Letter to Amcha Initiative Regarding Its Report on UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies

New Article Submission

Thank you for your interest in Jadaliyya. We welcome all submissions. The most significant requirement is for Jadaliyya submissions to be analytically compelling and offer a perspective or argument that has not been covered at length either on Jadaliyya or elsewhere. Because of the volume of submissions, well-written pieces are prioritized. Length is flexible, 1000 to 2500 words is the average range. However, we will accept longer pieces. Once submitted, several members of the editorial committee will review your piece and one of them will inform you of the decision.
Author Details
Article Details
Select Countries
Select Keywords
Select Topics
Only RTF, Word, and Pages documents accepted.

Recommended image size: 762x800 px

Location of each image should be indicated in the text of the article via a square bracket caption that includes: (1) a description of the image; (2) the photographer/designer and source of the image. Please note we only use images you as the author have the right to use, which usually means those of your own creation or those published under Creative Commons. Alternatively, you need specific permission from the copyright holder.
Please read the Release Form and provide an electronic signature [your full name] below to confirm that you accept its terms
Required
Hyperlink words in your article if they refer to links on the internet. We encourage more, rather than less, links (try to avoid footnotes—embed them as hyperlinks if possible)

Article added successfully.

Pages Menu BETA
Oct 24, 2014 United States
Letter to Amcha Initiative Regarding Its Report on UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies

Letter to Amcha Initiative Regarding Its Report on UCLA Center for Near Eastern Studies

By : Committee on Academic Freedom (MESA)

[The following letter was issued by the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association on 23 October 2014]

Amcha Initiative
via email administrator@amchainitiative.org


To whom it may concern:

I am writing on behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) to express our grave concern about the content and apparent intent of the report released by the Amcha Initiative in September 2014 titled “Antisemitic Activity and Anti-Israel Bias at the Center for Near East Studies, University of California at Los Angeles, 2010-2013.” After careful scrutiny of this document, we believe that it is based on a deeply flawed and highly tendentious methodology, yielding a grossly inaccurate picture of public events sponsored by UCLA’s Center for Near Eastern Studies (CNES). We are compelled to conclude that the Amcha Initiative’s real goal in producing and disseminating this report is to stifle the free and open discussion of, and the vigorous exchange of opinions on, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on college and university campuses. We regard your pursuit of this political agenda as a serious threat to free speech, to the principles of academic freedom and to the autonomy and integrity of our institutions of higher education.

MESA was founded in 1966 to promote scholarship and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. The preeminent organization in the field, the Association publishes theInternational Journal of Middle East Studies and has some 3000 members worldwide. MESA is committed to ensuring academic freedom and freedom of expression, both within the region and in connection with the study of the region in North America and elsewhere. MESA’s Committee on Academic Freedom has since 1990 protested actions by governments in the Middle East and North Africa, including many of the Arab states, the Palestinian Authority, Iran, Israel and Turkey, that we regard as infringing or violating the academic freedom of faculty, students and institutions of higher education. It has also regularly criticized infringements of, and threats to, academic freedom by colleges, universities, government agencies, legislative bodies and other entities in the United States and Canada. All of the committee’s letters since 2001 can be found athttp://www.mesa.arizona.edu/committees/academic-freedom/intervention/index.html.

Your study and its findings are purportedly based on your review of available podcasts of CNES-sponsored public events related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict between 2010 and 2013, and of the writings, utterances and actions of those who participated in them. Appendix D of your report, “Procedures and Worksheet for Identifying Antisemitic Activity,” lists ten forms of what you define as “antisemitic activity” and thereby makes clear how you conducted your assessment. The appendix reasonably asserts that such things as “Using Symbols and Images Associated with Historical Antisemitism” and “Accusing Jews and Israel of Inventing or Exaggerating the Holocaust” can legitimately be construed as antisemitic. But it then goes on to expand the definition of antisemitism to include many forms of perfectly legitimate criticism of Zionism and of Israel.

For example, by your definition the simple assertion that the Israel Defense Forces have committed “crimes against humanity,” or that some Israeli Jews have engaged in persecuting Palestinians, or that there are ways in which Israel can be compared to apartheid South Africa, are all inherently antisemitic; whether or not any of these statements might have a factual basis is deemed irrelevant. Your definition also alleges that advocacy of any form of boycott, divestment or sanctions directed at Israel, support for the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their pre-1948 homes, and questioning of the Zionist character of the State of Israel are also defined as intrinsically antisemitic. Such a broad and vague definition of antisemitism is clearly absurd: among other things, it means that a good many Jews past and present, in Israel and elsewhere, must be deemed antisemites, along with, for example, Secretary of State John Kerry who in April 2014 warned that if Israel continued on its present course it could become an “apartheid state” like South Africa once was.

In addition to deploying this extremely broad definition of antisemitism, your report employs highly tendentious research methods. It repeatedly finds speakers at CNES-sponsored events guilty of “demonization,” “delegitimization,” “denying Jews the right to self-determination,” and so on – all categories of opinion that you have previously defined as inherently antisemitic – by wrenching quotations out of their contexts and construing them in ways that appear to have little or nothing to do with what those who uttered or wrote these words actually meant. In short, though your report pretends to be a serious academic study that uses accepted social-scientific research methods, it is in fact a hatchet job. Its real goal appears to be the delegitimization and suppression of perspectives critical of Israel, at UCLA and at campuses around the country, by tarring them with the brush of antisemitism. At the same time, this report, and similar Amcha Initiative campaigns elsewhere, also apparently seek to suppress open discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by threatening the external funding on which CNES and other centers and programs rely.

We believe that colleges and universities must vigorously combat antisemitism and all other forms of racism. But conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, as your report does, can only undermine that effort while also threatening constitutionally-protected free speech rights, the principles of academic freedom and the pedagogical mission of our institutions of higher education. This point was recently made very effectively in a statement issued by forty professors of Jewish studies at American universities, including some of the most distinguished and respected scholars in that field, in direct response to your report. It characterized your allegations of pervasive anti-Israel bias at CNES as “deplorable” and declared that your “technique of monitoring lectures, symposia and conferences strains the basic principle of academic freedom on which the American university is built. Moreover, its definition of antisemitism is so undiscriminating as to be meaningless. Instead of encouraging openness through its efforts, AMCHA’s approach closes off all but the most narrow intellectual directions and has a chilling effect on research and teaching.” The statement went on to say that “AMCHA’s tactics are designed to stifle debate on issues debated in Israel and around the world, and the presumption that students must be protected from their own universities is misguided and destructive. Efforts such as these do not promote academic integrity, but rather serve to deaden the kind of spirited academic exchange that is the lifeblood of the university.”

We fully share these concerns, and we are especially alarmed by your report’s demonization of the extraordinary community of scholars of the Middle East who work at CNES. We therefore welcome the recent statement, approved by UCLA’s Chancellor, reiterating that “UCLA, like any public research university, remains dedicated to complying with all federal laws and respecting the free and open exchange of ideas representing diverse viewpoints…. We recognize many subjects may engender passionate debate and difficult conversations and we encourage civil dialogue that appreciates the paramount importance of free expression, academic freedom and a respectful exchange of ideas.”

By accusing respected scholars and teachers of antisemitism simply because their views on Israel differ from yours, your report constitutes a vicious assault on free speech, on academic freedom and on the ability of our institutions of higher education to foster open discussion of even the most contentious issues. We therefore call on you to withdraw this report and to apologize to all those whom it falsely and tendentiously accuses of antisemitism. We also call upon you to renounce your organization’s campaign of surveillance and harassment of scholars, teachers and others who are sincerely striving to enhance public understanding of a region of the world in which the United States is so deeply engaged.

Sincerely,

Nathan Brown, President
Tags
Feb 16, 2011 Lebanon
Jadaliyya Reports By :
Jadaliyya Reports

Past is Present: Settler Colonialism Matters!

On 5-6 March 2011, the Palestine Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London will hold its seventh annual conference, "Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine." This year`s conference aims to understand Zionism as a settler colonial project which has, for more than a century, subjected Palestine and Palestinians to a structural and violent form of destruction, dispossession, land appropriation and erasure in the pursuit of a new Jewish Israeli society. By organizing this conference, we hope to reclaim and revive the settler colonial paradigm and to outline its potential to inform and guide political strategy and mobilization.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often described as unique and exceptional with little resemblance to other historical or ongoing colonial conflicts. Yet, for Zionism, like other settler colonial projects such as the British colonization of Ireland or European settlement of North America, South Africa or Australia, the imperative is to control the land and its resources -- and to displace the original inhabitants. Indeed, as conference keynote speaker Patrick Wolfe, one of the foremost scholars on settler colonialism and professor at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, argues, "the logic of this project, a sustained institutional tendency to eliminate the Indigenous population, informs a range of historical practices that might otherwise appear distinct--invasion is a structure not an event."[i]

Therefore, the classification of the Zionist movement as a settler colonial project, and the Israeli state as its manifestation, is not merely intended as a statement on the historical origins of Israel, nor as a rhetorical or polemical device. Rather, the aim is to highlight Zionism`s structural continuities and the ideology which informs Israeli policies and practices in Palestine and toward Palestinians everywhere. Thus, the Nakba -- whether viewed as a spontaneous, violent episode in war, or the implementation of a preconceived master plan -- should be understood as both the precondition for the creation of Israel and the logical outcome of Zionist settlement in Palestine.

Moreover, it is this same logic that sustains the continuation of the Nakba today. As remarked by Benny Morris, “had he [David Ben Gurion] carried out full expulsion--rather than partial--he would have stabilised the State of Israel for generations.”[ii] Yet, plagued by an “instability”--defined by the very existence of the Palestinian nation--Israel continues its daily state practices in its quest to fulfill Zionism’s logic to maximize the amount of land under its control with the minimum number of Palestinians on it. These practices take a painful array of manifestations: aerial and maritime bombardment, massacre and invasion, house demolitions, land theft, identity card confiscation, racist laws and loyalty tests, the wall, the siege on Gaza, cultural appropriation, and the dependence on willing (or unwilling) native collaboration and security arrangements, all with the continued support and backing of imperial power. 

Despite these enduring practices however, the settler colonial paradigm has largely fallen into disuse. As a paradigm, it once served as a primary ideological and political framework for all Palestinian political factions and trends, and informed the intellectual work of committed academics and revolutionary scholars, both Palestinians and Jews.

The conference thus asks where and why the settler colonial paradigm was lost, both in scholarship on Palestine and in politics; how do current analyses and theoretical trends that have arisen in its place address present and historical realities? While acknowledging the creativity of these new interpretations, we must nonetheless ask: when exactly did Palestinian natives find themselves in a "post-colonial" condition? When did the ongoing struggle over land become a "post-conflict" situation? When did Israel become a "post-Zionist" society? And when did the fortification of Palestinian ghettos and reservations become "state-building"?

In outlining settler colonialism as a central paradigm from which to understand Palestine, this conference re-invigorates it as a tool by which to analyze the present situation. In doing so, it contests solutions which accommodate Zionism, and more significantly, builds settler colonialism as a political analysis that can embolden and inform a strategy of active, mutual, and principled Palestinian alignment with the Arab struggle for self-determination, and indigenous struggles in the US, Latin America, Oceania, and elsewhere.

Such an alignment would expand the tools available to Palestinians and their solidarity movement, and reconnect the struggle to its own history of anti-colonial internationalism. At its core, this internationalism asserts that the Palestinian struggle against Zionist settler colonialism can only be won when it is embedded within, and empowered by, the broader Arab movement for emancipation and the indigenous, anti-racist and anti-colonial movement--from Arizona to Auckland.

SOAS Palestine Society invites everyone to join us at what promises to be a significant intervention in Palestine activism and scholarship.

For over 30 years, SOAS Palestine Society has heightened awareness and understanding of the Palestinian people, their rights, culture, and struggle for self-determination, amongst students, faculty, staff, and the broader public. SOAS Palestine society aims to continuously push the frontiers of discourse in an effort to make provocative arguments and to stimulate debate and organizing for justice in Palestine through relevant conferences, and events ranging from the intellectual and political impact of Edward Said`s life and work (2004), international law and the Palestine question (2005), the economy of Palestine and its occupation (2006), the one state (2007), 60 Years of Nakba, 60 Years of Resistance (2009), and most recently, the Left in Palestine (2010).

For more information on the SOAS Palestine Society 7th annual conference, Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine: www.soaspalsoc.org

SOAS Palestine Society Organizing Collective is a group of committed students that has undertaken to organize annual academic conferences on Palestine since 2003.

 

[i] Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event, Cassell, London, p. 163

[ii] Interview with Benny Morris, Survival of the Fittest, Haaretz, 9. January 2004, http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=5412