Falk banned for warning of apartheid


March 29, 2017
Sarah Benton

Confirming Prof. Falk’s warning about threats to freedom of speech there is a report about the disruption of his address at LSE following his own article.


Palestinians get into Jerusalem the only way they can. Photo July 2015 by Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org

Anger at my Israel ‘apartheid’ report puts free speech at risk

Israeli leaders have warned for decades that, if a separate Palestinian state wasn’t established, their country would become an apartheid state

By Richard Falk, MEE
March 27, 2017

I arrived in Edinburgh on 13 March to begin a 10-day string of speaking engagements arranged by my publisher, Pluto, to launch my new book, Palestine’s Horizon: Towards a Just Peace.

The Scottish phase of the visit went smoothly enough with well-attended talks and discussions in Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh on the main themes of the book.

Then on 15 March, the calm was shattered.

The UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA) released a report * that I had co-authored with Virginia Tilley, a political scientist at the University of Southern Illinois, that examined the question as to whether sufficient evidence existed to conclude that Israel’s forms of control exercised over the Palestinian people amounted to the international crime of apartheid.

It was an academic study that analysed the relevant issues from the perspective of international law and summarised Israel’s practices and policies that were alleged to be discriminatory.

Before being released, the study had been sent by ESCWA for review to three distinguished international experts on human rights and international law, each of whom submitted highly favourable reports as to the scholarly contribution of the report.

So why the perfect storm? As soon as it was released in Beirut at a press conference where both Professor Tilley and I participated by Skype, the furore commenced.

First came denunciations of the report by the recently designated American ambassador at the UN, Nikki Haley, and by the firebrand Israeli diplomat, Danny Danon.This was quickly followed by a statement released by the newly elected UN secretary-general, Antonio Gutteres, indicating that the “report as it stands does not represent the views of the secretary-general” and was released “without consultations with the UN Secretariat”.

The director of ESCWA, Rima Khalaf, holding the high rank of deputy secretary-general, was instructed to remove our report from the ESCWA website, and chose to resign on principle rather than follow the order.

Scholarly interpretation

There is so much “fake news” surrounding this response to our report that it becomes difficult to sift truth from rumour.

Ambassador Haley, for instance, self-righteously declared, “When someone issues a false and defamatory report in the name of the UN, it is appropriate that the person resign.”

The report was clearly labelled as being the work of independent scholars, and did not necessarily reflect the views of the UN or ESCWA. In other words, it was not a UN report, nor had it been endorsed by the UN.

My experience these past days suggests that academic freedom in Britain has taken a fairly serious hit, and is definitely being tested in relation to the Israel-Palestine agenda.

Beyond this, how could it be “false and defamatory” when its analysis amounted to no more or less than a scholarly interpretation of a legal concept and a presentation of Israeli practices?

Ambassador Danon, along with Haley, called the report “despicable” and “a blatant lie”. He apparently forgot that a series of Israeli leaders had warned since at least 1967 that, if there was no separate Palestinian state established soon, Israel would become an apartheid state.

Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, put the issue this way in a radio address: “Israel… better rid itself of the territories and their Arab population as soon as possible. If it did not Israel would soon become an apartheid state.”

Or consider what Yitzhak Rabin, two-time prime minister of Israel, told a TV journalist back in 1976: “I don’t think it’s possible to contain over the long term, if we don’t want to get to apartheid, a million and a half [more] Arabs inside a Jewish state.” And more definitively from a legal perspective, Michael Ben-Yair, a former Israeli attorney general, concluded “we established a apartheid regime in the occupied territories.”It should be clear from these statements, and there are many others, that an investigation of apartheid in the Israel context is not something outrageous, or even particularly new, although our study does break new ground.


Muhammad Amira is trying to get a good look at his olive trees and grazing lands just beyond the barrier, with the sprawling settlement of Hashmonaim in the background. Nil’in residents have been cut off from about 7.5 acres of their agricultural lands by the wall built there in 2007. Photo by ActiveStills.

It looks at the contention of apartheid as applicable to the Palestinian people as a whole, and not just those living under occupation. This means including refugees, involuntary exiles, the minority in Israel, and residents of Jerusalem within a coherent overall structure of systematic discriminatory domination.

It also examines whether Israeli practices rise to a level of clarity and intentionality to satisfy the notion of apartheid as it is defined by the 1973 Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.

An investigation of apartheid in the Israel context is not something outrageous, or even particularly new, although our study does break new ground

Ambassador Danon also accuses the study of “creating a false analogy”, presumably a reference to the South African apartheid system. The study, rather than claiming an analogy, goes out of its way to argue that the international crime of apartheid has nothing to do with its historical connections with South Africa’s racist regime, and that Israel’s control over the Palestinian people proceeds in a wholly different manner.

What this discussion of the fallout from the report shows is the refusal by Israel and its supporters to engage in reasoned discussion of an admittedly controversial set of conclusions

For instance, South Africa’s leaders claimed to be proud of apartheid as a beneficial system of racial separation while Israel’s leaders seek to affirm Israel as a democratic state that rejects racism.

What this discussion of the fallout from the report shows, above all, is the refusal by Israel and its supporters to engage in reasoned discussion of an admittedly controversial set of conclusions. Instead, it is better to wound the messengers rather than respond to the message.

Part of the pushback at the UN was to brand me as biased and an anti-Semite, drawing on a series of defamatory attacks that I endured while serving as UN Special Rapporteur on Israeli Violations in Occupied Palestine.

This is part of a trend in recent years in which supporters of Israel move to close down critical discussion rather than to respond substantively.

In my view, such tactics are a reflection of how weak Israel’s positions have become on such contested issues as settlements, excessive force, Jerusalem residency, discriminatory laws and regulations, and diversion of water.

Academic fallout

Following these developments at the UN, my early events in London, supposedly featuring my book, were predictably dominated by concern about the report. The first such misfired book launch was held at LSE, and attracted several Zionist extremists, as well as some harsh critics of Israel.

My presentation was allowed to proceed, but when a Q&A period got started, pretty soon all hell broke loose, with members of the audience shouting at one other.

Among the most disruptive of those present were a middle-aged man and woman who stood up, unveiled an Israeli flag, shouting “lies” and “shame”, and holding up large sheets with such insults in large letters.

Finally, after seeking quiet, the security personnel present removed them from the hall and discussion more or less resumed.

It is worth struggling to ensure that British universities will in the future act more responsibly, and make a greater effort to uphold the ideals and realities of academic freedom

However, on the following two days, previously announced lectures at East London University and Middlesex University were both cancelled. The excuses given were in the first case that procedures governing outside speakers “had not been adequately followed” and in the other case, “health and safety concerns” led high university administrators to issue their cancellation orders.

In both instances, the conveners were well-regarded academic friends who tried their best to persuade the authorities in their institutions to go ahead with such planned events.

What is disturbing about my experience is not only the personal loss of opportunities to discuss my views on Palestine and bringing a sustainable peace to both peoples, but also the adverse institutional consequences of silencing discussion of controversial issues of wider public interest.

Few elements of advanced educational experience are more lastingly beneficial than exposure to various viewpoints, reasoned discussion, and learning how to become responsible and engaged citizens.


Palestinians in Hebron demonstrate against Israeli “apartheid,” March 2009. Photo by Mamoun Wazwaz/MaanImages

In this regard academic freedom, along with independent media, is integral to the proper functioning of constitutional democracy.

UK freedom under attack

My experience these past days, suggests that academic freedom in Britain has taken a fairly serious hit, and is definitely being tested in relation to the Israel/Palestine agenda.

It should be obvious that the vitality of democratic society is most at risk when the subject matter touches on matters of fundamental belief and opposing views of justice.

For this reason alone, it is worth struggling to ensure that British universities will in the future act more responsibly, and make a greater effort to uphold the ideals and realities of academic freedom, and not give in to insidious pressures designed to produce dangerous silences.

I would not separate too sharply what happened at the UN from my disappointing loss of these opportunities to address university audiences.

Richard Falk is a scholar of international law and international relations who taught at Princeton University for 40 years. In 2008 he was also appointed by the UN to serve a six-year term as the Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights. Photo on 20 March 2017 by Jehan AlFarra/Middle East Monitor]


 

In Defence of Richard Falk and Freedom of Speech

By Alex Dewaal, World Peace Foundation
March 28, 2017

Last week, Prof. Richard Falk was in London to promote his new book, Palestine’s Horizon: Towards a Just Peace. I attended the event at the London School of Economics. It was of course inevitable that Prof. Falk’s co-authorship (with Virginia Tilley) of the recent report ‘Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid’ would arise. The report, for the UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia used the UN definition of Apartheid as a lens to analyze the situation of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, Jerusalem, Israel and neighbouring countries.

The definition in the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 7(2)(h) defines the crime of Apartheid as ‘inhumane acts … committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.’ But the term Apartheid is of course intrinsically linked to its South Africa origin, and its use inevitably invites political comparisons between the two situations—which can sometimes be more hindrance than help in explaining the situation facing Palestinians. Notably, Richard Goldstone rejected the comparison between the two. Others argue that the comparison is indeed apt.

After denunciation by Israel, parroted by the United States, the UN Secretary General disavowed Falk and Tilley’s report. Rima Khalaf, Executive Secretary of the UNESCWA resigned rather than follow the instruction to remove it from its website. (After her resignation, it was removed). Falk tells the story in an article for The Nation.

Professor Falk began his presentation at the LSE with the observation that it was sad to see supporters of Israel attacking the messenger rather than engaging substantially with the message. That turned out to be an apt beginning. Any hope that the Jewish tradition of rational discourse and the democratic principle of open debate would be upheld by all of those present was dashed. A small coterie of disruptive and offensive self-styled supporters of Israel did their best to destroy any prospect of reasoned discussion, by shouting insults. In particular they accused Prof. Falk of anti-Semitism. They repeated some out-of-context allegations and outright falsehoods. Controversy and a certain amount of heckling is a reasonable element of free speech, and LSE rules are that a disruptive individual should be given three warnings before being ejected. After three warnings from the chair, Prof. Mary Kaldor, the offending individuals were removed. But in the meantime they had used up all the allotted time for discussion.

Shamefully, two other universities in London were cowed by this bullying and cancelled scheduled events by Falk.

The word ‘Apartheid’ is an explosive one that needs to be handled with great care. So too, for different reasons, is the term ‘anti-Semite’. Anti-Semitism is a serious problem. But chanting ‘anti-Semite’ in this situation so no dialogue could be had, as protesters did, was offensive and ridiculous. Perhaps even worse, it devalued the term ‘anti-Semitism’: whenever anyone in that audience hears the word again they will be obliged to ask themselves, is it being used to identify a genuine expression of racist hatred or is it just a cloak for partisan hostility?

It stopped a sensible discussion of Israeli policies including a reasoned critique of Falk’s arguments.

A true friend is one who is ready to express a contrary opinion in an honest manner. On that basis, Professor Falk is a much truer friend of the Jewish people than his abusers. Discussion of the issues that Prof. Falk raises in his quiet, civilized manner is a fundamental test for academic freedom

* See also Row grows over UN ‘apartheid’ report and If it looks like apartheid

Antisemitism?
Presumably in the eyes of those well-known inquisitors, Campaign Against Antisemitism, the Board of Deeputies and David Collier, who want to bring charges of antisemitism against Richard Falk are not deterred by the fact that Prof. Falk is born of two Jewish parents, a sufficient criterion to become an Israeli citizen.

© Copyright JFJFP 2024