“ANTI-SEMITE!” “Racist!” “Despicable values!” “Should be sacked!”

I received these comments and accusations following an article by Christian Kerr in The Australian on May 14. He correctly quoted me saying Liberal MP Christopher Pyne’s support for the London Declaration against anti-Semitism was “populist”.

Kerr may not have expected the subsequent vendetta against me, let alone the demands last Friday by former Speaker of the federal parliament Peter Slipper that, as an anti-Semite on a public payroll, I should be sacked.

My point was that the London Declaration against anti-Semitism is a consensus document. Politicians are applauded and often applaud themselves for signing it and take no risk in doing so. Pyne’s press release was a “pat myself on the back eulogy” and a gratuitous attack on the Palestinian-initiated Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions supporters whose campaign is seldom explained in mainstream media and easily depicted as controversial.

You can support both the London Declaration and the BDS campaign. However, that distinction is easily lost when individuals are demonised and Israel’s constant flouting of international law is deliberately diverted by discussion of other countries’ human rights abuses.

If attitudes to Israel and the BDS campaign are distorted, it can have serious repercussions. For that reason I’ll detail the events that prompted Kerr’s article, the accompanying editorial in The Australian and the subsequent abusive emails.

First, a woman I’d never heard of asked me to comment on Pyne’s support for the London Declaration and his manifestly nonsensical claim that university activists who support BDS undermine the right of Jewish people to live in their Jewish homeland. I naively assumed that a quick response was the end of the matter. It wasn’t. She wrote back saying the Prime Minister had also signed the declaration and asked if I had the same sentiments about her as about Pyne.

Somewhat impulsively I replied “of course”, meaning that signing the London Declaration as a sign of moral virtue was an easy decision. By contrast, Stephen Hawking’s support for the BDS campaign is a much more politically and intellectually demanding decision.

My exchange with this lady finished up on Kerr’s desk and led to a heading next day saying I had lashed out at the Prime Minister. Really?

Kerr’s article was accompanied by an editorial headed “Strange way to promote peace” with the subheading, “Critics of Israel should turn their attention to Iran”. This implied that by criticising Israeli policies I was siding with Iran’s supreme leader, who was quoted as saying “any deal that accepted the Jewish state’s existence would leave a `cancerous tumour forever”‘.

This technique of deflecting attention from the cruel and illegal policies of Israel depends on misinformation. It is implied that if you support BDS you must be anti-Semitic and are therefore no different from Israel’s religious fanatic opponents. Guilty by association. Positions polarised.

Projects run by the Sydney Peace Foundation and the University of Sydney’s Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies include support for the struggle of indigenous West Papuans, advocacy for the vulnerable Tamils in Sri Lanka and criticism of capital punishment in Iran and Saudi Arabia. The centre also provides English classes for refugees on temporary protection visas.

It is false to suggest, as in The Australian’s editorial subheading, that we pay attention only to Israel. I have just returned from Paris, where the Sydney Peace Foundation honoured the widow of the late Stephane Hessel, a Jew, a survivor of the Holocaust, an architect of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, author of the bestseller Time for Outrage, a hero of the French Republic and an enthusiastic supporter of the BDS campaign.

Hessel wrote: “When governments cannot be relied upon to defend humanity it is the role of us, the people, to lead the struggle for justice.”

The BDS campaign is grounded in international law and has nothing to do with anti-Semitism or delegitimising Israel. Israeli professor Ilan Pappe contends that it is a sacred duty to end Israel’s oppressive occupation as soon as we can and that the best means for this is a sustained BDS campaign.

There are other reasons for turning to BDS. Negotiation and diplomacy have produced nothing but the enlargement of settlements, the continued siege of Gaza and the absurd claim that a two-state solution is possible when the two sides are so imbalanced, economically, militarily and politically.

The peace process is a sham. Politicians play a cruel game if they do not recognise this but it requires vision and courage to say so.

As for Slipper’s demand that it was outrageous that I was paid public money to explain and support BDS and that I should therefore be sacked, for the past 13 years I have been a volunteer at the centre and foundation.

I have not been paid any salary, nor claimed any expenses. I have worked in diverse campaigns, often in dangerous places, and have been committed to raising funds for students from the poorest countries.

Such activities are fuelled by the values that The Australian said, albeit delicately, were strangely skewed but that Slipper described as despicable.

This article was first published in The Australian, on 21 May 2013. Stuart Rees is the Chair of the Sydney Peace Foundation, which he founded 15 years ago.

On Thursday 21 March 2013, in partnership with the Australian Arab Women’s Dialogue and the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, the Sydney Peace Foundation staged a panel discussion to discuss the role of women in building and sustaining democratic practice in their countries.

The panel was facilitated by Prof Stuart Rees, with:

• Ms Zeina Daccache, Lebanon. Clinical Psychologist, Drama Therapist, Actress and Filmmaker: empowering the vulnerable.
• Ms Manal Elattir, Morocco. CEO of Social Enterprise for Women’s Economic Empowerment and Founder of the first NGO in Social Entrepreneurship in Morocco: justice through economic development?
• Dr Houriya al-Kazim, United Arab Emirates. Medical Director and Consultant Breast Surgeon, Well Woman Clinic and Founder of “Brest Friends”: access to health care, a key to “peace”.

The Eastern Lecture Theatre at the University of Sydney filled up quickly.

ABC’s Big Ideas TV filmed the program and aired it at 11am on ABC1 and on Sunday 12th at 1pm on ABCNEWS24. It is available to watch online here: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2013/04/24/3743694.htm

These three representatives are part of a nine member delegation which includes key women leaders from Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, Iraq, Libya, and Saudi Arabia.  This is the first dialogue of this kind in Australia.

More on the panelists:

  Ms Zeina Daccache (Lebanon)

Clinical Psychologist, Drama Therapist, Actress and Filmmaker

Ms Zeina Daccache is a clinical psychologist, drama therapist, and established comedian, as well as an award winning actor and filmmaker in Lebanon. Ms Daccache is the founder of CATHARSIS (Lebanese Centre for Drama Therapy) CATHARSIS is the first organization of its kind in the Middle East. Inspired by her volunteer work with distinguished drama therapist Armando Punzo, Ms Daccache developed a Drama Therapy Program in prisons, which supports the rehabilitation and empowerment of incarcerated communities in Lebanon. Ms Daccache is the recipient of many awards given for her distinguished contributions to the field of social initiatives and services. For her outstanding work in the documentary 12 Angry Lebanese was awarded the Muhr Arab Documentary First Prize Award, the People’s Choice Award at the 2009 Dubai International Film Festival, and a United Nations commendation in 2010. The documentary has also been screened at the Arab Film Festival in Australia, and was purchased by SBS.

Ms Manal Elattir ( Morocco)

CEO of Social Enterprise for Women’s Economic Empowerment. Founder of the first NGO in Social Entrepreneurship in Morocco.

Ms Manal Elattir is the founder and managing director of Anarouz Social Enterprise a for-profit social enterprise empowering women and alleviating poverty through entrepreneurship and market access. Before launching the enterprise, Ms Elattir was the director of the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) Alumni Network, a network of activists, politicians, entrepreneurs and civil society actors that collaborated to design and lead development initiatives in Morocco. She is also the founder of IMDAD, the first NGO to tackle social entrepreneurship for youth in the country. Ms Elattir was selected as the UN Alliance of Civilization International Fellow and as a UNESCO Human Rights Chair Fellow. She has also been nominated for the Fortune/US Department of State Global Women Mentoring program and for the Women Leaders for the World program at the Global Women Leadership Network. In addition to these honours, Ms Elattir has earned the Architects of the Future Award for her social enterprise initiative.

Dr Houriya al-Kazim (United Arab Emirates)

Medical Director and Consultant Breast Surgeon, Well Woman Clinic.Founder of Brest Friends

Dr Houriya Kazim is a United Arab Emirates’ national who is the country’s first female surgeon.  Dr Kazim attended medical school at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland graduating in 1988. While working as a junior doctor at a government hospital in Dubai that she saw the urgent need for a female surgeon. She subsequently returned to the United Kingdom and went on to obtain her fellowship in General Surgery before sub-specializing in Surgical Oncology and, in particular, Breast Surgery and reconstruction at the Royal Marsden Hospital in London.  She worked as a volunteer surgeon in the Caribbean before coming home to Dubai in 1998 to take up a post as a Breast Surgeon at a private hospital. In 2006, she set up the Well Woman Clinic a multidisciplinary clinic which is staffed by women, for all women’s health needs.

Em. Prof Stuart Rees, Chair of the Sydney Peace Foundation, was interviewed for yesterday’ ABC 7.30 Report, in regards to a controversy surrounding the Institute for Democracy and Human Rights at the University of Sydney pulling the plug on an event to be held with the Dalai Lama in June.

There appears to be a tension between economic interests and freedom of speech. It is a slippery slope. If an Institute for Democracy does not make a stand for democracy, who will?

The segment and transcript are available here: University Shuts Down Dalai Lama Visit

Other media coverage:

Chinese Whispers the Dalai Lama and Sydney University

Intellectual Freedom Under Threat at Sydney

Sydney University Buckles to Chinese Pressure

Australia University Accused of Bowing to China by Barring Dalai Lama

Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune

Sydney University Condemned for Banning Dalai Lama

The University of Sydney Calls Off Dalai Lama Speech

Dalai Lama to Speak at the University of Sydney

Dalai Lama to Speak at University After All

Fight for Academic Freedom Continues

Uni Gets a Lesson on Vested Interests

A video of a rally at the University of Sydney on 24 April:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Foreign Minister Bob Carr will head to London shortly for the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, amid growing calls for the cancellation of this year’s Heads of Government Meeting in the Sri Lankan capital.

It comes as the United Nations is finally preparing for more decisive intervention following the country’s civil war, in which government forces are accused of killing tens of thousands of Tamil civilians.

Australian diplomacy risks sending the wrong signals. Carr visited Colombo in December and pronounced it safe for the return of Tamil asylum seekers – flatly contradicting every independent assessment. The UN Human Rights Council recently voted to send its own investigators after hearing ‘serious allegations of violations of international human rights law’, along with ‘continuing reports of violations… including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture and violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, as well as intimidation of and reprisals against human rights defenders, members of civil society and journalists, threats to judicial independence and the rule of law, and discrimination on the basis of religion or belief’.

Sri Lanka was supposed to be tackling such issues through its self-proclaimed ‘Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission’, but this was a cynical exercise to buy time until international attention moved on.

The final offensive against the Tamil Tigers was planned as a ‘war without witnesses’, but investigative journalism led by the UK’s Channel Four, in collaboration with brave Sri Lankan reporters both in country and in exile, has kept the issue in the public eye.

The Commonwealth summit would be hosted by president Mahinda Rajapaksa, who has been removing political and judicial constraints on his ability to wield despotic power. Two of his brothers also hold cabinet posts. The constitutional limit restricting presidents to two terms in office was removed, and the High Court chief justice was dismissed, after she stood up to him.

The last Heads of Government Meeting, in Perth, strengthened the Ministerial Action Group’s mandate. Empowered to intervene when the Commonwealth’s ‘values and principles’ are threatened, its grounds for engagement now include ‘the systematic denial of political space, such as through detention of political leaders or restrictions on freedom of association, assembly or expression’, particularly in conditions such as ‘systematic violation of human rights of the population, or of any communities or groups, by the member government concerned’ and ‘significant restrictions on the media or civil society’.

Human rights monitors and the UN’s own expert panel, which reported two years ago, show this is an accurate description of Sri Lanka today. Canada has already said it will not attend CHOGM if it is held there, and cites recent developments to support its argument.

So why has Canberra never backed demands for an independent international investigation of the alleged killing of civilians? Why has it not added its voice to calls for CHOGM to be moved? The answer may lie not in Sri Lanka at all but in one of the grimmest places in Australia: the MITA Detention Centre in Melbourne.

There, a group of 30 asylum seekers, most Sri Lankan Tamils, are on hunger strike because, they say in a statement by the Tamil Refugee Council:

We left Sri Lanka because we fear to die. We came to Australia to live, not die. But death would be better than the life we have.

Their refugee claims have been granted, but they cannot leave detention – after three or four years in most cases – because of adverse security assessments by ASIO. The implication is that they are associated with the Tamil Tigers.

Not only is it fanciful to suppose that – even if they were – they would pose any threat to Australians, it is also difficult to imagine how such assessments could be made without collaboration with the Sri Lankan authorities: a source that is inevitably biased, because party to an unresolved conflict, and tainted by credible allegations of torture and abuse.

Is Australian diplomacy being distorted to avoid upsetting Colombo, for fear of an increase in the passage of boats carrying desperate people to our shores?

ASIO assessments cannot be challenged in court, which makes them a convenient tool for a government wishing to send signals to other would-be asylum seekers, without appearing to fall foul of international obligations. It’s a case cited by the NSW Council for Civil Liberties in its campaign to phase out ‘emergency’ powers granted to the security agency following the 9/11 attacks.

Tamils fleeing Sri Lanka will have genuine asylum claims for as long as the country’s government attempts to suppress their political aspirations rather than engaging with them. Diplomacy should send a clear signal that Colombo is on the wrong track. Withholding its showpiece summit is among the only meaningful gestures the Commonwealth can make. The Ministerial Action Group, if it is not to belie its name, must now recommend that step.

First published on The Drum 15 April 2013

Associate Professor Jake Lynch, PhD is director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney. View his full profile here.

Stéphane Hessel

On 2 May, at the Australian Embassy in Paris, the Sydney Peace Foundation will award a posthumous Gold Medal for Human Rights to Stéphane Hessel for his life-long contribution to building a more peaceful and just society.

Stéphane Hessel, a German born Jew whose family fled to France, became a fighter in the French Resistance where he was captured, tortured and escaped execution by the Nazis. On returning to Paris, Hessel became a diplomat and was a one of twelve members of the committee who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As the French Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Hessel promoted non-violent responses to conflict and made many stands against human rights abuses. In 2009 he published the Book “Time For Outrage” which sold 4.5 million copies in 35 countries and is credited with being the catalyst for Occupy Movements around the world.

Stéphane Hessel was originally selected by the Sydney Peace Prize Jury to be the 16^th recipient of the Prize. Sadly, on 6 March 2013, at 95-years old, Hessel passed away quietly in his sleep.

Following an address by Chair Stuart Rees, and a reception hosted by Australian Ambassador to France Ric Wells, the Gold Medal will be presented to Hessel’s widowed wife Madame Christane Hessel-Chabry.

The man who was to be awarded this year’s Sydney Peace Prize died last week. Stephane Hessel inspired the Occupy movement and lived an exceptional life. Stuart Rees on what Hessel might have told Australians

On the day that Shadow Minister Scott Morrison was falsely portraying asylum seekers as criminals and advocating imposed “behaviour protocols”, an inspirational Frenchman lay dying.

In the early hours of Wednesday 27 February, the life of 95-year old Stephane Hessel ended.  Tributes poured in from around the world. Parisians gathered in the Bastille to honour him. Francois Hollande, President of France said, “Hessel was a huge figure. His was an exceptional life devoted to the defence of human dignity”.

France mourns. In Australia we have reason to be both saddened and disappointed.

Stephane was to have been the recipient of this year’s Sydney Peace Prize. On learning of his choice he said, he was “deeply honoured to join the company of previous Peace Prize recipients”, such as Professor Muhammad Yunus, Archbishop Tutu, Mary Robinson, Hanan Ashrawi and Patrick Dodson.

Hessel’s 2009 book Time For Outrage has sold 4.5 million copies in 35 countries. In that work he challenged youth to resist “the international dictatorship of financial markets,” which he saw as a threat to peace and democracy. He motivated and supported the worldwide Occupy movement and attacked government policies which imposed hardship on the vulnerable majority as solutions to the financial excesses of the elite few.

Stephane Hessel was born in 1917, in Berlin, to a Jewish family who moved to France when he was eight. He became a French citizen in the late 1930’s and in the early years of the war he fled to London and joined the free French forces under General De Gaulle. On return to France he was captured by the Nazis, imprisoned in Buchenwald and sentenced to death. He escaped, met up with relief forces of American troops and at the end of the war entered France’s diplomatic service.

At the end of 1947 he became the youngest member of a committee empowered to craft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document which Hessel said reflected the aspirations of members of the French Resistance.

If Stephane Hessel had come to Australia what would he have told us ?

In the run up to the federal election, he would have insisted that the essence of being human is the capacity to pursue a common good and to be outraged by the gap between rich and poor.

He would have championed that key function of a welfare state to give opportunity to every citizen. He wrote that the Resistance called for “A comprehensive social security plan to guarantee all citizens a means of livelihood in every case where they are unable to get it by working”. He would have been dismayed by cuts of payments to single mothers because of politicians’ preoccupation with balancing budgets.

Hessel was highly critical of France’s treatment of illegal migrants. He deplored the racism, violence and deportations experienced by these vulnerable people. In Australia he would have been deeply offended by the macho swaggering and fear-mongering attitudes towards asylum seekers and refugees.

Hessel was also passionate about all citizens’ responsibility to protect a fragile and precious environment. He was incredulous about the destruction caused by economic policies which were preoccupied with productivity whatever the cost.

He knew the importance of having a media which could report uninfluenced by fear or favour.

In the French Resistance, Hessel and his colleagues had demanded “the freedom and honour of the press and its independence from the state and the forces of money and foreign influence”. In Australia he would have been disappointed by the derision which often passes for journalism and he would have been appalled by the bullying techniques of shock jocks.

Hessel reserved his strongest outrage for Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

As a Jew, a Holocaust survivor and as an observer of life on the West Bank and in Gaza, he was mindful of the traditions of Judaism regarding tolerance and the joys to be found in celebrating difference.

He and his wife were dismayed by the brutality towards Palestinians but they were also impressed by people’s response to adversity. In writing about the 2009 Operation Cast Lead and the destruction of Gaza’s Red Cross Hospital, he noted the behaviour of the Gazans — “their patriotism, their constant preoccupation with the wellbeing of their countless laughing children — that haunts our memories”.

In all his campaigns for justice, Hessel displayed many of the qualities of Mahatma Gandhi: to be inclusive, to encourage diversity, to advocate tolerance and to make non-violence a key strategy to achieve such goals. He wrote, “I am convinced that the future belongs to non-violence, to the reconciliation of different cultures. It is along this path that humanity will clear its next hurdle”.

Hessel was a significant humanitarian, a cosmopolitan citizen and a great lover — of his family, of philosophy, of human rights, humour, laughter and justice.  He lived for almost a century but he remained deeply concerned about the future, for the vulnerable and powerless, for the planet and for courage and principles in politics.

In my last conversation with him he said, “Before I come to Sydney, you must come to Paris and we’ll drink some fine French wine”. “And sing the Marseillaise?” I asked. “Of course.” He paused, then chuckled, “What song do you sing down there, it’s not still God Save the Queen is it?”

On the day before his death his publisher recalls that Stephane said, “We are all looking forward to coming to Australia, to receive the Peace Prize.”

It could have been the last journey for the last tribute and he would have galvanised the public.

First published on New Matilda 6 March 2013

Stuart Rees is the Chair of the Sydney Peace Foundation

Publicity surrounding the mystery of Australian Ben Zygier – Prisoner X – and the death on Sunday of the allegedly tortured prisoner Arafat Jaradat has provoked Palestinians to protest the treatment of thousands of other prisoners in Israeli jails, including men on a hunger strike who are near to death.

Although the treatment of prisoners by Israel denies them their civil rights and breaches international humanitarian law, the essence of Israel’s behaviour is best described as the use of cruelty as policy.

Cruelty means ‘disposed to inflict suffering’, or ‘taking pleasure in inflicting pain’. A culture of revenge drives the operation of Israeli military law, I believe. Palestinians detained under administrative detention are not charged, do not know what they are supposed to argue against, or when they will be released.

A recent editorial in Haaretz said, “Even if the arrests (of those in administrative detention) are legal according to military decree, they are draconian and reek of cruelty and abuse.”

About 180 Palestinian children are in custody, most for the offence of throwing stones at military vehicles, with less than half of them sentenced, and most of them detained until the end of legal proceedings.

Last year’s investigation by Harriet Sherwood of The Guardian showed that arrested Palestinian children were locked in solitary confinement for days or even weeks, released only when they appeared in an interrogation room, where they were shackled by hands and feet to a chair while being questioned.

The non-government organisation Defence For Children International – Palestine Section (DCI-Palestine) identified practices of blindfolding, physical abuse and threats, and confirmed that imprisoned Palestinian children were rarely questioned in front of a parent and rarely saw a lawyer.

Although The Guardian had seen audio visual recordings of such interrogations, the Israeli military maintained that it “acted in accordance with the law and the unequivocal guidelines which forbid such practices”.

Israeli human rights campaigners insist that effective pressure to end cruel practices and to advance Palestinians’ rights to self-determination cannot come from within Israel.

Only outside influence – such as that effected by the worldwide Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign – will chip away at the Israeli government’s indifference to the rules of international law, let alone to UN resolutions.

At first sight, the international community’s response to the abuse of Palestinian prisoners and to the near death plight of the hunger strikers seems encouraging. European Union policy chief Catherine Ashton and Quartet on the Middle East envoy Tony Blair have called on Israel to respect the human rights of Palestinian prisoners.

But given Israel’s indifference to outsiders’ appeals, Aston’s and Blair’s words will hurt like a slap with a feather.

Israel’s military acts with impunity. Israel’s leaders remain unaccountable and in the name of security, take any action they wish.

Besides, Israel’s critics will be told, ‘Iran is the threat’, ‘Look at Syria’, ‘Australia, put your own house in order’, ‘We are defending our very existence’, ‘You are talking about Palestinians, so who cares?’

Is it possible that other evidence of cruelty could prompt even hardline Zionists to reflect and find sufficient humility to think about the notion of a common humanity?

They might consider the issue of pregnant Palestinian women forced to give birth at Israeli checkpoints because they have been barred from travelling. The UN has reported that between 2000 and 2007, of the 67 Palestinian mothers who gave birth at Israeli checkpoints, 36 of the babies and five of the mothers died.

In 2009, Israeli soldiers commissioned t-shirts depicting a pregnant Palestinian with a target over her belly and the caption, One shot, two kills.

Those examples may be ignored because they occurred years ago. Yet today, even the seriously ill are prevented from obtaining the necessary medical attention.

Gaza resident Sabreen Okal, a 27-year-old mother of five has a malignant tumour on her arm and needs radiation treatment in a Jerusalem hospital. Israeli authorities refused her entry on December 20 and again on January 21. They say they are still looking into her file.

Prima facie, the examples of the treatment of prisoners, children, women in labour and the seriously ill confirm the notion of cruelty as policy.

My contentions may be discussed by individuals who have had a privileged upbringing, an encouraging education, perhaps fulfilling employment and who return each evening to comfortable homes. It is also likely that they have never been to Gaza, seldom to the West Bank, and have never seen life in the refugee camps of Lebanon, have never witnessed Israeli justice or visited Israeli prisons.

Such citizens could at least ponder whether a proportion of the attention given to Prisoner X should be diverted to insist on the human rights of all Palestinian prisoners. Instead of modest pleas of the Ashton/Blair variety, a few politicians could say they are outraged by cruelty and will immediately insist that unless prisoners in administrative detention are convicted of terrorist offences, they should be released immediately.

In the run-up to an election in Australia, there’s a huge opportunity for policy change. Who wants to outlaw cruelty? Who really cares about the human rights of Palestinians?

Stuart Rees is Professor Emeritus of the University of Sydney and Chair of the Sydney Peace Foundation. View his full profile here.

This article was first published by ABC The Drum ONLINE on 27 February 2013: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4541018.html

Published in The Conversation on 15th January 2012.

The last weeks of 2012 saw a great amount of criticism levelled at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at Sydney University and its director Jake Lynch following their boycott of an exchange program with Hebrew University.

Critical coverage in The Australian newspaper has been particularly intense. Christian Kerr broke the story, and wrote follow-ups here, here, here and here along with Milanda Rout, John Lyons, and editorials here and here

Lynch has said this decision was made as part of a larger academic boycott of institutional ties with Israeli universities, called The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).

PACBI justifies this boycott by saying, “these institutions are complicit in the system of oppression that has denied Palestinians their basic rights guaranteed by international law”.

Legal truths

On the often emotive issue of Israel-Palestine, it is important to be clear on established facts. Critics of the academic boycott campaign seldom point out the legal fact of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory.

The world’s highest authority on international law, the International Court of Justice, ruled in July 2004 that Israel is occupying Palestinian territory in violation of international law and international human rights treaties.

These violations include articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention; the Fourth Hague Convention 1907; UN Security Council Resolutions 446, 452 & 465; and articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Israel is a member of the International Court of Justice and has fully ratified all of these international standards, with the sole exception of the Fourth Hague Convention. This means Israel has committed to fully respect these international laws and treaties.

The Israeli government denies these violations of international law. Journalists should not take this denial as reason to avoid reporting the legal issues of occupation under the misguided idea that the facts appear “muddy” and they fear producing “unbalanced” journalism.

Unfortunately, as with most legal proceedings, one can’t simply take the accused, in this case Israel’s, word for it as to whether they have broken the law or not. The issue must be taken to the relevant legal authorities, which in this case is the the world’s authority on international law, the International Court of Justice.

As in domestic legal proceedings, a party who has been found to have violated the law may continue to publicly maintain their “innocence” no matter what the legal facts are, as the state of Israel continues to do. This refusal to accept the court’s ruling should not be read as overturning the actual legal validity of the ruling. Israel remains legally obliged to fulfil its promises regarding international law and human rights treaties.

Supporting peace does not equal anti-Semitism

The strange accusation that the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies and the academic boycott it supports are anti-Israel or anti-Semitic also needs to be corrected. Neither the centre nor the academic boycott call for the shunning of an individual or group based on their Israeli, Jewish (or any other) identity. The PACBI guidelines are very clear on this: “Mere institutional affiliation to the Israeli academy is … not a sufficient condition for applying the boycott”.

Indeed, the centre regularly hosts Israeli and Jewish academics and speakers. These include Dr Jeff Halper, Professor Ilan Pappe, Dr Uri Davis, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Professor Noam Chomsky, journalist Antony Loewenstein, the Sydney-based Palestinian – Jewish Dialogue Group, author Anna Baltzer and activist Angela Budai. The centre also recently hosted a seminar supported by Independent Australian Jewish Voices.

Ignoring these individuals’ many initiatives promoting peace in the Middle East is a dangerous mistake. In conflicts such as Israel-Palestine, governments don’t always have all the answers. Given the lack of success of official diplomacy in the region we should be encouraging, not dismissing, these additional non-official peace efforts. The centre was set up with stated goals of promoting a culture of peace and reducing violence in all its forms.

The fact that pro-peace Israeli and Jewish voices often criticise Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine is not surprising given that the International Court of Justice has ruled Israel’s occupation of Palestinian is illegal under international law and human rights treaties. When it comes to established violations of international law, human rights and the violence which often accompanies these, a peace centre can hardly be expected to be “neutral” or disinterested.

Confusing opposition to the Israeli government’s violation of international law with being “anti-Israel” or “anti-Semitic” is as misguided as labelling any critics of Australian government policies “anti-Australian”. In international conflicts such as Israel-Palestine governments can’t simply be relied on to provide all the answers: free speech and open criticism of government are key.

A fair play

Sydney University’s special exchange program with Hebrew University, which Hebrew University academic Prof Dan Avnon hoped to take advantage of, was a legitimate focus for the boycott according to PACBI guidelines.

I note that Hebrew University is yet to publish an official statement condemning the state of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory. What’s more, according to the Israeli-Palestinian Alternative Information Centre, numerous special programs at Hebrew University actively support the Israeli military and its personnel, which the International Court of Justice makes clear are an active party in the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory.

The established fact of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian territory is a key reason given for the academic boycott of complicit Israeli academic institutions.

For journalists to ignore this shows a distressing ignorance, or fearful avoidance, of issues which are of obvious importance to Australians and audiences worldwide.

So I call on journalists and commentators: if you are concerned with serious reporting of the academic boycott and the wider Israel-Palestine conflict, show it by tackling the issues and facts, rather than tackling the man.

Paul Duffill is Researcher and Part-Time lecturer at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies; and Coordinator of the Global Social Justice Network at University of Sydney.

This article was first published in The Conversation on 15th January 2012.