concerned about, but rather the massive intimidation of Jewish and Israeli students. (cha/26.06.2024)
Time: Wednesday, June 26, 2024, 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. Location: Berlin, Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders-Haus, Conference Room 3.101
Hatred of Jews should never be promoted with taxpayers’ money, says the Education Minister
25.06.2024 08:08
Federal Education Minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger (FDP) is considering introducing an anti-Semitism clause in scientific funding applications.
“This is a debate that should be conducted with science in order to find the right path,” she told the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.” Anti-Semitism should never be promoted with taxpayers’ money.
At the same time, however, she reiterated that funding from her Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) would be awarded in exclusively science-led procedures according to excellence criteria and not according to political worldview.
Secretary of State had to go
Following the BMBF’s review of funding commitments to numerous university professors who signed a letter against the police clearing of an anti-Semitic and terror-glorifying protest camp in Berlin, the minister is under criticism. She says she knew nothing about the review and did not want it.
“Anyone who knows how ministries work also knows that we have a certain division of labor in the management,” said Stark-Watzinger, referring to State Secretary Sabine Döring, who was placed on temporary retirement last week because of the reviews.
“We have now created transparency about the processes in the ministry. It was important to first clarify things and then speak out,” added the minister. The scientists’ open letter was covered by freedom of expression. However, she believes it is wrong, “because you cannot rule out criminal prosecution for crimes across the board.”
Questioning in the Bundestag is pending
For weeks, anti-Israel protests by students at several German universities had sparked controversy. At the beginning of May, one such protest camp at the Free University of Berlin was cleared by police.
Around 100 Berlin teachers expressed their solidarity with the demonstrators in a “statement by teachers at Berlin universities.” Stark-Watzinger had clearly criticized this at the time.
This week, the minister must answer questions in the Bundestag’s research committee and at the government questioning session in parliament – about the events in her ministry.
In late June, the European Commission warned universities and researchers that terminating Horizon Europe projects with Israeli counterparts based on their nationality would be considered discrimination. This warning came after several institutions said they were suspending EU-funded research collaborations with partners in Israel.
Iliana Ivanova, the EU research and innovation commissioner, said, “Termination solely on the basis of nationality would be improper and would amount to discrimination prohibited under the Association Agreement. Ivanova warned that “any termination request would need to be issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of the relevant grant agreement.” Some universities in Europe announced the suspension of research ties with Israel over its military campaign in Gaza. These include the University of Granada, the Association of Spanish Universities, and the Academic Council of the Free University of Brussels, among others.
However, Ivanova says that Israeli entities are eligible to participate in all Horizon Europe grants under the same terms and conditions as other institutions based in EU member states.
Still, the European Commission may not understand where the pressure to boycott Israel is coming from. For four decades, several Arab states have funded Western academic institutions and used their influence to delegitimize Israel. Their efforts were mostly hidden, and they even recruited Israelis and Jews to defame Israel.
Now, British universities are being targeted.
The British case illustrates the complexity and sophistication of the BDS campaign with its plethora of actors. Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) is the apparent leader. The group describes itself as a “community of people working together for peace, equality, and justice and against racism, occupation, and colonization.” It is the “biggest organization in the UK dedicated to securing Palestinian human rights”, campaigning for “Palestinian rights and freedom.” PCS found that “UK Universities collectively invest almost £430 million in companies complicit in the state’s war on Gaza, which has since killed over 38,000 Palestinians.”
The Qatari-owned media outlet based in the UK, The New Arab, reveals another part of the story. It describes how a pro-Palestinian coalition from the Gulf states, comprising activist groups from Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait, has launched a campaign to boycott universities in Britain that are “allegedly contributing to what they call the genocide in Gaza.” The Gulf Coalition Against Normalization (Gulf CAN) has called on students not to enroll in certain universities in the UK, to remove the universities from scholarships, and to end their relations with arms companies that supply weapons to Israel.
The aim of coordinating campaigns within the Gulf states is to “resist Zionism and the normalization with Israel.”
The Gulf CAN statement reads: “British universities are not only complicit in refusing to acknowledge the genocide in Gaza, but also play a direct role in financing and developing weapons supplied to the Zionist occupation army.” Gulf CAN is “calling on local education stakeholders to boycott the following list of UK universities: Newcastle University, University of Liverpool, University of Nottingham, University of Leeds, Northumbria University, Queen Mary University of London, University of Portsmouth, University of Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan University and Coventry University.”
The institutions on Gulf CAN’s list have invested over £34 million in Israel-linked companies, according to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. “These universities take an explicit position in protecting the occupation by suppressing demonstrations by students demanding an end to their participation in the genocide in Gaza.”
The statement adds, “the suppression has included the use of physical violence, sexual harassment, and the removal of the hijab.”
As can be seen, the Arab coalition invents cases against Britain.
The statement concludes with what is known since the Hamas October attack against Israel: “Universities across the globe, especially institutions in Britain, have been facing pressure to divest from companies linked to Israel with protests and encampments.”
The pressure comes primarily from Qatar. According to The New Arab website, it provides “voices that promote a progressive discourse and counter autocratic and sectarian narratives. We are a progressive, non-partisan news outlet that focuses on issues of democracy, social justice and human rights.” The owner of the New Arab, Fadaat Media Group, was established as a private commercial institution in the Qatari capital, Doha, in 2012. Their missions are: “To side with the Palestinian cause and support all efforts of the Palestinian people, the Arab nation and the peoples of the world to achieve justice in Palestine. Respecting all religious, cultural and ethnic components of Arab societies, and celebrating the diversity and pluralism that characterize our region.”
There is more to it. Middle East actors insert themselves in the Western academic scene to delegitimize Israel. A few days ago, Avril Haines, the director of US National Intelligence, disclosed that Iranian agents have “Inserted themselves in the protest movement,” promoting and even funding the anti-Israel groups on campus. The bombshell announcement rattled the mainstream media and the progressive camp, which portrayed the massive campus disruptions as spontaneous grassroots protests. The American authorities, including the FBI, have launched several investigations into the funding behind the campus upheaval.
As well known, Israel stands as a symbol for the anti-Western, anti-democratic movement of the Islamic theocrats, whose real goal is to destroy the Western world order.
The European Commission should take notice. The players behind the action to terminate Israel from the Horizon Europe project have a larger vision: to undermine free ideas and the exchange of information—the bedrock of Western Civilization.
The European Commission has warned universities and researchers that terminating Horizon Europe projects with Israeli counterparts on the basis of their nationality alone would be considered as discrimination, after several institutions said they were to suspend EU-funded research collaborations with partners in Israel.
“Termination solely on the basis of nationality would be improper and would amount to discrimination prohibited under the Association Agreement [with Israel], EU research and innovation commissioner Iliana Ivanova said in a reply to a letter by Flemish universities published earlier this month.
Ivanova warned that “any termination request would need to be issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of the relevant grant agreement.”
The letter follows on from announcements by several higher education institutions across Europe that they were suspending research ties with Israel over its military campaign in Gaza.
The University of Granada decided to stop working with Israeli partners in five Horizon Europe and Horizon 2020 projects. An association of Spanish universities said it was committed to reviewing and, where appropriate, suspending collaboration agreements with Israeli universities and research centress “that have not demonstrated a firm commitment to peace and adherence to international humanitarian law.”
Last month, the academic council of the Free University of Brussels (ULB) announced it would “suspend all agreements and institutional research projects involving an Israeli university” until universities in Israel made a “clear commitment” to abide by a recent International Court of Justice order against Israel’s assault on Rafah.
The ULB council had asked for clear recommendations and instructions on how to proceed with Horizon Europe projects that involve partners from Israel, so they can better assess if Israeli partners comply with Horizon Europe ethical standards.
The council pointed to Article 14 of the Horizon Europe grant agreement, which stipulates that research projects “must be carried out in line with the highest ethical standards and the applicable EU, international and national law on ethical principles”. Project partners are expected to “commit to and ensure the respect of basic EU values (such as respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, including the rights of minorities)”.
Termination request
However, Ivanova says Israeli entities are eligible to participate in Horizon Europe grants under the same terms and conditions as institutions based in EU member states. “Moreover, Israeli entities’ participation in Horizon Europe projects is regulated by guidelines “related to entities based in occupied territories since 1967 and the terms and conditions of each grant agreement concluded by consortia involving Israeli entities,” Ivanova said.
It is not immediately clear if universities that have already terminated or suspended the access of Israeli researchers in Horizon grants will be investigated for discrimination.
Ivanova said the granting authority – in this case the European Commission – will assess each termination request. “On the basis of this assessment, the granting authority will decide on the possible legal and financial consequences of the termination such as a grant reduction, which would require a formal contradictory procedure.”
In a scathing letter earlier this month, German MEP Christian Ehler, the European Parliament’s co-rapporteur on Horizon Europe, asked the Commission to defend Israeli participation in the EU research and innovation programme.
Boycott groups from Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait announced a campaign to boycott British universities that are complicit in Israel’s war on Gaza.
The New Arab Staff & Agencies 07 July, 2024
A pro-Palestine coalition group based in the Gulf states has launched a campaign to boycott universities in Britain that are allegedly contributing to what they call the genocide in Gaza.
The Gulf Coalition Against Normalization(Gulf CAN) is calling on students not to enrol in the targeted universities, contracted agents to terminate relationships and ministries of education to remove the universities from scholarships and end their relations with arms companies that supply weapons to Israel and withdraw their investments.
Gulf CAN is an umbrella organisation comprised of activist groups from Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. It aims to coordinate campaigns within the Gulf states to “resist Zionism” and normalisation with Israel within the region.
“British universities are not only complicit in refusing to acknowledge the genocide in Gaza, but also play a direct role in financing and developing weapons supplied to the Zionist occupation army,” the statement reads.
Gulf CAN is calling on local education stakeholders to boycott the following list of UK universities: Newcastle University, University of Liverpool, University of Nottingham, University of Leeds, Northumbria University, Queen Mary University of London, University of Portsmouth, University of Manchester, Manchester Metropolitan University and Coventry University.
The institutions on Gulf CAN’s list have invested over £34 million in Israel-linked companies, according to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
“These universities take an explicit position in protecting the occupation by suppressing demonstrations by students demanding an end to their participation in the genocide in Gaza,” the statement adds, highlighting that “the suppression has included the use of physical violence, sexual harassment, and the removal of the hijab”.
The organisation says the universities have lost £600,000 due to their campaign so far, noting that scholarship programmes and partnerships with local universities in the Gulf are an “indispensable source of income for British universities.”
The British Council found that Gulf countries, including Kuwait and Qatar, are among the largest markets for sponsored UK study visas in 2018. The UK saw an almost six percent increase in T4 visas from Kuwait.
At the same time, the UK remained Bahrain’s number one destination for students leaving the country, with over 15,000 students.
Universities across the globe, especially institutions in Britain, have been facing pressure to divest from companies linked to Israel with protests and encampments.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) found that UK Universities collectively invest almost £430 million in companies complicit in the state’s war on Gaza, which has since killed over 38,000 Palestinians.
At the beginning of July, more than a thousand German academics signed a petition stating, “In light of current events: No place for anti-Semitism at universities!” The academics explained, “We, as academic teachers at German universities and researchers at non-university research institutions, stand in equal terms with our Jewish students and colleagues. We will do everything in our power to ensure that they can study and work at our institutions safely and without harm, and that Jews in Germany can feel safe. We condemn anti-Semitic exclusion, the use of terrorist symbols, the questioning of Israel’s right to exist, any form of violence and vandalism within university buildings in the strongest terms. Therefore, it is our belief that the promotion and public expression of hatred towards Jews in our institutions should be ostracized and penalized. We are also deeply concerned about developments regarding the boycott of Israeli universities and the exclusion of Israeli colleagues from academic conferences and journals. We strongly oppose these forms of exclusion and remain committed to collaborating with colleagues at Israeli universities or researchers holding Israeli citizenship.”
Such a demonstration of support is unique and should be praised. While German scholars embrace Israel and the Jews, some in Germany embrace the Palestinians.
In a striking opposition, there are even some Israeli academics who bash Israel.
Moshe Zimmermann, professor emeritus of German history at the Hebrew University, is a case in point. He published a new book, Niemals Frieden? Israel am Scheideweg (Never Peace? Israel at the Crossroads) to impact public opinion in Germany.
The German press reviewed the book and reported on it. Zimmermann does not want Germany’s Federal Government to unambiguously support the Government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, not even after the atrocious terror attacks of 7 October. He insists that the German Government must confront Israel’s current leadership in ways that help to bring about the two-state solution, which, according to him, is the only political arrangement that can facilitate lasting peace and true security for Israel. For Zimmermann, “Lip service won’t do,” as the Israeli Government is not “inclined to live up to the Oslo peace agreements.”
The Hamas atrocities and the Gaza war are Zimmermann’s starting points, not the topic. Zimmermann discusses how the Israeli policymakers bear some responsibility for what happened in October. For example, according to Zimmermann, in 2023, provocations of aggressive and escalating settler activism in the West Bank amounted to “fuel poured onto the fire.”
Zimmermann’s core argument is that right-wing parties have been sabotaging peace efforts for decades, with things getting increasingly worse since Benjamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister again in 2009. Zimmermann calls the current cabinet a Kakistocracy.
Zimmermann argues that unconditional support for Netanyahu will further empower the extremists who hold public office. These people claim the entire area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea for Israel. “Netanyahu himself insists there can be no other state on this land besides Israel. Right-wing populists and radicals systematically endorse the building of ever more Israeli settlements on the very territory, which, according to the Oslo treaties, is meant to become the Palestinian state. Instead, they want to annex it. Their actions have been aggravating tensions for decades.”
Furthermore, Zimmermann accuses settlers of being “trigger-happy as their Islamist Palestinian counterparts.” Like the latter, Zimmermann insists, they want a theocratic state and refer to the Holy Scriptures to justify their action. Zimmermann warns against conflating Israel with its current Government. According to Zimmermann, Hamas does not represent all Palestinians. Extremist aggression, according to Zimmermann, is not only directed at the other ethno-religious group but also targets the opponents. Zimmermann “finds it depressing that religious fundamentalism on both sides is holding both groups captive”.
From Zimmermann’s radical leftist perspective, religious Jews are the enemy; they are similar to Hamas, and the Hamas attack was Israel’s fault.
Zimmermann provided a similar observation in a Haaretz interview, where he declared that “The Hamas Pogrom Demonstrates That Zionism Has Failed.” In his view, the Israelis cannot be safe in their own country if they have to endure what their Diaspora forefathers had suffered at the hands of violent antisemites who raped and pillaged the defenseless Jews.
Unfortunately for the professor, who is fond of comparing everything to Jewish history in Europe, the Hamas attack is anything but a simple pogrom. The 1988 Charter of Hamas, a radical Jihadist terror group, made clear that the overall goal is to liberate Palestine from the “river to the sea,” meaning cleanse all Israelis. More to the point, Hamas serves as Iran’s proxy ring around Israel, along with Hezbollah and the pro-Iranian militias in Syria, Iraq, and the Houthis. The theocratic regime has given Hamas millions of dollars over the years and provided it with sophisticated missiles and rockers. Iranian engineers helped Hamas to build a network of tunnels in densely populated residential areas. Tutored by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the military wing of Hamas, the Izzaddin al Qassem Brigades carried out a successful attack on October 7 using the brutal tactics of ISIS. There is virtually no doubt that Hamas’s success was made possible by the calamitous failure of Israeli intelligence. Yet, the Gaza War indicates that the military can defend the civilian population. On both counts, Professor Zimmermann’s comparisons are fallacious but fit well his habit of making eye-grabbing “equivalences.”
In fact, Zimmermman’s propensity for creating false analogies got him into trouble in the past. He was sued several times for equating children of Hebron settlers to the Hitlerjugend, or the “motivation and the conditions of service of some elite units” in the IDF to Waffen SS, the most notorious military divisions implicated in horrific acts of atrocity during WWII, and, the Bible to Mein Kampf. He also sued his former MA student for libel; she accused him of embracing the equivalency theory to please the German foundations who showered him with honors and monetary prizes. The presiding judge dismissed the case in 2004 and determined that Germany-Israel relations are a highly important public issue, adding that it is unthinkable that a professor, being a public figure, could publish his controversial opinions, which include a comparison between the Hebron youth and the Hitlerite youth, but on the other hand would refuse to accept criticism of his opinions. The judge emphasized that “the court is not the appropriate place for settling accounts between colleagues, and the differences of opinion should be left in the academic arena.”
In the Haaretz interview, Zimmermann returned to his favorite pastime, finding similarities between Nazi Germany and Israel. He said, “When I look at the Israeli propaganda system – ‘Together we will win’ – it’s hard for me not to remember the spirit of steadfastness in a war I am familiar with from German history. You’re in a tough situation, and you know that you somehow have to cultivate this spirit of ‘We will hang in there.’ That’s the type of thing that generates misery. The comparison is of course not one to one, but in Germany in 1944 slogans appeared such as, ‘Our walls are broken but our hearts are firm.’ Today you see, ‘Together we will win’ in every corner of the country. It’s an attempt to generate unconditional support, which prevents a discussion about the goals of the war and the logic of the war. You have to be very careful about the work of propaganda… Anyone who has studied German history and watched Goebbels’ career, sees what a dangerous instrument propaganda is – one that can lead to a loss of the way.”
Zimmemman’s obsession with finding parallels between Israel and Nazi Germany blinds him to the fact that despite his egregious comparisons, his academic career flourished and he retired with full benefits. Zimmerman ignores the fact that Israel is not even slightly similar to Germany in the 1930s. If he was teaching there and trashing the Nazi regime, he would have been sent to a concentration camp, and then as a Jew, he would have been sent to any of the extermination camps.
Zimmermann’s new book empowers antisemites by comparing religious Jews to radical Islamists.
Why prominent Israeli scholar wants Germany to confront Netanyahu
Moshe Zimmermann disagrees with how German leaders interpret our nation’s special responsibility for Israel in particular and Jews in general. The historian from Jerusalem wants them to challenge the right-wing policies of Israel’s government rather than rally around Netanyahu.
Even after the atrocious terror attacks of 7 October, Zimmermann does not want Germany’s Federal Government to unambiguously support the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He insists that it must confront Israel’s current leadership in ways that help to bring about the two-state solution, which, according to him, is the only political arrangement that can facilitate lasting peace and thus true security for Israel. Lip service won’t do, he argues, as Israel’s government is not inclined to live up to the Oslo peace agreements.
In the hope of having an impact on public opinion in Germany, Moshe Zimmermann wrote his latest book “Niemals Frieden? Israel am Scheideweg” (Never peace? Israel at the crossroads) in German. I hope many persons in positions of leadership will read it. The Hamas atrocities and the Gaza war are its starting points, not the topic. Zimmermann does what was totally taboo in Germany after the bloodbath of 7 October: he puts that horrible date in its historical and political context.
The Jewish scholar elaborates eloquently why Israeli policymakers bear some responsibility for what happened. In rather explicit terms, he points out on page 135 that, in 2023, the provocations of aggressive and escalating settler activism in the Westbank amounted “fuel poured onto the fire”. It also matters that, in order to support the settlers, Israel’s government had reduced the military presence along the Gaza border, which Hamas then attacked.
Sabotaging peace efforts for decades
Zimmermann’s core argument is that right-wing parties have been sabotaging peace efforts for decades, with things getting increasingly worse since Benjamin Netanyahu became Prime Minister again in 2009. The professor emeritus of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University even calls the current cabinet a Kakistocracy. The Greek term means government of the worst. Zimmermann is appalled by corruption and incompetence.
In view of these things, Zimmermann argues, unconditional support for Netanyahu will further empower the extremists who hold public office. These people claim for Israel the entire area between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea. Netanyahu himself insists there can be no other state on this land besides Israel. Right-wing populists and radicals systematically endorse the building of ever more Israeli settlements on the very territory which, according to the Oslo treaties, is meant to become the Palestinian state. Instead, they want to annex it. Their actions have been aggravating tensions for decades.
On page 176, Zimmermann indeed accuses settler activists of being as “trigger-happy as their Islamist Palestinian counterparts”. Like the latter, he adds, they want a theocratic state and refer to Holy Scriptures to justify their action. He warns against conflating Israel with its current government and also insists that Hamas does not represent all Palestinians. Extremist aggression, according to him, is not only directed at the other ethno-religious group, but also targets opponents in the own. Zimmermann finds it depressing, that religious fundamentalism on both sides is holding both groups captive.
What has become of Zionism?
The author argues consistently that this is not what Zionism originally intended. Many chapters in the book follow the same pattern:
they begin with a short summary of the ideas articulated by Theodor Herzel, the founder of Zionism in the late 19th century,
elaborate next how those ideas shaped the newly founded state of Israel in its early decades and
then conclude with an assessment of Israel’s right-wing shift that started in the late 1970s.
Early Zionists wanted to create a secular nation state with scope for the peaceful coexistence of Jews and Muslims, Zimmermann writes. Instead, a fanatic government is now trying to abolish the country’s Supreme Court. He stresses that the basic law, which defines Israel exclusively as the state of Jewish self-determination, was only adopted by a right-wing controlled Knesset in 2018, seven decades after the state became independent. The same law downgraded Arabic from the second official language to one that is merely used.
Zimmermann repeatedly mentions apartheid-like conditions in the West Bank, stressing that Palestinians are being denied their rights. He also states that the first Jews who moved to what was, before World War I, still part of the Ottoman Empire had a colonial mindset in the sense of believing that they, as Europeans, were entitled to claim land overseas. However, their migration did not serve the expansion by any European empire, nor was it actively supported by one. Jewish migration to Palestine was thus not a colonial effort.
It matters even more, that masses of those who came to Palestine were fleeing from oppression. That did not change after Israel was established as a state and prevailed against its Arab neighbours in successive wars. Jews were forced to flee many Muslim countries, and their obvious destination was Israel.
It is ironic, according to Zimmermann, that Sephardic Jews from the MENA region tended to appreciate religiously coded identity politics in opposition to the secular Zionism originally endorsed by Ashkenazi Jews from Europe. The background was that they felt oppressed by the first comers and considered them to be arrogant.
Escalating vicious cycle
The historian shows how a vicious cycle escalated over the decades. Both Israeli and Islamist radicals do not want peace, but victory. On both sides, the radicals claim the entire territory between the river and the sea for their own ethno-religious group. On both sides, the radicals benefit from warning against the dangers posed by the radicals on the other side.
Zimmermann expresses deep-felt grief when he reports how he has been warning for decades that violence will only get worse unless peace is made. He insists, however, that there are political forces who still want peace on both sides. In the scholar’s eyes, they deserve more assertive diplomatic support by Germany, the EU, the USA and the international community in general.
Zimmermann does not list precisely what he wants Israel’s allies to do. To me, diplomatic recognition of a Palestinian state and endorsement of Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire, seem to be steps that would put the right kind of pressure on Israel’s government. Moreover, allies should speak out publicly when the Netanyahu government does not act in accordance with international law or universal values such as pluralism, democracy and human rights.
Tackling antisemitism
The book makes it very clear that it is wrong to side with Netanyahu under the impression that anything else would be antisemitic. Zimmermann, who specialises in German history, obviously abhors antisemitism. However, he warns that overemphasising this important concept will only blunt it. He refers to the fairy-tail of the boy who cried “wolf” for fun too often, so nobody came to his help when he was actually attacked by wolves.
My impression is that the sudden international outburst of antisemitism after 7 October, with many people actually celebrating the atrocious mass violence, resulted from “wolf” having been screamed far too often in recent years. German opinion shapers were wrong, for example, to obsess about whether antisemitism had left a mark on reports of international human-rights organisations that spoke of “apartheid”. They condemned Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International of hating Jews, instead of considering the substance of the apartheid reports. Neither organisation has a track record of antisemitism. For many young people, the lesson was that public opinion is biased in Israel’s favour, which made them more susceptible for Hamas propaganda.
Zimmermann takes sides in a long-standing debate on what the precise meaning of “antisemitism” is. He reports that he was among the experts who launched the Jerusalem Declaration, an important document, which emphasises the freedoms of speech and academic research.
According to Zimmermann, Israel’s government has a misleading habit of claiming to speak for all Jews everywhere. However, its policymakers do not consult the diaspora, even though its actions have an impact on Jews abroad, and they expect them to unconditionally support Israel. The author emphasises that many diaspora Jews find that endorsement increasingly impossible – in the USA, for example.
Zimmermann states that his personal stance is one of “constructive pessimism”. He knows that the two-state solution looks less likely with every new turn of the vicious cycle of violence. Given that the alternative is war after war after war, he refuses to give up the hope that peace can ultimately be achieved even though it is becoming increasingly difficult. In his eyes, that is the effort that Israel’s friends must focus on, and lip service is not enough.
Book Zimmermann, M.,2024: Niemals Frieden? Israel am Scheideweg (Never peace? Israel at the crossroads). Berlin, Propyläen.
Never peace? Israel at the crossroadsPropylaea , Berlin 2024
192 pages
16.00 euros
By Ofer Waldman · 25.05.2024
Moshe Zimmermann’s new book is an outcry. Written under the impression of Hamas terror and the Gaza war, the historian sees Israel as a Jewish democratic state more than ever on the brink of collapse – and the life’s work of his generation under threat.
“Constructive pessimism” – this is the term used by Israeli historian Moshe Zimmermann to sum up his own work. The hierarchy between adjectives and nouns is clearly established: with this book, Zimmermann rings all the alarm bells at his disposal. Never before has the German-reading public received a more urgent, prominent and detailed warning that Israel, as a Jewish-democratic state, is on the brink of collapse. Zimmermann presents a grim indictment of Israeli policy over the past few decades, which he has been warning about for years. He does so with increasing urgency and with the sharp analysis of one of Israel’s best-known historians.
Secular, liberal, humanistic
In this almost personal book – the pronoun “I” appears frequently in it – Zimmermann mourns an Israeli “road not taken”, a liberal-democratic development internally, and externally a compromise-oriented path towards the Arab world and especially the Palestinians. A development that corresponds to Zimmermann’s own biography: secular, liberal, humanistic and European in character, even if occasionally alienated from other cultural spheres.
Zimmermann’s grim view of Israel today arises from the two temporal features to which this book refers: it opens with a poem written about the pogroms in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20th century; the other temporal feature is the Hamas massacre on October 7, 2023.
The conclusion that emerges from this is that the – according to Zimmermann – messianic, “ethnic” derailment of Zionism, driven by the advocates of a borderless “Greater Israel”, by settlers and their nationalist representatives in Israeli politics, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, is an existential threat to Israel, which has led to the repetition of pogrom-like images on Israeli soil. Zimmermann does not shy away from the explosive claim that Netanyahu and the settler movement are partly to blame for the massacre of October 7.
The cowardice of German federal governments
Zimmermann is well aware of the German context in which this book is read. He clearly rejects those currents that read Israel’s history and present through the paradigms of post-colonialism, but refrains from providing a deeper insight into the post-migrant reality of today’s German society. Many reactions from the left to October 7 made him “suspicious”: Like many other progressive Israelis, he complains that since the Hamas terror attack he has been torn between anti-Semitic criticism of Israel and the far-right Israeli government.
Zimmermann is also critical of German politics: The inflationary use of the term anti-Semitism in the domestic German context in order to – according to Zimmermann – fend off criticism of Israel’s policies, and the lack of courage of German federal governments towards their Israeli partners, are devastating for Israel’s future: “Since Israel’s security can only be guaranteed by settling the conflict via the two-state solution, and Germany must resign because it is ‘unsuitable’, the slogan ‘Israel is German state policy’ remains a bluff, and the path to the abyss is clear.” This book is a cry of resistance, a cry of protest written in words by Zimmermann, who sees the life’s work of his generation being destroyed. A book that offers a condensed history and an alarming assessment of Israel and the conflict, combined with an urgent call to force the two-state solution under international pressure. Not because Zimmermann necessarily considers this possibility to be feasible, but because the alternative would be the end of Israel as a Jewish democratic state.
Moshe Zimmermann, Israeli historian: ‘Jewish nationalism tends to consider everything that does not belong to its nation as the enemy’
The former director of the center for German history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem believes that the ‘pogrom’ of October 7 forces us to ‘question the whole idea of Zionism
Moshe Zimmermann’s family history coincides with his academic specialization. He was born 80 years ago in Jerusalem because his parents fled Nazism in 1938, moving from Hamburg to the British protectorate of Palestine. In the last 50 years he has written dozens of books and articles on German social history, the history of Jews in Germany, nationalism and antisemitism. A professor emeritus of modern history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he directed the Richard Koebner Minerva Center for German History and received the Humboldt Prize for international researchers.
Along the way, he has also delved into cinema and sports, as attested to by the large library inside his home in Kiryat Ono, 6.8 miles east of Tel Aviv. He has not remained within the confines of his academic ivory tower, instead coming down to provide a counter-current analysis of his country’s present, to the point of drawing parallels with Nazism. This struck a chord and earned him three defamation suits that were all ultimately dismissed. He believes that the “pogrom” perpetrated by Hamas on October 7 forces us to “question the whole idea of Zionism,” and that comparing it to the Holocaust is a tremendous example of weakness.
On the way here, I heard Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the radio saying that Israel is fighting neo-Nazis. Why is what has happened since October 7 being framed as related to the Holocaust?
Answer. The absolute and historical enemy of the Jews were the Nazis, so if you want to delegitimize your enemy, it is best to compare him with them. It has become an instinct in Israel, mainly among politicians. It has an element of truth. In one day, more than a thousand Jews were massacred. A pogrom. So one instinctively clings to that comparison. But it is also the source of great weakness. If the worst catastrophe in Jewish history since 1945 has occurred in Israel, we must admit that something is wrong with the whole idea of Zionism, which was created to save the Jews from a diaspora that lasted 2,000 years. And the question is: what did Zionism do on October 7 to save the Jews?
Q. But it was a day, not the six million exterminated in the Holocaust — that could not happen today in Israel. So how does that challenge the whole idea of Zionism?
A. I don’t want to say that it is the end of the idea of Zionism, but it failed at a crucial moment. If such a defect exists, you have to question the whole idea of Zionism. If as a Jew you are discriminated against, you look for a way not to be. This is what happened in Europe since the end of the 18th century. We believed that self-emancipation, having our own state as a nation, not as a religion, was a solution. Until it emerged that Jewish life is in danger, even within a Jewish state that can defend itself. It created a new problem in the Middle East. You have to wonder if it was taken into account beforehand or not.
Q. And was it?
A. If so, was it the right way to move forward, at the expense of the Palestinians? At first, the idea was typically European. Europe as the center of the world and whose inhabitants can colonize or emigrate anywhere. This is how the United States or South Africa were created. This is how colonialism worked in the 19th century, and the Jews were no strangers to that. The idea was not to create an empire, but to save Jews from persecution. From that approach, a conflict emerged. Jewish nationalism developed the tendency to consider everything that does not belong to its nation as the other; even more, like the enemy. The Arab population of Palestine also learned from the Europeans to develop a national consciousness. Soon we had two national identities living in the same place and in conflict.
Q. Those who went to Palestine saved their lives…
A. The majority believed that Europe would provide them with security. It is the main argument in favor of Zionism after 1945. This poses a problem. If [Nazi Marshal] Rommel had occupied Palestine, he would have treated the Jewish population like that of Europe. The counterargument is that if they had already had a state, things would have been different. Take the fate of Poland or Czechoslovakia under Nazi occupation… A state is no guarantee. The fact that people like my family, who went to Palestine, were saved was in large part due to luck.
Q. This touches on what is happening today: having a state and an army does not guarantee safety against all threats.
A. It is an illusion created by the state of mind that everything that happened to us was because we did not have sovereignty. And it is a paradox with no way out. Jews who experience antisemitism abroad are willing to move to Israel, but it is not a safe haven. In the end, Israel is today the main target of antisemitism, and Jews outside Israel have not been spared from antisemitism. Was it predestined, or was it a mistake?
Q. What do you think?
A. If from the beginning the tendency had been to create a nation-state in Palestine based on cooperation with the Arabs on equal terms, the basis for a Jewish existence without antisemitism could have been laid: there would be no motivation for non-Jews to adhere to antisemitic ideas. What we are experiencing today is increasing antisemitism due to the existence of Israel.
“My opinion is that taking revenge on Hamas at the expense of Gazans is unjustified and irrational, but not genocide”
Q. The counterargument is that antisemitism simply takes different forms.
A. Antisemitism is based on stereotypes. But it needs a platform to articulate itself. What would have happened to antisemitism if Israel did not exist? I’m not saying Israel is the cause of this, but it gives antisemites the opportunity to turn latent antisemitism into overt antisemitism. And since Israel behaves the way it does, it favors it.
Q. Where is the line between a legitimate criticism of Israel and an antisemitic one?
A. Motivation. If you attribute a Jew’s behavior to being Jewish, you are arguing on the basis of antisemitism. If you criticize Israel for ruling the West Bank and you would say the same thing about any other nation that occupies territory and subjugates its inhabitants, it is not antisemitism. Or even if you call for a boycott. It is not antisemitic per se. Israeli politicians automatically define all criticism as antisemitic, which will have a boomerang effect, because then it can be said that any criticism of Israel is not antisemitism by definition, even if stereotypes are used.
Q. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism includes comparing the policies of Israel and the Nazis, as you have done…
A. Comparing is something we historians do to understand. I did so with the idea of warning Israeli society that there are elements of Israeli politics or behavior comparable to elements of National Socialism.
Q. So where are we now regarding these elements and what is happening in Gaza?
A. Everyone is using the word genocide. The comparison is legitimate, but I hope that [the International Court of Justice in] The Hague will pay attention to the differences. The genocide planned by the Nazis was based on a plan to wipe out an entire group of people. You cannot prove that this is happening in Israel. My opinion is that taking revenge on Hamas at the expense of Gazans is unjustified and irrational, but not genocide.
Q. You are just now investigating the moment when nations “went crazy,” as happened during Nazism. How does that happen?
A. Only in retrospect do you discover how deep the chasm crossed was. For many, January 31, 1933 [the day after Hitler was appointed chancellor] was no different from January 29. “We have a new government every six months, now Hitler…” Six months later, they discovered that what they got was not just another chancellor.
The Hamas Pogrom Demonstrates That Zionism Has Failed, Says Israeli Historian Moshe Zimmermann
A pioneering Israeli scholar of German history, Prof. Moshe Zimmermann looks back to 1930s Europe in order to understand where Israel is headed
Ofer Aderet
Dec 29, 2023
In the early 1960s, Moshe Zimmermann’s mother was summoned for a reprimand by the principal of Ma’aleh High School in Jerusalem. She was asked to explain why her boy, who was a good student, had drawn a likeness of a man in an SS uniform on a table in the school. The fact that both the principal and the mother were proud Yekkes – Jews of German-speaking origin – undoubtedly added to the mutual embarrassment. Not to mention the fact that Moshe’s father was the principal of the adjacent primary school.
“My poor mother had to explain what had befallen her jewel,” Zimmermann tells Haaretz in an interview marking his 80th birthday. From the distance of years he notes that the background to the incident was the seminal historic event that was then unfolding in Israel: the trial of Adolf Eichmann. “I was riveted by that story, and it was clear to me at that moment that I wanted to be a historian. As a child who grew up in a Yekke home, it was also clear to me that I ought to, and wanted to, deal with the enigma called Germany.”
In the decades since then, Zimmermann became a pioneer and shaper of the study of Germany in Israel. Today an emeritus professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and former director of its Richard Koebner Minerva Center for German History, he has written and edited dozens of books and articles on Germany’s Jews and their complicated and tragic relationship with their homeland, and has proved that history can also be gleaned from sports and the cinema. In contrast to some of his colleagues in academia, however, Zimmermann also goes out of his way to maintain his image as a public intellectual, one who is not afraid to sound his voice trenchantly and acutely about current events, drawing on his insights as a historian. At the height of his career he found himself in courtrooms on several occasions, fending off lawsuits that were filed against him for statements he had made.
“A historian is supposed to stimulate thought,” he observed this month at a conference held in his honor at the Leo Baeck Institute in Jerusalem. “A historian who insists on being neutral, a person of footnotes, and does not provoke, is doing a disservice to the profession.”
“When I think about Germany and about German historians who constantly hid behind the ‘neutrality’ and ‘objectivity’ of history, I know where that leads,” he says. “Those who are colorless, who are neither here nor there, in the end collaborate with what exists. Writing a chronicle is boring. There is no point in telling what happened in Troy, for example, only in order to tell a story. A historian needs to infer from the past about the present.”
Many people are likening October 7 to the Holocaust. They call Hamas “Nazis” and view the pogrom that was perpetrated in communities of the south as a modern parallel to the pogroms they perpetrated.
“What happened on October 7 is very similar to the pogroms that were carried out against Jews not only during World War II, and not only by German Nazis, but also by ‘good’ Lithuanians, Poles and Ukrainians. As a historian, the important thing is not for me to say ‘A pogrom happened here,’ but to infer from that the implications for the Zionist movement. The moment a pogrom against Jews takes place in the Jewish state, the Zionist state, both the state and Zionism are testifying to their own failure. Because the idea underlying the establishment of a Zionist state was to prevent a situation like that in which Jews in the Diaspora find themselves.
“Here is what we need to think about: How did it come about that Zionism disappointed and that the Zionist state – or its prophets, from Herzl onward – is incapable of meeting the goals it set for itself? The event of October 7, a pogrom on the soil of Israel, in the State of Israel, is a turning point in our assessment of the success of Zionism, and a turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
“I look at what happened,” he continues, “and I say: The Zionist solution is not [really] a solution. We are arriving at a situation in which the Jewish people who live in Zion live in a condition of total insecurity, and not for the first time. Beyond this, we need to take into account that Israel is causing a reduction in the security of Diaspora Jewry, instead of the opposite. So this Zionist solution is very deficient, and we need to examine what caused this deficiency.”
And what is the cause?
“We need to understand that there are different solutions for Jewish existence, and to accept that the Jews have the right to choose. Emancipation and Jewish nationhood can exist side by side. Some say that emancipation is enough for us, that we can manage the risks of life in the Diaspora. Others say they want a national solution. The very fact that the two solutions are perceived as mutually competitive is already [evidence of] the incipient failure of the nationhood solution.”
To which we need to add the situation at which Jewish nationalism in Israel has arrived.
“Jewish nationhood in the Land of Israel went through a process of nationalism, racialism and ethnocentrism. It created a situation of being unable to reach a modus vivendi with the neighboring world. I look with longing at the early Zionists or at those who were in Brit Shalom [1920s intellectuals in Mandatory Palestine who sought a binational state] and who thought about something different, not about eternal war. The moment you think about eternal war, you expose yourself to the same weaknesses we saw on October 7 in the cruelest form.”
So where do we go from here?
“It’s clear that the two-state solution needs to be the logical result, even though at the moment it looks hopeless and totally absurd. The alternative is either for us to execute a Nazi-like act against the Palestinians, or for the Palestinians to execute a Nazi act against us, meaning an attempt to destroy [Israel] – an apocalyptic ‘solution’ of Armageddon.
“Eight years ago, [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu replied to the question of whether we are always to live by the sword with ‘Yes.’ That is an appalling answer. There are people who would say that there is another alternative: We can expel them from the country, or the Palestinians can live under Israeli rule. But those are solutions that every sensible person would consider unrealistic, and reject. The two-state solution with a completely new conception of ‘state’ should be the aspiration.”
Are you referring to the establishment of a federation?
“Two states, alongside each other, within a new, modern, framework. When I look at Europe, I find the light at the end of the tunnel, no matter the current plight of the European Union. It’s a situation in which countries were willing to give up part of their sovereignty for the benefit of a superstructure, without giving up the old state.
“Two systems, one next to the other, in order to obviate a situation of the sort we were familiar with until World War II,” Zimmermann adds. “We need to evoke the picture of Europe when we think about the Middle East, despite the great challenge of Ukraine. Some people will burst out laughing at that: ‘Come off it, we’re not Switzerland.’ But we need to remember that the Europeans were caught up in harsh confrontations and in enmities that were thought to be eternal, yet they nevertheless succeeded in creating a European union. If it’s possible there, it’s also possible here. I am not being delusional.”
The Zionist solution is not a solution. Jewish people who live in Zion live in a condition of total insecurity. Beyond this, we need to take into account that Israel is causing a reduction in the security of Diaspora Jewry.
Moshe Zimmermann
Isn’t that a utopian scenario?
“We know which forces are interfering, but the term ‘utopian’ says that I am inventing a story that seems unconnected with reality. That is not the case. A basis exists. We work with and cooperate with Palestinians all the time. Even the settlers take pride in the fact that the people who build their homes come from there. In other words, they are able to find a common language with them at some level. Work needs to be done on the religious component. In Europe, it has been much weakened in the modern era. In the Muslim and Jewish worlds, religion has become influential and fundamentalist, and we need to work on secularizing or liberalizing it. That is dependent on education for coexistence, instead of toward confrontation and hatred. This needs to be done with persistence, and with speed, because otherwise the solution I am apprehensive about – destruction, liquidation and expulsion – will become real. And that is something we cannot accept.”
As events unfold rapidly, it’s possible to forget that up until October 7 we were occupied with a different event bearing historical attributes: the legislative-regime coup. Fear for the future of Israeli democracy also led many to draw on comparisons from the Nazi period.
“As a researcher of Germany, I have tended for years to refer to the Weimar Republic, in which democracy was endangered by authoritarian, nationalist, racist and revisionist forces. For years we tried to determine where on the chronological calendar of the Weimar Republic we in Israel were situated. Now, in 2023 we are wondering: Are there not features of the regime in Israel that are familiar from German history after 1933? But the Israeli case of 2023 can be likened to every point in history in which the government was a kakistocracy – a term meaning ‘government by the worst citizens’ – be it Nero, Czar Nicholas II or Donald Trump. If there were a competition, the present Israeli government would be fighting for a place at the top of the list.”
Where do you discern the danger?
“The term ‘putsch from above’ is appropriate to describe the situation. When the separation of powers is in danger, the independence of the judiciary is in danger and the rights of the individual are in danger, it’s clear that the fears of the advocates of liberal democracy are definitely justified. When the majority operates according to fundamentalist religious values or racist principles, the fears are a matter of certainty. The tyranny of the majority, together with rule over another people by an apartheid-like, racist system, is a terrible mixture, certainly if we look over our shoulder to history in other places.”
Zimmermann is currently engaged in a new research project – the study of “nations that went mad” – which sets out to explain “how nations deviate from their course and become extreme,” he says. “The occupation with Germany, which went mad in 1933, until it decreed its self-destruction, and the occupation with astonishing developments in Jewish and Israeli society, led me to deal with a trans-human phenomenon: societies that at a certain point went off-course, or simply ‘went mad,'” Zimmermann explains. “I am examining how societies arrive at a situation in which a sensible outside observer can think to himself: How could these societies, learned and rational, be swept up into collective acts of madness?
“I am looking to locate the spot at which societies fly off-course and find themselves on a dangerous track. It’s important to locate this point in order to cope with such situations in the present.”
What do societies in which this happens have in common?
“It happens in societies that are unwilling to come to terms with insoluble situations, or in societies that are dogmatic in the search for a solution. My guide is the story of the ‘Final Solution.’ After the Nazis made certain assumptions – that there was a problem that needed to be solved – within the external conditions that were created, they had to move from phase to phase until that stage: the Holocaust. It happened without being planned in advance.”
Who is in your sights? Is Israel also on the list?
“The United States during the periods of [Sen. Joseph] McCarthy and of Trump, the Soviet Union in the period of the public trials [under Stalin], Mao’s China and also societies in the Muslim world. Israel went mad starting in 1967 when the idea of biblical territory began to dominate it politically. Romanticism is a dangerous tendency, as we saw in 19th-century Europe. The story of ‘Greater Israel’ and the settlements is the story of a society that is becoming a hostage to biblical romanticism that is sweeping the whole society to perdition. And that is the problem: Once you have embarked on the path, it’s difficult to leave it without undergoing another catastrophe. That happened to Germany in 1945 in the most drastic way. We obviously do not want a catastrophe like that.”
Moshe Zimmermann was born in Jerusalem on December 25, 1943. His parents had arrived in Mandatory Palestine five years earlier from Hamburg. The family of his mother, Hannah Heckscher, of Sephardic Portuguese ancestry, lived in the northern German city for some 400 years. Some branches of the family tree converted to Christianity. One ancestor became a minister in the German government in 1848, others immigrated to different destinations in northern Europe. Zimmermann’s mother left Germany in 1937, first for England, to which her brother had also fled, and afterward, with the aid of a capital certificate – a privilege reserved for affluent families – immigrated to Palestine.
His father, Karl (later Akiva) Zimmermann, was also born in Hamburg, but the family’s origins lay in Eastern Europe and they were thus viewed as Ostjuden (“Jews from the East”). “My father wanted to be a German writer, but in 1933 he could not enter university,” Zimmermann says. As a substitute, he attended a seminary for Jewish teachers and taught in a Jewish school in Stuttgart. He too immigrated to Palestine in 1938, with a Mandatory worker’s certificate, which he obtained by learning carpentry.
Moshe was the first child born in the family – he has three siblings: two sisters and a brother. All of them were educated in the state-religious track and went on to become liberals and left-wingers, “according to the Israeli categories,” Zimmermann says. In Israel, his father was the principal of the Ma’aleh primary school, which Moshe attended. “The whole elite of the National Religious Party [NRP] went there and received a liberal state-religious education: the children of [the philosopher and scientist] Yeshayahu Leibowitz and the children of [NRP] cabinet ministers Burg – with the exception of Avrum – [Haim Moshe] Shapira and [Zorach] Warhaftig. Some in my class became settlers, including a rabbi in Hebron, and others, like me, are on the left side of the map. A classmate of mine was Herzl Halevi, whose nephew is the army chief of staff [Herzi Halevi, who is named for his uncle, who died in the Six-Day War]. Two years below me were the writer Haim Be’er and the [late] journalist Amnon Dankner.”
What is your first childhood memory?
“For a historian, the term ‘memory’ is very problematic. The first photograph in my possession that is relevant for me is of a boy standing on a balcony on King George V Street in Jerusalem next to [what became the] Israeli flag. The date is May 8 or 9, 1945. With the aid of the photograph, I can still remember the celebration that took place to signify Germany’s defeat in World War II.” Later memories are related to the War of Independence. They revolve around “a boy going to kindergarten who has to worry about a shell falling or a sniper operating from the Old City.”
He lived adjacent to the first Knesset building, on King George Street, in the city center, and followed Israel’s unfolding history from that same home balcony. “I remember the demonstrations against the Reparations Agreement [with Germany] and the attempt to assassinate MKs and [bring down] the government. I remember the major politicians who scurried about in front of our home.”
Zimmermann left Jerusalem when he was in his 50s and lives today in Kiryat Ono, east of Tel Aviv, with his partner. His only child, Ariel Zimmermann, is a judge in Tel Aviv District Court. “Today’s Jerusalem is alien to me,” he says. “My Jerusalem is the western part. The eastern part is not mine to this day. I don’t have a connection to it.”
He recalls that he was a “good student, but some were better than I was.” In history he remembers once receiving a grade of 8.5, “which is the last grade before the one that’s given to God.” At 18 the army declined to draft him because he was too thin. He took advantage of the time to embark on undergraduate studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Subsequently, after gaining some weight, he was drafted and was given a singular assignment. “I was in charge of the libraries and the publications of the judge advocate general’s unit,” he says. “I don’t have ‘falafels’ [slang for epaulettes] on my shoulders. It’s not the kind of service you brag about, but from my point of view, it was very beneficial.”
What did you learn there?
“Everything about public international law and the problems the military prosecution had with that. The judge advocate general at the time was Meir Shamgar [later the president of the Supreme Court]. During the Six-Day War, in which I did reserve duty, my assignment was to provide military prosecutors with the ‘security toolbox.’ We knew very well, in advance, that we were organizing for a situation of occupation, and a manual was prepared for the staff about how to comport themselves according to international law.”
The materials Zimmermann is referring to, aka “Shamgar’s toolboxes,” included texts about the laws of war, international conventions, legal history and relevant drafts of legislation.
The two-state solution needs to be the logical result… The alternative is either for us to execute a Nazi-like act against the Palestinians, or for the Palestinians to execute a Nazi act against us.
Zimmermann resumed his studies after his army service; one of his teachers was the renowned historian Jacob Talmon. He wrote his doctoral dissertation in Jerusalem and Hamburg in the 1970s, on the subject of the connection between German nationhood and Jewish emancipation. “It was clear to me that German nationhood was very important for Germany’s Jews, because it was the pre-national reality of separate German entities that blocked their way to equality of rights. But that connection was unstable. The Jews became national-oriented Germans, and the German nationalists said, ‘We don’t want them,’ and invented the new antisemitism. Before, they hated the Jews because they were different; now they hated them because they were trying to be similar.”
What does the German antisemitism of that period have in common with the present-day antisemitism on campuses in the United States and on the streets of some European cities?
“In the meantime, the State of Israel was created, which became a platform for antisemitic attacks. I am not saying that there is antisemitism because of Israel. Heaven forbid. Antisemitism exists because of a legacy of prejudices. But the platform that’s called Israel allows antisemites to express themselves not in the old way of ‘Jews have crooked noses,’ but to speak about ‘Israelis’ – who [just happen to be] ‘Jews.’ That takes us back to the most relevant question today: How can one distinguish between references to Israel that are antisemitic and those that aren’t? That requires a great deal of differentiation. And then you say: When there are stereotypes, beliefs and antisemitic intentions behind criticism of Israel and its policy, we are in the realm of antisemitism.”
As far as Israel’s leaders are concerned, every critique of the government is antisemitic, isn’t it?
“That’s the catch. Israel is aware of this difficulty and is abusing that knowledge. Official Israel makes sure to interpret every criticism of this sort as antisemitism. Because Israel dared, with its effrontery, to present itself as the exclusive representative of Judaism and of the Jewish people, it is bringing about a situation in which whoever attacks Israel can make use of the same Israeli arrogance that identifies Jews with Israel, in order to speak in condemnation of Jews when they speak about condemnation of Israel.
“The result is that pressure is created from both sides. From the Israeli side, every criticism of us is antisemitism; and from the antisemitic side, everything Israel does is Jewish. That is the thin rope on which we walk all the time. And because it is so thin, there is usually a fall from one side of it or the other, and so this argument is mostly not useful.”
Zimmermann’s critique of nationalist extremism in Israel has landed him in court several times, after he pointed out similarities he observed between Nazi Germany and phenomena that occur in Israel.
“I have suffered personally from the self-righteous approach of ‘There can be no comparison.’ My attempt to draw a comparison between a particular element in the Third Reich and what is happening here became the foundation for a judicial campaign against me. And it was very difficult to explain to judges – though in the end it succeeded – what the role of the historian is, why these comparisons are appropriate and why, also as a Jew, one must always make comparisons,” he says. “Whoever, like me, received a state-religious education, learned virtues that the Torah speaks of – kal vehomer [roughly, all the more so], gzeira shava [a parallel between]. That means you make a comparison and from it you reach a conclusion.”
In 1995, half a year before the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, Zimmermann was at the center of an affair that caused a public furor. A local newspaper belonging to from the Yedioth Communications Group interviewed him and titled the resulting article, “Children of Hebron settlers are exactly like Hitler Youth.” Zimmermann was quoted as saying, “There is a whole segment of Israeli society that I unhesitatingly assert is a copy of Nazism. Look at the children in Hebron, they are exactly like Hitler Youth… From the age of zero their head is stuffed with ‘bad Arabs,’ antisemitism, how everyone is against us. They’re transformed into paranoids from a master race, exactly like Hitler Youth.” In the interview, Zimmermann also drew a comparison between “Mein Kampf” and the Bible as books from which an extreme ideology could be derived.
Zimmermann maintained that his words had been taken out of context, and set forth his version in an article he published in Haaretz. “When the question is asked, in reaction to the terrible things children from Hebron said on the anniversary of the death of Baruch Goldstein [perpetrator of the 1994 massacre of 29 Muslim worshippers in the Tomb of the Patriarchs there], as to whether there is a place for comparing their views to what we encountered in the study of National Socialism, we need to take seriously the comparison as the grounds for a reply.
“And the positive reply, however grave it sounds, has a basis. So too in regard to another comparison that was discussed in angry tones. The allegation was made that publishing chapters from ‘Mein Kampf’ in Hebrew, for teaching purposes, is liable to have a detrimental effect on readers in Israel. To which I responded that in Israel, as differentiated from the countries of Europe, racist, right-wing extremism is nourished also from the use of the Bible, and not ‘Mein Kampf.’ However, are we to therefore ban dissemination of the Bible in Israel?” Concluding the article, Zimmermann wrote, “Precisely because I am knowledgeable about the history of Nazism, I can warn about the harmful potential that is latent in every society.”
That prompted some politicians to call on the attorney general to launch an investigation of Zimmermann on suspicion of incitement and insurrection. MKs from the NRP termed him an “Israel-hating paranoiac” and described what he had said as “shocking incitement that could aid Israel haters and Holocaust deniers.” Lecturers at the Hebrew University urged the institution to be rid of him, and Haaretz columnist Dan Margalit wondered, “If a Jewish professor in Jerusalem talks about Bible study in Israel in the same comparative context as inculcation of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf,’ what is left for Germans to repent about?”
Three defamation suits were filed against Zimmermann – all of which were ultimately unsuccessful. He also recruited the Nazi era in his defense, when he wrote in Haaretz, “Many like to quote Heinrich Heine’s dictum, ‘Where books are burned, people too will ultimately be burned.’ This has a prelude: Where people question legal free speech, they will ultimately burn books. On May 10, 1933, that happened in Nazi Germany. I wonder: Will that be recommended now by those who wish to eject me from the university because of my opinions? To burn the books I have written, or the lectures I gave? There will be a lot of work here, because it’s not just my academic studies. Every year, tens of thousands of students learn from textbooks that I took part in writing. Will they too be burned at the stake?”
You claimed that what you said about the Hebron settlers was taken out of context. What did you actually say, which you continue to stand by?
“I gave an interview in which I explained that behavior of the sort that characterized the Reich is found among us as well. I spoke about a prominent case that gives rise to a comparison between the education of children in Hebron and the education of the Hitler-Jugend. Or, if I look at [Meir] Kahane, who disseminated a leaflet and introduced ‘Kosher Daughter of Israel’ legislation – stipulating that Jewish women need to be protected by the law from having sexual contact with non-Jews – we are in the same school as National Socialism. I am a historian. I am not doing this in order to vilify or to make headlines, but in order to learn from history. By analytical methods, I try to understand what can improve and benefit our society in the present and the future.”
You paid a price.
“It didn’t give me much satisfaction to sit in court. It cost a lot of time and money and hurt my public image – people consider you an Israel-hater. Even in the period before the social media, the post office and the telephone were working. I got my portion in very large doses. I saw the scale of hatred and misunderstanding. People claimed I was an SS man only because I explained to them that Kahanism contains the same elements you find in Nazism.
“But as a historian, it was my duty. And the more time that passes, what was written about me in Wikipedia as a denigration, becomes the Balaam-like example of ‘came to curse, left by blessing’ [from Numbers 24]. Because of what I was quoted as saying, which wasn’t accurate, settlers and their supporters took me to court three times, and in each case the defamation suit was rejected. What’s interesting is who those people were. Rehavam Ze’evi, who later became a cabinet minister, a few parents from Hebron, who were joined by Mrs. Orit Strock [currently a cabinet minister from the Religious Zionism party] and all kinds of others. In retrospect I can say that they proved that what I maintained is right: that there is place to compare certain elements of Israel’s behavior with what I am familiar with from German history after 1932 as well.”
You aren’t the first or the last to draw that comparison. Prof. Leibowitz spoke of “Judeo-Nazis” before you, and Yair Golan, when he was deputy army chief of staff, spoke after you about similar “processes.”
“I spoke in a period when the right was afraid of the left. Today the Israeli right rules with a high hand. It’s the consensus. If you examine what I said then, the warning was well-grounded. What I said at that time is proving itself today, and the matter should have been dealt with already then.”
The story of ‘Greater Israel’ and the settlements is the story of a society that is becoming a hostage to biblical romanticism that is sweeping the whole society to perdition. Once you have embarked on the path, it’s difficult to leave it.
Moshe Zimmermann
A few months later, in October 1995, the late journalist Amnon Dankner, speaking on the television program “Popolitika,” said in reference to Itamar Ben-Gvir (at the time a 19-year-old far-right activist belonging to the Kach party), “One is permitted to defend oneself against little Itamar the Nazi,” and told the man who is today a government minister, “Shut your mouth, dirty Nazi.” Ben-Gvir sued him. This time Zimmermann was involved in the trial behind the scenes. “I had to prepare a professional opinion about whether the doctrine espoused by Ben-Gvir resembles Nazism.” The court affirmed the defamation charge, but ruled that Dankner would pay compensation of just one shekel.
In another lawsuit, which Zimmermann filed against Haaretz and against a former student of his, he lost. Zimmermann maintained that an article the student published in the paper libeled him by claiming that he compared Israel to Nazis while Germany supports him financially. The court rejected the suit, stating, “It is inconceivable that a professor, as a public personality, can publish his controversial opinions, which include a comparison between Hebron youth and Hitlerite youth, but in contrast, will refuse to accept criticism of his views.” Zimmermann says today that he regrets that lawsuit.
Back to 1995. Two months before Rabin’s assassination, Zimmermann published an article in Haaretz that today reads like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Under the heading “Weimar writing on a Jerusalem wall,” he wrote, “The history of the Weimar Republic, a clear-cut test case of the collapse of democracy in the 20th century, appears more relevant than ever.” He warned against the way in which “the enemies of democracy are exploiting its operating rules without the democratic regime being able to defend itself properly,” adding, “One of the paradoxes of democracy is that its dismantlement is not felt on the spot.”
Warning against the prospect of political assassination, he noted, “Those who are familiar with the history of Weimar – that of Germany on the way to the Third Reich – knows that the assassination of citizens, police officers and statesmen who represented the republic, by far-right extremists, threatened democracy more than a decade before the change of government.” Citing the assassination of the German-Jewish Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau in 1922 by right-wing extremists, he observed that this is “often considered the beginning of the end of German democracy then” – and linked that situation with the Israeli reality on what would turn out to be the eve of the Rabin assassination.
That was 28 years ago. Can we say that you were right?
“I wrote then that a political killing was looming. Anyone who was alert, as I was then, to the comparison between the Weimar case and the State of Israel, knew the direction in which things were developing.”
On the other hand, there are now left-wingers who say they have “sobered up” from their naive belief that peace with the Palestinians was possible. The right is delighted. They say they demanded that the “Oslo criminals” be tried back in real time.
“Talk of the ‘Oslo criminals’ recalls the ‘November criminals’ of November 1918 – the month in which the Germans signed the armistice agreement. At that time, the German right wing branded those people, who we know in hindsight did the right thing, as criminals. And the Israeli right is branding the people who paved the way to Oslo as criminals. I am not one of those who ‘sobered up.’ The great prospect for which we strove was Oslo. The two sides, one alongside the other, with mutual acceptance.
“I am not naïve. I know that among the Palestinian population there was a large enough force that was in favor of Greater Palestine, just as on the Israeli side there are the advocates of Greater Israel. The crime is the collaboration between the extremists on this side and the other. Accordingly, there is no place for ‘disillusionment’ about Oslo. The disappearing Israeli left is attesting to the fact that it has lost its confidence when it uses the same linguistic coinages as the right.”
In Germany, too, some are saying they are “disillusioned” with the policies of the former chancellor, Angela Merkel, who opened the gates to immigration and let some people into Germany who don’t wish to adopt German values. Just recently there were reports of raids on terrorist properties, including of Hamas, in Germany. And against this background the far right is gaining strength.
“The extreme-right, populist party entered the Bundestag in 2017. What had been considered impossible became reality. Six years later, that party [the AfD – Alternative for Germany] is only getting stronger. The policy of all the traditional parties – not to cooperate with it – will become even more complicated. Will the ‘firewall’ between the establishment parties and this party be breached? The concern is that in the end people will say there is no other choice, we need to cooperate with them.
“From that moment we know how the disaster will occur, because we Israelis have excellent experience. Netanyahu needed [Ben-Gvir’s party] Otzma Yehudit for parliamentary reasons at first, and then as ministers. Judging by this model, we should be apprehensive that the flood will arrive in Germany, too.
“The difference is that the Germans understand well what the Third Reich was and they have a defensive shield in the form of a constitution. But the case of Germany can’t be isolated from the European situation. So we need to be concerned about what is happening in Germany. I also find it very worrisome that ties exist between the populist right there and the settler right in Israel. A kind of fraternal alliance based on enmity for Muslims.”
Let’s talk about Islam in Germany. The authorities there are intervening to prevent Muslim demonstrators from denying Israel’s right to exist, and this after Merkel said in the past that “Islam has become part of Germany.”
“There are about five million Muslims in Germany. You can’t say that they don’t belong while you agree that Jews belong to Germany when there are no more than 200,000 of them there. The demand being made of those Muslims is to adapt themselves to the German constitution. Anyone who disagrees with the constitution is ostracized. Every time Israel attacks Gaza, there are Muslim elements in Germany, some of them well instructed by the Turkish government and indirectly also by Iran, who speak out against Israel and use antisemitic slogans.
“There are antisemitic elements in the Muslim world, but in the past it displayed a more tolerant attitude toward Jews than the Christian world. In the wake of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the use of European antisemitic slogans by the Muslim world emerged as a weapon against the Jewish state.”
You maintain that Israel has also contributed to this development.
“Israel does everything to place weapons in the hands of its enemies. The moment the Israeli government includes outright racists who talk about ‘Jewish power,’ ‘erasing the Arabs’ or annexation, you are serving those forces. When we act very cruelly against Gaza – and I of course remember the cruelty of October 7 – it’s clear that people who feel that they identify ethnically or religiously with the group that is suffering will take to the streets.
“And that gives rise to another paradox: They are serving their enemy. The German right, which constantly talks about the mistake of accepting Muslim elements as refugees in Germany, says: ‘We were right in 2015 when we said that they must not be admitted. The Muslims are showing us that they are against the Jews, against the constitution, and we, as a result, are in favor of the Jews.’ I hope that readers will be aware of the ironic note: Suddenly the populist German right is on the side of the Jews.
“That is a tactical achievement, of course,” Zimmerman continues. “Public opinion polls show that it’s those who vote for this right who display the highest level of antisemitism. Most Muslims in Germany have undergone an integration process, and don’t have the struggle against Israel on their agenda. But those elements who do so are now receiving a voice, in the social media. So there is a dual danger. On the one hand, that the Muslim element in Germany will acquire a clear antisemitic hue; and on the other hand, that the German right will be reinforced by this situation – and after all, we don’t want that.”
During your years in academia you also dealt with the attempt by the Education Ministry to shape the education of Israel’s children in history. What did you want to see included in the curriculum in Israel?
“That a multicultural way of life is preferable to a culture war, and that an attempt at dialogue is preferable to war. That Jewish nationalism arose as part of the national movements of Europe. That antisemitism is a prejudice, hatred between societies. That other genocides have also taken place [beside the Holocaust]. They said, ‘Heaven forbid, it was something exceptional, different, something else entirely, we are special, there’s no comparison.'”
What happened to the program you formulated and proposed?
“It was attacked by political elements and became a dead letter.”
To conclude, Zimmermann wishes to return to his favorite arena: comparing between then and now. “When I look at the Israeli propaganda system – ‘Together we will win’ – it’s hard for me not to remember the spirit of steadfastness in a war I am familiar with from German history. You’re in a tough situation, and you know that you somehow have to cultivate this spirit of ‘We will hang in there.’ That’s the type of thing that generates misery. The comparison is of course not one to one, but in Germany in 1944 slogans appeared such as, ‘Our walls are broken but our hearts are firm.’ Today you see, ‘Together we will win’ in every corner of the country. It’s an attempt to generate unconditional support, which prevents a discussion about the goals of the war and the logic of the war.
“You have to be very careful about the work of propaganda,” Zimmermann sums up. “Anyone who has studied German history and watched Goebbels’ career, sees what a dangerous instrument propaganda is – one that can lead to a loss of the way.”
לטענת צימרמן, מאמר שפורסם בעיתון היווה פרסום לשון הרע נגדו, מאחר שנטען בו כי הוא משווה את ישראל לנאצים וקשרו זאת לעובדה שגרמניה תומכת בו כספית
אסף ברגרפרוינד 28 במרץ 2004
בית משפט השלום בתל אביב דחה ביום חמישי תביעת דיבה שהגיש פרופ’ משה צימרמן, ראש החוג להיסטוריה באוניברסיטה העברית, נגד עיתון “הארץ” ונגד ענת פרי, דוקטורנטית להיסטוריה וסטודנטית שלו לשעבר. השופטת יהודית שבח דחתה את טענותיו של צימרמן בנוגע למאמר שפירסמה פרי באוגוסט 2002 ב”הארץ”. לטענת צימרמן, המאמר היווה פרסום לשון הרע נגדו, מאחר שפרי טענה בו כי הוא משווה את ישראל לנאצים וקשרה זאת לעובדה שגרמניה תומכת בו כספית.
השופטת קבעה כי נושא יחסי גרמניה-ישראל הוא נושא ציבורי ממדרגה ראשונה והוסיפה כי לא יעלה על הדעת שפרופסור, בהיותו אישיות ציבורית, יוכל לפרסם את דעותיו השנויות במחלוקת, הכוללות השוואה בין נוער חברון לבין הנוער ההיטלריסטי, אך מנגד יסרב לקבל ביקורת על דעותיו. השופטת הדגישה כי “בית המשפט אינו המקום המתאים לעריכת חשבונות בין עמיתים למקצוע וחילוקי הדעות אמורים להיוותר בקתדרה האקדמית”.
צימרמן ופרי מכירים שנים: פרי היתה תלמידתו של צימרמן שאף בדק את עבודתה לקראת סיום התואר השני שלה והעניק לה את הציון 93. בהחלטתה קבעה השופטת כי ממאמרים שכתב צימרמן ומראיונות שנתן לכלי התקשורת ניתן לקבוע כי הוא נוהג לערוך השוואות בין גורמים ישראלים לבין גורמים נאצים וכן הוכח כי הוא מקבל כסף מקרנות מחקר גרמניות.
השופטת ציינה כי המאמר שפירסמה פרי נכתב כחלק מנורמה מקובלת של החלפת דעות הנהוגה בין חוקרים בכלל והיסטוריונים בפרט. השופטת העירה כי העובדה שבעבר נדחו תביעות דיבה שהוגשו נגד צימרמן אין בה כדי להשליך על המקרה הספציפי. במקרה זה, קבעה השופטת, השקפתה של פרי שלפיה המימון ניתן לצימרמן מחמת דעותיו הינה סבירה ומתבקשת מהנסיבות. לקראת סיום פסק הדין מבקרת השופטת את התנהגותו של צימרמן בעת הדיון המשפטי אותה תיארה כ”יהירה ומתנשאת”.
השופטת חייבה את צימרמן, אותו יצג עו”ד ערן לב, בתשלום שכר טרחה של הנתבעים בסך 75 אלף שקל. את הנתבעים יצג משרד עורכי הדין ליבליך-מוזר.
Prof. Oren Kroll-Zeldin, the assistant director of the Swig Program in Jewish Studies and Social Justice at the University of San Francisco, has published a new book, Unsettled: American Jews and the Movement for Justice in Palestine. The book is an ethnographic study, as well as polemics. Kroll-Zeldin identifies himself as an anti-Zionist, an activist who participated in some of the campaigns he wrote about in the book. He interviewed some 70 Jewish young adults. His central thesis is that these young activists who engage in Palestine solidarity express their Jewish identity. They “understand Jewish values as demanding a deep commitment to social justice that necessitates distancing themselves from Israel and Zionism.”
In his new book, Kroll-Zeldin identified the four main Jewish anti-Israel activist groups, “IfNotNow,” protesting against the mainstream institutions’ support for Israel; “All That’s Left” and “the Center for Jewish Non-Violence,” engaging the diaspora Jews in co-resistance actions with West Bank Palestinians; and “Jewish Voice for Peace,” an anti-Zionist organization promoting BDS against Israel.
Kroll-Zeldin’s fifth chapter in the book is titled “Under Pressure: Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions.” He discusses a student-wide referendum from December 2020 at Tufts University with the highest voter turnout in the school’s history. The student body voted to end their campus police’s partnership with Israeli law enforcement. Kroll-Zeldin explains that the student effort was part of a national campaign led by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), “End the Deadly Exchange,” seeking to end programs that send U.S. law enforcement personnel on trips to Israel to train with Israeli police and military. According to Kroll-Zeldin, the referendum resulted from more than two years of organizing and coalition building led by the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a student organization advocating for Palestinian rights. The Tufts’s SJP chapter was the first U.S. student group to implement the “End the Deadly Exchange” campaign on college campuses bolstered by a diverse coalition of student organizations, such as JVP and Alt-J (Alternative Jews), as Kroll-Zeldin stated.
The Tufts campaign was part of the global BDS. As Kroll-Zeldin describes it, “This movement has grown into one of the most widespread global strategies used to combat Israeli state power and end its policies of occupation and apartheid.” Kroll-Zeldin argues that “as evidenced by the Tufts “End the Deadly Exchange” campaign, “the national BDS movement had played a central role in raising the consciousness of left-wing progressive students across the country around justice struggles in Palestine/Israel. For this movement, U.S. college campuses are among the most important sites of BDS organizing.” Kroll-Zeldin discussed in the book how “student involvement in BDS campaigns helped break the hegemonic pro-Israel consensus in Jewish communities and visibilized the Palestinian struggle both within Jewish campus organizations and in students’ home communities.”
Most importantly, the author acknowledged that because the activists were Jewish, “they defused accusations of antisemitism from Zionist-affiliated organizations.”
Kroll-Zeldin has a long history of anti-Israel activism on campus. As the organizer of the program “Beyond Bridges” since 2010, he was quoted in a 2016 book as saying, “what is often portrayed is that Israel and Palestine are incredibly violent places, that it’s a constant war-torn area, constantly under violence, and while in some respects that is true, in Tel Aviv that is not true, but in Gaza City that is true. I think that the dominant narrative doesn’t make the necessary distinctions between Israelis, Jews, Zionists, the Israeli defense force, and it doesn’t make a distinction between Palestinian, terrorists, Muslims. I think that Orientalist tropes of Muslim as violent, as terrorist are continuously re-inscribed by the media, by scholars… by the US government, so that people continuously think that Palestinians must be violent.”
Kroll-Zeldin has written a chapter in a 2019 book arguing that Israel is an apartheid state.
In another chapter of a 2019 book, Kroll-Zeldin argues “that the situation there— namely, the near-permanent status of occupation supported by institutionalized and systemic oppression—merits the apartheid label. He contends that the widely accepted definition of apartheid, embodied in various international conventions, is an apt descriptor of the situation in the West Bank, as the occupation relies on two separate legal systems, one privileging Jewish citizen and the other oppressing Palestinian residents.”
IAM has repeatedly empathized that for three decades, Jewish or Israeli faculty were recruited by pro-Palestinians to promote an anti-Israel agenda through their teachings. Oren Kroll-Zeldin is a good example of this trend and, crucially, he openly acknowledged that Jewish students at Tufts were valuable to the other groups because they deflected from charges of antisemitism. IAM has also made clear that the International Holocaust Remember Alliance (IHRA) Definition of Antisemitism, which has been adopted widely in the West, defines antisemitism as a set of beliefs and actions unrelated to ethnicity. In other words, both Jews and non-Jews who embrace certain beliefs and actions could be considered antisemitic.
Kroll-Zeldin is an example of faculty indoctrinating social science students. Dr. Chaim C. Cohen, who teaches at the Hebrew University School of Social Work, recently published a fascinating article, “Faculty social-cultural Marxism is behind the campus riots.” The article explains that the faculty, not the students, are responsible for the recent campus uprisings. Social-cultural Marxism rules the academic social sciences and arts in America and actively promotes antisemitism. As Cohen describes it, social-cultural Marxist faculty seized the teaching of the social sciences and liberal arts. The article explains how the ideology of social-cultural Marxism now determines what millions of young students are taught when studying subjects such as history, sociology, psychology, literature, media, and gender studies, among others. The tenured faculty send their students out to protests and tell them what pro-Palestinian slogans to chant. The names of this current ideology include radical progressivism, critical theory, post-colonial analysis, wokism, and social-cultural Marxism. Cohen suggests that without focusing on faculty, fighting antisemitism and excessive pro-Palestinian activism on campus is not complete.
Since 2004, IAM has reviewed countless books and articles that adopted the neo-Marxist, critical theory to paint Israel as a colonial apartheid state. This explains the scope of Israel’s international predicament.
Faculy social-cultural Marxism is behind the campus riots
The faculty, and not the students or presidents, are responsible for the campus uprisings Social- cultural Marxism now rules the academic social sciences and arts in America, and actively promotes antisemitism
Dr. Chaim C. Cohen
Jun 28, 2024, 1:08 PM (GMT+3)
Dr. Chaim C. Cohen, whose PhD. is from Hebrew U., is a social worker and teacher at the Hebrew Univ. School of Social Work, and Efrata College. He lives in Psagot, Binyamin.
Introduction: The media hid the Real Story of the campus uprisings: Social- cultural Marxist faculty ‘formally’ completed their coup de tat -seizure of the teaching of the social sciences and liberal arts in many America’s major universities
This spring’s campus protests/riots in favor of Hamas prove beyond a doubt that the ideology of social cultural Marxism now determines what millions of young Americans are taught when studying subjects such as history, sociology, psychology, literature, media and gender studies in major universities.
This spring, a Leftist dominated faculty hid behind the student protestors, and confused, debilitated administrators. The media only reported the programmed, staged antics of ‘summer camp’ protestors, and the very confused mumbling of university presidents appearing before Congressional committees.
But the power behind the throne, behind the campus riots, was the tenured, secure Leftist faculty. They sent the students out to protests. They told them what pro-Palestinian slogans to chant, and what ideological sound bites to voice. The administrators, in turn, knowing that their faculty unequivocally supported the students, were not able to provide strong, determined leadership to prevent anti American and anti-Jewish/Israel hate speech and campus disruptions.
How do I know? The administrators may have called in the police to provide a temporary quiet, but in the end not a single student, not a single student, was permanently punished. They all got their college credits, and all graduated with diplomas. Graduation without punishment, was the reward they received for being successful co-conspirators with the faculty.
In sum, these spring protests, brought the almost unrestrained academic power of the Leftist faculty ‘ out of the closet’. It is now clear to all Americans who is really determining what millions of young Americans are being taught, and much more worrisome, what these indoctrinated students are beginning to internalize as their “American’ self-identify and political beliefs.
Jewish students, in the short run, were the main victims of this Leftist show of academic strength. But in the long run America and the liberal Western society will be the true victims of this ideological, academic seizure of power.
A brief, necessary ‘detour’: the historical development of the current Left ideology that can best be termed ‘social cultural Marxism ‘
How did this academic coup de tat, palace revolution, come about, most of it ‘under the radar, and unknown to the common American?
1.The different names of the current ideology:
The current Left ideology dominating academic education has several names: it has been termed radical progressivism, critical theory, post-colonial analysis, wokism, and social cultural Marxism. I will use the term social cultural Marxism because it shows how the ‘Marxism of the twentieth first century, evolved from the Marxism of the twentieth century.
2.The historic themes common to all Left ideologies since the French Revolution
For close to two hundred years, all Left ideologies advocate these basic themes:
a) Society is composed of two conflicting forces- one being the segment of society that controls the societal forces that Oppress, and the otherbeing the segment of society that lacks societal resources and is Oppressed
b) The goal of the Oppressed segment is to ‘rise up’ and seize societal control from the Oppressing segment
c) With regard to the civil societal conflict between the Oppressing and Oppressed segments, one standard of civil morality applies to the Oppressing segment, and a different standard of civil morality applies to the Oppressed segment.
d) The successful seizing of control of societal resources by the previously Oppressed segment will then enable it to ‘structurally re- engineer -from above’- a more equal, and a more liberating distribution of societal resources to wider segment of the society.
Leftist ideology here contains an inherent, ‘built in’, contradiction/tension between a government engineering social change from above, and the maintenance of ‘individual freedom/autonomy’ from below.
e) Leftist ideology is ‘utopian-romantically idealistic’ in its historical vision. It believes that is historically possible, and even incumbent, to create a truly just, free basically egalitarian society. Because such a purpose is historically possible and imperative, attaining such an End justifies ‘means’ which are often not free, just or liberal.
3. The recent developmental history of social cultural Marxism
a) Traditional Marxism (beginning in the late 19th century) focused on economic class warfare. It called for the majority laboring, working class (the proletariat) to organize, unite and throw off the oppression of the minority capitalist, property owning bourgeois upper class. The majority working class would then equalize the economic conditions by nationalizing property and wealth
b)1960’s-70’s- by the mid twentieth century the above economic -class definition of societal conflict (capitalists as the Oppressor, and labor as the Oppressed) was beginning to lose credibility. Post World War Two social democratic regimes in Western Europe provided extensive social service benefits, and ongoing economic prosperity was established. The average laborer no longer felt economically insecure. He no longer saw himself as an Oppressed class. Also, the economic and social bankruptcy of the communist/socialist Soviet Union gave economic Marxism a ‘bad name’.
And the New Left of the sixties (with which I partially identified), in both America and Europe, dropped economic Marxism and began to define ‘Oppression’ in non-economic terms, such as ending an imperialistic war in Vietnam, ending racist discrimination, and redefining the social role of woman-feminism.
Thus was born the first ‘seeds’ of a social cultural definition of Marxism.
My New Left, 1960’s radical friends, after losing the political battle for societal change, then made a strategic decision to become professors in the social sciences and arts, and from their academic posts to continue their battle for radical societal change.
c) Important footnote : Already in post-World War One, the German Frankfurt School social philosophy began to define the ideology of social cultural Marxism. They saw that during World War One the laboring class defined their self-identity not in economic Marxist terms (as a proletariat) but in nationalistic terms
They retained the basic Marxist paradigm of Oppressor versus Oppressed, but redefined the identity of Oppression. They argued that the main forms of oppression in a capitalist society were the forces of a ‘capitalist encouraged and imposed false consumerism’ and ‘sexual repression’.
d) 1970’s-80’s, ‘The Truth is that there is no Truth: The academic Left radicals of the 60’s, now holding significant academic posts, made the principle of moral relativism the corner stone of their developing social cultural Marxism. Basing themselves on trendy French philosophers they argued that all claims to ‘ objective, absolute truth’ are simply ideological projections of one’s specific social position in society’s institutional power social structure. This ‘philosophical’ claim would allow them in the next generation to legitimize all ‘fringe’ social movements, easily delegitimize traditional, orthodox morality, and two generations later claim that Hamas terror is the moral equivalent of Israel’s military battle for self-survival.
e)1990’s -2010 – The second generation of radical, Left academic social cultural Marxists now acted to ‘update’ their canonized division of their ‘Oppressing’ and “Oppressed’ social classifications, particularly focusing on self-identities in the context of ‘institutional racism’, ‘a more radical definition of feminism’ and homosexuality.
We can generalize that claims to being part of an ‘Oppressed ‘ social entity now had very little to do with economic status, and everything to do with ‘defining one’s social self-identity’, often in rejection of traditional, normative social self-identities.
f) 2010 till the present: Third generation radical Left academics now more formally organized the ideological framework of the social cultural Marxism, and continued to expand and ‘canonize’ additional minority social self identities as ‘Oppressed’ social entities, including all forms of ‘fluid gender identities and gender transformation’ and to include ALL non-White, second and third World entities (basically all non-Europeans). This was based on adopting a ‘post -colonial ‘social analysis.
For example, ‘To be ‘queer’ – to live outside almost all traditional social norms – has now attained an almost a super legitimate, ‘prophetic’ social status. Also, they have developed the theory of ‘intersectionality’ which means that people of ‘radical sexual social identities’ are now allies in ‘overthrowing social oppression’ with third world Islamic movements who daily ostracize and punish all forms of sexual deviations. (I am sure one hundred years from now historians will laugh at this ideology of intersectionality).
g) Summary of the development of social cultural Marxism . So ‘the results are now in’. According he latest acts of ‘canonization’, if you are White (that also means Jewish), of European origin, and base your social cultural identity on the traditional two parent (male and female) family, traditional organized religion, traditional community organizations, and strongly identify with national patriotism You Are The Oppressors. (I hate to say this). This means you have become the Enemy of all ‘Oppressed ‘ social entities (as the ones defined above) in the world.
Operationally, this means that social cultural Marxism demands that we socially engineer society, in a semi totalitarian manner from above, to transfer ‘societal privileges and resources from the Oppressing class to the Oppressed classes. This program of ‘social engineering from above’ is entitled DEI, meaning the goal is to Diversify, Equitize, and Include the above canonized Oppressed groups in a transfer/redistribution of societal statuses, privileges and resources.
This means to ‘Take from the above Oppressing classes (Whites, two parent families, traditional religious’) and ‘Give to the above canonized Oppressed social groups, mentioned above” and thus detour around the democratic expectation that all societal groups should have basic access to society’s resources, and then compete -without active governmental intervention- to build the life to which they aspire.
This essay’s basic message:
I ‘apologize’ to my readers for the above somewhat ‘heavy’ philosophical detour. But it was the only way that I can demonstrate to my readers what a very serious and very powerful force social cultural Marxism has become; and what We, the defenders of Israel, of the traditional family and sexual morality, and of traditional religion, are ‘up against’.
A three generation, academic Leftist revolution has put the study of the social sciences and the arts in the hands of academics now ruling with an iron fist of a basically undemocratic, non-liberal, non-tolerant social Marxist ideology.
We holders of traditional social values are the real ‘underdog’. And I am not optimistic. It will take more than a generation to free the academic studies from their reign and regime. A social conservative on campus today has to feel like he is fighting, with a bow and arrow, against a well-disciplined army, with advanced intellectual weapons.
But after this ‘philosophical detour’ the reader should now better understand my original point that ‘these campus pro Hamas ‘uprisings’ ‘ were meticulously choreographed from ‘above’ by the social cultural Marxist faculty rulers of the universities.
How bad is this social cultural Marxist academic regime for the Jews? Very bad!
When confronted with complicated questions of social policy and change we Jews somewhat jokingly like to ask to asking “Is it good for the Jews?’ I would answer as following:
First, social cultural Marxism is bad for the Jews because it has made academic studies in the arts and social sciences a very unfriendly, even hostile, cultural-academic environment for Jews who feel proud, and want their Jewish heritage to be an important part of their self-identity. (Radical left wing social activism is a part of our Jewish cultural past, but only a fringe minority)
Jews and academic life and success are like ‘fish and water, bees and honey’. Most Jews probably see academic success as the key to their extraordinary social success of assimilating into American life, and key positions in American society, in less than three generations. I am sorry to write that most Jews will probably choose to achieve academic achievement in a culturally hostile social- even anti-semitic- environments, rather than learn in in what they see as a more culturally friendly, but ‘second rate’ academic institutions. I worry what four years in an unfriendly academic environment will do to their Jewish self-identity. I believe that some will find their Jewish identity strengthened, but the Jewish identity of most will be weakened.
Second, and more important, social cultural Marxism has seriously destabilized American society , thus creating a fertile ground for antisemitism.
Social cultural Marxism has been a very major force in polarizing and destabilizing America, destroying the traditional social norms of the majority of moderate Americans, and destroying America’s sense of national self-confidence. The result is growing sense that American society has become ‘dysfunctional’. Society has to become destabilized when you argue that America was born in the ‘sin of racism’, and the majority White population is inherently the Oppressing Bad Guy who must be condemned to walk around with a sign of Cain on his forehead. (Admittedly the social cultural Marxism now dominating academic life is not the only cause of America’s polarization and destabilizing. The white supremacy and Chistian nationalism of rural Trump America also contribute. But social cultural Marxism is the chosen topic of this article)
And for three thousand years, (be it a declining Rome, a Russia of the Czars, or the German Weimar Republic) a society that has become destabilized, and a sense of polarization and dysfunction pervades it, has always become an extremely fertile ground for the emergence and spread of the cancer of antisemitism.
And this what is happening now. American Jews had a ‘golden age’ when American society believed in its own goodness, and perceived itself as being open, pluralistic and liberal. When American society, and all societies in history, begin to feel polarized and dysfunctional, both the Right and the Left always first point the finger, and blame, the Jews. Jews are always the first to get the blame for society’s sense of failure. This has been our historical destiny.
In brief, academic social cultural Marxism is wood and tinder of the current bonfire of campus antisemitism. The Hamas massacre of Oct. 7th is only the match that lite this raging bonfire
Summary-social cultural Marxism is destroying American academic life, and has become the major source of galloping antisemitism
First, RadicalLeft academics, over the last three generations, have developed a systematic ideology of social cultural Marxism until it is now the most powerful social philosophy dominating the study of the social sciences and the arts.
Second, social cultural Marxism is an inherently divisive, polarizing political ideology as it divides society into Oppressing and Oppressed social entities, and wants to reengineer America’s socials structure from above. “Privileged Whites, and particularly Jews’ have been labeled as the Bad Guys Oppressing class.
Third, the recent campus uprisings are the direct result of academic social cultural Marxist choreographing their students to take their ideology out of the classroom and into the street. This means teaching that Israel is a colonial settler state that deserves to be extinguished ‘From the river to the sea’. Israel’s post Oct. seventh war of survival provided them with a ‘not to be missed’ opportunity to teach their anti-semitic ideology in the street.
Four The domination of social cultural Marxism on campus has thus become an inevitable, inherent, very potent force promoting antisemitism, and anti Israelism in American society today.
Conservative, pro-Israel, Jewish forceswill have to work very hard, and for a very long time, in order to disarm social cultural Marxism and repair the horrible damage it has done to Jewish and American society.
In a student-wide referendum that took place in December 2020, one with the highest voter turnout in school history, the student body at Tufts University voted to end their campus police’s partnership with Israeli law enforcement. The student effort was part of a national campaign led by Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) called End the Deadly Exchange, which seeks to end programs that send U.S. law enforcement personnel on trips to Israel to train with Israeli police and military. The referendum was the culmination of more than two years of campus organizing and coalition building led by the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a student organization that advocates for Palestinian rights. The Tufts chapter of SJP was the first U.S. student group to implement the End the Deadly Exchange campaign on a college campus. They were bolstered by a diverse coalition of student on-campus organizations, such as JVP and Alt-J (Alternative Jews), two Jewish-identified groups that operate independently of the university’s Hillel chapter. The success of the campaign hinged on the broad-based coalition of supporters, which enabled them to convince people of its importance and validity. The Jewish campus organizations, in addition to the Jewish student members of SJP, were integral to this coalition, as, among other things, they defused accusations of antisemitism from Zionist-affiliated organizations. The Tufts campaign was part of the global movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel, more commonly referred to as BDS. This movement has grown into one of the most widespread global strategies used to combat Israeli state power and end its policies of occupation and apartheid. As evidenced by the Tufts End the Deadly Exchange campaign, the national BDS movement had played a central role in raising the consciousness of left-wing progressive students across the country around justice struggles in Palestine/Israel. For this movement, U.S. college campuses are among the most important sites of BDS organizing. As I discuss in greater detail below, student involvement in BDS campaigns helped break the hegemonic pro- Israel consensus in Jewish communities and visibilized the Palestinian struggle both within Jewish campus organizations and in students’ home communities. This chapter examines the central role that BDS activism plays among young Jewish American Palestine solidarity activists.
Oren Kroll-Zeldin has been studying and writing about Israel/Palestine for his entire academic career. Now he has written his first book about it. “Unsettled: American Jews and the Movement for Justice in Palestine,” published this month, delves into the subject through interviews with young American Jews active in the Palestine solidarity movement.
Kroll-Zeldin, 43, is the assistant director of the Swig Program in Jewish Studies and Social Justice at the University of San Francisco, where he is also an assistant professor of theology and religious studies. He identifies as anti-Zionist, as do many of the 70 or so young adult Jews he interviewed.
His book is an ethnographic study, but it’s also a polemic, as Kroll-Zeldin is himself an activist who took part in some of the same campaigns as his interview subjects.
His thesis is that these young activists, ages roughly 18 to 40, engage in Palestine solidarity work to express their Jewish identity; they understand Jewish values as demanding a deep commitment to social justice that necessitates distancing themselves from Israel and Zionism. They are active in four main groups: IfNotNow, which protests mainstream Jewish institutions’ support for Israel; All That’s Left and the Center for Jewish Non-Violence, which try to engage diaspora Jews in co-resistance actions with West Bank Palestinians; and Jewish Voice for Peace, an anti-Zionist organization that promotes the boycott, sanctions and divestment movement against Israel. This book may not be a comfortable read for older generations of American Jews — but it describes a phenomenon that is real and happening right now.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
J.: Why did you write this book?
Oren Kroll-Zeldin: I had always been interested in the generational shifts in American Jewish connections to and support for the State of Israel and for Zionism, and I had personal experiences interacting with the groups that I focused on. I knew that this was a project that was politically important, that was personally meaningful, and that academically was worthy of inquiry.
You interviewed young American Jews active in four main groups. Despite their political differences on whether Israel should exist as a Jewish state, they all seem to have found a space to “be Jewish” in their activism. How does this work?
A lot of the young activists that I worked with and then interviewed for this project expressed a hesitation in connecting with their Jewishness, at least in mainstream Jewish spaces, because they saw those spaces as upholding certain values that they didn’t agree with vis-a-vis Zionism and the State of Israel. Some removed themselves from Jewish life altogether. Others found Jewish life in places where they could feel connected politically to others based on their anti-Zionism or their anti-occupation political stance.
For many of them, participating in these direct actions on the ground alongside Palestinians, leveraging their privilege as American Jews, was a really important way for them of performing a Jewish identity rooted in the values that they were taught in the Jewish educational spaces they grew up in.
They very intentionally engage with their activism, and they articulate it in Jewish language. They’re engaging in Jewish rituals, having Passover seders at the encampments on campus, reciting Kaddish at protests, as a way of saying we are doing this to perform our Jewish identities.
But there’s another really important part of this. They’re saying we don’t want to end synagogue life or ruin institutionalized Jewish life in the United States. No, we want it to be better, because being Jewish is important to us, and here’s how we think it can be better. You — our Jewish day school, our summer camp, our youth group, our synagogue Hebrew school — you taught us about certain values of peace, of freedom, of equality, of justice. We are enacting these very things that you taught us because we think it is important to apply these values to everyone — not only to Jews, to everyone, and that includes Palestinians.
You often mention the need to “disentangle Judaism from Zionism.” What does that mean?
These activists learned Zionism as a Jewish value in their Jewish upbringings, that being Jewish means, in part, believing in the importance of a Jewish state and a Jewish homeland. What they were not taught is the impacts that that political ideology has had on Palestinians. And in a process of what I call in the book “unlearning Zionism,” which I borrow from other scholars and activists, they went through this very deep process of learning about Palestinian narratives, about Palestinian experiences that were largely hidden from them in their Jewish educations.
A lot of people growing up as Jews in the United States would plant trees in honor of someone through the Jewish National Fund and were never taught that the trees that they were planting were, for the most part, being planted over the remains of destroyed and depopulated Palestinian villages. So liberating Judaism from Zionism is a way of disentangling the Israeli state violence done in the name of Judaism, in the name of Jews, and saying: Our Jewish identities are not intertwined with nationalism, with an ethnonational project.
American Jews have stood up for Palestinian rights for decades, but it’s different with this generation. You write about the importance of lived experience in creating that difference. What are the defining moments for those you interviewed?
This generation of Jews is very far removed from the Holocaust, and that is very significant. This is one of the foundational narratives of the State of Israel, and this is not a lived experience for them. Likewise, the 1967 Arab-Israeli war is not something that young American Jews today can relate to. They only really have experiences seeing news clips and consuming social media, where Israel is the aggressor, where Israel is an occupier, where Israel has all of the power, a country that is supported by the United States government. They don’t see Israel as the underdog; they see the Palestinians as the underdog.
Also, older generations were less likely to encounter Palestinians on campuses or in their communities. Now, it’s very likely for Jewish students to encounter Palestinians on their campuses, for them to become friends, for them to meet each other’s families and to know each other quite well. People are able to travel to Israel and to the Palestinian territories much more easily than previous generations. They can consume alternative news sites like +972 Magazine or Mondoweiss or Al Jazeera and see things that they wouldn’t have seen before. All of this helps to expose people to different narratives than previous generations.
Now there’s a couple of really key mobilizing moments, cataclysmic episodes that transformed this generation of American Jews. The 2014 Gaza war really is the biggest one in the last 10 years [until Oct. 7 and the subsequent war]. That is what led to the founding of IfNotNow and the dramatic rise of membership in groups like Jewish Voice for Peace.
The Trump electoral victory in 2016 forced a lot of young American Jews to rethink their priorities and to mobilize them into activists. The Gaza war in May 2021 was another really significant factor, and again today, what we have seen over the last nine months, since Oct. 7, has really shook the foundation of American Jewish life and has catalyzed a lot of young American Jews to participate.
You finished writing this book before Oct. 7. Would you write the same book today?
Everything has changed since then, and nothing has changed at all. Everything remains the same, only more so. The destruction of Palestinian life is more intense. The violence in Gaza and the West Bank is more intense. The power of the right in Israel and the settler movement are only more intense now. The divisions in the American Jewish community were always there. They’re only more intense today. So I don’t think that I would write anything different.
>>We need you! Become a 48hills member today so we can keep up our incredible local news + culture coverage. Just $20 a month helps sustain us. Join us here.
Kroll-Zeldin, an assistant professor of Jewish Studies at the University of San Francisco, has spent years talking with young American Jews and researching their attitudes toward Israel, Palestine, and social justice.
He argues that growing numbers of young Jewish people in the US don’t see themselves as closely connected to Israel as their parents and grandparents were, and many are rejecting the idea that Zionism is part of the American Jewish identity.
Kroll-Zeldin, who is also the assistant director of USF’s Swig Program in Jewish Studies and Social Justice, teaches a semester-long class on the conflict in the Middle East. He’s the director of the Beyond Bridges: Israel-Palestine program with the Center for Global Education at USF. It’s an understatement to say he’s an expert on the region.
We spoke with him about his research, his conclusions, how “unlearning Zionism” personally changed his life and his studies—and how this change may impact the future of the Middle East.
48HILLS Shortly after the invasion of Gaza, you did a talk at USF that I went to that I thought was really, really good. And one of the things you said was when you talk about the birth of Israel, multiple narratives can be true at the same time. And I’m wondering if you could start off by talking a little bit about that.
OREN KROLL-ZELDIN: There can be multiple truths at the same time. The birth of Israel, for some Jews around the world, was understood as an absolutely incredible moment in history, a really important moment for Jews rising out of the ashes of the Holocaust. Zionism itself was understood as a national liberation movement.
At the same time, the founding of Israel led to the Nakba, the catastrophe for Palestinians, the ethnic cleansing and dispossession of Palestine, and the creation of a massive refugee problem.
Both of those things are factually accurate, and different people hold different truths about those foundational narratives.
48HILLS One of the things you mentioned in your book is that for a lot of American Jews, the idea of Zionism and support for the state of Israel, almost no matter what it does, was kind of embedded in Judaism for generations, including yours. Can you talk a little bit about that?
OREN KROLL-ZELDIN Yeah, there was a concerted effort by certain American Jewish establishment institutions in conjunction with the government of the State of Israel to ensure this very, very clear link between American Judaism and Israel and Zionism and support for the state of Israel. And really there is a very long history of American Jewish institutions silencing dissent and critique of that connection.
After the Arab Israeli war of 1967, Zionism became deeply interwoven into both American political life, but also, and more importantly for this conversation, Jewish American life in such a way that Zionism almost became a new American Jewish religion. When you would go to a synagogue, there would be an American flag and an Israeli flag on the pulpit. If you went to Hebrew School or Jewish day school or Jewish overnight summer camps, or almost really any Jewish educational institutional space, there were people teaching about Israel, unquestionably teaching about Israel, not telling anything about this other narrative that we started with, that narrative of ethnic cleansing, of dispossession, of the catastrophe of Nakba.
And the byproduct of that is people never knowing in American Jewish spaces what Palestinian narratives were, what Palestinian experiences were. It was only, we’re Jewish, there’s the state of Israel, it’s there for you, it is there for us, and let’s learn about it. Let’s celebrate it.
48HILLS You write in the book about “unlearning Zionism.” And you talk about your own personal experience, and maybe you can tell us a little more about the Berkeley Hillel trip you took in 2006 and how that experience as a young Jewish scholar affected you and brought you kind of on the journey to where you are today.
OREN KROLL-ZELDIN Much like the people I write about in the book, I went through a very similar process of being indoctrinated into unquestioning Zionism, which was strange because in the community that I grew up with, and at least in the home that I grew up in, we would question everything. We were taught to question everything, to champion liberal causes. The one thing we weren’t taught to question was Israel and Zionism, and it wasn’t until much later in my life that I learned to think more critically about that and for me, as for others who go through the process of unlearning Zionism, there are moments that form cracks in the foundational narratives.
I have a whole chapter in the book about Birthright critiquing. And part of the way I know so much about it is my own sort of experience.
48HILLSMaybe we could stop for a second here and you can explain to people what the Birthright program is.
OREN KROLL-ZELDIN Birthright is a free 10-day trip to Israel for Jews from around the world between the ages of 18 and 34, who have never been on a peer trip to Israel before. More than 700,000 Jews from around the world have gone to Israel on a Birthright program. It is the single largest provider of Israel education for Jews across the world.
So I was staffing a trip in 2006, when the 2006 Israel Lebanon war broke out. We were in the north of Israel, very close to the Lebanon border. And one day on the Sabbath, we were eating lunch in our hotel, and three rockets from Lebanon fall within 100 meters of the hotel.
The whole thing shakes. We end up spending much of that day in the bomb shelter, waiting for clearance to be able to get on a bus and leave and go to the center of the country.
I had a really hard time hearing what people were saying: ‘They’re just our enemies. They hate Jews. They just want to wipe us off the face of the map. It’s only because we’re Jewish, that they’re doing this.’ And I remember hearing some deep-seated Anti-Arab racism, Islamophobia.
And I was wondering, well, what are the people on the other side of the border saying? What are people in Lebanon experiencing? And anytime I would ask people that, they would really quickly shoot me down: ‘How could you be talking about them? This is about our survival.’ And that really shook me. I was like, I know there’s more to this story.
So that sort of led me to examine and start learning more. What was happening in Lebanon. What was this war all about? How does this connect to the Palestinian issue? Who are the Palestinians? As I started learning more, I started to meet Palestinians, learn from them, and got deeply invested in the academic scholarship of Palestine studies, of Middle East studies, and connecting that to my own research in Jewish studies and anthropology.
And I guess now there’s this book, exploring that all.
48HILLS One of the stories you also tell is about a student who was on one of these Birthright trips, who was given a map of Israel that did not include any lines around the West Bank. Can you talk a little bit about that?
OREN KROLL-ZELDIN So there’s a really common thing, the use of maps, and this is a big thing today. In these Jewish institutional spaces and on Birthright they give you maps and it’s a map of greater Israel. And there’s no demarcation of the West bank. There’s a very, very small line that points out where Gaza is. But the indication is that all of this is Israel. There’s no occupied Palestinian territories. There’s no sense that there’s any differentiation.
This really speaks to how American Jews are taught about Israel, but it also speaks to the power of the apartheid system in Israel. Jews on the entire land are citizens living with the rights of citizenship. But Palestinians, if they’re living in the West Bank or Gaza, they don’t have the same rights.
So this person on his Birthright trip was pointing out: But wait, where’s the West Bank? What’s going on here? What does that say about the program and the erasure of Palestinian life, Palestinian identity, culture, history, narratives.
You hear American Jews who are pro-Israel on campuses starting to say they feel uncomfortable when they see a protester wearing a shirt where what they would consider to be the state of Israel is with, like, maybe the checkered pattern of a keffiyeh, and is saying, well, this is all Palestine.
In a sense, both sides are using these maps to claim the whole thing belongs to me. It is all Israel, it is all Palestine. And in a sense, this sort of speaks to what we started with, the multiple truths and competing narratives.
We need to make sense of this. American Jews weren’t taught to make sense of this. And this activist on this Birthright trip was raising this as an issue. We need to reckon with what’s going on here. With what you’re putting on these maps.
48HILLS One of the things you write about is anti-Zionism as a Jewish value, and I’m hoping you can talk a little bit about that.
OREN KROLL-ZELDIN Anti-Zionism is a political ideology that is contesting the Jewish nation-state’s stronghold in Israel and its oppression of Palestinians. It’s a way of liberating Jewishness from Zionism. It’s saying there are so many different ways to be Jewish. It’s about the liberation and safety of all, the safety and security of Jews and Palestinians.
We are seeing a lot of allegations of antisemitism [in the movement for justice in Palestine], equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, which makes it harder to call out actual instances of antisemitism.
Like what we see in the rising white nationalists, the strength of white nationalism that people are very literally being attacked in their places of worship, in their synagogues, and being killed.
And we need to take that seriously. That is very real. But the individual instances of antisemitism in the movement should not be painting the entire thing as antisemitic.
48HILLS One of the themes that comes out of the people you’ve interviewed and the people you talked to was this idea of “co-resistance.” Can you talk a little more about that?
OREN KROLL-ZELDIN: Co-resistance, I think, is one of the most important and profound ways of resisting Israeli policies of apartheid and occupation that exists today. It means that Palestinians and Jews resist collectively on the ground, in alliance and collaboration with one another.
Co-resistance emerged out of the failure of coexistence programs There was a proliferation of coexistence programs during and immediately following the Oslo chords of the 1990s. Coexistence is like, whoa, let’s have a dialogue. And we’ll get to peace through these track two dialogue programs, and we’ll realize: Look, you love movies. I love movies. You like music. I like music. You eat hummus. I eat hummus. Amazing. Let’s all be friends.
The problem with that is it didn’t really address the imbalance of the power dynamics that continued to exist in society. So when coexistence activities started to fail, and not lead to any meaningful changes, Palestinian activists turned towards a new strategy which we now call co-resistance.
Co-resistance is meaningful because it’s always led by Palestinians. They set the terms for what the actions look like, and they invite Jewish Israelis and Jews from the diaspora to participate. Sometimes, if it leads to material changes, real material wins that improve the conditions of everyday life for Palestinians in the West Bank.
But on a symbolic level, I think that co-resistance activism is very significant because, among other things, it builds strong alliances on the ground based on shared political commitments. And provides the framework for what a shared future based on equality for all might look like.
48HILLS What is that future? What’s going to happen now? I feel like there’s now a generation of Palestinians who’ve seen 40,000 of their neighbors killed, and are not going to be easily convinced to make peace with Israel. And Netanyahu has energized the Israeli right, and now you have the right in Israel that doesn’t want to make peace with the Palestinians.
The concept of a two-state solution has been so damaged by the settlements. I see so much anger on both sides, anger among Jews at the attacks of October 7 and the deaths and the hostages and anger among Palestinians over the wildly disproportionate response.
What’s the best outcome? Is there a two-state solution. How do we make this? What would you like to see happen?
OREN KROLL-ZELDIN: Yeah, we’re in a really difficult moment, that’s for sure. This book and my research is not about pointing to solutions, or offering solutions. I’m offering research that talks about the ways that young American Jews are changing the conversation in the American Jewish community, which has a tremendous amount of power over what happens in Israel and Palestine.
There is no consensus among activists over what should happen. And October 7 and the actions of the Israeli military in the months since then have changed the game completely.
The actions of October 7 I think in a day really undid a lot of the work of peace activists and justice activists that people have been working on for the last quarter of a century. In the intervening weeks after that, people who were fully in support of Palestinian liberation, all of a sudden turned very hard against that. And then the actions of the military since then has changed people back.
There are many Jewish Israeli peace and justice activists out there. They do not get the necessary attention; they don’t get the media coverage that others get. Both Israeli and Palestinian societies are struggling right now themselves, so anytime there is the advancement of these Palestinian nonviolent actors, they are either beaten by soldiers or settlers, or they are arrested and put behind bars and held in administrative detention to silence them.
Israel has basically criminalized armed resistance. They have criminalized nonviolent resistance. They, in conjunction with institutions and politicians in the United States have criminalized boycotts and divestments and sanctions campaigns.
So what is the recourse? If every action, every form of resistance has been criminalized. Where do we go from there?
I think we need to work very hard to highlight those who are engaged in co-resistance activism and to build up the profiles of these nonviolent actors, both Palestinian and Israeli Jews, and to highlight the voices of the American Jews who are participating in that work of upholding those voices.
Find out more about Unsettled here.Full disclosure: I teach at USF and run into Oren Kroll-Zeldin in the halls every now and then.
In partnership with the Center for Global Education at the University of San Francisco (USF), the Center for Transformative Education’s Beyond Bridges: Israel-Palestine (BBIP) program was launched in summer 2010 with a pilot group of eight participants from three American schools: Swarthmore College, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of San Francisco. We ran similar programs in summers 2011 and 2012, with 16 students in each group, almost all from USF. All three of these iterations ran for three-weeks, giving participants the opportunity to meet with individuals and organizations working to end, and even transform, this decades-old conflict. We ran the program again in summer 2023.
Between 2008-12, CTE focused exclusively on two conflict transformation programs: (1) a facilitation training course offered at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs and USF and (2) BBIP.
For more on the pedagogical underpinnings of these two programs see the following two academic articles:
israel-academia-monitor.com 