06 Jun Judge Goldstone Removed from Hebrew University’s Board of Governors
Despite the increasingly desperate nature of the attacks on Judge Goldstone, I never thought an academic institution would give in to the hysteria:
In response to an enquiry by the Alternative Information Center (AIC) about its reported removal of Judge Richard Goldstone from the Board of Governors, Hebrew University of Jerusalem responded by email that:
“The Hebrew University of Jerusalem revises from time to time its membership roles on its Board of Governors. It recently has been decided to remove from the list of governors a number of members, among them Judge Richard Goldstone, who was an honorary member of the board but for more than a decade has not attended its meetings nor expressed interest in the operations of the board. The purpose of this technical act is to enlist new, active members for the board in place of those who do not play any role on behalf of the University.”
However, on 25 April the online Hebrew language newspaper nrg.co.il quoted the Hebrew University as saying that “honorary membership in the Board of Governors is a position given to people on the basis of actions that justify this at the time. The university possesses no mechanism to annul the membership of honour of a member.”
Hebrew University was further quoted in the above article that following the early 2010 request of a Hebrew University graduate to annul Judge Goldstone’s membership in the Board of Governors due to his participation in the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, that “the subject was considered and the decision (not to annul) was taken following discussion in a senior forum of the university.”
What a dark and shameful day for Hebrew University.
In every institution, representation of unpopular views has been a conundrum. Kingman Brewster, imo, grappled with this issue somewhat more successfully than many university Presidents. There are still some higher education experts who endorse vigilance on this front. And of course Cass Sunstein has been instrumental in fostering a climate of open debate here in the US. Unlike Prof. Sunstein, I don’t like to use the term ‘dissent’ though because it marginalizes it somehow.
I agree that this should not have happened. I look forward to everyone now making it clear that they oppose boycotts of all descriptions. Otherwise regretting this particular action is nothing more than hypocrisy.
In the arsenal of non-violent weapons, there is a place for well-considered boycotts, particularly after myriad other political means have been exhausted. It’s downright silly if not simply unreasonable to use the above example to oppose, in an absolutist manner, all boycotts. History has demonstrated their occasional effectiveness on behalf of social and political ends and goals grounded in basic and widely recognized moral values and principles. Alas, both those who are quick to resort to boycotts (often betraying a lack of political imagination and/or a failure to explore less drastic actions) and those who reflexively oppose them are typically ignorant of the nuanced historical role of boycotts in aiding and abetting urgent social transformation and the theoretical and strategic considerations and criteria that nonviolent activists from Mohandas K. Gandhi and his fellow satyagrahis to the United Democratic Front (UDF) in South Africa entertained before initiating such actions. There’s no hypocrisy whatsoever involved in being able to discriminate between a thoughtful, principled and well-timed resort to a boycott and its converse.
Sorry – that’s a lot of words to say that you believe that not talking to someone and trying to damage them can force them to do what you want. These are playground politics. Boycotters allegedly want people to talk – it makes no sense to pursue that policy by not talking. Nor do high-flown claims to understand social nuance really cover up the true nature of what is being done.
Talk? No. Talk is useless when one side doesn’t listen. The problem with talk is that it assumes good faith on the part of both parties and implies a moral equivalence between the speakers (where such a relationship doesn’t necessarily exist).
The point of a boycott is to make people listen and to make an example of particularly heinous behavior. It’s pedagogical. You’ve done enough talking, enough justifying – now listen. Listen to the world and break out of your childish solipsism.
Simon,
Your comment betrays an utter lack of even a minimal or basic understanding of the nature and history of nonviolent politics, strategies and tactics. And your attempt to characterize my comment in a few words has failed, as it is in no way an accurate summary of what I said (or what I believe for that matter).
And anon makes a good point, one that highlights a questionable assumption and practice of Liberal politics with regard to the options available when “talking” has become ineffective or pointless: the easy resort to Realpolitik and violence.
Anon, Does good faith include not having destruction of the other side as part of your political charter?
It’s interesting that I agree with your post, but I’m sure we have the parties swapped when reading it.
addendum: How do you talk to a side that has the following in its covenant:
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
“How do you talk to a side that has the following in its covenant…” – well, we talked to the Soviets who had similar views on our decadent capitalist world and at least together we stopped fascism…not so bad, actually…
Hmm, I’m not familiar enough with Soviet policy, but I’m pretty sure it didn’t include anything about “obliterating” the USA. Enlighten me.
If it did, we certainly didn’t see Russian missiles flying into the US or Russian suicide (or homocide) bombers deliberately targetting civilians to prove that they were serious with those words.
In the end, cessation of hostilities with the Soviets was possible because “the Russians loved their children too.” (apologies to Sting).
Thanks for the joke – probably they call it “cold war” because the issue was who was going to eat more ice-cream, not because each was threatening the other, and the whole planet, with annihilation. Sorry, my mistake….
I’m not sure if you’re being sarcastic…
They called it the cold war because neither side was actually attacking the other.
There’s a difference between threatening each other that “if you…then we’ll… “, and vowing to obliterate the other side and actually doing your best to carry it out.
As I said, please enlighten me if either side of the cold war had as policy to obliterate the other side. If not, then the comparison of being able to talk to the Soviets to being able to talk to Hamas does not stand.
Brian,
As any credible academic student of Hamas would inform you, It’s sheer intellectual sloth to rely on a citation from Hamas’ charter to make grandiose generalizations or inferences, or to characterize its political aims and ends, or to understand its contradictory principles and practices over the years. At minimum, one should be acquainted with at least the following authoritative studies that decisively demonstrate the folly of citing from its charter to characterize the group or making the related reductionist claim that it as a “terrorist” organization or movement:
Khaled Hroub, Hamas: A Beginner’s Guide (2006).
Shaul Mishal and Avraham Sela, The Palestinian Hamas: Vision, Violence and Coexistence (2006 ed.).
Jerome Gunning, Hamas in Politics: Democracy, Religion, Violence (2009).
Azzam Tamimi, Hamas: A History from Within (2007).
I know, “know-nothings” will respond that fealty to FOX News and addiction to their favorite websites suffice for confidently pronouncing in public fora as to “what Hamas is all about.”
I’m afraid you’ve got it wrong Brian. You’re the one who hasn’t been listening. Israel has done its best to undermine the democratically elected government in Gaza. It has spurned numerous peace offers.
See:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/henry-siegman/the-great-middle-east-peace-process-scam/print
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n13/alastair-crooke/our-second-biggest-mistake-in-the-middle-east/print
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-kanwisher/reigniting-violence-how-d_b_155611.html
Read these articles. Do a little research and listen to the overwhelming consensus that exists in the world against Israeli policy. I repeat, listen to the world and break out of your childish solipsism.
Patrick O’Donnell:”It’s sheer intellectual sloth to rely on a citation from Hamas’ charter ” Brian: Are you saying we can’t believe what they say?, Like when they say “”We will not rest until we destroy the Zionist entity” (Fathi Hammad, BBC Jan 2 09) – not “get the Zionists out of Gaza and West Bank”, but “destroy” – we shouldn’t believe them. Maybe not, but when they back up their actions with words, we do. Anon:”Israel has done its best to undermine the democratically elected government in Gaza.” Brian: As long as the terrorist (according to Europe and the US) government of Gaza is at war with Israel, Israel will try to undermine it. You do understand that Hamas is at war with Israel, right? And Hamas has rejected any possibility of living side by side with a “Zionist Entity”. If either of you can cite a quote where Hamas has expressed acceptance in principle of a 2 state solution with a Palestinian state and a Zionist state, I can accept that there’s a chance for talk. In the meantime, Hamas’ actions back up the words we read. BTW this doesn’t even begin to address the 3 State issue – Hamas/ Zionist/ PA.… Read more »
Brian: “You do understand that Hamas is at war with Israel, right? And Hamas has rejected any possibility of living side by side with a “Zionist Entity”. I’d like to coin a new phrase, “quantum international law”; the insistence that a entities’ legal status can occupy two contradictory positions at once (Netanyahu’s cat?). Israel is in an armed conflict with Hamas but if they were at war they’d have to treat captured Hamas militants as PoWs. Much like the Gaza strip is not “occupied territory” for the purpose of the 4th Geneva Convention but it is foreign enough that it can be legally blockaded. Goldstone’s major crime (only crime?) is identifying the blockade for the atrocity it is. In the words of Albie Sachs, “any Jew who speaks out with an independent voice, especially with the conduct of the State of Israel, is regarded as a self-hating Jew … Why should someone be made to choose between being a Jew and having a conscience?” No reasonable person is advocating that Israel stop defending itself against Hamas or any other aggressor, just that it be done without excessive civilian punishment. Painting any critic of Israeli policy as anti-Semitic or self hating… Read more »
Hey I object to persons giving “sheer intellectual sloth” a bad name! If sheer intellectual sloth is no virtue, surely dilettantism is no vice!
Best,
Ben
Patrick, Thanks for those timely references. I was about to research Hamas because I don’t know much about the group.
Fels, indeed there is a problem of defining Gaza’s status legally, as the Hamas government is the de-facto sovereign ruler of the area, but has declined to declare statehood (while Israel may object to such a declaration, I doubt that would change anything if Gaza chose to declare). So what is Gaza’s status – to call it occupied territory in the absence of any physical occupation would mean that Hamas is not sovereign in the area and the rights and responsibilities of internal administration and government fall on the occupier. Hamas would have to allow Israel those rights and responsibilities if it wants to claim any privileges as “occupied”. However, if you still want to call Gaza “occupied”, Israel has the right to blockade. If Hamas is a high contracting power, in armed conflict with Israel, then Israel has the right to blockade. If Hamas is an undeclared de-facto State in armed conflict with Israel, then Israel has the right to blockade. Nice reference to Schrodinger, by the way. But it seems to be Hamas, not Netanyahu who resist opening the box. In a bizarre twist on “have your cake and eat it too”, Gazans insist that they are occupied – giving… Read more »
We may be dismayed at the way Goldstone was removed from this academic institution, but in all fairness he should be removed from all academic institutions for contributing to that travesty that is ICTY.
Goldstone was only fulfilling the mandate given him. When he was a judge in South Africa and sentenced black South Africans to floggings, he was tied by the laws of the land of which he was a judge. He really had no choice. Here too, his report is biased because the mandate he received was biased. His mandate was opposed by the EU, Canada, other democracies – and even Mary Robinson with her history of condemning Israel found the mandate too biased against Israel, saying: “… I don’t think that’s a human rights approach.” Still, that was the mandate he had. The difference between this report, and judging based on the laws of SA, is that he did have a choice. He could have turned down the mandate on the basis that it was unfair. For this reason, I think it’s totally correct that HU removed Goldstone from any position of honour, he chose to take a knowingly biased mandate against Israel – an affront to balanced judgement which Universities espouse, and to the State and people of Israel of which HU is a part. And KJH is correct that it is a dark and shameful day for HU… Read more »
Actually he refused the appointment until the mandate was expanded to allow investigation into the actions of everyone involved in the conflict. The original mandate was an attempted political hatchet job:
“to dispatch an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission;”
which was amended in April 2009 before the commission convened and appeared thus in the final report (which did investigate and accuse Hamas of war crimes) reads: “with the mandate to investigate all
violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have
been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza
during the period”. (pg 13)
So, the UNHRC, an alleged Human rights organisation whose deciding members include China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other states which have dubious human rights credentials, adopts a resolution (s9/1) which strongly condemns Israel as being guilty of “massive violations,” and calls for an “urgent, independent, international fact-finding mission.”. I’m sure I don’t need to point out to the importance of finding facts before condemning, and here you have an organisation which does so, openly and proudly. Combine this with the HRC’s obsession with Israel -in its first year it criticized Israel 27 times while failing to criticize human rights violations in any other country. Either 2006-2007 was a great year for human rights for everybody except Palestinians, or the organisation is biased. This obvious anti-Israel bias of the organisation should have been enough for Goldstone to decline the position. Given this state of affairs, Israel -well within her legal rights as a UN member – said she doesn’t accept the legitimacy of this organisation to judge her, and will not co-operate with the investigation. Once this happened, knowing that he could only get one side of the story, he must have known that the report would be biased. The best he, or the UNHRC… Read more »