14 mar 2014
In 2008, HP was awarded a $74 million contract by the Israeli Ministry of Interior to manufacture five million biometric ID cards, which contain advanced technology which allows the Israeli Population Authority to track and monitor all citizens and residents of Israel – including Palestinian Jerusalemites.
Israel maintains a stratified ID system – designating Palestinians holding West Bank residence with green ID cards, those in Gaza with red ID cards, and permanent residents of occupied Jerusalem with blue IDs (distinguished from the IDs of Israeli citizens). This structure works to further divide the Palestinian population from both the occupiers and each other, limit freedom of movement, and institutionalize inequality and discrimination. Additionally, Israeli ID cards serve to differentiate Palestinian citizens of Israel from Jewish citizens, and are commonly used for segregation purposes and other discriminatory practices. Palestinians with permanent residency status in Jerusalem face unique hardships as a result of such division.
Though subject to Israeli law, permanent residents are not afforded comprehensive rights. Instead, despite having been born in the city, their status equates them to immigrants with limited entitlements. Blue Jerusalem IDs also serve as the sole means for proving their right to remain in the city, as Israel imposes numerous tactics to forcibly expel the Arab population and Judaize Jerusalem. Among these is the Center of Life policy, which compels Palestinian residents of Jerusalem to prove to the Ministry of Interior that the city remains his or her main place of living through an exhaustive (at times, impossible to attain) list of documents. Since its illegal and de-facto annexation by Israel in 1967, over 14,000 IDs have been revoked, forcing Palestinians to either leave the city or reside within it illegally.
The “Aviv” population registration system, operated by Israel’s Ministry of the Interior, is a comprehensive population registry, managing information on age, race, address, country of origin, and religion for Israeli citizens and residents. According to the Israeli Interior Ministry, « To be a resident of Jerusalem, a person must prove that Israel is their main place of residence. Otherwise the population register must be altered. » Maintenance of this population registry system is hence integral to Israel’s continued repression of the Palestinian people. Hewlett-Packard manages the “Aviv” registry, following its acquisition of Compaq Computers in 2002.
In 2008, HP was additionally awarded a $74 million contract by the Israeli Ministry of Interior to manufacture five million biometric ID cards, which contain advanced technology that allows the Israeli Population Authority to track and monitor all citizens and residents of Israel – including Palestinian Jerusalemites.
Just as Polaroid and IBM were targets for international boycotts because of their joint-production of pass books in apartheid South Africa, we call on the global community to boycott HP for its complicity in Israel’s ethnic cleansing of occupied Jerusalem.
HP’s Support for the Israeli Occupation
HP’s collusion with Israel in its occupation expands far beyond the boundaries of Jerusalem:
· HP provides Israel with the Basel System, a biometric control system with hand and facial recognition, installed in checkpoints in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza
· HP supplies Ariel and Modi’in Illit – 2 of the largest illegal Israeli settlements Ariel – with various forms of technology to accommodate “rapid economic and population growth”
· Since 2006, HP has supplied, operated, and maintained the Israeli military’s IT infrastructure, used to enforce the Gaza blockade
Take Action!
The Coalition to Boycott HP is in its final stages of preparing for the HP annual shareholder’s meeting, to take place on March 19th. There, members will present a petition letter calling on the company to end its ties to Israel. The Coalition needs all the signatures it can get from solidarity groups around the world, so please sign on before March 17th and tell HP to stop funding Israel’s apartheid.
IT’S TIME TO ACT NOW!
Israel maintains a stratified ID system – designating Palestinians holding West Bank residence with green ID cards, those in Gaza with red ID cards, and permanent residents of occupied Jerusalem with blue IDs (distinguished from the IDs of Israeli citizens). This structure works to further divide the Palestinian population from both the occupiers and each other, limit freedom of movement, and institutionalize inequality and discrimination. Additionally, Israeli ID cards serve to differentiate Palestinian citizens of Israel from Jewish citizens, and are commonly used for segregation purposes and other discriminatory practices. Palestinians with permanent residency status in Jerusalem face unique hardships as a result of such division.
Though subject to Israeli law, permanent residents are not afforded comprehensive rights. Instead, despite having been born in the city, their status equates them to immigrants with limited entitlements. Blue Jerusalem IDs also serve as the sole means for proving their right to remain in the city, as Israel imposes numerous tactics to forcibly expel the Arab population and Judaize Jerusalem. Among these is the Center of Life policy, which compels Palestinian residents of Jerusalem to prove to the Ministry of Interior that the city remains his or her main place of living through an exhaustive (at times, impossible to attain) list of documents. Since its illegal and de-facto annexation by Israel in 1967, over 14,000 IDs have been revoked, forcing Palestinians to either leave the city or reside within it illegally.
The “Aviv” population registration system, operated by Israel’s Ministry of the Interior, is a comprehensive population registry, managing information on age, race, address, country of origin, and religion for Israeli citizens and residents. According to the Israeli Interior Ministry, « To be a resident of Jerusalem, a person must prove that Israel is their main place of residence. Otherwise the population register must be altered. » Maintenance of this population registry system is hence integral to Israel’s continued repression of the Palestinian people. Hewlett-Packard manages the “Aviv” registry, following its acquisition of Compaq Computers in 2002.
In 2008, HP was additionally awarded a $74 million contract by the Israeli Ministry of Interior to manufacture five million biometric ID cards, which contain advanced technology that allows the Israeli Population Authority to track and monitor all citizens and residents of Israel – including Palestinian Jerusalemites.
Just as Polaroid and IBM were targets for international boycotts because of their joint-production of pass books in apartheid South Africa, we call on the global community to boycott HP for its complicity in Israel’s ethnic cleansing of occupied Jerusalem.
HP’s Support for the Israeli Occupation
HP’s collusion with Israel in its occupation expands far beyond the boundaries of Jerusalem:
· HP provides Israel with the Basel System, a biometric control system with hand and facial recognition, installed in checkpoints in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza
· HP supplies Ariel and Modi’in Illit – 2 of the largest illegal Israeli settlements Ariel – with various forms of technology to accommodate “rapid economic and population growth”
· Since 2006, HP has supplied, operated, and maintained the Israeli military’s IT infrastructure, used to enforce the Gaza blockade
Take Action!
The Coalition to Boycott HP is in its final stages of preparing for the HP annual shareholder’s meeting, to take place on March 19th. There, members will present a petition letter calling on the company to end its ties to Israel. The Coalition needs all the signatures it can get from solidarity groups around the world, so please sign on before March 17th and tell HP to stop funding Israel’s apartheid.
IT’S TIME TO ACT NOW!
9 mar 2014
The Ireland-Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) welcomed in a press release, the passing of motion calling on the National University of Galway (NUIG) Students' Union to actively participate in the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel until it ends the occupation of Palestine and complies with its obligations under international law.
The motion, which reads in full "That NUI Galway Students' Union actively supports the campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against the State of Israel." was passed by an almost 2 to 1 margin (1,954 to 1,054 votes) during a student referendum held on March 6th. NUIG Students' Union becomes the first student's union in Ireland to adopt such a motion in support of Palestinian rights, and joins campuses all over the world in rejecting Israeli Apartheid.
Chairperson of the IPSC, Martin O'Quigley, welcomed the motion saying, "This is an historic victory for those who stand in solidarity with Palestinians living under the heel of Israel's racist, apartheid system of occupation and colonization. The IPSC salutes all those students who stood with the oppressed on the right side of history and endorsed this measure, despite a stream of venomous anti-Palestinian propaganda and dirty tricks being injected into the debate from off-campus forces, including the Israeli Embassy in Ireland's failed attempts at using social media to influence the outcome."
"Particular credit is due to the NUIG Palestine Solidarity Society whose hard work lay behind the tabling and passing of the motion. We hope other universities and ITs in Ireland will now follow suit in establishing such Palestine solidarity societies and seeking to table similar motions. We cannot think of a better way to round off this year's Israeli Apartheid Week in Ireland," O'Quigley added.
Fionnghuala Nic Roibeaird, Auditor of the NUIG PSS, said in a statement: "This is a landmark victory in Ireland for the growing international campaign to boycott Israel until it complies with international law and ends its illegal occupation of Palestine, and no doubt NUIG SU is just the first of many SUs in Ireland to endorse such a campaign."
"NUIG Students decided that, in the footsteps of the successful international boycott campaign against South Africa's apartheid regime in the past, we will not be silent towards international racism and colonialism in our own time. Alongside promoting awareness of the BDS movement more broadly, NUI Galway SU will now stand unambiguously against instances of institutional collusion between NUI Galway and Israeli oppression, such as NUI Galway's use of G4S, the international security company notorious for its provision of security and incarceration 'services' to Israel's inhumane prison regime," Ms Nic Roibeaird said.
The global movement for a campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights was initiated by Palestinian civil society in 2005, and is coordinated by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), established in 2007. BDS is a strategy that allows people of conscience to play an effective role in the Palestinian struggle for justice.
The BDS campaign is shaped by a rights-based approach and highlights the three broad sections of the Palestinian people: the refugees, those under military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinians in Israel. The call urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by:
-Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall.
-Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality
-Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.
The BDS call is endorsed by over 200 Palestinian political parties, civil society and church groups, trade unions and movements. The signatories represent the refugees, Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories, and Palestinian citizens of Israel.
The motion, which reads in full "That NUI Galway Students' Union actively supports the campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against the State of Israel." was passed by an almost 2 to 1 margin (1,954 to 1,054 votes) during a student referendum held on March 6th. NUIG Students' Union becomes the first student's union in Ireland to adopt such a motion in support of Palestinian rights, and joins campuses all over the world in rejecting Israeli Apartheid.
Chairperson of the IPSC, Martin O'Quigley, welcomed the motion saying, "This is an historic victory for those who stand in solidarity with Palestinians living under the heel of Israel's racist, apartheid system of occupation and colonization. The IPSC salutes all those students who stood with the oppressed on the right side of history and endorsed this measure, despite a stream of venomous anti-Palestinian propaganda and dirty tricks being injected into the debate from off-campus forces, including the Israeli Embassy in Ireland's failed attempts at using social media to influence the outcome."
"Particular credit is due to the NUIG Palestine Solidarity Society whose hard work lay behind the tabling and passing of the motion. We hope other universities and ITs in Ireland will now follow suit in establishing such Palestine solidarity societies and seeking to table similar motions. We cannot think of a better way to round off this year's Israeli Apartheid Week in Ireland," O'Quigley added.
Fionnghuala Nic Roibeaird, Auditor of the NUIG PSS, said in a statement: "This is a landmark victory in Ireland for the growing international campaign to boycott Israel until it complies with international law and ends its illegal occupation of Palestine, and no doubt NUIG SU is just the first of many SUs in Ireland to endorse such a campaign."
"NUIG Students decided that, in the footsteps of the successful international boycott campaign against South Africa's apartheid regime in the past, we will not be silent towards international racism and colonialism in our own time. Alongside promoting awareness of the BDS movement more broadly, NUI Galway SU will now stand unambiguously against instances of institutional collusion between NUI Galway and Israeli oppression, such as NUI Galway's use of G4S, the international security company notorious for its provision of security and incarceration 'services' to Israel's inhumane prison regime," Ms Nic Roibeaird said.
The global movement for a campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights was initiated by Palestinian civil society in 2005, and is coordinated by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC), established in 2007. BDS is a strategy that allows people of conscience to play an effective role in the Palestinian struggle for justice.
The BDS campaign is shaped by a rights-based approach and highlights the three broad sections of the Palestinian people: the refugees, those under military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and Palestinians in Israel. The call urges various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets its obligations under international law by:
-Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967 and dismantling the Wall.
-Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality
-Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194.
The BDS call is endorsed by over 200 Palestinian political parties, civil society and church groups, trade unions and movements. The signatories represent the refugees, Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories, and Palestinian citizens of Israel.
8 mar 2014
By Hugh Lanning
It is often forgotten that BDS is a three letter word. To achieve real success and a free Palestine we need to make progress on every front: B, D and S. Unfortunately, life never follows neat lines but, hopefully, BDS is a linear progression, getting stronger all the time. In the UK we are doing well, going from B to D, but next we need to get to S and S is for Sanctions.
One of the problems of London being described as a hub of BDS by Israeli political "think-tank" the Reut Institute (1), is that other countries think you know the answers. Of course you don't; but you can talk of our experience in this country.
B is for Boycott
Boycott action is most often individual in-actions, leading to collective ends. Not buying settlement goods, leading to supermarkets not stocking them. It is an opportunity for mass campaigning; it is a call to individuals or corporations not to do something but to make the choice not to.
There is a growing set of boycott successes, with significant individuals like Stephen Hawking refusing to go to Israel; the TUC's largely successful campaign aimed at having settlement goods removed from British supermarkets; the Co-operative's decision to stop using suppliers which operate in illegal Israeli settlements; the closure of Ahava's flagship store in London; and the takeover of G4S's AGM by shareholders demanding that it pull out of its contracts with Israeli prisons, settlements and checkpoints. The list is growing ever longer. Current campaigns are focussed on SodaStream and its high-profile stockist, the John Lewis Partnership; G4S and its bid for the BBC contract; and getting Sainsbury's to end its indifference to Palestine and adopt an ethical policy similar to the Co-op's.
D is for Divestment, or is it Disinvestment?
Divestment is about trying to get institutions to make a decision to withdraw support for Israel. The aim is to take investments out of certain companies, not to award contracts to or have contracts with complicit firms. This demands another range of tactics.
Along with Omar Barghouti and others, I recently took part via Skype in a grass-roots conference in San Francisco. It was a great local initiative, talking about Veolia, coming to grips with it both as a bad employer and as a complicit firm. I explained to the conference that in my experience there are three strands to a successful divestment campaign.
The first is putting the legal and technical arguments to those involved in the decision-making process, in particular giving those politicians who are supportive of BDS the information they need. In Britain there are a range of legal constraints on decision-makers which limit severely what you can do by way of political lobbying. For example, much is made of commercial confidentiality, so much so that individuals on the decision-making panel might not even know the names of the companies involved in the tender.
In this context the key message that we focus on is "grave political misconduct", which is one of the issues that can be used legitimately. Below is an example of how this was framed in a recent local campaign:
"Veolia is a company which is complicit in Israel's occupation. The Geneva Convention prohibits the occupying power from transferring its own civilians into occupied territories and goes on to prohibit significant alterations to the infrastructure. What Veolia does in Israel is not a marginal act. It has a contract with Israel, and it makes profits by breaking international law. It is a very clear case of grave professional misconduct, and we consider that Veolia should be excluded from any future tenders on those grounds."
The focus is to give decision-makers a framework within which they can, legally, make the decision we want.
Secondly, it is campaigning with the workforce inside the company. The workers will be worried about their futures, naturally so. The task is to convince them that it is in their long-term interests to campaign to get, in this case, Veolia out of Israel and for the company to stop operating illegally; to convince them that the reputational damage is going to be a greater risk eventually. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) is now running campaigns with workforces in Veolia and BT (British Telecom), and with the unions in G4S, and hope to launch a campaign soon. These are campaigns not against the workforce, but with them. It is not a boycott; it is a campaign to get the company to withdraw from illegal contracts, because it's in their own best interest to do so.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the community campaign, which is normally the driving force. It is the building of a coalition of activists, students, faith groups and politicians. The aim is to build pressure on the company and the decision-makers and to generate publicity. The timetable of the contract decision-making process quite often gives a clear focus for campaign activity.
These three strands need to work in unison, reinforcing each other. When the final decision comes, if it is not to award the contract to Veolia or any other complicit firm, it is important to claim the victory: the decision is always said by such companies to be for some other reason.
S is for Sanctions
As the successes demonstrate, the solidarity movement is good and getting better at both boycott and divestment. Our weakness has been at a national political level. This is about shifting the political paradigm; getting inside the tent and trying to move to a tipping point when we can make governments start to act. The recent EU guidelines on research funding in relation to the settlements is a first tentative step in this direction.
On the face of it the guidelines are not that controversial. They were explained by European diplomats as merely bringing together in a single place existing regulations.
The core principle is that EU money should only be spent on EU programmes within boundaries recognised by the EU. The self-evident point was that the settlements, being illegal and on occupied land, do not fit within any definition of where EU money should go.
The publication of the guidelines did not require new approval, as they were based on settled policy; but they unleashed a torrent of diplomatic anger from Israel, with support from John Kerry and the US. Much to their surprise, there was no mood in Brussels to shift on the guidelines themselves. You could detect an almost physical frustration and annoyance with Israel as it assumed a right to be able to tell the EU how it could and should spend its money. It is still the recipient of large sums of money not destined directly to the settlements.
How do we make this shift happen?
The solidarity movement needs to be bigger, broader and deeper across the globe. Organisations such as the PSC need to be bigger; to have the additional resources and capacity to take the campaign to ever higher levels. This will mean increasing membership and raising funds from supporters of Palestine, not for humanitarian aid, but for political action.
The alliances also need to get broader, including not just activists and trade unions, but also a broad range of politicians, community groups and faith organisations, and tapping into the growing empathy amongst students.
Finally, support needs to be deeper. In unions it needs to go from being national policy to regional and local-level action. The PSC is holding a conference for trade unions at the TUC in April to discuss how this can best be done. Within the Labour Party unions and branches that are affiliated need to raise Palestine as an issue. A Labour Party constituency I visited recently had not discussed the issue in 25 years, assuming it to be controversial, only to find that they all agreed that they supported Palestine. The debate on Palestine needs to be generated not just in the Labour Party but in all political parties, including parties of the left, where there is often no strong tradition of supporting the Palestinians. Given the shift in public opinion, it is not a debate we should be reluctant to have.
Building broad local alliances will be critical if the solidarity campaign is to grow and multiply. It will be local pressure that will help bring national parties into line, not only with their own grassroots, but with public opinion as well. In most Western European countries there is public support for Palestine.(2) This is not reflected by governments who seem stuck in a time warp believing that to do anything that could be viewed by Israel as hostile would be unpopular. The reality, though, is that many people are bemused as to why Israel is allowed to break international law, abuse Palestinian human rights, hold nuclear weapons and defy the UN with seeming impunity.
One of the reasons for this is that the Palestinian voice, unlike that of the Israelis, is not heard to anything like the same extent within the corridors of power. As a consequence governments hear a distorted, Israeli-filtered version of public opinion that does not reflect what the majority of people are actually saying and thinking. This imbalance is amplified further by media reporting that believes almost without question what one side says, namely Israel, whilst routinely doubting and challenging any Palestinian account of events. So how do we help make the Palestinian voice heard?
Soft Power
Action will speak louder than words. It will be through the twin arms of BDS and the solidarity campaign on the outside and non-violent resistance within Palestine.
Resistance is the key component without which nothing else is possible, but when put together with BDS they become a formidable force which is beginning to worry Israel more and more.
This is the soft power of which Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine, speaks; a soft war about reputational damage. The most recent example was SodaStream, for which we have to thank Scarlett Johansson for transforming a campaign that started in the back streets of Brighton into a global phenomenon. Her parting company with Oxfam was an inevitable consequence, but how good was it for SodaStream? Would you pay for an ambassador whose very fame brought down on you more opprobrium than ever before?
Israel is increasingly concerned about BDS as was revealed by its recent decision to establish a ministerial task group to fight campaigns. However, this worry has not been enough so far to change one jot what Israel is doing on the ground.
A moral case for action
To do that we need to get governments to act and this will not happen until we challenge the moral legitimacy of Israel's actions. We have moved from "it is not nice what they are doing" to "it is wrong, it is against the law"; but we need to get to "it is not acceptable and will not be tolerated".
We will have to demonstrate not just a legal but also a moral case and it is in this context that racism is Israel's Achilles Heel. Its policies are based on racism, with different laws along with separated and segregated people, roads and water. The Wall is a monstrosity in a modern age that the world is silent about. In contrast to the Berlin Wall, when Ronald Reagan famously told Gorbachev, "If you want peace ... tear down this wall!" In contrast, Israel is being allowed to build an apartheid reality with different rights for the different peoples who live under its effective control between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.
To make such a moral case our campaign in support of Palestine must be an anti-racist campaign, making anti-racism the basis of all our actions. Historically, opponents of Israel's actions have always been attacked as anti-Semitic. Our challenge is to make anti-racism a strength not a weakness. This is not a tactical ploy; it is because it is morally right. However it will mean that Israel cannot routinely get away with decrying all opponents as anti-Semitic. This will enable us to expose properly Israel's racist agenda. That is why the PSC has made "Challenging Israel's racism and Apartheid" its overarching theme this year. It is going from defence to attack. It is about making Israeli racism and apartheid policies toxic. It is about making companies not wanting, for good commercial reasons, to be complicit with Israel's illegal and morally indefensible actions.
It is crucially about making it impossible for governments to justify inaction; forcing them to make a moral judgement that they can no longer condone Israel's actions.
Sanctions can mean many things. To date it has been encouragement and incentives for the Israelis; punishment and sanctions for Palestinians. It is becoming "guidance" to firms and institutions. This is not enough; governments need to make clear to Israel that there will be consequences for its behaviour. There is much that governments have the power to do, from funding and commerce and, in particular the arms trade.
The challenge is to break through the glass ceiling of inaction that, however well we do in bringing Palestine's plight to the world's attention, the US and Israel, with the support of the EU, have so far always succeeded in imposing. The only way that seems to have realistic prospects of success is the twin track strategy of Palestinian non-violent resistance coupled with a truly global solidarity campaign based around BDS. S is not only for Sanctions, but also for Success.
References
(1) Building a political firewall against the Assault on Israel's Legitimacy - London as a Case Study, [PDF] Reut Institute, November 2010. Accessed 18 November 2013
(2) 2013 Country Ratings Poll, 22 May 2013, [PDF] conducted by GlobeSpan/PIPA. Accessed 18 November 2013
Hugh Lanning is a British pro-Palestinian activist and former trade union official. He was the Deputy Chairman of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), one of Britain's largest trade unions, until May 2013. He has been the Chairman of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) since 2009, and in 2013 was named a vice chair of the group Unite Against Fascism (UAF). The article was taken from MEMO website and here is the link.
It is often forgotten that BDS is a three letter word. To achieve real success and a free Palestine we need to make progress on every front: B, D and S. Unfortunately, life never follows neat lines but, hopefully, BDS is a linear progression, getting stronger all the time. In the UK we are doing well, going from B to D, but next we need to get to S and S is for Sanctions.
One of the problems of London being described as a hub of BDS by Israeli political "think-tank" the Reut Institute (1), is that other countries think you know the answers. Of course you don't; but you can talk of our experience in this country.
B is for Boycott
Boycott action is most often individual in-actions, leading to collective ends. Not buying settlement goods, leading to supermarkets not stocking them. It is an opportunity for mass campaigning; it is a call to individuals or corporations not to do something but to make the choice not to.
There is a growing set of boycott successes, with significant individuals like Stephen Hawking refusing to go to Israel; the TUC's largely successful campaign aimed at having settlement goods removed from British supermarkets; the Co-operative's decision to stop using suppliers which operate in illegal Israeli settlements; the closure of Ahava's flagship store in London; and the takeover of G4S's AGM by shareholders demanding that it pull out of its contracts with Israeli prisons, settlements and checkpoints. The list is growing ever longer. Current campaigns are focussed on SodaStream and its high-profile stockist, the John Lewis Partnership; G4S and its bid for the BBC contract; and getting Sainsbury's to end its indifference to Palestine and adopt an ethical policy similar to the Co-op's.
D is for Divestment, or is it Disinvestment?
Divestment is about trying to get institutions to make a decision to withdraw support for Israel. The aim is to take investments out of certain companies, not to award contracts to or have contracts with complicit firms. This demands another range of tactics.
Along with Omar Barghouti and others, I recently took part via Skype in a grass-roots conference in San Francisco. It was a great local initiative, talking about Veolia, coming to grips with it both as a bad employer and as a complicit firm. I explained to the conference that in my experience there are three strands to a successful divestment campaign.
The first is putting the legal and technical arguments to those involved in the decision-making process, in particular giving those politicians who are supportive of BDS the information they need. In Britain there are a range of legal constraints on decision-makers which limit severely what you can do by way of political lobbying. For example, much is made of commercial confidentiality, so much so that individuals on the decision-making panel might not even know the names of the companies involved in the tender.
In this context the key message that we focus on is "grave political misconduct", which is one of the issues that can be used legitimately. Below is an example of how this was framed in a recent local campaign:
"Veolia is a company which is complicit in Israel's occupation. The Geneva Convention prohibits the occupying power from transferring its own civilians into occupied territories and goes on to prohibit significant alterations to the infrastructure. What Veolia does in Israel is not a marginal act. It has a contract with Israel, and it makes profits by breaking international law. It is a very clear case of grave professional misconduct, and we consider that Veolia should be excluded from any future tenders on those grounds."
The focus is to give decision-makers a framework within which they can, legally, make the decision we want.
Secondly, it is campaigning with the workforce inside the company. The workers will be worried about their futures, naturally so. The task is to convince them that it is in their long-term interests to campaign to get, in this case, Veolia out of Israel and for the company to stop operating illegally; to convince them that the reputational damage is going to be a greater risk eventually. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) is now running campaigns with workforces in Veolia and BT (British Telecom), and with the unions in G4S, and hope to launch a campaign soon. These are campaigns not against the workforce, but with them. It is not a boycott; it is a campaign to get the company to withdraw from illegal contracts, because it's in their own best interest to do so.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the community campaign, which is normally the driving force. It is the building of a coalition of activists, students, faith groups and politicians. The aim is to build pressure on the company and the decision-makers and to generate publicity. The timetable of the contract decision-making process quite often gives a clear focus for campaign activity.
These three strands need to work in unison, reinforcing each other. When the final decision comes, if it is not to award the contract to Veolia or any other complicit firm, it is important to claim the victory: the decision is always said by such companies to be for some other reason.
S is for Sanctions
As the successes demonstrate, the solidarity movement is good and getting better at both boycott and divestment. Our weakness has been at a national political level. This is about shifting the political paradigm; getting inside the tent and trying to move to a tipping point when we can make governments start to act. The recent EU guidelines on research funding in relation to the settlements is a first tentative step in this direction.
On the face of it the guidelines are not that controversial. They were explained by European diplomats as merely bringing together in a single place existing regulations.
The core principle is that EU money should only be spent on EU programmes within boundaries recognised by the EU. The self-evident point was that the settlements, being illegal and on occupied land, do not fit within any definition of where EU money should go.
The publication of the guidelines did not require new approval, as they were based on settled policy; but they unleashed a torrent of diplomatic anger from Israel, with support from John Kerry and the US. Much to their surprise, there was no mood in Brussels to shift on the guidelines themselves. You could detect an almost physical frustration and annoyance with Israel as it assumed a right to be able to tell the EU how it could and should spend its money. It is still the recipient of large sums of money not destined directly to the settlements.
How do we make this shift happen?
The solidarity movement needs to be bigger, broader and deeper across the globe. Organisations such as the PSC need to be bigger; to have the additional resources and capacity to take the campaign to ever higher levels. This will mean increasing membership and raising funds from supporters of Palestine, not for humanitarian aid, but for political action.
The alliances also need to get broader, including not just activists and trade unions, but also a broad range of politicians, community groups and faith organisations, and tapping into the growing empathy amongst students.
Finally, support needs to be deeper. In unions it needs to go from being national policy to regional and local-level action. The PSC is holding a conference for trade unions at the TUC in April to discuss how this can best be done. Within the Labour Party unions and branches that are affiliated need to raise Palestine as an issue. A Labour Party constituency I visited recently had not discussed the issue in 25 years, assuming it to be controversial, only to find that they all agreed that they supported Palestine. The debate on Palestine needs to be generated not just in the Labour Party but in all political parties, including parties of the left, where there is often no strong tradition of supporting the Palestinians. Given the shift in public opinion, it is not a debate we should be reluctant to have.
Building broad local alliances will be critical if the solidarity campaign is to grow and multiply. It will be local pressure that will help bring national parties into line, not only with their own grassroots, but with public opinion as well. In most Western European countries there is public support for Palestine.(2) This is not reflected by governments who seem stuck in a time warp believing that to do anything that could be viewed by Israel as hostile would be unpopular. The reality, though, is that many people are bemused as to why Israel is allowed to break international law, abuse Palestinian human rights, hold nuclear weapons and defy the UN with seeming impunity.
One of the reasons for this is that the Palestinian voice, unlike that of the Israelis, is not heard to anything like the same extent within the corridors of power. As a consequence governments hear a distorted, Israeli-filtered version of public opinion that does not reflect what the majority of people are actually saying and thinking. This imbalance is amplified further by media reporting that believes almost without question what one side says, namely Israel, whilst routinely doubting and challenging any Palestinian account of events. So how do we help make the Palestinian voice heard?
Soft Power
Action will speak louder than words. It will be through the twin arms of BDS and the solidarity campaign on the outside and non-violent resistance within Palestine.
Resistance is the key component without which nothing else is possible, but when put together with BDS they become a formidable force which is beginning to worry Israel more and more.
This is the soft power of which Richard Falk, the UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine, speaks; a soft war about reputational damage. The most recent example was SodaStream, for which we have to thank Scarlett Johansson for transforming a campaign that started in the back streets of Brighton into a global phenomenon. Her parting company with Oxfam was an inevitable consequence, but how good was it for SodaStream? Would you pay for an ambassador whose very fame brought down on you more opprobrium than ever before?
Israel is increasingly concerned about BDS as was revealed by its recent decision to establish a ministerial task group to fight campaigns. However, this worry has not been enough so far to change one jot what Israel is doing on the ground.
A moral case for action
To do that we need to get governments to act and this will not happen until we challenge the moral legitimacy of Israel's actions. We have moved from "it is not nice what they are doing" to "it is wrong, it is against the law"; but we need to get to "it is not acceptable and will not be tolerated".
We will have to demonstrate not just a legal but also a moral case and it is in this context that racism is Israel's Achilles Heel. Its policies are based on racism, with different laws along with separated and segregated people, roads and water. The Wall is a monstrosity in a modern age that the world is silent about. In contrast to the Berlin Wall, when Ronald Reagan famously told Gorbachev, "If you want peace ... tear down this wall!" In contrast, Israel is being allowed to build an apartheid reality with different rights for the different peoples who live under its effective control between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea.
To make such a moral case our campaign in support of Palestine must be an anti-racist campaign, making anti-racism the basis of all our actions. Historically, opponents of Israel's actions have always been attacked as anti-Semitic. Our challenge is to make anti-racism a strength not a weakness. This is not a tactical ploy; it is because it is morally right. However it will mean that Israel cannot routinely get away with decrying all opponents as anti-Semitic. This will enable us to expose properly Israel's racist agenda. That is why the PSC has made "Challenging Israel's racism and Apartheid" its overarching theme this year. It is going from defence to attack. It is about making Israeli racism and apartheid policies toxic. It is about making companies not wanting, for good commercial reasons, to be complicit with Israel's illegal and morally indefensible actions.
It is crucially about making it impossible for governments to justify inaction; forcing them to make a moral judgement that they can no longer condone Israel's actions.
Sanctions can mean many things. To date it has been encouragement and incentives for the Israelis; punishment and sanctions for Palestinians. It is becoming "guidance" to firms and institutions. This is not enough; governments need to make clear to Israel that there will be consequences for its behaviour. There is much that governments have the power to do, from funding and commerce and, in particular the arms trade.
The challenge is to break through the glass ceiling of inaction that, however well we do in bringing Palestine's plight to the world's attention, the US and Israel, with the support of the EU, have so far always succeeded in imposing. The only way that seems to have realistic prospects of success is the twin track strategy of Palestinian non-violent resistance coupled with a truly global solidarity campaign based around BDS. S is not only for Sanctions, but also for Success.
References
(1) Building a political firewall against the Assault on Israel's Legitimacy - London as a Case Study, [PDF] Reut Institute, November 2010. Accessed 18 November 2013
(2) 2013 Country Ratings Poll, 22 May 2013, [PDF] conducted by GlobeSpan/PIPA. Accessed 18 November 2013
Hugh Lanning is a British pro-Palestinian activist and former trade union official. He was the Deputy Chairman of the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS), one of Britain's largest trade unions, until May 2013. He has been the Chairman of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) since 2009, and in 2013 was named a vice chair of the group Unite Against Fascism (UAF). The article was taken from MEMO website and here is the link.
7 mar 2014
Students speaking at BDS rally
A group of professors, researchers and other academics from around the world published an open letter this week condemning the Israeli government's attempts to stifle debate and academic freedom at universities all over the planet.
The following letter was signed by prominent academics on Tuesday March 4th and published online:
Whether one is for or against Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) as a means to change the current situation in Palestine-Israel, it is important to recognize that boycotts are internationally affirmed and constitutionally protected forms of political expression. As non-violent instruments to effect political change, boycotts cannot be outlawed without trampling on a constitutionally protected right to political speech. Those who support boycotts ought not to become subject to retaliation, surveillance or censorship when they choose to express their political viewpoint, no matter how offensive it may be to those who disagree.
We are now witnessing accelerating efforts to curtail speech, to exercise censorship, and to carry out retaliatory action against individuals on the basis of their political views or associations, notably support for BDS. We ask cultural and educational institutions to have the courage and the principle to stand for, and safeguard, the very principles of free expression and the free exchange of ideas that make those institutions possible. This means refusing to accede to bullying, intimidation, and threats aimed at silencing speakers because of their actual or perceived political views. It also means refusing to impose a political litmus test on speakers and artists when they are invited to speak or show their work.
We ask that educational and cultural institutions recommit themselves to upholding principles of open debate, and to remain venues for staging expressions of an array of views, including controversial ones. Only by refusing to become vehicles for censorship and slander, and rejecting blacklisting, intimidation, and discrimination against certain viewpoints, can these institutions live up to their purpose as centers of learning and culture.
Judith Butler Professor of Comparative Literature, UC Berkeley
Rashid Khalidi Edward Said Professor in Modern Arab Studies, Columbia University
Etienne Balibar Emeritus Professor, Paris-Nanterre
Natalie Zemon Davis Professor of History
Deborah Eisenberg Writer
Eve Ensler Playwright/Activist
Samera Esmeir Associate Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Khaled Fahmy Professor, The American University in Cairo
Katherine Franke Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Paul Gilroy London
Naomi Klein Author and Journalist
Jacqueline Rose Professor of English, Queen Mary University of London
Mariam C Said Individual
Joan W Scott Institute for Advanced Study
Professor Lynne Segal University of London
Wallace Shawn Writer
Lila Abu-Lughod Columbia University
Sara Ahmed Goldsmiths University of London
Udi Aloni Filmmaker and writer
Richard Appelbaum MacArthur Foundation Chair, Global & International Studies, UCSB
Elsa Auerbach Professor Emerita, UMass Boston
Lisa Baraitser Birkbeck University of London
Yael Bartana Artist
Rosalyn Baxandall SUNY Old Westbury Distinguished Prof Emeritus
Joel Beinin Donald J McLachlan Professor of History, Stanford Univerrsity
Emanuela Bianchi New York University
Omri Boehm New School for Social Research, Assistant Professor
John Borneman Princeton University
Nicolas Bousserez Research Associate, University of Colorado at Boulder
Sarah Bracke Harvard Divinity School
Naomi Braine Brooklyn College
Laurie A. Brand University of Southern California
Renate Bridenthal Professor, retired from CUNY
Wendy Brown UC Berkeley
Shale Brownstein Retired psychiatrist HHC
Susan Buck-Morss Distinguished Professor, CUNY Graduate Center
Eduardo Cadava Princeton University
Margaret Cerullo Hampshire College
Sally Charnow Hofstra University, Professor of History
Alexandra Chasin New School for Social Research
Eric Cheyfitz Professor, Cornell University
Kandice Chuh Professor of English, CUNY Graduate Center
Ilene Cohen Editor
Elliott Colla Georgetown University
Christopher Connery Professor, University of California Santa Cruz
Stuart Davis Cornell University
Walt Davis Retired minister/professor
Ashley Dawson Professor, English Department, CUNY
Colin Dayan Vanderbilt University
Brett de Bary Professor, Asian Studies and Comparative Literature, Cornell University
Beshara Doumani Professor of History, Brown University
Lisa Duggan Professor, New York University
Nancy du Plessis Artist
David Eng University of Pennsylvania
Darlene Evans Cornell University
Sara Farris Assistant Professor, Goldsmiths, University of London
Leila Farsakh Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston
Pnina Feiler Physicians for Human Rights
Kathy E. Ferguson Professor, Departments of Political Science and Women’s Studies, University of Hawai’i
Elle Flanders Filmmaker
Jeff Fort University of California, Davis
Cynthia Franklin Professor of English, University of Hawaii
Carla Freccero Professor
Jamie Fuller Artist
Jennifer Gaboury Hunter College, CUNY
Ellen Gruber Garvey Ph.D.
Michael Gilsenan Prof. Michael Gilsenan
Neve Gordon
Samira Haj Professor
Lisa Hajjar Professor of Sociology, University of CA-Santa Barbara
J. Halberstam Professor of American Studies and Ethnicity, USC
Sondra Hale Research Professor, University of California, Los Angeles
Abdellah Hammoudi Professor , Princeton University
Beth Harris Associate Professor, Ithaca College
Professor Emerita Princeton University
Salah D. Hassan Associate Professor, MSU
Gail Hershatter University of California, Santa Cruz
Neil Hertz Johns Hopkins University
Marianne Hirsch Professor, Columbia University
Andrew Hsiao Verso Books
Elizabeth Ingenthron Graduate Theological Union
Margo Jefferson Writer
Joseph Jeon Pomona College
Jeanette Jouili College of Charleston
Moon-Kie Jung University of Illinois
Ann Jungman Writer
Amy Kaplan University of Pennsylvania
Carolyn L. Karcher Professor Emerita, Temple University
Suvir Kaul A M Rosenthal Professor, University of Pennsylvania
Elizabeth Kendall Associate Professor, New School
Arang Keshavarzian Faculty member, New York University
Dr. Gail Lewis Reader in Psychosocial Studies, Birkbeck College
Risa Lieberwitz Professor, Cornell University
Audrea Lim Verso Books
David Lloyd University of California, Riverside
Zachary Lockman New York University
Ania Loomba Professor, University of Pennsylvania
Miriam R. Lowi Professor, The College of New Jersey
Sandra R Mackie Reverend
Saba Mahmood UC Berkeley, Associate Professor
Harriet Malinowitz Professor of English, Long Island University, Brooklyn
Curtis Marez Associate Professor, University of California, San Diego
Mario Martone Cornell University
Barry Maxwell Senior Lecturer, Cornell University
Rela Mazali Author & Independent Scholar
Jeffrey Menlick University of Massachusetts Boston
Brinkley Messick Columbia University
Jennifer Miller Circus Amok, Director
University of Southern California
Susette Min University of California, Davis
Chandra Talpade Mohanty Syracuse University
Aurora Levins Morales Writer
Fred Moten University of California, Riverside
Yasser Munif Emerson College
Tad Mutersbaugh Professor of Geography, University of Kentucky
Chiara Nappi
Manijeh Nasrabadi New York University
David Palumbo-Liu Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor, Stanford
Lizabeth Paravisini-Gebert Professor, Vassar College
Rosalind Petchesky Distinguished Professor Emerita, Hunter College & the Graduate Center CUNY
Silvia Posocco Birkbeck, University of London
Vijay Prashad Trinity College
Sara Pursley Associate Editor, International Journal of Middle East Studies
Bruce Robbins Columbia University
Corey Robin Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center
Andrew Ross New York University
Dr. Catherine Rottenberg
John Carlos Rowe
Rachel Rubin Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston
Leticia Sabsay Birkbeck College, Univeristy of London
Neil Saccamano Cornell University
Ilan Safit Dept. of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Pace University
Josefina Saldaña Professor, New York University
Paul Sawyer Cornell University
James Schamus Columbia University
C. Heike Schotten Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Boston
Sarah Schulman Distinguished Professor of the Humanities CUNY College of Staten Island
Sherene Seikaly Director of Middle East Studies Center, American University in Cairo
Karen Shimakawa Associate Professor
Lincoln Shlensky University of Victoria
Marc Siegel Ast. Professor, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
Victor Silverman Chair, Department of History, Pomona College
David Simpson U of California-Davis
Jeffrey Skoller Professor, UC Berkeley
Darryl A. Smith Associate Professor, Pomona College
Alisa Solomon Professor, Columbia University
Dov Waxman Professor
Robert Warrior University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Kathy Wazana Documentary filmmaker
Max Weiss Princeton University
Laura Wernick Fordham University
Lisa Westarp Grace Memorial Episcopal Church
John M. Willis Assistant Professor, University of Colorado
Dagmawi Woubshet Cornell University, Associate Professor
Rachel Zolf Writer
A group of professors, researchers and other academics from around the world published an open letter this week condemning the Israeli government's attempts to stifle debate and academic freedom at universities all over the planet.
The following letter was signed by prominent academics on Tuesday March 4th and published online:
Whether one is for or against Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) as a means to change the current situation in Palestine-Israel, it is important to recognize that boycotts are internationally affirmed and constitutionally protected forms of political expression. As non-violent instruments to effect political change, boycotts cannot be outlawed without trampling on a constitutionally protected right to political speech. Those who support boycotts ought not to become subject to retaliation, surveillance or censorship when they choose to express their political viewpoint, no matter how offensive it may be to those who disagree.
We are now witnessing accelerating efforts to curtail speech, to exercise censorship, and to carry out retaliatory action against individuals on the basis of their political views or associations, notably support for BDS. We ask cultural and educational institutions to have the courage and the principle to stand for, and safeguard, the very principles of free expression and the free exchange of ideas that make those institutions possible. This means refusing to accede to bullying, intimidation, and threats aimed at silencing speakers because of their actual or perceived political views. It also means refusing to impose a political litmus test on speakers and artists when they are invited to speak or show their work.
We ask that educational and cultural institutions recommit themselves to upholding principles of open debate, and to remain venues for staging expressions of an array of views, including controversial ones. Only by refusing to become vehicles for censorship and slander, and rejecting blacklisting, intimidation, and discrimination against certain viewpoints, can these institutions live up to their purpose as centers of learning and culture.
Judith Butler Professor of Comparative Literature, UC Berkeley
Rashid Khalidi Edward Said Professor in Modern Arab Studies, Columbia University
Etienne Balibar Emeritus Professor, Paris-Nanterre
Natalie Zemon Davis Professor of History
Deborah Eisenberg Writer
Eve Ensler Playwright/Activist
Samera Esmeir Associate Professor, University of California, Berkeley
Khaled Fahmy Professor, The American University in Cairo
Katherine Franke Isidor and Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law, Columbia Law School
Paul Gilroy London
Naomi Klein Author and Journalist
Jacqueline Rose Professor of English, Queen Mary University of London
Mariam C Said Individual
Joan W Scott Institute for Advanced Study
Professor Lynne Segal University of London
Wallace Shawn Writer
Lila Abu-Lughod Columbia University
Sara Ahmed Goldsmiths University of London
Udi Aloni Filmmaker and writer
Richard Appelbaum MacArthur Foundation Chair, Global & International Studies, UCSB
Elsa Auerbach Professor Emerita, UMass Boston
Lisa Baraitser Birkbeck University of London
Yael Bartana Artist
Rosalyn Baxandall SUNY Old Westbury Distinguished Prof Emeritus
Joel Beinin Donald J McLachlan Professor of History, Stanford Univerrsity
Emanuela Bianchi New York University
Omri Boehm New School for Social Research, Assistant Professor
John Borneman Princeton University
Nicolas Bousserez Research Associate, University of Colorado at Boulder
Sarah Bracke Harvard Divinity School
Naomi Braine Brooklyn College
Laurie A. Brand University of Southern California
Renate Bridenthal Professor, retired from CUNY
Wendy Brown UC Berkeley
Shale Brownstein Retired psychiatrist HHC
Susan Buck-Morss Distinguished Professor, CUNY Graduate Center
Eduardo Cadava Princeton University
Margaret Cerullo Hampshire College
Sally Charnow Hofstra University, Professor of History
Alexandra Chasin New School for Social Research
Eric Cheyfitz Professor, Cornell University
Kandice Chuh Professor of English, CUNY Graduate Center
Ilene Cohen Editor
Elliott Colla Georgetown University
Christopher Connery Professor, University of California Santa Cruz
Stuart Davis Cornell University
Walt Davis Retired minister/professor
Ashley Dawson Professor, English Department, CUNY
Colin Dayan Vanderbilt University
Brett de Bary Professor, Asian Studies and Comparative Literature, Cornell University
Beshara Doumani Professor of History, Brown University
Lisa Duggan Professor, New York University
Nancy du Plessis Artist
David Eng University of Pennsylvania
Darlene Evans Cornell University
Sara Farris Assistant Professor, Goldsmiths, University of London
Leila Farsakh Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston
Pnina Feiler Physicians for Human Rights
Kathy E. Ferguson Professor, Departments of Political Science and Women’s Studies, University of Hawai’i
Elle Flanders Filmmaker
Jeff Fort University of California, Davis
Cynthia Franklin Professor of English, University of Hawaii
Carla Freccero Professor
Jamie Fuller Artist
Jennifer Gaboury Hunter College, CUNY
Ellen Gruber Garvey Ph.D.
Michael Gilsenan Prof. Michael Gilsenan
Neve Gordon
Samira Haj Professor
Lisa Hajjar Professor of Sociology, University of CA-Santa Barbara
J. Halberstam Professor of American Studies and Ethnicity, USC
Sondra Hale Research Professor, University of California, Los Angeles
Abdellah Hammoudi Professor , Princeton University
Beth Harris Associate Professor, Ithaca College
Professor Emerita Princeton University
Salah D. Hassan Associate Professor, MSU
Gail Hershatter University of California, Santa Cruz
Neil Hertz Johns Hopkins University
Marianne Hirsch Professor, Columbia University
Andrew Hsiao Verso Books
Elizabeth Ingenthron Graduate Theological Union
Margo Jefferson Writer
Joseph Jeon Pomona College
Jeanette Jouili College of Charleston
Moon-Kie Jung University of Illinois
Ann Jungman Writer
Amy Kaplan University of Pennsylvania
Carolyn L. Karcher Professor Emerita, Temple University
Suvir Kaul A M Rosenthal Professor, University of Pennsylvania
Elizabeth Kendall Associate Professor, New School
Arang Keshavarzian Faculty member, New York University
Dr. Gail Lewis Reader in Psychosocial Studies, Birkbeck College
Risa Lieberwitz Professor, Cornell University
Audrea Lim Verso Books
David Lloyd University of California, Riverside
Zachary Lockman New York University
Ania Loomba Professor, University of Pennsylvania
Miriam R. Lowi Professor, The College of New Jersey
Sandra R Mackie Reverend
Saba Mahmood UC Berkeley, Associate Professor
Harriet Malinowitz Professor of English, Long Island University, Brooklyn
Curtis Marez Associate Professor, University of California, San Diego
Mario Martone Cornell University
Barry Maxwell Senior Lecturer, Cornell University
Rela Mazali Author & Independent Scholar
Jeffrey Menlick University of Massachusetts Boston
Brinkley Messick Columbia University
Jennifer Miller Circus Amok, Director
University of Southern California
Susette Min University of California, Davis
Chandra Talpade Mohanty Syracuse University
Aurora Levins Morales Writer
Fred Moten University of California, Riverside
Yasser Munif Emerson College
Tad Mutersbaugh Professor of Geography, University of Kentucky
Chiara Nappi
Manijeh Nasrabadi New York University
David Palumbo-Liu Louise Hewlett Nixon Professor, Stanford
Lizabeth Paravisini-Gebert Professor, Vassar College
Rosalind Petchesky Distinguished Professor Emerita, Hunter College & the Graduate Center CUNY
Silvia Posocco Birkbeck, University of London
Vijay Prashad Trinity College
Sara Pursley Associate Editor, International Journal of Middle East Studies
Bruce Robbins Columbia University
Corey Robin Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center
Andrew Ross New York University
Dr. Catherine Rottenberg
John Carlos Rowe
Rachel Rubin Professor, University of Massachusetts Boston
Leticia Sabsay Birkbeck College, Univeristy of London
Neil Saccamano Cornell University
Ilan Safit Dept. of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Pace University
Josefina Saldaña Professor, New York University
Paul Sawyer Cornell University
James Schamus Columbia University
C. Heike Schotten Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Boston
Sarah Schulman Distinguished Professor of the Humanities CUNY College of Staten Island
Sherene Seikaly Director of Middle East Studies Center, American University in Cairo
Karen Shimakawa Associate Professor
Lincoln Shlensky University of Victoria
Marc Siegel Ast. Professor, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany
Victor Silverman Chair, Department of History, Pomona College
David Simpson U of California-Davis
Jeffrey Skoller Professor, UC Berkeley
Darryl A. Smith Associate Professor, Pomona College
Alisa Solomon Professor, Columbia University
Dov Waxman Professor
Robert Warrior University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Kathy Wazana Documentary filmmaker
Max Weiss Princeton University
Laura Wernick Fordham University
Lisa Westarp Grace Memorial Episcopal Church
John M. Willis Assistant Professor, University of Colorado
Dagmawi Woubshet Cornell University, Associate Professor
Rachel Zolf Writer
