This past Thursday, Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) launched a campaign for the cancellation of Israeli Defense Force (IDF) Lt. Colonel Eran Shamir-Borer’s lecture “Legal Challenges in Asymmetrical Warfare: the case of Operation Protective Edge.”Hosted by the Fletcher School’s International Security Studies Program, this talk obviously struck a chord in the Tufts community and beyond. At the time of this op-ed’s publication, over 1,300 have signed an online petition requesting that Tufts President Anthony Monaco cancel the event.
Not all, however, have cheered Tufts SJP’s actions. Those opposed have put forth an array of arguments, ranging from refuting SJP’s description of the IDF’s actions during last summer’s Operation Protective Edge, to questioning the group's tactics in responding to the event. While the former argument is vital in understanding SJP’s raison d’etre, the latter argument strikes at the very heart of the nature of these Palestine solidarity movements in the United States and their chosen strategies.
Critics have accused SJP of stifling free speech on Tufts’ campus. After all, it’s no secret that just about anything emanating from a representative of the Israeli Defense Forces will not align with SJP’s fundamental tenets. Tyrion Lannister once observed, "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." Does SJP’s request therefore reflect a fear that it cannot effectively counter what Shamir-Borer will put forward in his lecture? Or is the reasoning more complex?
Although I have no doubt that our convictions differ on nearly every other current and historical aspect of events in Palestine, I wholeheartedly agree with Shamir-Borer’s description of the situation as “asymmetrical.” This description, however, extends beyond the realm of warfare and permeates the entirety of the Israeli-Palestinian question. The IDF's modern killing machines crush often unarmed Palestinian targets, while at the same time Zionist institutions in the United States enjoy huge budgetary, political and technical advantages when compared to student organizations such as SJP. Simply extracting “warfare” and brandishing it as unique in its asymmetry allows Zionists to disassociate Palestinian militancy from its root causes: occupation, expulsion and subordination. Despite the already considerable resource gap in the PR department, Israel itself has conflated the military and propaganda aspects of the issue when it has seen fit to silence those who prominently oppose its policies. The assassinations of Palestinian writers and intellectuals such as Ghassan Kanafani and Kamal Nasser provide two examples of a consistent policy of violently targeting Palestinian narratives.
Now wait a minute, didn’t Tufts host an SJP conference just weeks ago?
Yes, Tufts hosted the national SJP conference “Beyond Solidarity” from Oct. 24 to 26. Fundamental differences, however, separate these events, and thus necessitate different responses. In one case, a student organization -- SJP -- hosted a conference, while in the other, a university institution, namely the Fletcher School, will welcome a Lieutenant Colonel. Not once during “Beyond Solidarity” did the speakers in any way justify military aggression, while the title of the Shamir-Borer event directly implies the goal of his lecture: to outline the legal cover for Operation Protective Edge, the IDF aggression this past summer that killed over 2,000 Palestinians, nearly 500 of them children.Mari Matsuda, a lawyer, activist and professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law observes in her book "Words that Wound" (1993) that "there is a cost, a burden and price paid for the epidemic of assaultive speech on our campuses, and the cost is paid disproportionately by historically subordinated groups." I personally hail from a Palestinian-American family of which I will become the fourth member to graduate from Tufts in the spring. The invitation of an IDF officer stands as an affront to the commitment my father, mother and uncle have shown to the "values" of their alma mater, as well as the personal experiences and histories of other Palestinian members of the Tufts community.
By allowing one of the universities’ most prominent institutions to host an IDF Lieutenant Colonel, Tufts implicitly endorses the legitimacy of the IDF self-justification and wraps it under the guise of “academia.” The notion of “academia” resonates with many as impartiality: It implies that Lt. Colonel Shamir-Borer will approach the massacre in Gaza as someone who has objectively studied the events of this past summer and their legal implications. This perception could not be a further distortion of reality. Shamir-Borer is paid to defend IDF actions, period.
Finally, as a Palestinian solidarity group, SJP chooses to align its actions with Palestinian civil society’s 2005 call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). Inspired by similar strategies against the apartheid South African regime, BDS provides peaceful international repercussions to Israel’s continued transgressions against basic human rights. We can in no way exclude this call from certain spheres, such as academia, under the pretext of keeping them “neutral ground." SJP, therefore, grounds its appeal for cancellation in the Palestinian Call for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). Under its guidelines for the international academic boycott of Israel, PACBI states: "Anchored in precepts of international law and universal human rights, the BDS movement, including PACBI, rejects on principle boycotts of individuals based on their identity (such as citizenship, race, gender or religion) or opinion. If, however, an individual is representing the state of Israel [including the Israeli military] or a complicit Israeli institution (such as a dean, rector or president), or is commissioned/recruited to participate in Israel’s efforts to 'rebrand' itself, then her or his activities are subject to the institutional boycott the BDS movement is calling for."
Not all, however, have cheered Tufts SJP’s actions. Those opposed have put forth an array of arguments, ranging from refuting SJP’s description of the IDF’s actions during last summer’s Operation Protective Edge, to questioning the group's tactics in responding to the event. While the former argument is vital in understanding SJP’s raison d’etre, the latter argument strikes at the very heart of the nature of these Palestine solidarity movements in the United States and their chosen strategies.
Critics have accused SJP of stifling free speech on Tufts’ campus. After all, it’s no secret that just about anything emanating from a representative of the Israeli Defense Forces will not align with SJP’s fundamental tenets. Tyrion Lannister once observed, "When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say." Does SJP’s request therefore reflect a fear that it cannot effectively counter what Shamir-Borer will put forward in his lecture? Or is the reasoning more complex?
Although I have no doubt that our convictions differ on nearly every other current and historical aspect of events in Palestine, I wholeheartedly agree with Shamir-Borer’s description of the situation as “asymmetrical.” This description, however, extends beyond the realm of warfare and permeates the entirety of the Israeli-Palestinian question. The IDF's modern killing machines crush often unarmed Palestinian targets, while at the same time Zionist institutions in the United States enjoy huge budgetary, political and technical advantages when compared to student organizations such as SJP. Simply extracting “warfare” and brandishing it as unique in its asymmetry allows Zionists to disassociate Palestinian militancy from its root causes: occupation, expulsion and subordination. Despite the already considerable resource gap in the PR department, Israel itself has conflated the military and propaganda aspects of the issue when it has seen fit to silence those who prominently oppose its policies. The assassinations of Palestinian writers and intellectuals such as Ghassan Kanafani and Kamal Nasser provide two examples of a consistent policy of violently targeting Palestinian narratives.
Now wait a minute, didn’t Tufts host an SJP conference just weeks ago?
Yes, Tufts hosted the national SJP conference “Beyond Solidarity” from Oct. 24 to 26. Fundamental differences, however, separate these events, and thus necessitate different responses. In one case, a student organization -- SJP -- hosted a conference, while in the other, a university institution, namely the Fletcher School, will welcome a Lieutenant Colonel. Not once during “Beyond Solidarity” did the speakers in any way justify military aggression, while the title of the Shamir-Borer event directly implies the goal of his lecture: to outline the legal cover for Operation Protective Edge, the IDF aggression this past summer that killed over 2,000 Palestinians, nearly 500 of them children.Mari Matsuda, a lawyer, activist and professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law observes in her book "Words that Wound" (1993) that "there is a cost, a burden and price paid for the epidemic of assaultive speech on our campuses, and the cost is paid disproportionately by historically subordinated groups." I personally hail from a Palestinian-American family of which I will become the fourth member to graduate from Tufts in the spring. The invitation of an IDF officer stands as an affront to the commitment my father, mother and uncle have shown to the "values" of their alma mater, as well as the personal experiences and histories of other Palestinian members of the Tufts community.
By allowing one of the universities’ most prominent institutions to host an IDF Lieutenant Colonel, Tufts implicitly endorses the legitimacy of the IDF self-justification and wraps it under the guise of “academia.” The notion of “academia” resonates with many as impartiality: It implies that Lt. Colonel Shamir-Borer will approach the massacre in Gaza as someone who has objectively studied the events of this past summer and their legal implications. This perception could not be a further distortion of reality. Shamir-Borer is paid to defend IDF actions, period.
Finally, as a Palestinian solidarity group, SJP chooses to align its actions with Palestinian civil society’s 2005 call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS). Inspired by similar strategies against the apartheid South African regime, BDS provides peaceful international repercussions to Israel’s continued transgressions against basic human rights. We can in no way exclude this call from certain spheres, such as academia, under the pretext of keeping them “neutral ground." SJP, therefore, grounds its appeal for cancellation in the Palestinian Call for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI). Under its guidelines for the international academic boycott of Israel, PACBI states: "Anchored in precepts of international law and universal human rights, the BDS movement, including PACBI, rejects on principle boycotts of individuals based on their identity (such as citizenship, race, gender or religion) or opinion. If, however, an individual is representing the state of Israel [including the Israeli military] or a complicit Israeli institution (such as a dean, rector or president), or is commissioned/recruited to participate in Israel’s efforts to 'rebrand' itself, then her or his activities are subject to the institutional boycott the BDS movement is calling for."
By no means does SJP aim to "silence" anyone’s speech. It has not asked, nor never will ask, for the metaphorical ripping out of Shamir-Borer’s tongue and of those who propagate similarly violent ideals. Free speech is an essential right at Tufts and in the U.S., a right not often afforded by Israel to Palestinians and others who criticize its policies. Tufts must therefore take all possible steps toward leveling the discourse that surrounds Israeli aggression, not exacerbate its grossly asymmetrical nature. Nor can we deny or understate the weight of any university and its institutions in connoting discourse. Wrapped in the protective blanket of the Fletcher School, Shamir-Borer suddenly seems much less “IDF” and much more “impartial," an adjective that distorts his background and his positions long before he arrives on campus. SJP bases its call for cancellation neither on Shamir-Borer’s religion nor his nationality. Rather, the group has targeted his lecture because of his position as the IDF's legal advisor during Operation Protective Edge. Shamir-Borer explicitly represents the institution of the IDF, and giving him a platform at Tufts legitimizes and normalizes its war crimes.
