Response: Students For Justice in Palestine on the cancellation of Israeli Ambassador

Students for Justice in Palestine member Jonathan Farrell comments on the protest which resulted in the Israeli ambassador cancelling the SOFIA event

Credit: Niall Maher

On Monday, the Israeli ambassador to Ireland was due to give a talk in Trinity College Dublin, having been invited by the college Society for International Affairs (SOFIA) TCD. Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) TCD opposed the platform afforded Mr. Boker and exercised their right to protest. This position has produced a wealth of varying responses, not only from the student body, but also from the national and global community.

 

After the protest, Provost Dr Patrick Prendergast condemned the actions of SJP, claiming it to be an attack on free speech. Dr. Prendergast however, did not broach the slander launched at the students of Trinity College Dublin who protested, who were described as “vicious” and “genocidal” by the Israeli embassy. It is not unusual to have critics of the state of Israel censured by labelling all criticism as anti-Semitic. As those who reserve the right to free speech stand proudly, as do we who reserve and exercise the right to protest. It is disappointing that the Provost’s defence of his students is noticeably absent.

 

While it is indeed the right of the Ambassador to speak as he wishes, it is also within the rights of an individual or a collective to vocalise their disagreement. There was no attempt to forcefully prevent the event on Monday, nor would there have been. SJP conducted a peaceful and successful protest voicing their disagreements with someone who has a track record of lies and complicity in human rights abuses. It was not SJP who cancelled the event.

 

Annexation of land

Among the crimes Mr. Boker denies is the misleading proposition that Israel does not partake in the illegal annexation of land. However, a cursory glance at a map of Israeli settlements around east Jerusalem alone clearly betrays an ambition to separate the city from the rest of the West Bank.

 

Today a barrier of over 300,000 settlers exists between Jerusalemite Palestinians and their neighbours to the east. Recently released plans to construct the ‘American Road’ between illegal Israeli settlements in (Palestinian) East Jerusalem require that the homes of some 500 Palestinian civilians be demolished. This road will be Israeli only and will “wipe out all the roads that connect the Palestinian neighbourhoods of Jerusalem together.

 

This is a pattern repeated all across the West Bank. Not calling a programme annexation, does not mean it is not effectively annexation. Since 1948, a policy of expulsion has pushed Palestinian civilians out of their towns and cities, which were then either occupied by European settlers, or demolished and covered up with imported pine tree plantations. This policy was explicitly stated in 1937 by future Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, who wrote that “We must expel the Arabs and take their places” and “we have force at our disposal.”

 

Today the combination of policies in the West Bank such as planning permission refusals, home demolitions, and restrictions on movement are part of what contributes to what some have described as a “coercive environment”, designed to, in the words of Zionist Theodor Herzl, “spirit the penniless population across the border.”

 

Further, in a letter to The Irish Catholic last year, Mr. Boker was at pains to argue that, unlike the Palestinians, the Israeli administration does not actively partake in targeting civilian societies – a blatant lie. Reported in The Jerusalem Post in 1981, Israeli statesman Abba Eban stated that the Israeli Defence Forces deliberately targeted Lebanese civilians. Numerous human rights groups have condemned Israel’s “Dahiya Doctrine,” a policy of massive attacks on civilian areas to exert political pressure on groups through collective punishment.

 

Similarly, Noam Chomsky wrote that the December 27th, 2008 strike on Gaza was meticulously planned. Striking densely populated areas of Gaza city shortly before noon, “it took only a few minutes to kill over 200 people and wound 700, an auspicious opening to the mass slaughter of defenceless civilians trapped in a tiny cage with nowhere to flee.”

 

Mr.Boker’s arguments about the integrity of Israeli policy in the face of a prolific threat from terrorists are orchestrated to appeal to current feelings in society, particularly after September 2001. However, what this argument deliberately omits is the fact that the State of Israel has perpetrated far more terror on civilian populations than any “terrorist” organisation is capable of inflicting.

 

The politicisation of terrorism by State functionaries is a well-worn tactic to discredit the right to self-determination. By portraying Palestinians as incapable of self-rule or reasoned negotiation, they become architects of their own destruction. The same tactic was used by the British Empire in Ireland, who had no intention of ever handing over independence to the Irish.

 

People like Mr. Boker actively contribute to a regime that seeks to make us all complicit in the murder of innocent civilians – many of whom, like SJP’s recent guest Malaka Mohammed, are from refugee families who have not seen their ancestral homes since the 1948 expulsion.

 

Free speech

The debate around the concept of free speech has been evolving in the past few weeks. After recent news revelations surrounding right-wing conservative commentator and Alt-Right figurehead Milo Yiannopoulos conservatives who have been prompt to dismiss criticism as denying the right to free speech, suddenly dropped their affiliations with Yiannopoulos when comments he made regarding paedophilia resurfaced made him a PR disaster. Those quick to shout about “free speech” suddenly vanished.

 

If the Yiannopoulos controversy can so suddenly reverse a hypocritical conservatives hysterical screaming of “free speech”, I would position the argument – how much phosphorous can be dropped on civilians, how many crops and fishing waters poisoned, how many war crimes can be committed before the man who denies them, and censures his opponents with absurd accusations of anti-Semitism and opposition to free speech, becomes reprehensible and deserving of protest?

.
To welcome the ambassador without voicing disagreement would be a disgrace and an insult to the Palestinian people. We must be forthright in declaring that by hosting an ambassador of a state that is currently engaged in enforcing terror on a population, and denying it, we are not only normalising and condoning their actions, but we are also condemning the Palestinians.

 

Correction: This article previously cited Israeli statesman Abba Eban (the Jerusalem Post,1981) as stating the Israeli Defence Forces deliberately targeted “Gazan civilians in order to exert pressure on Hamas”, where it should have read “Lebanese civilians.” This has been amended. – 16:17, 23/2/2017

 

  • Jacqueline Lillian Mulhern

    Is this the TCD newspaper or the SJP newspaper? Since the Israeli Ambassador was physically blocked from entering the lecture hall, this site has been a showcase for SJP’s views. Invite the Ambassador to write something in response. Paraphrasing his ideas out of context is no substitute for rigorous debate. Amb. Boker has been and will continue to receive invitations to speak in Ireland. However, TCD will not attract guest speakers if lectures are cancelled at the last minute by protesters, and the university’s reputation will suffer.

  • Kevin Mccarthy

    Whilst I applaud political activism in any student forum, the one-sided and un-empirical interpretation of contemporary Israel’s fight for self-preservation is the antithesis of the scholarship that Trinity prides itself upon. There are indeed many issues that cloud Israeli policy, however, the only way to challenge them is in an open and reasoned debate where the ambassador could explain, defend, advocate for his country. The emotive rhetoric of The Students for Justice in Palestine does a disservice to not merely scholarly discourse, but also to genuine political activism.

  • From the River (Jordan) to the Sea (Mediterranean) Palestine will be free? Not bloody likely if the mafia controlling 95% of all Palestinians in the Authority continues as they do arresting, torturing and censoring any who disagree with them.

    How could anyone think that calling for the elimination of a state of 6 million Jews in the only Jewish majority and explicitly Jewish state in the world could possibly be either genocidal or antisemitic? BTW the Israeli embassy didn’t use the word antisemitic.

  • selfstudier

    Nor do you need to look so far afield for an illegal annexation, East Jerusalem was annexed in 1980 (annexation declared null and void by the International Community). Look into the situation there if you want to find out what life under Israeli rule is like.

    • Claire Finn

      I’d say it’s a hell of a lot better than it was for the Jews of East Jerusalem after Jordan occupied it in ’48. Killed and expelled, weren’t they? And now the so called “anti Apartheid” crowd go bezerk if a Jew buys a house in the neighbourhood…

  • Félim Gibbons

    The Provost should get the Ambassador back again and soon. Looking forward to it if only to discuss and debate some of the issues that should have been last Monday. The tedious, appallingly written incoherent defence of free speech or was it right to protest “articulated” above is however, a source of encouragement for those of us who are eager to engage with this issue. For to describe this “spiel” as demagogic and untruthful would almost be a promotion of these terms to the level of respectability. This moral frivolity needs exposure. The guffaw monkey sounds of last Monday night was political cowardice of the safest kind. Is there anything worse than this type of demo of “dissenting” bravery? Hope the pints went down well after the preening was analysed. Just wondering too – as this was a “successful” protest, how is an unsuccessful one described?

  • Joe Burns

    So Jonathan, how about a debate between you and the Israeli Ambassador? If the debate was adjudicated by a professor of History you would lose on the first round. I don’t remember ever reading such biased misinformation.

  • Damian Moran

    Why do supporters of israel run and hide when you ask them why most of their support in the U.K comes from far right neo nazi fascist groups like the UVF, LVF, EDL, Loyalist blackshirts, Combat 18, Pegida, BNP and Britain first? And why would anyone give people that they support a platform to spew their bile and lies from?

  • Patrick Coyne

    So glad the tide is beginning to turn on this type of anti-jewish demonstration and glad to see the back of the racist Ken Livingstone across the water.

Editors





Niamh Lynch
news@trinitynews.ie
Kelly McGlynn
features@trinitynews.ie
Michael Foley
comment@trinitynews.ie
Katarzyna Siewierska
scitech@trinitynews.ie
Clare McCarthy
sport@trinitynews.ie

Illustration

Aisling Crabbe
Natalia Duda
Sarah Morel
Mike Dolan
John Tierney
Naoise Dolan
Sarah Larragy
Mubbashir Ali Sultan
Nadia Bertaud
Daniel Tatlow

Photography

Kevin O'Rourke
Ines Niarchos
Huda Awan