Well said Katy! I watched at least part of the testimony of these three university presidents and found it cringeworthy. Yes, perhaps they were struggling under the stress, but isn’t it part of their job to speak on behalf of the university leadership, and to answer difficult questions? Yes, the questions from the Congress members were tough, and sometimes aggressive, but the presidents’ answers lacked moral clarity. For example, claiming that the acceptability of calls for the genocide of Jews depends on the context implies that there are contexts where such calls could be justified. Obviously, there are no such contexts. Also, claiming that such speech should not be disciplined unless it translates into conduct (meaning actually committing genocide?) is preposterous. I can see why the Congress members became angry.
I wanted to come out in hives. It was appalling. I’m prepared to think that the awkwardness was related to nerves—the strange grinning by Magill might have reflected anxiety—but I cannot understand how they did not have total clarity on this issue. Calling for genocide of any group is unacceptable.
Dec 10, 2023·edited Dec 10, 2023Liked by Katy Barnett
Indeed. It would not be hard to anticipate what sort of questions could be asked, and to wargame them in practice sessions beforehand.
I note that Magill afterwards said that she was tired at the time, and that she gave legalistic answers rather than moral answers. Again, she should have worked that problem out in advance
Yes but who, among our legal academic colleagues is implicitly or explicitly calling for this? Do we mean someone somehow tacitly supporting Hamas’s charter? Are there genuinely international jurists supporting its anti-Israeli state clauses? I would be surprised. But perhaps we also need also to be careful to separate the genuine academic task of trying to understand or explain the context behind something from somehow thereby justifying or excusing it. (I work in Third Reich studies - I know whereof I speak!!) I do also worry that so much of the wider case-making around this conflict is grounded in finding the worst extremes from either side of the conflict and extrapolating those examples into generalities about the rights or not of whole populations too. I do think it’s an axiomatic element of academic discourse both rigourously to interrogate all sources, and that’s innately uncomfortable for the status quo on any issue not least. On the specific point about colonial theory - I rather fear what’s unfolding, rather than debunking them, actually suggests why they might be of real value. Putting aside Gaza for a moment how else might we describe what is going on in the West Bank if not as a form of ‘settler-colonialIism’? Generalising coloniali behaviours beyond the West (as we should!) also won’t , I think, help make what’s going on there morally or legally ok (to my mind at least!)
Some people are explicitly saying it was legally justifiable for Hamas to violently kill civilians, and the union has quoted from the Hamas charter on social media. I honestly don’t get it. And yes - I also agree re the worst extremes - people have sent me pictures of dead babies from either side. I don’t want *any* babies to die, Israeli or Palestinian.
I don’t believe Gaza can be explained as colonialism. It is more complex, bound up in religion, history, culture, and the fact that (at least) two different groups believe that they have an entitlement to, and spiritual connection with, the same land. FWIW I am not a fan of the expansion of Israel beyond 1968 borders, or of the Netanyahu government. I am also not a fan of Hamas, to put it lightly. Hamas martyrs Palestinian people, while its leadership sits safe in Qatar. Ordinary Palestinian people are caught between the hammer and the anvil.
Both sides have done bad things at different times. Both sides have good reasons to hate the other. I honestly don’t know how this can be resolved in a way which won’t leave many innocent people dead. It is heartbreaking.
Amartya Sen is very interesting on economics in the developing world, for example. Yes, there are negative sides to colonisation - one of the strings to my bow is Indian law, which requires me to know Indian colonial history, and there’s some very bad stuff there - but the question is how to make peoples’ lives good now, at least in my view.
Well said Katy! I watched at least part of the testimony of these three university presidents and found it cringeworthy. Yes, perhaps they were struggling under the stress, but isn’t it part of their job to speak on behalf of the university leadership, and to answer difficult questions? Yes, the questions from the Congress members were tough, and sometimes aggressive, but the presidents’ answers lacked moral clarity. For example, claiming that the acceptability of calls for the genocide of Jews depends on the context implies that there are contexts where such calls could be justified. Obviously, there are no such contexts. Also, claiming that such speech should not be disciplined unless it translates into conduct (meaning actually committing genocide?) is preposterous. I can see why the Congress members became angry.
I wanted to come out in hives. It was appalling. I’m prepared to think that the awkwardness was related to nerves—the strange grinning by Magill might have reflected anxiety—but I cannot understand how they did not have total clarity on this issue. Calling for genocide of any group is unacceptable.
Indeed. It would not be hard to anticipate what sort of questions could be asked, and to wargame them in practice sessions beforehand.
I note that Magill afterwards said that she was tired at the time, and that she gave legalistic answers rather than moral answers. Again, she should have worked that problem out in advance
I'm surprised by the (metaphoric) moral silence shown by well meaning friends working in international law when it comes to calls for Israel's destruction. It is this silence that scares me. This is not to justify Israel's response or exonerate Hamas for its crimes. However, it seems we are in hyper partisan times especially on morally evocative issues. https://www.justsecurity.org/90358/a-plea-to-the-international-law-community-on-de-humanizing-and-the-october-7th-atrocities/
Precisely this.
Yes but who, among our legal academic colleagues is implicitly or explicitly calling for this? Do we mean someone somehow tacitly supporting Hamas’s charter? Are there genuinely international jurists supporting its anti-Israeli state clauses? I would be surprised. But perhaps we also need also to be careful to separate the genuine academic task of trying to understand or explain the context behind something from somehow thereby justifying or excusing it. (I work in Third Reich studies - I know whereof I speak!!) I do also worry that so much of the wider case-making around this conflict is grounded in finding the worst extremes from either side of the conflict and extrapolating those examples into generalities about the rights or not of whole populations too. I do think it’s an axiomatic element of academic discourse both rigourously to interrogate all sources, and that’s innately uncomfortable for the status quo on any issue not least. On the specific point about colonial theory - I rather fear what’s unfolding, rather than debunking them, actually suggests why they might be of real value. Putting aside Gaza for a moment how else might we describe what is going on in the West Bank if not as a form of ‘settler-colonialIism’? Generalising coloniali behaviours beyond the West (as we should!) also won’t , I think, help make what’s going on there morally or legally ok (to my mind at least!)
Some people are explicitly saying it was legally justifiable for Hamas to violently kill civilians, and the union has quoted from the Hamas charter on social media. I honestly don’t get it. And yes - I also agree re the worst extremes - people have sent me pictures of dead babies from either side. I don’t want *any* babies to die, Israeli or Palestinian.
I don’t believe Gaza can be explained as colonialism. It is more complex, bound up in religion, history, culture, and the fact that (at least) two different groups believe that they have an entitlement to, and spiritual connection with, the same land. FWIW I am not a fan of the expansion of Israel beyond 1968 borders, or of the Netanyahu government. I am also not a fan of Hamas, to put it lightly. Hamas martyrs Palestinian people, while its leadership sits safe in Qatar. Ordinary Palestinian people are caught between the hammer and the anvil.
Both sides have done bad things at different times. Both sides have good reasons to hate the other. I honestly don’t know how this can be resolved in a way which won’t leave many innocent people dead. It is heartbreaking.
Were we not saying 'words are violence' just a moment ago..?
Well that’s the whole thing! Apparently NOT in this context. Which is what makes the whole thing hypocritical…
I love you, Katy.
Back atcha, Iona.
Amartya Sen is very interesting on economics in the developing world, for example. Yes, there are negative sides to colonisation - one of the strings to my bow is Indian law, which requires me to know Indian colonial history, and there’s some very bad stuff there - but the question is how to make peoples’ lives good now, at least in my view.
Will have to watch when I get back from Japan (leaving tomorrow). Today = packing.