LSE Boycotts Eden Springs

Press Release

Eden Springs, a major water supply company will not have its contract renewed by the London School of Economics. This development comes off the back of a lengthy, high profile and controversial campaign launched by the LSE Students' Union Palestine Society, which has drawn attention to Eden Springs' odious business dealings in the Illegally Occupied Golan Heights. The LSE joins a number of UK Universities, including Edinburgh and Strathyclyde, whom have successfully cut all ties with Eden Springs.

The student campaign has been supported by academics, with over 19 LSE Academics, signing a joint letter which calls upon the School to terminate its links with Eden Springs “forthwith”.

Zachariah Sammour, President of the LSE SU Palestine Society, said 

“I'm delighted with the incredible pace of progress on this campaign and the widespread support it’s received from the students and academics of the LSE. I believe the success of this campaign demonstrates the deep commitment of LSE staff and students to ethical investment and global justice.

All academic departments formerly using Eden Springs as their water supplier have agreed not to renew their contracts, confirmation of which was received this past Friday.  The development is being hailed as a landmark victory for the wider Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israeli companies, a campaign aimed at undermining the structural mechanisms that make the illegal Israeli Occupation possible.

Ashok Kumar, Education Officer of the LSE Students Union, speaking in his personal capacity said,

 “This is a monumental victory for human rights because it understands, as with South Africa, the direct linkages between profiteering companies and a State that violates international law. Indeed, this is the first step in a long journey for the LSE.”

Students at the LSE will continue to pursue a Campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israeli companies who continue to feed the machinery of Occupation.  

Pioneering Justice For Palestine

By Ruhell Amin
Warwick Palestine Society

Jews for Justice for Palestinians (JfJfP) is a network of Jews who are British or live in Britain. They oppose Israeli policies that undermine the livelihoods, human, civil and political rights of the Palestinian people, and are organised to ensure that Jewish opinions critical of Israeli policy are heard in Britain. The existence, founding and beliefs of such a group, epitomises how isolated Israel is becoming; not only in the international community, but also amongst Jewish people themselves. Since 1967, the Jewish State has been accused of engaging in some form of “neo-colonialism” by Jewish Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, Avi Shlaim. Shlaim is a prominent critic of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians post-1967, and it is not hard to see why. 

The massacre of over 1500 Palestinians in the Gaza invasion in December 2008 signified a major turning point for many regarding the conflict. Some argue it was a tactically timed attack by Israel; just prior to Barack Obama’s inauguration as US President, of whom no doubt would (and has) have been more hostile towards Israeli policy in the region, in comparison to the previous Bush administration. Even the most sanguine of commentators were relegated to criticism of Israel: the bombing of UN schools; the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians (both women and children); the use of white phosphorous shells (an illegal weapon under international law); and the calculated obliteration of Gazan infrastructure (schools, hospitals, government buildings, educational institutions) goes far in suggesting that there was a wider, more menacing agenda behind the “official” Operation Cast Lead. Indeed, the Israeli government defiantly argued that the operation was necessary in order to stamp out sporadic, resistant rocket attacks alleged to have come from the democratically elected government of Gaza, Hamas. Yet what many fail to recognise is that this brutal attack was, by and large unprovoked; it was Israel who broke the mutually agreed ceasefire in November 2008, not Hamas. This fuels further suspicion behind the motives of Operation Cast Lead. 

The United Nations' Goldstone Report – the most credible report post the invasion - conducted by Richard Goldstone, a South African born Jewish judge, concluded that the Israeli Defense Force was guilty of committing war crimes and possible crimes against humanity. He responded to Israeli criticism of the report in May 2010 by saying that: "As Israel refused to co-operate, we had to do the best we could with the information we were able to gather. I only wish that the energy that the government of Israel and its supporters had put into discrediting the report had been invested in cooperating with our mission”. 

Since the invasion of Gaza, a military blockade remains imposed on the strip, where crucial building supplies, medical aid and most foodstuffs are severely restricted from being allowed in. Human rights groups among others have voiced considerable concern over the deteriorating situation, none more so than US Vice-President Hilary Clinton, who described the situation in Gaza in June 2010 as “unsustainable and unacceptable”. The freedom of movement under Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the right to education under Article 26, are just some of the many human rights being violated in the strip. 

As pioneers of justice, equality and freedom, it is imperative upon us in the West to make a stand for Palestinians’ human rights, as it is these very rights which are rooted in the fabric of our society. The illegal occupation, as dictated by international law in the West Bank, along with the expansionist settler movement colonising Palestinian land, must end. The blockade imposed on Gaza violating basic human rights, must end. The silence and double standards of the West towards the abhorrent actions of Israel, must end. Palestinians must be afforded the integrity and dignity that all human beings deserve. The menacing nature of Israel’s policies are beginning to seep through amidst the suffocating swamp of pro-Zionist propaganda. 

Let us just hope that policy-makers and pioneers of justice wake from their slumber and act soon, ensuring that justice is well and truly brought to the Palestinians.

“If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything” – Malcolm X

The LSE's Sheikh Zayed's Theatre: About Time We Changed The Name?

By Lukas Slothuus

Sheikh Zayed Theatre in The New Academic Building

Children's brains splattered around the pavements of Bahrain have become a worryingly ordinary sight during the last month. But amidst the massacring of pro-democracy protesters, we must ask ourselves: Who are behind this crackdown? Why does it matter for LSE?

Sheikh Zayed 

Behind the crackdown are primarily Bahraini troops but also the Peninsula Shield Force, a joint military cooperation force between the Gulf States. This includes the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that have deployed police officers and soldiers to gun down civilian protesters. The army of the UAE was established by the late Sheikh Zayed, and if that doesn't ring a bell them here we go: Sheikh Zayed was dictator of the UAE until his death in 2004. Apart from sponsoring holocaust-denying conferences and permitting the gross exploitation of workers (particularly from India and Pakistan) who are used as slave-like labour, he also illegalised homosexuality. But the central problem rests with his links to LSE: Accepting a £2.5m donation and LSE thanking for it by naming the most pompous and modern lecture theatre at LSE after him, the Sheikh Zayed Theatre. The links between LSE and the UAE dictatorship are repulsive.

I would like to hear someone tell our Bahraini and Emirati students on campus that Sheikh Zayed was a good guy, and that the reign he left was one of human rights promotion, democracy and equality when his family regime is currently mass-slaughtering innocents in the streets of the capital Manama and beyond. The hypocrisy is immense, and it is no wonder that Harvard University turned down a donation from the very same ruling family and closed their Sheikh Zayed Centre.

It saddens me to enter the New Academic Building on early mornings and see the Sheikh Zayed Theatre in all its glow and glitter when I can read on Al Jazeera that dozens of pro-democracy protesters in Bahrain are gunned down and thousands of others are wounded. Little does it matter that we have a Centre for the Study of Human Rights when we are perpetuating the power structure in the Gulf and Libya by humanising their dictators.

The New Academic Building

There has never been a financial case for taking the donation from Sheikh Zayed. The New Academic Building was fully financed before the donation was offered. If the LSE had any sense of humanity left it would rename the theatre. If not, what can we expect next? The Kim Jong-Il Centre for Free Speech? The Hosni Mubarak Theatre? The Berlusconi Gender Studies Institute? While it is commendable that LSE attracts large donations, there seems to be no limits to the shallowness of LSE's ethical etiquette. If Harvard can shut down their Zayed Centre, we can rename our lecture theatre.

LSE Not £$€: Ethical Financial Investment

By Mira Hammad

A piece on ethical financial management in light of the LSE-Gaddafi debacle.

“Vanity Fair” is not a novel about the disintegration of morality. As Thackeray’s characters enmesh each other in swirls of betrayal and duplicity, questions of morality are still important to them. The nightmarish absence of ethical constraint which wreaks havoc throughout the novel results from the subversion of those questions into questions of reputation rather than substance. In other words, morality still exists as a semantic concept but its outward focus on appearance transforms its essence into hypocrisy with a halo.

The popularity of Thackeray’s satirical portrayal of the underbelly of human nature is not simply due to its capacity to shock and entertain. Its real attraction lies in the reader’s uncomfortable recognition of this inclination towards two-facedness in themselves. Despite this, there is no society, ideology or belief system that endorses hypocrisy. I am not here suggesting that no ideology creates hypocrisy or that no society is based on it; rather the striking fact is that nobody admits to it. Its formal rejection seems to be a moral constant. Our revulsion of hypocrisy seems to be just as inherent a part of us as the selfishness that creates it.

This moral value therefore has as much of a potential to unite people as does its antithesis to divide. We can see this in the microcosmic world of our university. The diversity of views about what the LSE is and what it should stand for as an institution is as wide as its membership. All of us, however, agree that whatever direction the LSE takes, its nature should not be hypocritical.

It is from the perspective of this common value that we should consider the LSE-Gaddafi debacle. Indeed, in our reaction to the media furore we have already been very quick to see hypocrisy and to criticise it. But our perception in this regard has been limited to acknowledging the duplicity of members of a government that itself built links with the Gaddafi regime criticising the LSE for doing so and that of the media which did not care about the donations when they happened criticising us for taking them.

Saif al Gaddafi

Our consideration of the part that the LSE played in the affair seems to miss this morality-based analysis. From Howard Davies’ resignation statement, to the EGM motion subsequently passed, to student discussion in The Beaver, the main concern with the Gaddafi-LSE links seems to be portrayed as a reputational one necessitated by unwelcome media attention. The real question, however, surely revolves around whether the LSE should be trading on a reputation that it does not deserve.

Perhaps the reason we have failed to appreciate this is because we have bought into the paradigm presented by the media that focuses narrowly on the Gaddafi-LSE links simply because it is newsworthy to do so. In order to really learn lessons from what has happened, we need to refocus our lens and realise that the issue is much wider. It is not just the issue of promoting democracy and academic freedom while building links with ruthless dictators, it encompasses the hypocrisy of hosting lectures about human rights in The Sheikh Zayed Theatre. It is an issue of holding investments in arms companies while establishing human rights centres.

In short, the real issue here is a truly moral one, not simply a reputational one and it revolves around the hypocritical way in which the LSE manages its financial transactions. The LSE outwardly trumpets its adherence to a Socially Responsible Investment Policy (SRIP), as a sign that the principles it promotes govern its financial transactions. This is strikingly disingenuous because the SRIP is in actuality so vague that it is rendered meaningless. The only real constraints that the SRIP imposes are those found in the 6 UN Principles, established in 2006. That the SRIP has been motivated by reputational, not ethical concerns becomes evident when we consider the fact that these principles have been so widely recognised as being unacceptably vague by the academic community and NGOs that the UN has itself been moved to introduce new principles, the Ruggie Principles. General requests that companies take into account environmental, social and corporate governance issues in their financial management is about as far as the original 6 principles get and, according to recent events, the LSE appears to have taken full advantage of the flexibility of this. Even though the LSE could not have foreseen the Gaddafi scandal emerging, signing itself up to such a lax SRIP was an inherently hypocritical act and its hypocrisy is not diminished or increased by whether or not it receives media attention.

But, returning to the point of analysis with which we started, we find that looking for hypocrisy with a self-critical eye necessitates widening our focus even further. Looking candidly at the issue of financial management confronts us with the uncomfortable truth that responsibility for the direction of our university lies not only with Howard Davies, the Senior Management of the school or the school’s governing bodies. Rather it also lies with the students themselves. Before criticising the LSE’s SRIP we need to recognise that our own Student’s Union, despite paying lip service to environmental and ethical causes does not have any form of ethical restriction on its financial transactions. The first port of call, then, in any attempt to resolve these issues, is to amend the LSESU’s own approach to financial management.

It is clear that there is an increasing appetite not only in the student body, but in the School as a whole, to reassess our approach to ethical financial management. The recent success of the campaign to remove Eden Springs from our campus serves as a powerful indicator of this and the support already shown for the motion calling for ethical financial management, which is being presented at the UGM this Thursday, is also heartening. We now need to take successful ethical financial policies as our example and realise, like the characters in Vanity Fair, that hypocrisy does not necessarily lead to victory.

Edinburgh University Students Vote Overwhelmingly For Boycott of Israeli Goods

By Liam O'Hare

Edinburgh University Palestine Society

A motion to boycott Israel was overwhelmingly passed at the Edinburgh University Students Association (EUSA) General Meeting on Monday 15th March. In what was described as a 'landslide', the motion, 'Boycott Israeli Goods in EUSA shops and supply chains' received around 270 votes in favour, with only 20 students voting against. 

Despite the meeting requiring over 300 students to attend for it to be quorate and for decisions taken to be binding, the huge level of student support for the motion means that EUSA will be under severe student pressure to adopt it as official policy.

Proposed by students from Edinburgh University Students for Justice in Palestine, the motion noted that Israel is an apartheid sate and resolved to affiliate EUSA to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, to boycott Israeli goods in EUSA supply chains and shops, and to mandate the EUSA executive to lobby the University to do the same.

After the motion was discussed for around 15 minutes, it was put to a vote and the result was so comprehensive that no count was required. The passing of the motion led to rapturous applause in the George Square Lecture Theatre, where the General Meeting was held, and was by far the most welcomed result of the night.

Similar motions have been passed at SOAS, Manchester, and Sussex Universities in recent years. This latest result seems a clear indication that students in the UK are continuing to play a prominent role in the campaign for a just peace in Palestine.


The motion came in the wake of recent protests against Israeli officials speaking at the University. In February, student activists shut down a talk by Ishmael Khaldi, advisor to Israeli foreign minister Avidgor Lieberman, and, two weeks ago, over 100 students protested against the invitation of Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor to the University.


The proposer of the motion, second year Maths and Music student Daniel Beesley said “I am overwhelmed with the outcome of the General Meeting. It is great to see students of Edinburgh University once again standing up against injustice, just as they did during Apartheid South Africa. EUSA represents that views of students and we are sure they they will take on board what was clearly the opinion of the vast majority who attended the GM, and endorse the boycott.”

The motion's seconder, Liam O'Hare, a student of International Relations, said: “Israel has occupied, ethnically cleansed and practised apartheid against the Palestinians for 63 years. The BDS movement seeks to force Israel to abide by international law and is gathering huge momentum year on year. I think the General Meeting proved that the student population at Edinburgh University do not want goods from an Apartheid state on campus and, despite the meeting narrowly not being quorate, I fully expect EUSA to act upon this motion.”

"Operation S" - LSE Palestine Society Occupy for Israeli Apartheid Week

By Nadia Marques de Carvalho
A Personal Reflection on the LSE Palestine Society Settlement Occupation

"The Palestinians have been ready to make peace with us; it is we who are unwilling to make peace with them .. as an occupation force it is we who trample over human dignity, it is we who crush the liberty of Palestinians and it is we who push an entire nation to crazy acts of despair. Finally, I call on my brothers and sisters in the settlements – see what we have come to." 

Yitzhak Frankenthal 

For 24 hours we occupied. We occupied the main road on the campus of the London School of Economics and Political Science: Houghton Street. We settled illegally like those illegal, 500 000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank. We created our own “outpost of colonialism” in the heart of London just like the Israelis have created their 146 “outposts of colonialism” in the heart of Palestine – on second thought, Palestine was “wiped of the map” so perhaps Judea and Samaria is more fitting? Alas, we were the Blue People of the Blue Land: for 24 hours I was a Blue Land Settler and my doctrine was, “War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, Freedom is Slavery and Apartheid is Democracy.” This is good.

Israeli Apartheid Week has just begun, but Apartheid for the Palestinians began long ago. The aim of this occupation, which involved bombarding the streets with tents, flags, banners, literature and of course an actual Wall, was to raise awareness of the system of Apartheid endured by Palestinians and the severe issues with the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian land. The illegal occupation was a surprise to the LSE students who assumed it would be just another university day only to realize that 40 students had occupied their land: at midday, Thursday 10^th March occupation began. Houghton Street was buzzing with students eager to learn who the hell were these arrogant Blue People who have come to occupy their land, with a doctrine of superiority and racism. Although most of the student body received us well, and were also highly fond of our extensive literature and free gifts, including free DVDS of films from Palestine, there had to be, just had to be, somebody who thought it necessary to complain. But of course they have every right to complain, just like the Palestinians have been complaining for decades to the International Community, appealing persistently to International Law about the illegal occupation of their land but naturally to no avail… The police did come and realized that we were not causing such an obstruction as had been portrayed to be, nonetheless thank you to the dear and caring soul who was highly considerate for the well being and rights of other fellow students. Perhaps he/she should too join the Palestine Society as we are also fighting for the rights of others who have had to deal with a constant obstruction since 1882. 

Our settlement was a grand success. It only worked because we all were united with the same resolve: as the cliché goes, we did find unity in diversity. The atmosphere was vivacious and energetic, this energy stayed with us all throughout the day and into the night where the university gradually became quieter and with this the Arabic music came out, the houmous and falafel and naturally the apple and grape flavoured shisha. But we have to remember it is different. Our settlement was fun: Merom Golan, Mush Etzion and Hebron are not. Zionism’s settler colonialism is logic of elimination: like North America and Australia they do not exploit the natives, but replace. It thus becomes a relationship of invasion and thus an absence of consciousness, or as Theodor Herzl more eloquently puts it, “If I wish to construct a new building to replace the old one, I must demolish it before I construct.” Thus the erasure of the native began as early as 1905 by the settlers, but as Ilan Pappe commented at a recent conference, these settlers have remained the same, their first impressions – “aliens in our homeland” has not changed since 1905. Zionism is a Romantic Nationalist Movement, and thus the settlers are like Romantics whose discourse, first-impressions and complaints have not changed despite such economic, political and social developments. A century has passed and they have failed to uncover the veil from their eyes and realise these are not “aliens” but brothers.

Settlements are of strategic important to the Zionist cause. Not only do they egregiously dismiss the 4^th Geneva Convention by the Israeli Supreme Court arguing that settlements are in the interest of Israel’s security, thus if it is needed for security hence they are legal but they also flagrantly obstruct a Two-State solution. Sharon’s Drobles Plan naturally ensured this where he provided such tempting incentives to draw settlers: invested around $120 000 per family (free or near free mortgages), created a lot of jobs and promised higher living standards with better facilities. Ariel Sharon:

“As long as these settlements are built, a Palestinian state will not be established in this area. There is already a Palestinian state, Jordan is a Palestinian state. The majority there are Palestinian Arabs.”

He created facts on the ground, to make sure a Palestinian state would never be created. But now we are creating facts on the ground, with over 60% of Palestinian land under Israeli control it is about time we united. Israel may have the 3^rd strongest army in the region, it may be America’s 51^st state that receives $3 billion dollars per annum and it may have indoctrinated the majority of the world with their Zionist narrative: but Israel we have the moral resolve. And with this moral resolve we the LSE Palestine Society will continue to educate and draw awareness to the persistent suffering of the Palestinian people in their own land, as the genesis for change is awareness. We cannot change what we do not acknowledge. Most of the time, we are not aware of what is wrong or what is not working. We don't see what could be. By becoming more aware, we begin the process of change. 

So, listen up Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama, with Morality and Humanity on our side Dialogue becomes Peace, Education becomes Freedom, Knowledge becomes Strength and Justice becomes Democracy. 

24 Hour Illegal Settlement Occupation by the LSE Palestine Society

By Lukas Slothuus

The Palestine Society's 'Blue Land Settlement' taking place Thursday to Friday last week was a much-needed change in atmosphere on Houghton Street after a Lent Term 2011 that has seen a range of controversial events unfold at LSE.

There are surely many different opinions about Thilo Sarrazin, the German anti-immigration speaker; Abdel Bari Atwan, the critic of the US Zionist lobby; Roberto Maroni, the Italian minister from the fascist party Lega Nord who was due to speak this week; the blood and oil-money received from Gadaffi; and an endless list of other controversial issues. But the real litmus test of a politically engaging student society is whether it is able to draw in new people to support its cause, build connections with other groups in London and abroad, and engage with academics at the LSE to further the aims of the society.

Here at the LSE, the Palestine Society is doing all of that, most recently exemplified by the 'Blue Land Settlement' where committed students set up a makeshift tent camp on Houghton Street symbolising a West Bank settlement. With educational settlement walls, a stall with information and sign-up sheets for the society’s mentoring scheme and divestment campaign, it pursued what the Society and broader society should call for: Justice for Palestinians and a long-lasting peace solution in the Middle East.

It is hardly possible to find a more timely situation for a peaceful 24-hour demonstration against the Jewish settlements in the West Bank. People are dying on both sides of the settlement boundaries as you read this sentence. It is in the interest of both Israelis and Palestinians for indiscriminate killings to end. But as the occupying force, it is the responsibility of Israel to do what the US government and essentially all other governments around the world as well as the UN and the EU have called for: an end to the illegal settlements. It is not the fault of Jewish settlers that their government is unable to negotiate a sustainable solution to the unrest. And it is definitely not the fault of Palestinian families who are driven away from their homes because an extremist Prime Minister in the neighbouring country uses a scripture to justify the forced removal of civilians.

The Blue Land Settlement was an educational and social tool to highlight the conditions under which millions of people are living due to inept governments, corrupt pseudo-religious politicians abusing Holy Scriptures, a brutal military force, billions of US aid, racism, and so forth. Just like the black resistance in South Africa was labelled a terrorist movement by Western governments due to its strategy of violent resistance and racial liberation, the Palestinian resistance is also labelled religiously extremist or terrorist. Peace dealings with "impartial" negotiators have become a euphemism for business as usual. But the outrageous consequence of this is a lose-lose scenario which nobody ought to accept. Jews and Muslims believe in the same g-d and a great deal of the Torah and the Qur’an deal with the same characters, stories, and messages. It is thus outrageous to say that these people are fundamentally opposed to peace. And if there is one thing Jews and Muslims should be able to co-identify with it is the state of intense persecution, from the Alhambra Decree that expelled Jews from Spain to the current scape-goating of Muslims in Europe. This must mean a commitment to peace from civil society.

As students in the UK, little can be done about the suffering of innocent civilians in a land far away. But it is our duty as students, the group of people who have led all liberation, resistance and justice movements in the last two centuries to do the small things we can do. And that is what the Blue Land Settlement sought to do.

The New Anti-Semitism

By Hannah

Birmingham Palestine Society

One of the pitfalls of campus activism in solidarity with Palestine is coming into conflict with Jewish students and specifically Jewish student organisations that have taken an explicitly pro-Israel stance. 

 "http://theedgeofwhere.blogspot.com/2011/01/from-hasbara-to-hakshava-rethinking.html"

This informative blog post reveals the extent to which many young Jews view support for Israel as integral to there religious identity, and how more critical views of Israel are marginalized within Jewish campus organisations.  The post gives several striking examples of the commitment of some Jewish organisations to evangelising for Israel.  It describes a competition amongst pupils at Jewish secondary schools to find the best advocate for Israel and how the stated intention of one Union of Jewish Students organised visit to Israel is to “highlight the key messages to bring back to campus.”  Reading this you cannot escape the conclusion that we are not being faced with scholarly debate but PR.

Star of David

One of the key tactics of PR is misdirection- the diversion of your opponent from the debate at hand to a disparate, safer, topic.  The diversion we are increasingly seeing is the accusation of antisemitism.  This may well be, in part an expression of a genuine feeling amongst Jewish students of being under attack.  This is unsurprising given Jewish people’s historic status as an oppressed group and the extent to which the nation of Israel is central to many Jews religious identity, something encouraged by mainstream Jewish educational establishments, as outlined above.  It’s also not unfounded in every instance.  Whilst unfortunate, it isn’t remarkable if some Muslims and especially Palestinians have come to feel a general antipathy towards Judaism given their treatment at the hands of the Israeli state, a state that styles itself as the ultimate outworking of Jewish identity.  I’m also not in the position to rule out the existence of some whose criticisms of Israel are motivated by a deep-seated hatred of any overt expression of Jewish identity.  However, it has also become clear that antisemitism has come to be used as a reflexive defence against criticism of Israel.

This has come to be a regular experience for Birmingham Friends of Palestine, with many of our events being picketed by Jewish students.  Complaints to the University are also common resulting in our being made responsible for security costs at events, a serious problem for the society.  Recently we were subject to proceedings by the Student Groups Committee at the Guild of Students over comments made by an outside speaker at one of our events, something that could have resulted in the society being derecognised (fortunately this didn’t happen, although we were forced to print a clarification. See: "http://uobfop.blogspot.com/2011/02/point-of-clarification-mike-prysner.html"


 Recently, we have become aware of a new tool in the armoury of those who wish to marginalise criticism of Israel: a definition of antisemitism proposed by a little known committee of the EU in 2005.  The so-called European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) is a working definition that outlines a number of features of discussions of Israel that it’s authors regard as potential manifestations of antisemitism (http://fra.europa.eu/fraWebsite/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf"):
 
o    Denying the Jewish people right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour.
o    Applying double standards by requiring of it behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
o    Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
o    Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
o    Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

Now a number of these points are extremely problematic.  The first point presumably means “a state of Israel” explicitly defined as a Jewish state although it doesn’t make that clear.  Clearly this is an ethno-nationalist endeavour.  Some would regard that as racist in and of itself without singling out Israel or Judaism in that regard.  I would disagree.  I believe that it is legitimate for an ethnic or national group to aspire to a state based on that group.  Jews in particular have more reason than most to desire the refuge of a state of their own and all that entails in terms of sovereignty and military protection.  The problem comes when this aspiration is prioritised over the fundamental rights of any other individuals or groups of people.  

The establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine- a region that historically had a non-Jewish majority- logically required either the forced removal of pre-existing non-Jewish residents from the land or the implicit erasure of those residents’ identities as equal citizens of the country in which they live.   This is undeniably racist, and has begotten further racism amongst Israelis, as they must rationalise why Palestinian’s rights are either unimportant or at least subordinate to Israel’s national aspirations.  Particularly problematic is the framing of this clause in terms of Jewish people’s right to self-determination.  In practice Palestinians have had very little self-determination as a direct and natural result of establishing and sustaining the State of Israel.  So the right to self-determination of Jewish people is defined as unconditional and fundamental whereas the self-determination of Palestinian people is conditional upon it not coming into conflict with the principles and security of the Israeli state.

The second point like the first is hopelessly imprecise.  It doesn’t make clear whether it refers to holding Israel to standards above those currently adhered to by other democratic nations, those standards which consensus would hope that they would aspire to, or the particular ideals of the speaker suspected of applying double standards.  Either way, this clause chimes remarkably well with an accusation regularly thrown at critics of Israel, as anyone familiar with this debate will know.  Thus it has great potential as a weapon to be used against critics of Israel.  It is a licence for “whataboutery” the derailing of the discussion of Israel’s actions by sidetracking the opponent into an irrelevant debate on the behaviour of and the opponent’s views on other countries.

The next two clauses are less problematic, and describe behaviour that is at least insensitive to Jewish people’s sensibilities surrounding their history.  However there is also a risk that these could be used as a “gotcha” tactic to catch out speakers who don’t have any hateful intentions.  We have experienced this at Birmingham with our recent disciplinary action after an outside speaker- former US soldier and antiwar activist, Mike Prysner- likened some of Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis.  We made clear that we feel that such comparisons are unacceptable as they take advantage of some of Jewish people’s most painful collective memories in a way that outweighs any incite they may provide into the current situation in Palestine.  Nevertheless this was a short section of a talk that didn’t primarily concern Israel and some present felt that one, well known, Jewish student tried to goad the speaker into making controversial remarks.  The subsequent disciplinary proceedings felt like a deliberate attack on the activities of the society as a whole.

How then did such a flawed document come to be produced by an official agency of the European Union?  Richard Kuper of Jews for Justice for Palestinians ("http://jfjfp.com/?p=21466") describes how the definition was drafted in a non-transparent process heavily influenced by back room lobbying.  The contentious parts of the working definition seem to be largely identical to work by "http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2003-4/porat.htm" Dina Porat, of Tel Aviv University amongst others.  Porat views anti-zionism as, in itself a variety of anti-semitism.  According to Kuper, the EUMC and it’s successor body, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) abandoned the working definition after its lack of utility in monitoring the prevalence of antisemitism became apparent.  It appears never to have developed beyond draft stage.

Nevertheless, it was endorsed by a parliamentary enquiry on antisemitism, although it was subsequently "http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm70/7059/7059.pdf"rejected</y the then Government on the grounds that it “is in fact a work in progress and has not been recommended to states for adoption” according to the EUMC’s own evidence to the committee. (The Government would go on to endorse the, potentially even more problematic, Stephen Lawrence Enquiry definition that states that any action is racist-or antisemitic- if any observer perceives it as such).  Extensive lobbying by Jewish student organisations resulted in the working definition being <a href=" http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/mar/29/students.uk "> adopted</a> by the National Union of Students <a href=" http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/birmingham-students-vote-accept-eumc-definition-antisemitism">and</a> our very own University of Birmingham Guild of Students.

Whilst the working definition itself tentatively notes, only, that the clauses relating to Israel could represent antisemitism “taking into account the overall context.”  In practice this caveat is often abandoned as can be seen in <a href=" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLuOcI_Lc5o ">this</a> Youtube video of audio clips from Mike Prysner’s talk (the full recording can be found <a href=" http://www.zshare.net/audio/860855823658cefe/ ">here</a> and the official Friends of Palestine video <a href=" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s70gNwy2Po "> here</a>).  It appeals to the EUMC working definition as an absolute authority, and from there on in it is deemed unnecessary to further establish their case: a statement is antisemitic because the EUMC says (or to be more accurate, once said) it is.  Similarly, <a href="http://cifwatch.com/">CIF Watch</a>, a website dedicated to- or as some might put it, obsessed with- recording examples of, what it terms antisemitism, on the Guardian newspaper’s online comment site, "http://cifwatch.com/how-we-define-antisemitism/ ">uses the EUMC working definition to demand that both "http://cifwatch.com/cif-contributors/">Guardian writers and "http://cifwatch.com/cif-commenters/" commenters whose statements could fall within the definition, be barred from the site.  It’s worth noting that some of the writers identified are <a href="http://cifwatch.com/cif-contributors/richard-silverstein/">Jewish and at least one is <a href="http://cifwatch.com/cif-contributors/seth-freedman/">Israeli</a>.  Statements are often described as “violating” the EUMC definition, as if it were a code of conduct. As we have seen, it was never intended as such.  It’s original intention was as a definition to be used in monitoring the prevalence of antisemitism.  When it was found to be ineffective for even that purpose, it was dropped by it’s own sponsors.
 

It is clear that the EUMC working definition is used to confine the discussion of the situation in Israel and occupied Palestine within terms of the choosing of Israel’s defenders.  Usually they will allow that some criticisms of Israel’s actions are acceptable, but demand that this be in proportion to “those leveled against any other country” although these are never defined.  In an article linked above Dina Poratm, one of the main architects of the EUMC definition, writes that such criticisms aren’t antisemitic if they targets ”a specific program, policy, political leader or party… as it might…in respect to any other country.”  Thus, individual actions of the Israeli state are offered up as subjects of free debate, but their historical and idealogical underpinnings are kept off limits.  Even if these boundaries are observed, the critic may still fall under suspician if he or she is perceived as too fervent or too focused on Israel.

We foresaw the problems associated with this definition when our Guild council endorsed it but were unable to prevent it from being passed.  The dual nature of the Jewish people as a historically oppressed group and the Israeli state with an agenda to repel criticisms of its own, often oppressive, actions, presents a challenge to the usual liberal consensus that victims of prejudice are the best judges what constitutes that prejudice.  I have heard at least one non-jewish student express the opinion that the opposition amongst Jewish students to the Mike Prysner speech, represented proof that it was unacceptable, as the opposition wasn’t restricted to “a few extremists” but seemed to be the majority opinion of the Jewish student body.  This sets up one group as the arbiter of the acceptable limits on the discussion of the oppression of another group.  We are seeing our fears of the effect of this motion, confirmed, and intend to try to overturn it within the next year. It is incumbent upon anyone who with any concern for the situation of Palestinians or for the free discussion of ideas at our Universities to challenge this document. 

George Galloway: The Winds of Change In The Arab World

By Jay Gatsby

The London School of Economics has recently become the hub for student political activism - at the forefront for solidarity with the Middle Eastern revolutions. Its Palestine Society has in turn been the most active student group on campus attracting the attention of not only Zionist media outlets such as the Jerusalem Post and the Jewish Chronicle for their “controversial events” but also the Israeli Foreign Ministry and The House of Commons. On Monday 7^th March they shall be hosting George Galloway who shall be giving a talk on, “The Winds of Change for a Zionist State - A New Palestinian Intifada?"

Galloway is a British politician who until 2003 was an MP for Labour. After his expulsion he set up the Respect Party. After a successful campaign he became the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow in 2005. Galloway is known for his stance on Iraq, the Arab-Israeli conflict as well as his testimony in the US Senate, 2005, where he turned a defense of allegations against him into an attack against U.S. foreign policy. Galloway is inspirational yet controversial for some: his strong and passionate views either elicit admiration or disdain. Nonetheless, Galloway is a fervent supporter for the Palestinian cause, advocating their Right to self-determination and the Right of Return – a right denied by the Zionist Israeli State, who in turn issued their own unconditional Right of Return in 1951.

The LSE Palestine Society has led a decisive and resilient campaign for the emancipation of all Palestinian peoples. The society runs two main campaigns: the Right to Education and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign. The latter concentrating on getting Eden Springs Water off campus (a water sourced from the de-militarized zone of the Golan Heights and sold illegally under international law). The society has also had a stream of events including Jews for Justice, Abdel Bari-Atwan, Ben White and many others. The Atwan event which took place on 6^th December which was on the influence of the Zionist lobby received much expected controversy from Zionists internationally who have accused Mr. Atwan and the LSE Palestine Society of preposterous claims such as being anti-Semitic and extreme (footage of the event can be found on the internet). Nonetheless the LSE Palestine Society have brushed off such absurd accusations such as inciting terrorism and cherishing violence and persevered with effective campaigns, such as twinning with the University of Gaza that have gained much support from its student body and professors and naturally fervent opposition by the LSE Israeli Society. Gabi Kobrin, President of the LSE Israeli Society has accused the Palestinian Society of having a “flawed understanding of the conflict,” as well as pursuing an “aggressive, alienating and one-sided agenda.” The Palestine Society have deemed this ironic as not only do they run campaigns to free oppressed people by not only boycott but also campaigning to empower them with the weapon of education – a defense denied to them by the Israeli State. Moreover, the LSE Palestine Society offered to host a joint debate with the Israeli Society on “What is Zionism?” Naturally this was rejected.

The LSE Palestine Society are adamant to not be deterred by hostile Zionist accusations and in turn endure in their struggle along side the Palestinian people in solidarity for their emancipation. Thus the society encourages everyone to attend their event with George Galloway on Monday 7^th March (details can be found below). If we stay silent in the face of oppression, dispossession or occupation than we diminish our humanity. If something lessens theirs worth as human beings, then it lessens ours too. To act in their defense, is really to act in defense of yourself.

Speaker: George Galloway


Topic: "George Galloway: The Winds of Change for a Zionist State - A New Palestinian Intifada?"


Date: Monday 7th March


Time: 7:00pm - 8:30pm


Venue: LSE Hong Kong Theatre, Clement House   

  (http://www2.lse.ac.uk/mapsanddirections/findingyourwayaroundlse.aspx)

Facebook Link: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=191420004213926

Concrete Referendum Proposals at the University of Sheffield Challenge Israel's Concrete Indifference to the Fate of Palestinian Citizens

By Rashida Islam

University of Sheffield Palestine Society

The University of Sheffield's Palestine Society was able to secure over 1000 signatures to send the pro-Palestinian policy (see below) to referendum.

Israel’s 2008-9, Massacre of  Gaza, by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) killed over 1400 Palestinians – 400 children. Thousands of homes, hospitals, schools and universities were also destroyed.

Since 2007, Israel has imposed an illegal blockade on Gaza barring people, goods and aid from entering or leaving. Damage caused by Israel’s attack cannot be repaired. Food and medicines are scarce. Students lack books, desks and paper.

Education will play a vital role in rebuilding a safer, peaceful Palestine.

This Union resolves to:
•actively campaign to end the siege on Gaza
•take practical steps supporting Palestinians’ right to education by fostering links with the Islamic University of Gaza ”

Our aim in the coming week is to lay out a concrete set of demands that we hope to see realised:
1) Every year send a delegation of students/members of staff to occuppied territories
2) Training for the sabbatical officers before the beginning of each academic year to educate them on the ongoing crisis in Palestine
3) UN Palestine Solidarity Day - Ensure the union takes active steps in publicising this event so that the Palestine Society can educate students regarding occuppied Palestine

The overall aim of the Palestine Society is to educate the students at the University of Sheffield on Palestine and simultaneously campaign against the injustices suffered by all Palestinians in particular the pupils/students who are denied access to their education.