Police State Academics & Ettinghausen

Southampton's Professor Ettinghausen - an Opponent of Freedom of Speech

There has been a wave of condemnation, not least from academics, of the Southampton University Administration's banning of a conference on International Law and Israel.  However one slug emerged from the brickwork of Southampton University to uphold the banning edict, one Professor Ettinghausen.  Granted he's not an academic used to philosophical or political analysis, his decision to act as a police state academic is no doubt shameful.  I therefore decided to pen him a letter so that he might understand (forlorn hope that it is) the logical fallacy in his argument.

Assuming Ettinghausen is a Zionist, a group that regularly uses and abuses the Holocaust, I wondered whether conferences on the subject should, to be scholarly, include supporters of the Holocaust and those who deny it ever happened.  I won't wait with bated breath for a reply!

Tony Greenstein

Guardian letter 7.4.15.

Ettinghausen deep in thought or something

Dear Professor Ettinghausen,

I realise that your subject is modern languages rather than anything too analytical but even you should be able to see the logical fallacy in your argument.

Apparently a 'conference that allows only one side of an argument is not scholarly and cannot promote debate'. [Guardian Letters 7.4.15.] 

Let us take this absurd logic a little further.  A conference on the slave trade and slavery cannot be scholarly unless it includes advocates of slavery?

Likewise a conference on Apartheid in South Africa couldn't have been scholarly unless it had advocates of apartheid?

And something that even you might appreciate.  A conference on the Holocaust could not be scholarly unless it included both advocates of the holocaust and those who denied it?

I imagine even you, confined though you are in your racist ivory tower that hears, sees and speaks no evil about Israel, might begin to understand the flaw in your argument.  On slavery there were key arguments about whether the British got rid of slavery and the slave trade out of altruism or economic interest.  Likewise why Apartheid was abolished and as for the Holocaust I suspect that even you are aware of the many debates, from the role of the Judenrat, the Jewish resistance, Zionist collaboration with the  Nazis, when the Holocaust began, intentionalism v functionalism etc. 

I realise that you are no historian but that is no excuse for stupidity.

And of course that leaves to one side the question of whether there is a very real debate to be had about whether international law has any role in achieving justice or overthrowing Zionism in Palestine.  I believe international law is pretty much useless in opposing injustice and that, if anything, is the major flaw in the Conference.

Regards

Tony Greenstein

On 7 April 2015 at 21:40, Henry Ettinghausen <ettinghausen@telefonica.net> wrote:

 Dear Mr Greenstein,

 Thank you for your courteous comments on my letter.

 Your logic appears to put the existence of the state of Israel on the same plane as slavery, Apartheid and the Holocaust, and I note that you capitalise the second of these phenomena, but not the third. From what you say, I take it that, as far as you are concerned, Israel is simply an evil.

 However, Israel is one of the few states in the world whose establishment was approved by the UN - a fact that doesn't prevent several other states from not just questioning its right to exist, but actually calling for its annihilation and for the extermination of its citizens.

 That, it seems to me, is more evil than it would be to defend slavery or Apartheid. Indeed, it amounts to a desire to see the Holocaust completed.

 Regards,

 Henry Ettinghausen.

El 08/04/2015 a las 0:15, Tony Greenstein escribió:

Deaer Mr Ettinghausen,

I am somewhat baffled.  I was putting to you a logical analogy, not putting the state of Israel on the same plane as the Holocaust, Apartheid or Slavery, to name but 3 evils.  I could have mentioned Rwanda, the Armenian genocide, torture as state policy. 

Since you ask, let me assure you that I put Israel as a state on a lower plane than the first and third and on an equal level to the second.  I do not hold states, any states, as particularly worthy of one's veneration.  I would expect you to know something about Franco, who was certainly a fascist.  To fascism the individual means nothing and the state is an object of worship.  

I hold no candle for international law.  It has no means of enforcement, is applied selectively (will Bush and Blair be tried and imprisoned at the International Court of Justice?) and is used to legitimise existing power relations.  The UN is a thieves kitchen and so your reference to Israel's establishment by the UN persuades me of nothing other than the fact that the United States exerted enough pressure in 1947, on states like Liberia, to achieve the result it wanted. 

I don't believe that any state 'has the right to exist'.  States are not human beings, do not possess life and are instruments of coercion at the disposal of human beings.  The Apartheid South African State was a means of enforcing terror and dispossession and it was right that it was destroyed.  Likewise Israel.  I'm sure you would have supported the destruction of the Nazi German state but that does not extend to the annihilation or extermination of the German people.  A state is not its people. 

The destruction of the Zionist state, a state based on the supremacy of the Jewish race/nation, is a precondition for peace in Palestine and indeed the region. 

Regards 

Tony Greenstein

On 8 April 2015 at 11:03, Henry Ettinghausen <ettinghausen@telefonica.net> wrote:

Dear Mr Greenstein,

Many thanks for your reply.

So you don't believe that states have a right to exist, you want Israel destroyed and you don't think much of international law.

As regards the first two propositions, I wonder why you pick on Israel for special treatment. Aren't there a lot of much better targets for state-hating, if that is one's preferred sport? What about, for instance, China, Russia, North Korea, the  African dictatorships and nearly all of the Arab states?

As for international law, certainly it's highly imperfect and unjust, but what would you do about it? Just ditch it? Would that make the world a better place?

Tragically, attempts to recreate the world in a different image have all failed dismally and brutally. The future, if there is to be one, will (I think) depend on creative cooperation between states and individuals, not on destruction. If destruction is your solution, you've got a nice instance of it in the Islamic State.

For what it's worth, my guess is that Palestinians, if given the choice between that and coming to terms with what you call the Zionist state, would prefer the latter.

Regards,

Henry Ettinghausen.

Dear Mr Ettinghausen,

Certainly I don't think there is any 'right' to exist in respect of states.  States do exist, that is a fact, but there is no human right as such attaching to that.

The reason I concentrate on the Israeli state is the same reason I concentrated on the South African state under the days of Apartheid and would have concentrated on the Nazi state, viz. they are special types of states which have discrimination built into their very existence.

There are of course, as you mention, many repressive states but it is not the state per se but the ruling group or class that is primarily responsible for their repressive activities.  Certainly the African states are artificial, a product of British imperialism drawing arbitrary lines in maps and the same is the case for many of the Arab states, in particular the Gulf sheikhdoms, whose only purpose is and was to separate the people from the oil.

International law takes many forms.  There are relatively uncontroversial treaties and conventions such as the Child Abduction convention but there are also much more controversial ones such as e.g. the creation of the Israeli state.  In this the UN was really just perpetuating the work of the League of Nations Mandate which put a legal gloss on what was naked land theft.

The future prosperity and peace in the world will depend on whether the people of the world are able to take their own future and the wealth of the world in their hands and to strip away the control that multi-national corporations and monopolies presently exercise.  You confuse destruction of a state with destruction of  people as in ISL.

I have no sympathy with the butchers of ISL.  Although it is clearly a surprise to you, Israel has been giving them and the Al-Nusra Front (al-Quada) logistical and other help in Syria.  I refer you to an article on 31.10.14. in Ha'aretz 'West making big mistake in fighting ISIS, says senior Israeli officer' http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.623717 and you can read my blog article 'Israel Supports ISIS and Al Qaeda in Syria' for further details http://www.azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/israel-supports-isis-and-al-qaeda-in.html.

The Israeli state has always supported Islamic fundamentalism as a way of undermining secular and left-wing Palestinian nationalism, which is why Shin Bet virtually created Hamas (just google 'Israel created Hamas') or read my blog article 'HAMAS - When Israel & Netanyahu Sang from a Different Songsheet' http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/hamas-when-israel-netanyahu-did-their.html.

I realise that you will have heard none of this but that is one of the pitfalls on relying on hasbara for your information!

regards

Tony Greenstein

Southampton University - Legal Action Expected Next Week

After the decision of Southampton University's Administration to ban a conference on Israel and International Law, admittedly a subject which Israel's leaders are particularly sensitive to, legal action in the form of a judicial review is expected next week.  However, as someone who has mounted a (successful) judicial review in the past, people have to be aware that success is by no means guaranteed.  

I'm slightly surprised that they didn't go for an injunction but success in what is actually an application for leave to bring an action will depend on whether the university administration acted illegally, beyond its powers 'ultra vires' or the appellants will have to demonstrate what is called Wednesbury unreasonableness, i.e. no reasonable administration could have taken this decision.   These are high but not insurmountable hurdles.  If the appellants succeed, the Judge will order the continuance of the status quo i.e. that the conference continues, however in practice this will mean that the Judicial Review has succeeded given the conference is a couple of weeks away.

Tony Greenstein

Court hearing expected next week in challenge to UK university’s ban on Israel conference

Ali Abunimah 04/03/2015

The Electronic Intifada has learned details of the court challenge filed in London on Thursday against the University of Southampton’s decision to ban a conference related to Israel.
One of the organizers of the conference – a professor who grew up as a refugee in Gaza – has said that the legal challenge was taken with a “very heavy heart,” but was essential to defend freedom of speech.

Cameron's commitment to free speech lasted less than 3 months

On Wednesday, the University of Southampton confirmed that it had cancelled the conference, “International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism,” that had been scheduled for 17-19 April.

Administrators claimed that the decision was necessary because of the high risk of protests at the event “which could lead to incidents of public disorder.”

Eric Pickles - the right wing slob and cabinet member who came out in favour of the ban

High Court challenge

At a hearing in the High Court in London, expected to take place next week, lawyers will challenge the university’s claims.

Mark McDonald, a public interest lawyer from the chambers of Michael Mansfield QC, told The Electronic Intifada that in withdrawing permission for the conference, the university had acted unfairly. It had used the risk of disorder as pretext for “capitulation to activists and supporters of the State of Israel.”

“This is blatant censorship under the guise of a specter of campus being overrun by violent hordes, which is patently groundless,” McDonald added.

Lawyers will argue that the university presented no evidence to justify its claims, that its decision making was inconsistent and that the mere fact of protests does not equate to a security risk.
McDonald, who is working on the case with co-counsel Shivani Jegarajah, pointed out that the law guarantees a right to protest and counterprotest.

The Israeli embassy in London and Israel lobby groups that had campaigned for months for the cancellation of the conference have welcomed the university’s decision.

Freedom of speech at stake

In an open letter to fellow faculty and students, conference co-organizer Suleiman Sharkh warned that if left unchallenged, the university’s cancelation of the conference “will have a direct impact on you and your freedom of speech.”

Michael Gove - the unpopular former Education Secretary has spoken in support of the ban

Sharkh, a professor of engineering at the university, shared the the letter with The Electronic Intifada.
In it he explains his involvement and interest in the law conference, but also provides some poignant personal background. Sharkh was born in the Palestinian coastal city of Majdal Asqalan, now Ashkelon in present-day Israel.

Palestinians in the city were forcibly expelled to Gaza well after the ceasefire that ended the 1948 war.

“In November 1948, six months after the establishment of the State of Israel and after the wars had ended, the town was bombed and many people were killed. Those who survived were herded towards Gaza, crawling on their hands and knees in the thorny fields,” Sharkh writes.

The expulsion of the town’s residents to Gaza continued until 1950.

“Since then we have lived in squalid refugee camps. I walked around barefoot in the sand soiled by open sewage. I got my first shoes when I went to school at the age of six,” he adds.

“International law was responsible for our misery,” Sharkh explains. “It was used to legalize the theft of our homes and it continues to be used to legalize the ongoing oppression of my people by the State of Israel. The questions asked by the conference are therefore questions that I have been asking all my life. They are important questions that need to be answered.”

“However answering these questions risks exposing the true face of the State of Israel, and risks reminding the world of the uncomfortable truth about the crimes that were and continue to be committed against the Palestinian people,” Sharkh states. “As a result, the pro-Israel lobby exerted huge pressure on the university, which has resulted in the withdrawal of the permission to hold the conference.”

Sharkh dismisses media and Israel lobby group claims that “this was going to be an anti-Semitic conference.” He says he hoped the meeting would be a small step “to achieve justice, freedom and equality for my people to live side by side with Jews and all people in historic Palestine.”

Sharkh, himself a graduate of Southampton, said that studying and working at the university “is the best thing that happened to me.”

It was therefore with a “very heavy heart” that he and other conference organizers had to resort to taking the university to court.

Sharkh invited students and faculty to join almost eight thousand people who have signed an online petition calling on the University of Southampton to defend freedom of speech.

Asa Winstanley contributed reporting from London.

Full text of Suleiman Sharkh’s letter

Dear Friends, Colleagues and Students

As some of you may know, I am one of the organizers of the conference: “International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism.” The conference was approved by the university back in July 2014 and we followed all the procedures and collaborated fully with the university’s administration from the start. We have been transparent throughout about the nature and the aims of the conference.

Some of you may wonder why I, an engineering professor, am involved in organizing a law conference. The obvious answer is that understanding the law is essential to engineering and it is indeed part of our curriculum – it is a requirement of accreditation by the Engineering Council. My own research on smart electricity grids and smart metering involves understanding the legal issues that arise from the development of the technology, particularly with regards to privacy of the data collected by the smart meters and its human rights implications.

Also, as many of you know, I am a Palestinian. I grew up in Gaza, but my family is originally from a town called Majdal Asqalan (now called Ashkelon by Israel). In November 1948, six months after the establishment of the State of Israel and after the wars had ended, the town was bombed and many people were killed. Those who survived were herded towards Gaza, crawling on their hands and knees in the thorny fields. Since then we have lived in squalid refugee camps. I walked around barefoot in the sand soiled by open sewage. I got my first shoes when I went to school at the age of six.

International law was responsible for our misery. It was used to legalize the theft of our homes and it continues to be used to legalize the ongoing oppression of my people by the State of Israel. The questions asked by the conference are therefore questions that I have been asking all my life. They are important questions that need to be answered.

However answering these questions risks exposing the true face of the State of Israel, and risks reminding the world of the uncomfortable truth about the crimes that were and continue to be committed against the Palestinian people. As a result, the pro-Israel lobby exerted huge pressure on the university, which has resulted in the withdrawal of the permission to hold the conference.

The attached statement explains our point of view, and why the university’s senior management’s decision is wrong in law. This decision will have a direct impact on you and your freedom of speech.

I am a Southampton graduate. This is my university. Studying and working at Southampton is the best thing that happened to me. It broadened my mind, it showed me that there are alternatives to violence and hatred, namely respectful debate and love. I care greatly about the university and its reputation and hence the reason for deciding, with a very heavy heart, to take legal action to reverse the decision to cancel the conference.

The main press may give you the impression that this was going to be an anti-Semitic conference. This is absolutely not true. My fellow organizer, Professor Oren Ben-Dor is a Jew. We have many Jewish supporters. And I am glad that many Jews immigrated to Palestine to be in a safe haven and I welcome more Jews to live in Palestine. My main aim is to achieve justice, freedom and equality for my people to live side by side with Jews and all people in historic Palestine. I want it to be a safer haven for Jews, a safe haven for all people who live there. I hope the conference will be a small step in that direction.

Finally, I want to assure you that there will be no spontaneous demonstrations or any violence from supporters of the conference as suggested by my colleague the chief operating officer, Steve White. We will conduct our protests in a very dignified manner, within the law, with full collaboration with the police and the university. I will never accept any harm to be done to the university and the wonderful people who work and study here, who keep it the fantastic place of scholarship and learning that it is.

Please express your support for freedom of speech by signing the online petition.

Yours sincerely,

Suleiman

Mark Gardner of the Zionist 'charity' - the Communist Security Trust & the Southampton International Law Conference

CST's Mark Gardner Dishonestly Quotes Me to Support the Banning of Southampton International Law Conference

My attention has been drawn by Gert and Brian Robinson to the use by Mark Gardner of the Zionist ‘charity’ the Communist Security Trust of certain comments I made regarding Oren ben-Dor, the Southampton University lecturer who has helped organise the Israel and International Law Conference.

The comments which I made, some 7 years ago, were in the context of ben-Dor’s support for Gilad Atzmon. 

Oren ben-Dor

Gardner quotes selectively from a much longer post to support the decision of Southampton University to ban a conference on Israel and International Law from being held on campus.  The reason it has been banned is because of health and safety concerns, i.e. Zionist threats of violence.

When the UCU won an employment tribunal against a Zionist academic Gardner
called the Tribunal members 'sneering bastards'

I want to make it clear that there is no connection between the Conference at Southampton University and my previous criticism of Oren ben-Dor.  Mark Gardner is being his usual hypocritical and dishonest self in seeking to associate the two.  There is no connection and Oren ben-Dor is, in any event, one of four organisers of the Conference.  More pertinent has been the failure of the CST to oppose the EDL's presence on Zionist demonstrations.

In a blog post I stated that:

‘Oren Ben-Dor is an ex-Israeli and a law lecturer at the University of Southampton. He is also someone who has aligned himself with a small, anti-Semitic current on the fringes of the Palestinian movement.’ 

Having subsequently met Oren Ben-Dor I formed the opinion that he was clearly misguided regarding Atzmon but was not personally anti-Semitic.  If anything he was taken in by Atzmon’s pretentious philosophical gobbledydook, as is evident in his article The Silencing of Gilad Atzmon

Ironically the criticism by Gardner of what Oren ben-Dor writes, on the CST’s web site (the CST is supposed to be a non-political charity), echoes that which the Zionists argue.

Gardner says that ‘They [Atzmon and ben-Dor] both hold up Jewish anti-Zionists as some kind of ultimate supposed proof that Zionism can only be fundamentally understood (and more importantly opposed) as an extension of Jewishness.’  But of course Zionists too argue that Zionism and being Jewish are one and the same, and that Jewish anti-Zionists are ‘self-haters’ i.e. hate their race and nation.

Gardner confirms this when he says that ‘Most left wing anti-israel activists anxiously manufacture distance between Zionists and Jews (i.e. between anti-Zionism and antisemitism).’  In other words that there is no distance or distinction between Zionists and Jews and left-wing anti-Israel activists therefore have to manufacture such distance.  Which is exactly what Atzmon argues!

Gardner says that ben-Dor ‘goes further, suggesting that Nazi perpetrators were somehow captives of a deeper historical force that may repeat in the future.’  But this was always the Zionist attitude to the holocaust.  It was but the culmination of 2,000 years of anti-Semitism.

Despite quoting me in support of the banning of the Southampton Law Conference (which of course I oppose) Gardner proves how little distance there is between Zionist ideologues such as himself and the anti-Semitic Gilad Atzmon.

Tony Greenstein

Southampton University Bows to Zionist & Tory Pressure and Cancels Conference on Israel & International Law

The decision by Southampton University to cancel a conference on Israel and International Law, of all subjects, is an act of sheer cowardice.  Universities have a duty, not only legally but morally, to uphold academic freedom, the cut and thrust of debate, the right to present alternative ideas to those of the mainstream. 

A Police State University

It also demonstrates the hypocrisy of the state.  It was less than 3 months ago that 8 journalists and cartoonists from Charlie Hebdo were murdered in their offices.  World leaders, including those from the most repressive states such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, attended a march dedicated to upholding the values of freedom of speech.  David Cameron also attended but that hasn't prevented his Communities Minister, the loathsome Eric Pickles from adding his (considerable) weight to the call to ban the Conference.  Tory MPs have also weighed in to support the call from the misnamed Board of Deputies of British Jews and various other Zionist front groups.

The loathsome Eric Pickles MP - Called for the Conference to be Banned

 The pretext is 'health and safety' because the Zionists have promised a demonstration.  If Southampton University's administration cannot protect its conferences from a small demonstration then it should collectively resign and make way for those who can.

A University of Cowardice

 There is an appeal later today and the Vice-Chancellor Professor Don Nutbeam will make the final decision, however it is likely to be a charade as this decision is likely to have already met with his approval.  There is the promise of legal action, either in the form of judicial review or an injunction, though our judiciary are not known for their upholding of the right to academic freedom, other than when the rights of fascists such as Patrick Harrington at NE London Polytechnic some years ago, are concerned.

My own view is that we should hold a demonstration at Southampton University to ensure that the Administration is left in no doubt as to our anger.

Tony Greenstein

Statement from Organisers

The March of the World Hypocrites and Tyrants 1

It is with extreme astonishment and sadness that we have to inform you that the University of Southampton has told us earlier yesterday (Monday 30 March 2015) that it intends to withdraw its permission to hold the academic conference on International Law and the State of Israel. We were told that the decision was taken on the grounds of health and safety: a number of groups may be demonstrating for or against the conference which could present risks to the safety of the participants, students and staff. The University claims that it does not have enough resources to mitigate the risks, despite a clear statement from the Police confirming that they are able to deal with the protest and ensure the security of the event.

Southampton University - Where Freedom of Speech Carries no Weight

 As the law stands, the University is legally obliged to uphold freedom of speech, and - unlike in some engineering projects for example where health and safety may be the only legal obligation – the requirement of minimising risk should also fall onto the Police as the agency that is entrusted with the enforcement of the law (freedom of speech) and the provision of security. The mitigating measure should therefore include policing in addition to what the university can reasonably provide using its own security resources. We are therefore extremely dissatisfied with the risk assessment conducted by the University which seems to lack consistency; high risks remained high even when seemingly effective mitigating measures were put in place. Crucially and additionally, the risk assessment does not seem to include all possible risk mitigating measures that could be provided by the police.

A number of risks have been identified by the police but it is very clear from the Police’s report that they are more than capable of policing the conference and ensuring the safety of university staff, speakers, delegates, students and property. However, instead of accepting this at face value the University decided to focus on the risks identified by the Police and ignore their statement about their ability to police the event – we were told the Police will never say in writing they are not able to police an event, in other words the University had doubts about the Police’s ability to do their job of upholding the law! The university claims that the Police are not able or unwilling to become too involved because the University is ‘private property’, which we find astonishing. The University is a public space, it was established by a Royal Charter and it has public roles and duties including upholding freedom of speech and to that extent it should be able to resort to police assistance in order to curb security risks to enable it to fulfil its legal obligation to uphold freedom of speech. If this is not done, if commitment to safety is not undertaken by the police, freedom of speech becomes an idle worthless notion. At no point were we given an indication that the University has indeed allowed itself the time to seek viable police assistance to supplement its own resources. Additionally, and unconvincingly, the University claims that it is now too late to put proper security arrangements in place. We do not accept that in any way as there are still 18 days left before the conference.

Given the Police’s confidence in providing security and given that there are other possible mitigating measures that are yet to be explored that could be put in place to minimize the risk, a decision to cancel the conference would be grossly disproportionate and therefore may well be illegal and unconstitutional. Such an action by Southampton University will severely undermine the public’s confidence in the Police’s and the in the University’s ability to protect freedom of speech. Indeed it will have wider implications to all Universities and organisations. We feel that the manner the university communicated with the police and conducted the risk assessment shows that the security argument was used to rationalise a decision to cancel the conference that has been taken under public pressure of the Israeli Lobby. It is quite simply unbelievable that the University cannot ask the Police to handle the risk of demonstrations.

The March of the World Hypocrites and Tyrants 2

 Freedom of speech inherently involves taking risks, and hence the presence of risk cannot be used to curtail it! The UK Government and many other governments have refused to give in to attempts by Islamic extremist to stop the publication of pictures of Prophet Mohammad despite serious risks of violence. The correct response by the governments was to confront and contain that violence and not to cancel the publication of these pictures by Charlie Hebdo and others.

This is a sad decision for freedom of speech and for historic Palestine (which includes what is now the Jewish State of Israel and the 1967 Occupied Territories) and ALL the people who live there.

We will explore legal emergency measures to prevent the University from cancelling the conference, to reverse its decision and to properly collaborate with the police so that the demonstrations can be managed. In addition we call for the widest and most intense public campaign possible that would urgently encourage the university to reverse its decision and which would allow the conference to go ahead.

Finally, we must make it clear that we have made several attempts to meet with the Vice Chancellor to consult him on the organisation of this conference, and to invite him to open the conference but we have never been given the opportunity to do so. On the other hand, the Vice Chancellor has met with pro-Israel representatives without ever calling us to attend meetings and we, as Professors in the University, feel disempowered and marginalised by this disrespectful behaviour.

Professor Oren Ben-Dor, University of Southampton.

Professor George Bisharat, University of California, Hastings College of the Law.

Professor Suleiman Sharkh, University of Southampton.

Ms. Juman Ismail.

Conference Organisers

===

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/israelpalestinelaw/index.page

http://electronicintifada.net/…/israel-lobby-uk-officials-a…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…/Universitys-anti-Semitic-Israe…

Please sign the petition supporting free speech atSouthampton University

Southampton University Conference on Israel and International Law: The Zionist's Try to Ban it

The Zionist Lobby is a Threat to Freedom of Speech

Remember all the hypocritical cant about freedom of speech in the wake of the murder of journalists at Charlie Hebdo?  About how terrorism would not be allowed to silence the power of the pen?  Forget it.  Under the guise of 'anti-terrorism' the Zionist lobby is up to its old tricks, with support from the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles.

Eric Pickles - Tory Minister who has added his (considerable) weight to the campaign to ban the Conference

A group of academics, primarily based at Southampton University, have organised a Conference “International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism,” scheduled for 17-19 April.  You might wonder what could be more innocuous but of course international law isn't something that Israel is particularly keen on.

Prof. Oren ben-Dor, Southampton University Law Lecturer and organiser of conference

Electronic Intifada reports on how academics are pushing back against an effort by Israel lobby groups and UK government officials to cancel or alter a law school conference related to Palestine.

Southampton University

Almost 300 professors at universities in the UK and other countries have signed a statement expressing “principled and full support for the University of Southampton’s commitment to freedom of speech and scholarly debate.”

The University of Southampton has come under intense pressure in respect of the conference.  The conference will “engage controversial questions concerning the manner of Israel’s foundation and its nature, including ongoing forced displacements of Palestinians and associated injustices,” the organizers wrote in a statement to The Electronic Intifada.

Olive grove that the settlers love to burn

The organizers are University of Southampton law professor Oren Ben-Dor; George Bisharat, professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law; Juman Asmail, a law graduate from Southampton and Southampton engineering professor Suleiman Sharkh.

The conference “will examine how international law could be deployed, expanded, even re-imagined, in order to achieve regional peace and reconciliation based on justice,” the organizers add.

The provisional program includes presentations from a range of well-known academics and experts including University of California at Los Angeles historian Gabi Piterberg; Nur Musalha, a historian who has written extensively about Zionist plans to expel Palestinians; University of Exeter historian Ilan Pappe and Princeton University emeritus professor and former UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk, among others.

Smear campaign

Pro-Israel media and lobby groups have been mounting an ever more shrill campaign using Islamophobic themes and casting aspersions of anti-Semitism to smear organizers and speakers.
Some have called for the conference to be banned outright, while others are urging the university to require pro-Israel speakers, on the grounds that the conference is “one sided.”

This is an interesting ground of objection.  Presumably conferences on the Holocaust or Apartheid in South Africa should have defenders of the Holocaust and Apartheid given equal weight!

The Jerusalem Post reports that late last year, “leaders of the Jewish community, including representatives of the Jewish Leadership Council, Board of Deputies and the Union of Jewish 
Students” sent a letter to the university to cancel the conference.'

The Post says it has “exclusively” seen “extracts” of the letter.

A Southampton spokesperson emailed The Electronic Intifada that the university “received a number of representations concerning this conference, both those expressing concerns and those in support,” but would not provide details of the organizations that had approached it.

The Electronic Intifada has filed a Freedom of Information request with the university in an effort to bring more light on the Israel lobby’s campaign against academic freedom.

Zionist Federation petition

The UK’s Zionist Federation launched a petition calling on the university to ban the conference, a demand to which several members of parliament have added their voices.

The mass circulation tabloid The Daily Express published an op-ed associating the conference with support for the notorious Islamic State militant “Jihadi John” and demanding that the government cut funding to Southampton.

The Jewish Chronicle trumpeted criticism by a former Conservative government minister and quoted Southampton mathematics professor Tim Sluckin claiming that the purpose of the conference is to “delegitimize Israel.”

Sluckin, who is also secretary of the Southampton Hebrew Congregation, said the conference “makes me feel uncomfortable as a Jew.”

Government collusion

Perhaps the most worrying aspect for supporters of free speech is the apparent collusion of UK government officials in the attempt to smear and suppress the conference.

Last week, Conservative cabinet minister Eric Pickles warned the University of Southampton against “allowing a one-sided diatribe.” According to Jewish News, this made Pickles, who is Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, “the most senior politician yet to intervene” over the conference.

Last December, Pickles’ department issued a report promising “government action on addressing anti-Semitism.” But as The Electronic Intifada reported, the government document “conflates anti-Semitism with criticism of the State of Israel” and misrepresents the Palestinian call for the academic boycott of Israeli institutions.

Pickles has consistently conflated “anti-Semitism” with solidarity for Palestinians. He has for instance condemned the London Borough of Tower Hamlets for “flying a Palestinian flag.” London municipalities have a long tradition of international solidarity, especially during the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.

The Jerusalem Post also revealed that in February, UK ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould met with UK university heads to discuss the limits of “freedom of speech” relating to Israel.

According to the Post, the University of Southampton’s refusal to cave in over the conference was a topic of discussion in the meeting.

Ben White writes for Middle East Monitor that the university’s “stubborn commitment to freedom of speech has clearly angered Britain’s Israel lobby, but the bigger question here is why a UK ambassador was involved in the first place.”

The UK Foreign Office confirmed to White that the meeting had taken place but as White notes, the government spokesperson “did not elaborate on whether lobbying British universities” on behalf of Israel “was part of the ambassador’s remit.”

“Legal obligations”

The organizers have rejected accusations that the conference is “one sided.”

“Diligent efforts, including face-to-face meetings with leading intellectuals in Israel, were made to ensure the widest range of opinions possible,” the organizers wrote in their statement.

“Those who chose to abstain, however, cannot derail the legitimate, if challenging, academic discussion the conference will inspire.”

The organizers also say that are “deeply grateful for the University of Southampton’s commitment to freedom of speech and expression, which should set an example for universities worldwide.”

But the university has been more circumspect. Its spokesperson assured The Electronic Intifada that it “is legally obliged under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the university, as well as for visiting speakers.”

“We must ensure that academic staff have the freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions.”

University appeasing critics?

But in what looks like an attempt to appease critics, the spokesperson adds that “For the avoidance of doubt, the University of Southampton is not expressing an opinion or taking any particular standpoint in relation to the conference, ‘International Law and the State of Israel,’ but is fulfilling its legal obligations.”

Universities often endorse conferences and take strong stances in favor of various kinds of research on human rights, economic, medical or environmental issues.

For instance, University of Southampton Vice-Chancellor Don Nutbeam enthuses about a new research collaboration between his institution and the insurance company Lloyds Register.

But Southampton’s statement about the Israel conference follows an emerging pattern among universities that have come under attack for research or advocacy in relation to Palestinian rights: administrators assert their minimum obligations on free speech grounds while distancing themselves from the content, as if believing that Israel should be held accountable under international law were something odious and offensive.

Pressure is being exerted on the University of Southampton to cancel or ‘reconstruct’ a conference on Israel and international law scheduled for 17-19 April. Groups such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews and UK Zionist Federation have urged the university to cancel the event, and there has also been an intervention from Communities minister and Conservative MP Eric Pickles.

To add your name to the below statement please email freespeechsouthampton@gmail.com

The statement and signatory list will appear here (and will be updated with names accordingly):

Statement in support of the University of Southampton

We, the undersigned academics, express principled and full support for the University of Southampton’s commitment to freedom of speech and scholarly debate.

We commend the University of Southampton administration, including Vice-Chancellor Don Nutbeam, for its resolute defence of academic freedom.

It is standing principle and recognised practice that academic conference organisers have the right to choose those speakers and topics they feel would best address the purposes of the conference, without these being dictated to them by outside parties.To the best of our knowledge, the conference invitations in this case are based on qualification to speak on the topic rather than on political positions held.

We affirm, as academics from various disciplines and institutions of higher education, that the themes of the conference, such as the relationship of international law to the historic and ongoing political violence in Palestine/Israel, and critical reflections on nationality and self-determination, are entirely legitimate subjects for debate and inquiry.

We are very concerned that partisan attempts are being made to silence dissenting analyses of the topic in question. For external pressure and interference, especially from political lobby groups and a government minister, to censor lawful academic discussion would set a worrying precedent.

We trust that the programme of ‘International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism’ will go ahead as planned, to the credit of the University of Southampton and all those involved.