Hateful Israeli academics and their ilk

The “Alon Harels and the Ofer Aharonys” of Israel

By Dogan Akman 

The event

Alon Harel is a professor of law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJ) who occupies an endowed chair and a member of the Centre of Rationality, specialising in jurisprudence, political theory, constitutional theory, law and economics.

He recently posted the following statement in his Facebook page:

“The Barkan killing was without doubt a cold blooded murder, and in this resembles to the murders committed by Tsahal in the southern border of Israel.”

The angry reactions of readers who took umbrage at this egregious statement did not take long to make their way into his page. Many of them asked the question: “How do you dare compare terrorists to the soldiers of Tsahal? “

Harel’s reply to this question is: “I did not accuse the soldiers but the government” and then he nevertheless, went on to affirm that “Tsahal murders children day after day and without a valid reason.” A self-contradictory bizarre reply.

Finally, this past Wednesday, October 10 inst., Harel posted the following explanation for his earlier statements:  “My comparison of the Berkan assassination and the massacres in the south of Israel were shameful. It was made after days during which I was continuously attacked in the social media because I am organising a colloquium under the theme of ‘Life under occupation’ to be held at the HUJ. These attacks against me have been extreme to the point of wishing me to finish [my life] in a concentration camp. I have been referred to as a Nazi, mass murderer, an antisemite etc. This led me, despite myself, to react in an extreme manner and to make this comparison. I regret it deeply.”

(The foregoing quotations are extracted from the October 12 issue of LPHIInfo the Israeli French language online publication. The translation from French is mine. The following commentary is premised on the factual accuracy of the news report.)

Analysis

Expression of “deep regret” for what? What does he consider to be “shameful”?

Harel’s expression of “deep regret” does not, by any means, constitute nor is it intended to constitute an apology to Tsahal, its officers and soldiers  to the government.

Further, Harel’s formulation of his deep regret fails to identify the parties to whom he purports to express his regret and the precise reason that caused him this regret.

Reading the texts he posted, I suggest that his regret is directed to Hamas and to those who support Hamas’s unprovoked war of death and destruction.

I base this conclusion on the following facts:

First, Harel’s  first posting  not only still describes the actions of the IDF against Hamas ” as “the massacres in the south”, and but he then goes on to charge the IDF with “killing children day after day and without a valid reason”.

Second, he does not repudiate his vile charges against the Tsahal, its officers and soldiers and the government.

In the premises, what Harel really considers to be ”shameful”  is based on his  realisation that his comparison trivialised  the gravity of the actions of the IDF and of the government  that  engaged in mass and indiscriminate  killings of Palestinians  by comparing it  that of a terrorist act that resulted in one killing.

Harel’s excuse

Harel seeks   to explain away his comments on the grounds that he has been subjected to “extreme” attacks for organising a symposium titled “Life under occupation” to the point that of wishing him to finish [my life] in a concentration camp and being called a Nazi, mass murderer, anti-Semite and this led, despite himself mind you to react in an extreme manner.

The first point is that anyone familiar with the social media language these days would hardly describe such attacks as extreme.

Second, anyone, especially an academic, who organizes a colloquium with such a provocative title, ought to expect angry comments.

Finally, when a professor of law provocatively describes the presence of the Israeli army and military administration on that part of the West Bank in accord with the terms of the Oslo Treaty as an “occupation”, people instinctively know that he is up to no good. Factually, this is particularly so since the Palestinians already live and are free to elect to live in the area governed exclusively by the Palestinian Authority.

But more importantly, as a professor of law he knows or ought to know that

First, the Israeli presence in the West Bank does not constitute an unlawful occupation which respect to which another party can or has established a better title.

Second, the extent to which part of the territory can be said to be occupied, the occupation is the result of the victory of Israel’s in its defensive war of 1967, and.

Third, the occupation remains lawful so long as the adverse part claiming the territory does not offer satisfactory terms for a peace treaty or is not prepared, in good faith, to negotiate these terms with Israel. The incontrovertible fact is that this has been the case to date.

My position

Coming not long after the case of Ofer Aharony of the Weizmann Institute of Science – Department of Particle Physics & Astrophysics, who has been reported to have partnered with a Hamas linked colleague and several others to urge the boycott of a conference on science organised by the Samaria campus of Ariel University,  I  verily believe that by now the time is long overdue for the government and the Knesset to hold the Harels and the Aharonys of Israel, responsible for their mischief  and  require them to face up to the consequences of their mischiefs.

The nature of the problem

To date, the Harels of Israel just as the academics of the U.S. and Canada, to take two other countries, justify their entitlement to make and publish egregious false allegations based, among other things, on warped ideological obsessions on a number of grounds:

The first ground, is the principle of academic freedom whereby academics claim immunity for their mischiefs- attacking anything and everything that does not sit well with their world views and ideologies, damned be the facts.

Academic freedom is intended, among other things, to promote the exchange of useful ideas and the acquisition and creation of knowledge.

I leave the readers with the question as to how and in what manner do the egregious  and unsubstantiated allegations  of professor Harel in this instance promotes anything of the kind.

It has been and continues to be the case for quite some time, that there seems to be no legitimate boundaries to the exercise of this freedom: practically any and every revolting pronouncement seems to be covered by it. So much so that by now, an academic who publishes a good blood libel is rewarded with an academic honour.

When academics are fearful of not being able to protect their privileged immunity and thereby risk exposing themselves to disciplinary action, civil liability and/ or, in some instances, to criminal prosecution, they usually invoke their constitutional rights and freedoms.

Among this bundle of rights, the rights to “free speech” and to “free press” are two of most the commonly invoked ones, although depending on the specific facts of a case other rights may also be invoked.

The university administrators, save in rare circumstances, play the same game when they are asked to discipline or dismiss a faculty on the ground that his or her pronouncements and publications contain materials unbecoming of an academic and constitute a hate crime.

So why should Israeli campuses be any different than the others, the Israeli universities academics, would ask?

The answer is self-evident:  Israel surrounded as it is by enemies, near and far that wish to see the country annihilated. Israel is also the only country in the world which is under the simultaneous political attacks of the E.U, the U.N, and their various emanations.

Finally, Israel is also one, with a large number of friends, a large number of whom also act as her enemies.

By the same token, Israelis abroad as well as the Jewish Diaspora are now living in societies where antisemitism is normalised and the increase in the rates and intensity of antisemitism in these societies correlates with the increase in the intensity of the hostility towards and hatred of Israel on the world stage.

In the premises, the ideologically obsessed, intolerant and self-righteous Israeli academics and others who badmouth their own country and its institutions through lies, distortion of facts, the deliberately misleading analysis and interpretation of legislation, and gratuitously criticise its government, at home and abroad, confer respectability to, and validation of the old and new calumnies spread around and acted upon by the antisemites and the foes of Israel.

Solutions

Mercifully, the problem is not hopeless. Some solutions are readily available and others can be designed to cure whatever ails the intellects of Aron Harel, Ofer Aharony and their ilk, and to deter them from carrying on as they do.

Point of departure: Nature of rights and freedoms

As a general proposition of law, human cum constitutional rights and freedoms are not absolute, unless so specified by legislation. Nor are these rights and freedoms ranked according to their imputed relative importance or any other criteria.

There are many instances where the facts of a case require the Court to adjudicate upon the legal merits of the opposing parties’ claims based on different rights and freedoms which ultimately the Court has to reconcile in order to adjudicate the relative merits of the litigants claims and defences.

Further ,taking Canada as an example, section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms [“Charter”] of the Constitution Act, 1982 [“Constitution”] provides the authority for limiting the scope and/or  the application any  guaranteed rights and freedoms. Section 1 reads:

“1.The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

To date, the federal government has invoked section 1, inter alia, to prevent hate speech and obscenity.

As a matter of fact, I am inclined to view Harel’s allegations to be an obscene hate speech.

Finally, section 33 of the Charter, generally referred to as the notwithstanding clause, empowers the Canadian government and those of the provinces, to suspend the operation of one or more of the enumerated rights and freedoms with respect to one or more provisions of their respective legislative enactments, for a period of five year, which may be extended in the prescribed manner.. Section 33(1) reads:

“Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to15 of this Charter.”

I do wish Israel had a comparable set of constitutional provisions

A proposal: The establishment of a disciplinary tribunal

No matter which way one reads Harel’s statements concerning Tsahal and the government, clearly these are not consistent with the behaviour expected of an academic, a senior one at that and a professor of law to boot. They are simply outrageously false and gravely prejudicial for the reasons I outlined above.

I submit that these statements bring the academic profession into disrepute (or at least, they used to, when I was a university student and then a faculty member back in the 60’s and early 70’s). They amount to an odious breach  of academic  and intellectual integrity  and ethics  as the statements mislead the public at home and abroad and are injurious to the reputation of Tsahal, its members, and  of the government  and prejudicial to the government’s standing and credibility at home and abroad.

In the circumstances, and  in  other cases where similar  facts and comparable variables are at play, I would recommend   the establishment of a Civil Disciplinary  Tribunal presided by a Judge sitting with a jury , whose composition and method of selection  must  be those of juries in civil and criminal trials.

The mandate of the Tribunal would be to determine whether the impugned pronouncements and writings constitute a lawful exercise of the defendant’s academic freedom or of such other rights and freedoms the defendant may invoke.

The university or the institution where the defendant is employed would have the right to intervene in the proceedings.

In the event the defendant is adjudged to have acted in a manner unbecoming an academic, the Tribunal ought to be empowered to impose any one or more of the following sanctions:

1. a) A fine,
2. b) A probation order for a period of time up to three years;
3. c) To order his or her principal employer
4. i) to bar the offender’s promotion and withhold a salary increase for a specific period up to three years, and/ or
5. e) to demote the offender in rank for a specified period of time not to exceed three years
6. f) To prescribe such other appropriate corrective, remedial and rehabilitative measure as the Tribunal may see fit to specify.

Civil proceedings

In Canada, the allegations against the IDF and the government would provide both with a cause of action to sue Harel in tort for slander and to seek minimally both general and punitive damages. Likewise, the IDF officers and soldiers could sue Harel in a class action and seek both general and punitive damages.

Criminal proceedings

There may well be one or more provisions of the Israeli criminal code that deals with the kind of statements made by Harel and the actions of Aharony, such as, but not limited to, the dissemination of falsehoods; giving aid and comfort to the enemies of Israel, or aiding and abetting the enemy actions against Israel.

If such or similar provisions  exist  and  the investigation of the cases  leads the law enforcement agency  to the conclusion that there exists reasonable  and probable grounds to believe  that Harel  or Aharony have committed one such offence ,there is no justification to  limit the enforcement  of these provisions  to non-academics.

If such provisions do not exist or need to be redrafted to address the kinds of conduct identified above and others, the government and the Knesset ought to get on with it.

Funding of the litigation and prosecution initiated by the government  

It goes without saying that at the end of the day, the government of the day must decide whether any one or more of the foregoing proposed and available legal responses to the Harels and Aharonys of Israel are warranted and is prepared to spend the funds necessary to do an effective job or to help IDF members finance a class action of their own.

Funding the costs of the civil defendants and the accused

In so far the issue of funding of the  litigation expenses of the defendants and  accused are in cases of the nature described above, the government must insure that this funding does not originate from abroad, from the Soros’ of the world, organisations or trusts hostile to Israel, foreign governments and institutions directly or through intermediaries such as their NGOs.

Then again proper treatment of the issue of foreign funding is best left for another time.

A final word

I fully expect the Harels and the Aharonys of Israel and other academics who read this note to brand me as a fascist, Stalinist or even a Nazi or a neo-Nazi and may wish me to end my life in a gulag or in a concentration camp. These days, this is par for the course. Hardly something new to get worked up about. I am none of these folks nor do I have the slightest affinity for what they stand for and do.

In all of this my sole concern is to recover academia from the ideological swamp into which it has been sinking and continues to sink, for sake of humanity and in particular for sake of Canada, Israel and the U.S.

The author was born and schooled in Istanbul, Turkey. Upon his graduation, he immigrated to Canada with his family. In Canada, he taught university in sociology- criminology and social welfare policy. After a five year stint as a Judge of the Provincial Court of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, he joined the Federal Department of Justice first, as a Crown prosecutor, and then, switched to the Civil Litigation Branch to specialise in aboriginal law. He retired in 1997 to pursue new interests.

 

---