BY DAVID G. EMBRICK AND JOHNNY E. WILLIAMS
Authors David G. Embrick and Johnny E. Williams
While Israel is actively erasing Palestinians’ land, livelihoods, stories, personhoods, and histories, the United States is providing Israel with funding, technical assistance, hardware, and even language to carry out its ongoing brutal and violent absorption of Palestine into Israel. Though this violation of international law is widely condemned, many American academics and scholars give Israel their tacit support by remaining silent. Amazingly, many of these academics who profess a commitment to international law and human rights oppose holding Israel accountable for decades of brutal military occupation and oppression; they remain devoted to Israel even though evidence convincingly demonstrates that Israel’s occupation regime and discriminatory state policies are enhanced replicates of South African apartheid. In an opinion essay published in the New York Times, notable scholar and author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (2010), Michelle Alexander, called the oppression of Palestinians a “grave injustice of our time” that academics and the general public are obligated to speak out against. She is not alone with her counsel. A critical mass of academics continuously speak out against Israeli apartheid and occupation of East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza— despite the menacing pushback from the pro-Israel academics, administrators, and lobby—and the silent complicity of timid bystanders who turn a blind eye to the atrocities Israelis commit daily against Palestinians. These obsequious bystanders usually claim they care about remediating inequality but are averse to supporting Palestinian liberation from Israeli oppression.
Due to either their immersion in the Israeli false narrative regarding Palestine and Palestinians, pro-Israeli supporters’ intimidation, or willful ignorance regarding Israel’s systemic oppression of Palestinians, most academics and scholars shun speaking and writing about the state of Israel’s siege of Gaza and its military occupation of Palestine. The result is tacit support for the Israeli government’s violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 of 2016, which specifies that Israel’s settlement activity constitutes a “flagrant violation” of international law and has “no legal validity.” This implicit support also extends to Israel’s formal system of legalized discrimination and isolation of Palestinian within Israel, which fits the United Nations definition of apartheid, which is considered a crime against humanity. Scholars and academics’ subdued reaction to Israel’s apartheid and occupation of Palestine generally reflects our fear that pro-Israel supporters will damage our careers if we speak and write about the reality of Israel’s violent occupation and apartheid.
Nonetheless, and despite this fear, it is our obligation as scholars and academics to do our job: questioning the answers generally accepted as fact. We are obliged to dissect false Israeli occupation narratives that pro-Israel academics, think-tanks, and major media outlets disseminate. We must be skeptical of Israel’s claim that it is merely exercising its right to self-defense given the overwhelming evidence that its occupation and apartheid policies are offensive measures designed to dispossess Palestinians of their land and humanity. Our call is for unity and understanding, and to suggest that as scholars and academics, we have a shared interest in being vigilant, critical, and actively engaged in resisting systems of oppression. We are alarmed at the ignorance, hypocrisy, or deliberate obfuscation of oppression toward Palestinians within the US academy. We present several interesting observations on this matter, paying special attention to the hypocrisy within the academic community and particularly among colleagues who claim that they care about human rights, humanity, and the elimination of systemic white racism or other forms of systemic oppression.
First, the violence and oppression toward the Palestinian people is real. This is not in dispute. Since 1948, the state of Israel has consistently increased its arsenal of oppressive policies and practices toward Palestinians. Such tactics have included forced removal, with over seven million Palestinians living in refugee camps with no ability to return to their homes; apartheid for Palestinians who currently live in Israel, complete with de jure discrimination; and violent military occupation in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Palestinians are subject to severe restrictions on their movement, thought, education and deprived of basic human rights such as access to water or electricity. Palestinian universities are constantly assaulted: they are ransacked, bombed, and students, staff, and faculty are shot at, tear-gassed, and arrested.
Second, Palestinians as a racialized group are stereotyped by Israel, United States, and European nations as inferior, uncivilized, barbaric, and violent to justify the occupation and implementation of discriminatory policies against them. Given this political dynamic, it is interesting to witness the boundaries of whiteness insofar as how, if, and when support for Palestinian liberation emerges. Within the academy, we consistently observe black, Latinx, indigenous, and Asian expressions of solidarity with the Palestinian people, whilst many self-proclaimed progressive white scholars and academics demonstrate little or no affinity for Palestinian liberation.
Finally, these same scholars and academics react negatively to movements seeking to end support for Israel’s occupation and oppression of Palestinian. One such movement that has attracted international support is the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement. Attempts by fellow academics and nonacademic institutions to delegitimize BDS and other similarly missioned movements is alarming for a number of reasons. It suggests that some academics are more concerned about kowtowing to power or that they are careerists or hypocrites. While many academic organizations have written public statements supporting Palestine and the Palestinian people, we are frankly astonished at the number of organizations that claim to be progressive, supportive of human rights and anti-racist yet omit or minimize the plight of Palestinians. This is not to say that scholars and academics are not free to advocate for Palestinian liberation in other ways. However, we do believe that those who do not support BDS should articulate how they will intend to work in solidarity with Palestinians to end the Israeli apartheid and occupation. Oppression is oppression. To capitulate to such terrorism means others cannot be free of oppression. We can do better. We should do better.
Guest blogger David G. Embrick is an associate professor in sociology and the Africana Studies Institute at the University of Connecticut and guest blogger Johnny E. Williams is a professor of sociology at Trinity College.
I’m sorry but in this difficult, centuries-old feud, filled with bad judgment and bad actions on both sides, I come down on the Israeli side, even though I am a “man of the Left” (Marxist, not liberal).
Why? Although I concede that Israel’s settlements and activities are not helpful, the original UN mandate to establish the state of Israel should have been respected by all. Instead, Arab forces attacked the new nation and did so on several other occasions, not to mention thousands of rockets aimed at civilians, etc.
If the Palestinians had first used Gandhian non-violent tactics, maybe their voices would have been heard by the international community. Maybe if Arafat had been willing to accept the deal of a lifetime through Bill Clinton, the two-state solution would have been instituted and some form of peace might have prevailed.
As I say, I do not want to be too hard-line about this close call, but I lay more fault (especially in terms of starting violence) at the feet of the Palestinians and their enablers, who are not the best actors in the Middle East — or the world.
I forgot to mention this bit of REALPOLITIK: What nation has EVER returned territory it had obtained by war, whether justified or not? Very few, unless they were later defeated in that war — i.e., nazi Germany.
To those who advocate that Israel return all lands seized in battles — STARTED BY THE PALESTINIANS AND OTHER ARABS — by that logic you should also want to return the entire land mass of the U.S.A. to the Native Peoples.
Your facts are wrong and reflect both the pro-Israel misinformation that saturates the United States and a simplistic view of the Palestinians. How do you know they have not tried non-violence. Are you simply making guesses and claiming them as truths? Do the legal rights of the Palestinians disappear if they eschew non-violence? Did you follow non-violence when you worked with the Black Panthers? When have the Israelis followed non-violence?
Here are some facts about what happened in 1948 and before. After WWI, uninvited, the British occupied Palestine and facilitated Zionist displacement of the Palestinians. This fulfilled a British agreement with the Zionists, expressed in the Balfour declaration, to assist the Zionist project in colonizing Palestine in return for Zionist assistance in bringing the United States into WWI. The British had no legal right to promise Palestinian land to anybody. During this period there were several Palestinian revolts against the British occupation and probably diplomatic efforts were made as well. By 1948, Zionist settlers made up a third of the population. The Palestinians were denied any say in the UN partition vote. The UN did not have the authority to take land from one group of people and give it to another. The resolution was a non-binding resolution passed by the General Assembly. At the time the UN was dominated by White supremacist European countries. The U.S. State Department was firmly opposed to this resolution, but the Truman Administration ordered the State Department to make an all-out effort to pressure other countries to vote for it. The Arab states wanted to challenge this resolution in the World Court, but were not allowed to do this. Although most of Palestine was possessed by Palestinians, the resolution gave most of the land, and the best land to the Zionists. After the resolution was passed, the Zionists put into action Plan Dalet, which they had been developing since 1946. They seized both the land the UN plan allocated to a Zionist state, as well as territory assigned to the Palestinians. It was after this latter territory was invaded that the neighboring Arab states intervened with their own armies, which were outnumbered 3-1 by the Zionists. At the end of the ethnic cleansing, about 500 Palestinian towns were eradicated. 80% were destroyed and the remaining 20% were occupied by settlers. About 780,000 Palestinians were dispossessed.
This is an awful lot of verbiage that details information, history, and “spin” (i.e., OPINION) that I knew all along. I won’t waste my time detailing the inaccuracies and subjective statements, because my statements are similarly inflected with my viewpoint.
That said, the first sentence is patently false: “Your facts are wrong.” My facts are accurate; it is the spin that all parties place on those facts that are at issue — and have caused thousands of lives, many civilians.
1. For instance, when did the Palestinians first try non-violence? That is elided because they they did not. You even say, “PROBABLY diplomatic efforts were made as well.” “Probably” is not good enough to prove a case. What is undeniable as FACT is that instead of diplomacy, several other Arab countries invaded the new state of Israel. My point was that Palestinians MIGHT have had a better chance at garnering international support for their cause had they first tried Gandhian tactics. It worked in India! If you have EVIDENCE that I’m unaware of that Palestinians tried non-violence, please provide it — a newspaper clipping, Wikipedia page, anything. Am I “guessing” or are you making up a peace-loving Intifada in the early days of Israel?
2. As a matter of fact, I DID eschew violence when I was involved with the Black Panthers in NYC. They were involved in community lunch and educational programs in the community and I even urged them not to call cops “pigs” because if the revolution ever came, you would want the support of the police and military.
3. It does not matter if the Israelis practiced non-violence or not. My point was that the Brits beat and subjugated the Indian people but they attained their freedom through passive resistance.
4. So what if the British did what they did in the Balfour Declaration and elsewhere. Native Americans can go back even further with a history of genocide (and the bison too!). Maybe “white eyes” should give the U.S. back to the Indians and Mexicans and even the British, for that matter, to right historical wrongs. Remember when Saddam Hussein went on American TV and explained that he invaded Kuwait because it was a province of Iraq in the Middle Ages? That went over big, right?
5. In the world of REALPOLITIK, so what if “The UN resolution was a non-binding resolution passed by the General Assembly. At the time the UN was dominated by White supremacist European countries.” No matter who ran the UN, they were internationally recognized as making the rules.
6. Likewise, if the State Dept. didn’t like the UN resolution, too bad. Pres. Truman made foreign policy and those are the rules of the U.S. Constitution.
7. Your best points are at the end, and I was fully aware of them: “It was after this latter territory was invaded that the neighboring Arab states intervened with their own armies, which were outnumbered 3-1 by the Zionists. At the end of the ethnic cleansing, about 500 Palestinian towns were eradicated. 80% were destroyed and the remaining 20% were occupied by settlers. About 780,000 Palestinians were dispossessed.”
It was at this point that I would have thought that passive resistance had a chance, rather than a stupid and ill-advised invasion against superior forces that cost so many lives and territory.
1. I have been looking at “The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict” by Ilan Pappe and what you write about the Arabs not using diplomacy was sort of true in 1947. The Palestinians set up an “Arab Higher Committee” to advocate their case. They also relied on the Arab states to represent their interests. The UN set up 7 commissions to determine the future of Palestine. The most important one was the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine(UNSCOP) which was responsible for recommending a plan for Palestine to the UN. This commission was boycotted by the Arab Higher Committee which is a form of non-violent resistance. The Palestinians also organized a demonstration against the commission when it entered Palestine, which is also a form of non-violent resistance. Belatedly, the Arab diplomats recognized that this strategy was counterproductive and participated in some of the UN discussions, but it was too little too late.
I do know that the 1936 Arab revolt was preceded by a labor strike, which is a non-violent tactic. The revolt itself, which was the largest anti-colonial struggle during the interwar period, did succeed in changing Britain’s policy toward Palestine. The new policy, described in the White Paper of 1939, agreed to repudiate the Balfour declaration, and to restrict Jewish immigration and purchase of land.
I don’t know why you feel qualified to tell the Palestinians what their strategies should be or are so sure non-violent strategies would succeed. Are you involved in supporting Palestinian rights? The Palestinians have tried violent strategies, non-violent strategies, and just about any other strategy for the past century. Many, facing oppression in Israel, or destitution in the camps, spend their entire lives thinking about strategies. Currently, in Gaza, there is a non-violent campaign going on which has been met with an extremely brutal response by Israel. Protesters are being shot in the eye and brain, or being crippled by Israeli snipers.
As for your claim that Palestinians did not try non-violent strategies, what is your evidence?
3. You seem to be writing that Palestinian claims can be disregarded because they did not use non-violent tactics. Therefore, why should it be important that Palestinians use non-violent tactics, but not important that Israel use non-violent tactics?
4. “So what if the British did what they did in the Balfour Declaration and elsewhere.”
It is important to correct injustices.
5. “In the world of REALPOLITIK, so what if “The UN resolution was a non-binding resolution passed by the General Assembly. “
If the UN can’t follow its own rules, or act in an even-handed way it is a discredited organization.
6. “Likewise, if the State Dept. didn’t like the UN resolution, too bad. Pres. Truman made foreign policy and those are the rules of the U.S. Constitution.”
It depends on the reason the State Department opposed partition, or why Truman supported it. I should add that the President is not a king. He is supposed to represent American interests. He is spending taxpayer money, not his own money. If he commits a crime, such as genocide, or does something else that is improper, he should be held accountable.
I do not have the time or energy to respond point by point to the arguments raised by Edward. I am not a huge supporter of Israel, although I believe that it has a right to exist as a state — preferably in peace with its neighbors.
Most of Edward’s ideas are opinions, based on facts, but still opinions. The same fact base can be used to justify a completely different understanding of the past and present. That is perhaps why this debate has gone on for thousands of years and continues to produce no meaningful results on the ground.
I’ll just clarify three of his misunderstandings of what I said:
1. In suggesting that the Palestinians might have been more successful in generating worldwide support for their cause had they advocated and practiced non-violent “passive resistance,” I was NOT saying that I knew best what they should do. that is putting words in my mouth that were not on the page.
I certainly have no power to influence their choices and I was born in 1947 and was in no position to advise them in the early days of the partition/Catastrophe. I was only suggesting that those tactics worked for Gandhi and MLK and that they might have been worth trying before resorting to invasions.
2. The whole argument about Harry Truman was also misunderstood. My words are clear. I was not necessarily agreeing with HST’s decision to recognize Israel; I was merely stating the fact that, as president, HE controlled foreign policy — whether that policy was right or wrong, legal or criminal. BTW, it’s much too late to charge HST with “genocide.” 🙂
3. Finally, if “It is important to correct injustices,” then I assume that Edward, like cdolgon (below) believes in rectifying the seizure of land from the Native Peoples of America, returning the Southwestern states to Mexico, and giving Kuwait back to Iraq — and all the other historical injustices of humanity. Please let us know which injustices you want to redress and which are too difficult to fix due to REALPOLITIK or decades of inaction.
I will just comment on one thing:
“That is perhaps why this debate has gone on for thousands of years and continues to produce no meaningful results on the ground.”
The conflict does not go back thousands of years; it begins with the advent of Zionism, circa 1890. About 6% of Palestinians were Jewish, before the Zionist settlers showed up.
Perhaps if Jews had first used Gandhian… Kind of an absurd suggestion, no? the author of this comment gives a confused, ahistorical and reductive analysis offering ridiculous prescriptions steeped in an oddly confessional, self-hating Marxism wrapped in a final anti-left realpolitik suggesting the notion of returned territory should be beyond the pale of any movement. Yes, we SHOULD be advocating for the US to be returned to native peoples from whom the land was stolen. We do NOT allow illegal and immoral crimes to stand simply because we have for centuries compiled so many atrocities and illegalities on top of them that it would be TOO HARD to return rights and property or pay reparations. Anything but such a starting point of TRUTH and reconciliation will not challenge settler colonialism anywhere.
Et tu, cdolgon? At least you are consistent if you believe that native lands of America should be returned to the Native Peoples. I applaud you for that. they could start by using MASSIVE non-violent demonstrations.
However, most Americans who support the Palestinians, who are on the other side of the world, would NEVER consider returning the U.S. homeland to the indigenous people or Mexico.
BTW, Gandhi is hated by many Jews to this day because he recommended that Jews should practice passive resistance against Hitler’s SA and SS!
Academic and scholars should help bring people to the table. Academia should not be the place for politics. In all ages, teaching is a sacred profession designed to spread knowledge for future generation in neutral matter. The focus is and has been always about learning in a positive manner. Academia should stay like this. Bashar Malkawi
Pingback: News and Analysis (12/9/19) « Minaret of Freedom Weblog