IJAN: Defend Freedom of Speech, Academic Freedom and Campus Organizing

	Take Action: Defend Freedom of Speech
Defend Freedom of Speech, Academic Freedom and Campus Organizing Join IJAN in defending the rights of students and professors to learn about, teach about and organize for justice in Palestine.  Congratulations to Northeastern University – Students for Justice in Palestine for their reinstatement after having being wrongfully suspended.  The Palestine solidarity movement has and will continue to successfully defend ourselves against attempts to censor our freedom of speech and anti-racist organizing. Take Action Send a letter to defend Professor Rabab Abdulhadi at SF State University (read IJAN article in Jacobin about attacks on Professor Abdulhadi as part of a well-resourced, highly organized Zionist campaign) Sign petition to defend students at NYU falsely accused of anti-Semitism for educating their fellow students about Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes (read  IJAN statement of support for NYU SJP)   Despite ongoing attempts to quash the speech of faculty and students alike, the campus movement for justice in Palestine has gone from strength to strength. It has passed divestment resolutions in student assemblies at the University of Michigan-Dearborn and Loyola, successfully organized to reinstate Students for Justice in Palestine at Northeastern University, gathered professors to defend the American Studies Association landmark endorsement of the academic boycott, won endorsement of the Asian American Studies Association and the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association. Campus organizers have incrementally built the level of struggle while facing attacks, as with the Students Allied for Freedom and Equality’s inspiring sit-ins at University of Michigan-Ann Arbor which forced their student government to vote on their boycott resolution.    Israel’s defenders, aware that their longstanding attempt to control public opinion is faltering, are investing over $300 million in propaganda, surveillance, and repressive litigation in attempts to silence solidarity with Palestine by making false accusations of antisemitism.  By now, the pattern of institutional muzzling of voices advocating for an open hearing for the Palestinian cause is unmistakable: Northeastern University with its Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) suspended until the movement forced its reinstatement, NYU falsely accused of anti-Semitism for distributing home demolition orders to highlight the destruction of Palestinian homes by the State of Israel, Florida Atlantic University students forced into re-education programs, a call for the removal of Palestinian professor Rabab Abdulhadi at San Francisco State University, and University of California-Irvine students facing state charges for voicing opposition to the presence of state apologists following the brutal 2008-2009 assault on the Gaza Strip.  Coordinating the charge against the growing support for justice in Palestine is the Israel Action Network (IAN), a strategic initiative of the Jewish Federations of North America and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, launched in October 2010 with an initial three-year, $6 million investment.  A sister project, the national Israeli Campus Coalition, is a national network of students, faculty and professionals dedicated to combating Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS), tracking “anti-Israel” organizing on campus and coordinating an "early warning system" to alert campus constituents and national partners about anti-Israel activity. They recruit, train and resource campus activists – students and faculty – and organizations to carry out the goal of silencing any criticism of Israel or support for the Palestinian struggle by every available means.  This agenda threatens many things people of conscience hold dear: free speech, academic freedom, the sanctity of universities as places of anti-racist organizing, self-determination of oppressed peoples, and ethnic studies.  Join us in encouraging campus administrators to protect these strongholds of freedom and justice and protect students, professors and faculty from this bullying.  Send a letter to defend Professor Rabab Abdulhadi at SF State University (read IJAN article in Jacobin about attacks on Professor Abdulhadi as part of a well-resourced, highly organized Zionist campaign Sign petition to defend students at NYU falsely accused of anti-Semitism for educating their fellow students about Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes (read IJAN statement of support for NYU SJP)
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network Argentina :: Canada :: England :: Europe :: India :: Israel :: United States ijan@ijsn.net :: www.ijsn.net © International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network

Robert Fine, BDS and the right of reply

I have written about this Robert Fine character before here.  He's a sociology professor at Warwick University in the UK. 

He had a piece in the European Sociological Association newsletter some time ago where he flagrantly misrepresented the EUMC working definition of antisemitism and likened its opponents to the racists who opposed the Race Relations Act back in the 1960s and 70s.

I was particularly angry and perplexed about how so dishonest an operator could get his dishonesty published without caveat or counter-argument.  Now, thanks to Ben White, I know.

See Middle East Monitor where Ben is writing about how Robert Fine was recently humiliated in a debate on BDS when his anti-BDS argument presumably contributed to the fact that the votes for and against BDS moved from 53-27 to 68-23.  Not only is Ben pointing up Fine's defeat, he is also pointing out how the Israel advocacy crowd are promoting Fine's argument in the absence of counter-argument:

This is not the first time that Fine has embarrassed himself with a disingenuous anti-boycott argument. In the Winter 2012 issue of the European Sociologist, the newsletter of the European Sociological Association (ESA), Fine repeated the same misrepresentations and omissions.

When I approached the editors about contributing a response piece, the offer was welcomed with open arms. My finalised, editor-approved piece was sent to Fine to give him the opportunity to comment -and then, silence. Months later, the editor informed me that "the editorial committee have chosen not to publish your contribution as it does not meet the standards accepted by our organisation". The co-chair of the ESA's Committee for Publications? Robert Fine.

So that's how he avoids counter-argument.  He co-chairs or advisorily edits the sites and publications that publish his disingenuous hasbara.

Or maybe not.  His losing argument has been posted in two parts to the Sociology@Warwick blog. (Part II here).  There is a comment space beneath the posts and I have tried posting one beneath each part thus:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Here’s Jonathan Rosenhead’s argument in favour of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against the State of Israel:
http://www.bricup.org.uk/news/RosenheadLeeds.html
Here is Ben White’s corrective to Robert Fine’s argument:
http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/debate/10722-losing-the-debate-boycott-opponents-rely-on-legal-threats-
Here’s something by me on Robert Fine’s approach to these matters:
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/academics-for-israel-robert-fine-and.html

 Fine's piece on Sociology@Warwick was actually posted by,  alexttsmith or Alexander Smith, who tweets here, https://twitter.com/AlexTTSmith. Robert Fine appears to neither blog nor tweet. Mr Smith's tweets are protected but I have tried tweeting him to get him to approve my links to some counter-argument against Fine's stuff:

.@AlexTTSmith Please approve comments here http://t.co/MAwSAUdgmB & here http://t.co/RdhUgqbzpz Robert Fine's argument seems to be protected
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) April 5, 2014

Let's see how it goes.  I ought to say, I don't even know if Mr Smith is the moderator but given Fine seems only to post in places where he can't be argued against I don't hold out much hope for even links to counter-argument to appear where he has chosen his own stuff to appear.

UPDATE (10:42 6 April 2014):  Sociology@Warwick  has now approved the comments linking to criticisms of Robert Fine's two parter.  I wonder if the European Sociological Association newsletter will ever do the same.  Anyway, many thanks to whoever tweets at @SocioWarwick.

Israel’s academic standing: mediocre and getting worse

This just in from Irish academic and JSF co-blogger, David Landy:

One reason we are always told that we can never ever boycott Israel is because of its sterling academic reputation. Israel, we have heard on countless occasions, is a paragon of science, medicine and humanities. If we boycott Israel we’ll be boycotting the cutting-edgiest of high-tech, the most miraculous research in medicine, the inventors of… well, just about everything

Well, it seems that such talk of Israeli academic excellence is pure propaganda. 

The TimesHigher Education Supplement   which ranks universities has come up with its 2013-14 ranking, and in it we find that Israel is virtually nowhere to be found. Two Israeli universities are in the top 200, and only barely. They are the Hebrew University at 191^st, and Tel Aviv University at 199th.

How bad is this? By way of comparison, Ireland with a population of four million to Israel’s eight million, has two universities in the top 200 – Trinity College Dublin at 129 and University College Dublin at 161. Ireland has three more universities in the top 400 – about what you would expect from a small developed country. As such, it is doing far better than Israel, which has only one other university (the Technion) in the top 400.

Although one should take such rankings with a pinch of salt, they do indicate something. In this case, they show the deteriorating state of Israeli academia, especially in the sciences. This was a central message in the Ha’aretz report on the topic. As it stated ‘No Israeli school made it into the top 100 in the health category…No Israeli universities made the top 100 list for life sciences or physics’.

Nor did they feature in the humanities or social sciences. The best they did was the Technion coming in at 69^th in terms of engineering and technology. It comes as no surprise that Israel is still hanging in there when it comes to developing weaponry, (and is still being financially supported by the EU in this research). However this does not alter the overall picture of mediocre Israeli universities being underfunded and declining.

One can argue that it doesn’t matter how good Israel’s universities are – they should be boycotted anyway. This is true. But these figures do undermine a central argument used by the anti-boycotters.

So in future when Zionists start going on about the world grinding to a halt and science stopping if we so much as think of boycotting Israeli academia, we can point out that this is nonsense. Scientifically speaking, that is. 

David Landy is the author of  Jewish Identity and Palestinian Rights: Diaspora Jewish Opposition to Israel. (Zed Books. 2011)

A Brief History of Stephen Hawking

It's big news that Stephen Hawking is boycotting some shindig in Jerusalem hosted by Israeli President and war criminal Shimon Peres.  Here's The Guardian:

Hawking, 71, the world-renowned theoretical physicist and former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, had accepted an invitation to headline the fifth annual president's conference, Facing Tomorrow, in June, which features major international personalities, attracts thousands of participants and this year will celebrate Peres's 90th birthday.

Hawking is in very poor health, but last week he wrote a brief letter to the Israeli president to say he had changed his mind. He has not announced his decision publicly, but a statement published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine with Hawking's approval described it as "his independent decision to respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there".

Well that's not the history bit. This is:

Hawking has visited Israel four times in the past. Most recently, in 2006, he delivered public lectures at Israeli and Palestinian universities as the guest of the British embassy in Tel Aviv. At the time, he said he was "looking forward to coming out to Israel and the Palestinian territoriesand excited about meeting both Israeli and Palestinian scientists".

Since then, his attitude to Israel appears to have hardened. In 2009, Hawking denounced Israel's three-week attack on Gaza, telling Riz Khan on Al-Jazeera that Israel's response to rocket fire from Gaza was "plain out of proportion … The situation is like that of South Africa before 1990 and cannot continue."

Wonderful stuff.  As Dr Martin Luther King might have said, "we're on the move now, like an idea whose Brief History of Time has come".

Rare photo of Jews sans frontieres blogger

Hey quick!  Look at the home page of the Jewish Chronicle site.  It's a pic of my friend and co-blogger, David Landy, of the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Teachers' Union of Ireland:

I was in Ireland at the beginning of March and I saw David so I can confirm the picture is genuine.

On a more serious note.  The picture accompany's a JC report on the Teachers' Union of Ireland's recent vote for an academic boycott of Israel.  Here's the report:

The Teachers Union of Ireland has voted to boycott all academic collaboration with Israel, including research programmes and exchange of scientists.

It is thought to be the first full academic boycott enforced by a European teaching union.

A motion, calling for all members of the union to end work with Israeli counterparts, was passed unanimously at the TUI annual conference in Galway on Thursday.

The union called on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to increase its campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions against “the apartheid state of Israel until it lifts its illegal siege of Gaza and its illegal occupation of the West Bank”.

The passed motion requests TUI members to “cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel, including the exchange of scientists, students and academic personalities, as well as all cooperation in research programmes”.

Dublin sociology lecturer and anti-Israel activist David Landy said the move “set an historic precedent”.

“We congratulate the TUI and call on all Irish, British and European academic unions to move similar motions. Undoubtedly apologists for Israeli apartheid will complain that such motions stifle academic freedom, but this is nonsense,” he said.

The TUI represents teachers and lecturers working in all levels of education across the country and has more than 14,500 members.

I already blogged on this a couple of posts ago.

Is JC editor, Stephen Pollard, on leave?  That's three fairly accurate reports I've seen in the JC in as many weeks.

Teachers' Union of Ireland in unanimous vote for Israel boycott

Great news from across the pond.  No not that pond.  From Ireland, I mean.  Here's the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign:

At its Annual Congress on Thursday 4th April 2013, the Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) became the first academic union in Europe to endorse the Palestinian call for an academic boycott of Israel. The motion, which refers to Israel as an “apartheid state”, calls for “all members to cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel, including the exchange of scientists, students and academic personalities, as well as all cooperation in research programmes” was passed by a unanimous vote during today’s morning session.

The motion further calls on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to “step up its campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against the apartheid state of Israel until it lifts its illegal siege of Gaza and its illegal occupation of the West Bank, and agrees to abide by International law and all UN Resolutions against it”, and on the TUI to conduct an awareness campaign amongst members on the need for BDS.

Now that's what teaching's all about.

From the antisemitism card to the technicality card Sarah AB does Pavlov's Dog

Harry's Place keeps disappearing lately but it's up at the moment and Sarah Annes Brown was up very early this morning to misrepresent the report of the Unemployment Tribunal in the case of Fraser vs University and College Union (UCU).

Despite being deeply interested in the result of Ronnie’s Fraser’s case, I expected the ruling itself to be rather dry, with the result hinging on precedents set by case law.  While fully sharing the concerns which motivated the many other witnesses, and Ronnie himself, to pursue this case, I realized that the tribunal would have to judge it according to various quite technical criteria.

To some degree, of course, this has been the case – one very simple count against Ronnie Fraser was that several of the incidents he referred to were deemed out of time. There is also a long discussion of issues such as ‘vicarious liability’, as part of a determination as to whether UCU could be held responsible for the effects on members of actions carried out, not just by paid employees, but by, for example, the NEC.  My response to the (hugely disappointing) result would have been rather different if the ruling had limited itself to such matters.

However the later parts of the ruling went beyond these technical issues, and were less dry – and less dispassionate.  

What a bizarre way of saying that they were totally wiped out by the Tribunal.

Here's the actual judgment again just to show that it was the substantive arguments which lost the case and the technical issues came, literally, second:

(1) The Claimant's complaints of unlawful harassment are not well-founded.
(2) Save in so far as they are based on acts or omissions which occurred on or after 26 May 2011, the Claimant's complaints of unlawful harassment are in any event outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
(3) Accordingly, the proceedings are dismissed.

Now I was up very late last night predicting that she would play the technicality card. She'd already trailed it on twitter and what else could she do? Even I am surprised at her brazenness though.

Here's what I said in my previous post:

It's not just Ben Cohen trying to make out that this was something technical rather than an utter humiliation for Israel lobbyists and hobbyists in the UK.  Sarah Annes Brown of Harry's Place tweeted thus:

@steve4319 Obviously I don't agree with the ruling - that is, I might accept various aspects of it, particularly technical ones, but not
— Sarah Brown (@SarahAB_UK) March 26, 2013

She also trailed (and I predicted) the Masuku affair as some kind of deal breaker proving that the UCU is antisemitic:

@flying_rodent @thethirdestate It's in the light of the Masuku incident that the repudiation seemed so particularly deplorable.
— Sarah Brown (@SarahAB_UK) March 29, 2013

I responded to that one here:

@sarahab_uk @flying_rodent @thethirdestate Masuku invite + EUMC repudiation nothing to do with eachother. see paras 166 + 170 #UCU #BDS
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) March 29, 2013

Curiously she didn't try that bogus linkage in her post.  But, helpfully, she did go into some detail about what it was that got Masuku on the wrong end of hate speech procedings:

“…as we struggle to liberate Palestine from the racists, fascists and Zionists who belong to the era of their Friend Hitler! We must not apologise, every Zionist must be made to drink the bitter medicine they are feeding our brothers and sisters in Palestine. We must target them, expose them and do all that is needed to subject them to perpetual suffering until they withdraw from the land of others and stop their savage attacks on human dignity…”.

“If the offices of the Zionist Federation and that loud-mouthed Rabbi and his SABJD were in town we would have marched there. All we wanted, as we still want to target are all who represent evil and suffering, whether its companies, individuals, offices, etc. We are working on identifying them now. It’s a pity if they are in residential areas, which unfortunately will not deter us. No one must enjoy peace while supporting and promoting the suffering of others, so goes our believe and we shall enforce it to its fullest.”

It's clear that Masuku is targeting zionists here, not Jews as Jews, though he was found (or claimed) to have said in an email, "Jews are arrogant" but that was after the events complained of.

This hate speech charge may well have failed in the UK but let's just remind ourselves of what the Tribunal said about zionists seeking legal redress for offending against zionism:

150 It seems to us that a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness and, even if it was, it could not be substituted for the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief. Accordingly, if and in so far as the Claimant seeks to base his claim on what might be termed a sub-characteristic (we are bound to say that we remain uncertain as to Mr Julius's position on this point), we find that it is not open to him to do so. A separate matter, which we will address in relation to the individual claims, is whether the treatment complained of, or any of it, was 'related to' his Jewish race or his Jewish religion or belief.

The plain fact is that Ronnie Fraser and Anthony Julius's case against the UCU, like Sarah AB's post at Harry's Place, was totally bogus.  The technical side like the Masuku affair is a mere figleaf for an attempt at silencing criticism of the last of the colonial settler states, the State of Israel.

Zionists berated as "harassment" claim against UCU is thrown out by tribunal

Richard Kuper has just delivered some very good news from the Universities and Colleges Union to the Just Peace UK list.

I'll highlight my favourite bits in bold:

UCU cleared of harassment in landmark tribunal

25 March 2013

An Employment Tribunal has found in favour of UCU on all ten complaints of harassment brought by a UCU member who opposed the union's policy on Palestine.

The claimant had been supported in his claim by leading lawyer Anthony Julius. In giving their reasoning the Tribunal stated that 'the proceedings are dismissed in their totality' and 'we greatly regret that the case was ever brought.  At heart it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.'

The Tribunal also described themselves as troubled by the implications of the claim, stating that 'underlying it we sense a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression, principles which the courts and tribunals are, and must be, vigilant to protect'.

While witnesses for UCU were described in the tribunal's decision as 'careful and accurate', some witnesses for the claimant were described as appearing to 'misunderstand the nature of the proceedings and more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them'. 

John Mann MP and former MP Denis MacShane were collectively described as giving 'glib evidence, while testimony of another key witness for the claimant was described as 'extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing'. [Who was that then?]

UCU general secretary Sally Hunt said: "I am delighted that the Tribunal has made such a clear and overwhelming judgement in UCU's favour. There are many different views within UCU and wider society about Israel and Palestine and this decision upholds our and others' right to freedom of expression and to continue to properly debate these and other difficult questions.

"This has been an extremely difficult period for the UCU staff and members involved in defending the union's position and I am especially pleased therefore that the Tribunal found our witnesses to be careful and accurate.

"The claimant, while unsuccessful, of course had the right to challenge the union in the courts and will be treated with respect within the union as will his views on this question.  Now that a decision has been made I hope in turn that he, and others who share his views, will play an active part in the union and its debates rather than seek recourse to the law. 

"For our part, UCU will look at our own processes to see if improvements can be made in line with the advice given to us within the decision. We remain opposed to discrimination of any kind including anti-Semitism and we will work with energy and determination with all who will work with us to oppose it in the workplace and society at large."

I have to admit that since the case was brought I was worried about it. I assumed if a tribunal regretted a case being brought it could throw it out without hearing it so the fact that they heard it suggested to me that the tribunal was on the side of these glib, misunderstanding, arrogant zionists.  Obviously I was wrong.

The Only Way is Essex! Israel's Deputy Ambassador kicked out of Essex Uni

This is from Essex's News Gazette website:

ANGRY students blockaded a lecture theatre to prevent an Israeli ambassador visiting Essex University.

The deputy Israeli ambassador Alon Roth-Snir was invited to the Wivenhoe campus by the Department of Government to speak to students studying Middle Eastern politics.

But the trip was disrupted after hundreds of protestors demonstrated against the visit as an act of solidarity with Palestine.

This pic is from the Socialist Worker Students Society:

There's more on the Electronic Intifada website.

Brooklyn BDS event was, erm, an event

Well the Judith Butler and Omar Barghouti BDS meeting took place at Brooklyn College last night in spite of the mobilisation of various Israel lobbyists to prevent it.  "Arguments" against the meeting taking place ranged from the impression that the college was supporting BDS to the college was paving the way for a second holocaust.  Really, someone, an assemblyman no less, said that.

The content of Judith Butler's presentation is at The Nation but this little chunk is lifted from what looks like a grudging piece from the +972 Mag site by Lisa Goldman:

One could be for the BDS movement as the only credible non-violent mode of resisting the injustices committed by the state of Israel without falling into the football lingo of being “pro” Palestine and “anti” Israel. This language is reductive, if not embarrassing. One might reasonably and passionately be concerned for all the inhabitants of that land, and simply maintain that the future for any peaceful, democratic solution for that region will become thinkable through the dismantling of the occupation, through enacting the equal rights of Palestinian minorities and finding just and plausible ways for the rights of refugees to be honored. If one holds out for these three aims in political life, then one is not simply living within the logic of the “pro” and the “anti”, but trying to fathom the conditions for a “we”, a plural existence grounded in equality.

The +972 piece is titled Despite controversy, Brooklyn College BDS panel is a non-event.  Now I could well be missing some irony here.  Reading the article it looks like she might be saying that such a straightforward issue should be a non-event and in some ways it should.  But the fact that powerful or influential players (eg, Alan Dershowitz) mobilised to prevent the event taking place and the fact that other equally powerful players (New York's Mayor Bloomberg) expressed their support made the mere fact that the meeting took place at all an event in itself.

Arabic language not allowed at Haifa Uni

Here's an article from the International Middle East Media Center

An Arab student studying at the Haifa University was prevented from speaking his mother tongue while at the Academic Counseling Center, and was explicitly told that “Arabic is not allowed in here”.

Student Imad Shaqqour, from Sakhnin, said that the employee looked at him as she passed by, and said that he is not allowed to speak in Arabic in this building. The building is an official branch of the Haifa University.

Shakkour said that he headed to the office seeking guidance before the exams, and added that every student who needs help is entitled to seek and obtain this help, especially before exams as the university provides councilors for this specific reason. 

Shaqqour asked for an Arabic counselor, and was about to call him when the employee stopped him and said “I’m sorry, Arabic is not allowed in here, I hope this is fine with you, but this is how we do it here”, the Arabs48 news website reported.

Now what's Arabic for boycott?

Has Engage's Dr Hirsh finally come out as pro-Israel?

Here's a turn up for the books.  Engage's Dr Hirsh has long denied being "pro-Israel".  His website still describes itself as the "anti-racist campaign against antisemitism".  I still remember Hirsh's contribution to an angry exchange between himself and Jon Pike on one side and Ernst Benjamin of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), on the other because the latter were publishing pro-BDS arguments in its journal, Academe.  Ernst Benjamin, at the time was the editor of the journal and, for all I know might still be.  He was against BDS as far as I can make out but he thought it important to air both sides of the argument.

This is from Engage way back in 2006:

As I am opposed to academic boycotts--either of Israel or of those who would boycott Israel--I also find it hard to agree with the position that we should refuse to engage those whose arguments we find demonizing or otherwise extreme. Writing for the AAUP, I could only speak to the issue of academic freedom and not to my own views regarding the justice of various positions on the conlict between Israel and Palestine. Nor could I edit the content of the pro-boycott authors anymore than I would have the anti-boycott or pro-Israeli authors. So I would very much have welcomed, and made repeated efforts to secure the high quality response that Jon and others among you could have provided. 

Some of the essays on the Engage site provide this sort of effective and valuable response. But simply labeling arguments as demonizing or anti-semitic without specifically explaining why, or refusing to "engage" such arguments, seems to me the sort of tactic some find appropriate in political campaigns but not a very useful contribution from those, like many of your authors, who can clearly do better. 

And here are some extracts from how Hirsh responded:

We have spent the last two years trying to save our union from this garbage - you have just invited it into yours. We are not having fun fighting with these people - we are forced to waste our time combating idiotic, essentialist, careless arguments because we don't want our union to adopt an antisemitic exclusion......

I am very happy that you have been reading Engage. You will know, then, that we have never simply labeled arguments as demonizing or anti-semitic without specifically explaining why. We have written hundreds of thousands of words trying to formulate our arguments in a sophisticated way. We do not "label" or denounce. We are trying to fight a political campaign against a dangerous set of "commonsense" ideas. Don't play with fire........

One other thing Ernst: please stop referring to us as "pro-Israel". I dont' really know what "pro-Israel" means, but it seems to be a part of the setting up of two sides of a legitimate debate - "pro-Israel" and "anti-Israel". 

So Jon Pike and David Hirsh were trying to have pro-boycott arguments withheld from the AAUP journal's readership, excluded from any debate on Israel.  But whatever you do, don't call them "pro-Israel".  They "dont' (sic) really know what "pro-Israel" means".

Well, the latest post on Engage is an article by Dr Hirsh which appears in the first ever edition of an online publication called Fathom.  It's something about the stupid working definition and zionists' beef with the Universities and Colleges Union (UCU) in the UK.  Curiously it was published on 13 September, this year but only appeared on Engage earlier this week.

On the "editorial team" page of the "about us" section it turns out that Dr Hirsh is an advisory editor of Fathom:

Dr. David Hirsh
Lecturer in Sociology at Goldsmiths College, London, founder of the Engage campaign against antisemitism on the UK Left.

But what is Fathom?

In its own words, Fathom

is published by the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, an independent British organisation founded in 2001 to foster a more complete understanding of Israel. BICOM believes in the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security and in the rights of the Palestinians to statehood. We support a close relationship between Britain and Israel, based on shared values and interests.

Now how does Dr Hirsh square this with his former insistence of not being pro-Israel? The answer, if it is to be believed, might be in the next paragraph of the "about us":

Unusually, Fathom’s contributors and advisory editors will be drawn from across the political spectrum. Our goal is not to push a narrow party line but to build a global intellectual space for serious bi-partisan debate about Israel and the region. We intend to create a more interesting conversation about Israel – more knowledgeable, more nuanced and more challenging (for all parties) than the tired slogans that are shouted in the boring megaphone war. So beware: there will be at least one piece in every issue that you disagree with, perhaps vehemently! Our wager is that you will keep coming back because you value expert analysis, acute commentary and grown-up debate.

And how can that be squared with the vehemence of Engage's opposition of presenting pro-boycott arguments to an academic readership?

Are they mad?

The World Psychiatric Association – Transcultural Psychiatry Section (WPA-TPS) is to hold its 1st International Conference on Cultural Psychiatry in Mediterranean Countries in Israel in November 2012. The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) is understandably not best pleased:

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) is deeply disturbed by the decision of the World Psychiatric Association – Transcultural Psychiatry Section (WPA-TPS) to hold its 1^st International Conference on Cultural Psychiatry in Mediterranean Countries in Israel in November 2012 [1]. We urge the WPA-TPS to uphold its commitment to ethical standards, dignity and human rights by relocating this conference to another country that does not embody injustice through maintaining a regime of occupation, colonialism and apartheid [2], as Israel does. We also appeal to all members of WPA-TPS to refrain from participating in the conference if it is to be convened in Israel.

As professionals, you are acutely aware that Israel has flouted international law for several decades.  Since the hegemonic world powers are actively complicit in enabling and perpetuating Israel’s colonial and oppressive policies, we believe that the only avenue open to achieving justice and upholding international law is sustained work on the part of Palestinian and international civil society to put pressure on Israel and its complicit institutions to end this oppression.  

I don't know if it's just my perception but the hasbara movement seems to be in overdrive at the mo'.

So how was Finkelstein?

Not so great, I'm hearing.  Here's a feedback from Naomi Foyle on the British Writers for Palestine website:

On Friday Nov 11 2011, at UCL, world-renowned scholar and activist for Palestinian rights Prof Norman Finkelstein appeared in conversation with Prof Jonathan Rosenhead of BRICUP (British Committee for the Universities of Palestine), discussing the proposition:

The Palestinians having being denied justice for 63 years, those who support their rights must endorse their call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), including academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

Prof Finkelstein also gave a public lecture in the evening, which unfortunately I could not attend.  Following is my report on the afternoon conversation, which turned into a debate.  I won’t give a blow-by-blow account of the discussion, which was videoed and presumably will soon be available online.   Rather I will just summarise here the main disagreement between the speakers, and give my reaction to it.

Jonathan Rosenhead opened with a clear historical overview of boycott as a strategy, and ended by saying that in the case of Palestine, it should continue until the Palestinians ask us to stop supporting it – that is, until the system of oppression they suffer under has ended.  Norman Finkelstein responded by arguing forcefully that the Boycott Divestment Sanctions campaign should work toward goals based in International Law, not some vague, impossible to define, outcome; and that we shouldn’t feel obliged to follow the Palestinians’ lead, as previously this would have obliged us to support suicide bombing.  He said much else, including giving a review of the state of International Law on Palestine, and the helpful advice to cite this more in our literature, but I want to focus on this essential point of discord.

Frankly I was very surprised to hear Prof Finkelstein’s criticism of BDS.   I, and others, spoke from the floor, reminding both speakers that the demands of the BDS movement, as stated by PACBI, are clearly based on International Law:

[that] Israel withdraws from all the lands occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem; removes all its colonies in those lands; agrees to United Nations resolutions relevant to the restitution of Palestinian refugees rights; and dismantles its system of apartheid.

Prof Finkelstein responded by saying that while the first three demands are sound in law, the last, the demand for Israel to dismantle its system of apartheid, is not, because Israeli apartheid hasn’t been recognised by the UN or other bodies of International Law.  He claimed that without this legal underpinning, the goal of ending apartheid in Israel is counter-productive – that it ‘turns people off’; that BDS will never become a mass movement if we try to get people to sign up to tampering with the state of Israel itself.

I also tried to discuss this with him afterwards.  I asked him why,  if the situation in Israel fits the UN definition of apartheid,  we shouldn’t work toward getting iron-clad legal recognition of this fact.  But Prof Finkelstein rejected this approach, saying ‘ that would take 100 years’.

Underlying Prof Finkelstein’s hostility to this key plank of the BDS movement appears to be the fear that the demand to end Israeli apartheid is a disguised call to ‘end the state of Israel’, rather than ending the way the state is currently organised, which is how all the people I know interpret the demand.  After all, South Africa still exists as a state.   Personally, I think Prof Finkelstein is sadly out of touch with the robust health and rapid growth of the BDS movement.

Far from being a threat to building a mass movement, the demand to end Israeli apartheid is one that everyone can understand – every ordinary person on the streets of the UK knows what South Africa was like; all they need is some basic education about Palestine to see that apartheid is operating there as well.  Especially considering that the South Africans themselves are taking such leadership in BDS, and separate campaigns to End Israeli Apartheid are evident all over the internet, it’s a nonsense to say that the demand is unrealistic.  On the legal front,  the very recent Russell Tribunal on Palestine Capetown Session has recommended (among other pertinent goals):

The UN General Assembly to reconstitute the UN Special Committee against Apartheid, and to convene a special session to consider the question of apartheid against the Palestinian people.  In this connection the Committee should compile a list of individuals, organisations, banks, companies, corporations, charities, and any other private or public bodies which assist Israel’s apartheid regime with a view to taking appropriate measures.

In my view, the current BDS strategy is right on target, and I wish Prof Finkelstein would put his considerable legal chops in the service of the goals of the Russell Tribunal.

I also wish to respond to his second criticism of the BDS movement – that it takes its leadership from the Palestinians.  To deal first with his counter-example – in my view, the BDS movement is not at all comparable to the suicide bombing campaigns, which made no formal call for international support, and were never, to my knowledge, endorsed by any UK solidarity group.   Rather, solidarity works to provide and support democratic alternatives to such desperate, tragic, violent and, indeed, as Prof Rosenhead stated, politically counter-productive measures.  The Palestinians themselves have turned en masse away from suicide bombing as a strategy – as comedian and ‘extreme rambler’ Mark Thomas recently recounted in his recent Walking the Wall tour, countless Palestinians get through holes in the wall daily, not to bomb civilians, but in order to work illegally in Israel.   Instead, Palestinian civil society has overwhelmingly endorsed BDS, and taking our leadership from them is an essential part of the moral legitimacy of the campaign.

First, if BDS was just a matter of personal conscience, then indeed I would be a hypocrite for spending so much time promoting the boycott of Israel and not other countries with terrible human rights records.  Second, as I have stated before, it is not up to us in the West to dictate to the Palestinians how they should run their campaigns.   Instead, we can choose which campaigns we want to support, and then do so wholeheartedly, and in a spirit of solidarity, dialogue and willingness to learn.   I don’t believe in capital punishment for any crime, and would never endorse any kind of violence that was not clearly in self-defense, in the strictest sense of the term.  But as I have argued before on this blog, Palestinian violence must be seen in the context of 62 years of oppression, and ending that systematic injustice, in a way that is 100% consistent with the principle of Palestinian self-determination, is the only way to end that violence.

By criticizing this key demand of the BDS movement, and dismissing the paramount importance of the need to work in solidarity with the Palestinians, Prof Finkelstein is playing Jenga with the Palestinian struggle – poking and pulling away the foundational planks of its existence.   We don’t need that at this time.  We need an atmosphere of mutual support and co-operation between the legal, civil disobedience, and BDS strategies. I thank Prof Finkelstein for his very useful summary of the legal position of the Palestinian cause and Prof Rosenhead for his profound commitment to the principle of solidarity, and I place these thoughts on record in hope that they may contribute to a spirit of unity in the popular movement for Palestinian human rights.

Note: Jenga is a game played with wooden blocks, which players take turns to remove from a tower and balance on top, creating a taller and increasingly unstable structure that eventually collapses.  The word is derived from the Swahili term for ‘to build’. 

Finkelstein has been stating the same case for some time now but I don't think it is simply grounded in international law. Rather, I think it is grounded in what Finkelstein sees as international consensus. Consensus is a far more subjective notion and it may well be that Finkelstein's position accords with the consensus of the circles in which he moves or in which he wants to be accepted.

Tony Greenstein did attend the Friday night session of the Finkelstein talk and his comments are to be found on his blog and in the comments below this post.

Bob Marley prayed for Zion, Ziggy Marley plays for Zionism

I just read a comment saying that Ziggy Marley is to be playing two dates in Israel.  I remembered that years ago Marley jnr had played in Israel and it was considered such a coup for the entity that Shimon Peres came backstage to greet and thank him. According to the report I read at the time, (I can't find it now but I'm sure it was in The Guardian, maybe pre-internet days) young Ziggy was angry at having been used.  Googling for what I clearly remember I found that Ziggy is happy to make himself useful to the last of the colonial settler states. He even played Israel during the war on Lebanon in 2006. So I suppose there is no point in trying to appeal to the conscience of someone who clearly has no conscience. By the way, he sang No Woman No Cry for his Israeli audience in 2006.

Unlike those artists who don't announce their appearances in Israel on their gig lists, Ziggy is more than happy to announce his forthcoming concerts:

July 19, 2011: Tel Aviv, Israel

• place: Barby Club
• address:
• city/country: Tel Aviv, Israel
• time:
• notes:

• type: Headliner
• Information: Venue Info
• Buy Tickets: Buy Tickets
• On Sale date:
• Sale Time date:

July 21, 2011: Jerusalem, Israel

• place: Sacker Gardens
• address:
• city/country: Jerusalem, Israel
• time:
• notes:

• type: Headliner
• Information: Venue Info
• Buy Tickets: Buy Tickets
• On Sale date:
• Sale Time date:

There is a facebook page trying to appeal to whatever conscience Ziggy might have but since he has no conscience it's probably a waste of cyber space

New antisemitism card starts to fold

First Deborah Lipstadt expressed partial support for the scrapping of YIISA by Yale on account of YIISA's clear agenda of Israel advocacy, now Irwin Cotler has said that it is not, that is not, antisemitic to label Israel an apartheid state. Antony Lerman points to the fact that Cotler has clearly changed his mind on this.

Professor Irwin Cotler, the former Canadian Minister of Justice and Chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Commission for Combatting Antisemitism, recently told Ha’aretz journalist David Sheen:

‘You can criticize an Israeli policy or action as having been not only a violation of human rights and humanitarian law but also, you could even say it was a war crime,’ the former Canadian justice minister said. ‘It may be, as I say, distasteful to see that, or witness that, but I don’t regard that as being anti-Semitic content. I think that that’s part of what is called rigorous criticism and discourse.’

‘Where you say that Israel is an apartheid state, even then – that to me is, it’s distasteful, but it’s still within the boundaries of argument’.

Cotler’s remarks seem to have been received in relative silence by the blogosphere and others who comment regularly on antisemitism. This is curious to say the least given that Cotler is probably the most significant and influential international figure in the propagation of the concept of the ‘new antisemitism’, a key example of which is calling Israel an ‘apartheid state’. That what Cotler now says is a fundamental change in his position is clear from his past articles and speeches. In an ‘Alert Paper’, New Anti-Jewishness, written for the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute and published in November 2002, Cotler gave examples of ‘new antisemitism’ under 13 headings. Under the third, ‘Ideological antisemitism’, he wrote:

This finds expression not only in the ‘Zionism is Racism’ indictment – and the singling out of Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and Israel’s ideological raison d’être, for discriminatory treatment – but the further criminal indictment of Israel as ‘an apartheid state,’ and the calling for the dismantling of this ‘apartheid state’ – a euphemism for Israel’s destruction.

Although he has never said that all critiques of Zionism are antisemitic, Cotler has avoided foregrounding this view. But in the Ha’aretz interview he is clearly keen to redress the balance. He says:

I think we’ve got to set up certain boundaries of where it does cross the line, because I’m one of those who believes strongly, not only in free speech, but also in rigorous debate, and discussion, and dialectic, and the like. If you say too easily that everything is anti-Semitic, then nothing is anti-Semitic, and we no longer can make distinctions . . .

I think it’s too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic. It may cross the line into being anti-Semitic where it ends up by saying, ‘Israel has no right to exist’, or ‘the Jewish people have no right to self determination’, or, that the Jewish people are not even a people.

I can imagine that many who have rightly seen the Canadian MP and law professor as the standard bearer for exposing the ‘new antisemitism’, and have lauded him for coining the phrase ‘Israel is the Jew among the nations’, will be bitterly disappointed by this change of mind. And at the moment they are keeping quiet about it.

In a separate but related development, an Israel advocate activist within the UK's Universities and Colleges Union, Ronnie Fraser, has enlisted the support of Anthony Julius to try to threaten the UCU into retreating from various of its positions on Israel including the recent decision to dismiss, ignore, avoid or denounce the former EUMC's bogus "working definition" of antisemitism.

Antony Lerman points up the difficulty in making Ronnie Fraser's charges stick given that a professor from Ben Gurion University, Professor David Newman, charged with opposing the boycott in the UK has said that he doesn't believe the boycott movement or idea to be antisemitic and that the charges become even more obviously tenuous now that Cotler, a far more staunch Israel advocate than Newman has concurred with Newman. Just an aside here, note the not so staunch Israel advocate actually lives in Israel unlike Cotler. But here's Lerman again:

Julius’s letter to General Secretary Sally Hunt setting out UCU member Ronnie Fraser’s case against the UCU is written in the strongest terms. It accuses the union of breaches of the Equality Act 2010, threatens that unless a series of demands by Fraser are met – including the abrogation of the resolution rejecting the EUMC ‘working definition’ and a ‘commitment to sponsor a programme (for a minimum of ten years . . . ) educating academics concerning the dangers of anti-Semitism, with special reference to the relationship between anti-Semitism and what now passes for “anti-Zionism” ‘ – Fraser will make an Equality Act claim to the Employment Tribunal.

The letter is full of bombast and ridiculous hyperbole, and in places is just factually incorrect, but my concern here is not to analyse or critique the entire text. Rather, I simply want to draw attention to the fact that in two paragraphs listing the causes for Fraser’s complaint – i.e. the evidence of institutional antisemitism – the first item in each is the constant ‘anti-Israel boycott resolutions’, and it’s clear that the issue of boycott is a central bone of contention.

Whatever position you hold on boycotting Israel as a means of bringing pressure to bear on it to fulfil its international legal obligations, end the occupation and so on – and I have always opposed boycotting as a means of achieving this – it’s difficult to regard boycotting Israel as a priori antisemitic. Professor David Newman of Ben Gurion University, who spent two years in the UK as the Israeli universities’ official coordinator of the campaign against the academic boycott, was adamant in remarks he made before finishing this assignment that it was both wrong and counterproductive to fight the boycott proposals on the grounds that they are antisemitic. If it reaches the point where the UCU had to defend itself against charges of institutional antisemitism at a tribunal, citing Professor Newman alone would be a strong defence.

Now that Professor Cotler has so publicly concurred with David Newman, UCU have an even stronger voice to use in their defence. It wouldn’t surprise me if Julius tried to use Professor Newman’s often strong criticisms of the Israeli government and his very dovish position on Israel-Palestine peace as a way of discrediting his view on boycott, notwithstanding the incontrovertible fact that Newman is a Zionist, heart and soul. But such a tactic would be impossible to use against Professor Cotler whose record as a defender of the Israeli status quo is impeccable and whose efforts to embed the concept of the ‘delegitimization’ of Israel in the international consciousness have been long-standing and sustained.

This folding of the antisemitism card by Cotler recalls a debate between Israel advocate, David Hirsh and anti-boycott academic Martin Shaw where the latter argues against calling the campaign to boycott Israel antisemitic.  You can see Dr Hirsh opening argument here and the debate which ensued here.

And in another development, the South African Advertising Standards Authority has issued a ruling that it is ok to brand Israel an apartheid state following a complaint from the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. Here's PACBI:

This afternoon, in a bold ruling defending the right to freedom of expression and political speech, the South African media watchdog, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), unequivocally dismissed all complaints relating to a radio advert on 5fm that called for the boycott of Israel and compared Israel to Apartheid South Africa.

In February this year, during the South African tour of the international dance band, Faithless, a radio message featuring Dave Randall (lead guitarist of Faithless) was broadcast on the popular SABC radio station, 5fm. The advert was in support of a local group, the South African Artists Against Apartheid collective. In the advert Randall says:

“Hi, I’m Dave Randall from Faithless. Twenty years ago I would not have played in apartheid South Africa; today I refuse to play in Israel. Be on the right side of history. Don’t entertain apartheid. Join the international boycott of Israel. I support  southafricanartistsagainstapartheid.com.”

In an official complaint to the ASA, the South African Jewish Board of Deputies (SAJBD) attacked the radio advert and alleged that the view expressed that Israel is an Apartheid State is “untrue, not supported by any evidence… and contains a lie which amounts to false propaganda”.

The SAJBD sought an order requesting the SABC to apologise for broadcasting the radio advert.

Today the ASA dismissed each and every complaint made by the SAJBD against the advert and instead ruled in favor of the submissions made by SA Artists Against Apartheid, who were represented by Webber Wentzel Attorneys.

The ASA also refused to provide any sanctions in favor of the SAJBD. Reggae DJ, “The Admiral”, and member of the SA Artists Against Apartheid collective, welcomed today’s decision:

“The ASA decision is significant due to our own history of Apartheid. The decision sends a clear message to the Zionist lobby that the time has come for an end to the baseless accusations of “discrimination” and “hate speech” whenever criticism of Israel is voiced. Calling Israel an Apartheid state is legitimate because Israel practices Apartheid. The boycott of such an oppressive regime should be supported as it was in our own Anti-Apartheid freedom struggle.”

South African Palestine solidarity groups have celebrated the ASA ruling claiming it as a “legal victory” for the boycott of Israel movement. Fatima Vally from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Working Group said in a press release:

“This is the second major boycott of Israel decision coming from South Africa in less than six months. The first being the historic decision by the University of Johannesburg to sever its Israeli ties. The boycott of Israel campaign is the new Anti-Apartheid Movement, and its growing rapidly.”

The SA Artists Against Apartheid collective welcomes this positive decision, an adverse ruling could have had detrimental consequences for freedom of expression in general, and Palestine solidarity in particular.

The full ruling is attached this email. The original advert flighted on 5fm is available for viewing here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpE5AjsBiqw

So the false charge of antisemitism appears to be on the ropes and it is a particularly good time to be exposing Israel as an apartheid state but don't forget to mention the ethnic cleansing and the fact that the State of Israel simply has no right to exist.  Thanks!