Day: December 6, 2018

Without Israel, there would have been no university education in Palestinian Authority areas

By Charles Abelsohn

The Israel hating crowd in South Africa now desire to boycott Israel`s academic institutions and Israeli academicians  due to the “treatment” of Palestinian universities.

Let`s ask some questions. Are there universities in the West Bank and Gaza? If so, who established the universities and when. How are Palestinian universities ranked as compared with their Arab counterparts.

The Ottoman Empire, actually Turkey, a Moslem State, occupied Palestine from 1513 until 1917. Since Charles William Eliot, the president of Harvard University, who visited the country in 1867, and described the Galilee as a place of emptiness and misery and in his famous book “Innocents Abroad,” Mark Twain recalls not seeing a living soul throughout his journey, unsurprisingly, there were no Arab universities. The Jews, however, established the world famous Technion in Haifa in 1912.

The British controlled Palestine between 1917 and 1948. The Jews immediately established another university, the world famous Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1918. The Arabs? Nothing, as in: no Arab university.

Jordan, an Arab country, illegally occupied Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967, renaming this area the West Bank.

During this period, the Jordanians were careful and shrewd enough to forbid and prevent the establishment of any university in the West Bank. Yes, in 1967, when Israel regained Judea and Samaria, there were no universities in the West Bank. NOT ONE! Did anyone academically criticize or boycott Jordan? Of course not. When it comes to Israel, double standards are the order of the day.

Israel recovered Judea and Samaria in 1967. In 1970, Deputy Israeli Premier Yigal Allon, who was then Minister of Education, announced that he had approved the establishment of the first university in Ramallah in principle when approached by West Bank Arab leaders, including Dr. Salem Nashef, Dean of the Tulkarem Agricultural School.

Paradoxically, it was the Arab Jordanians who still attempted to prevent the establishment of the first university on the West Bank. In April 1971, Sheikh Mohammad Ali Jaabari, the Mayor of Hebron, even needed to warn the Jordanian government not to interfere with plans by West Bank Arab leaders to establish an Arab university on the West Bank. Jaabari spoke in reply to a charge made by the Jordanian Education Minister in Amman that “all those who take part in planning the university are traitors and collaborators with the Israelis.” Eventually, under the Israeli administration, in 1971 the foundation of the Hebron University was laid and forty-three students joined from different parts of the West Bank and Gaza.

The universities in the West Bank enjoyed the cooperation of the Israeli universities without which they could not have been developed. In 1973, Dr. Nashef, as a guest of Tel Aviv University’s “Shiloah” Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, reported that Arab education on the West Bank had expanded under the Israeli administration since 1967. According to Dr. Nashef, 90 percent of children between 6-15 were receiving an elementary education, a much higher percentage than under the Jordanian regime. He further said that by 1973 the number of matriculants under Israeli administration had risen from 3,500 to 14,500.

Stupid matriculants. Were they not aware that they were supposed to boycott Israeli administered education?

What exactly are the boycotters boycotting? Thanks only to Israel, a second university, Birzeit University, was established in 1975. Under Israeli guidance, by 1993, when the Oslo Agreement establishing the Palestinian Authority was signed, there were 14 universities, 18 colleges and 20 community colleges in the West Bank and Gaza.

Bir Zeit University
Bir Zeit University

Current Palestinian tertiary student enrolment is 214,000, of which roughly 54 per cent are women and 46 per cent are men. This compares favorably with Israel’s tertiary sector where from a larger population enrolment is approximately 307,000 and the gender balance among undergraduates is 56 per cent women and 44 per cent men. The remarkably high participation rate reflects both the commendable importance Palestinians attach to the universities (and formal education more generally) for strengthening both their economy and their national identity and, importantly in the context of the proposed “academic boycott”, the absence of any impediment by Israel. There is no legitimate reason for any “academic boycott” except hate for Israel.

Al Nagah entrance
Entrance to the campus of Al-Najah university

With Al-Najah National University of Nablus ranked in 20th place of the top 300 ranked Arab universities and Birzeit university of Ramallah in 27th place, it is clear that the Palestinian universities are among the best in the Arab world and do not suffer discrimination or oppression by Israel.

If the boycotters, like the Jordanians, had their way, there would today still not have been any academic institutions in the West Bank. Israel`s positive contribution to the Palestinians generally and Israel`s contribution to the establishment of higher education specifically continues to be ignored by the Israel haters, best described as the new obstructionist Jordanians, who themselves contribute nothing to the Palestinians.

Israel`s positive contribution to the Palestinian higher education may be compared to the “contribution” by UCT, Stellenbosch and other South African universities` professors and  students specifically and South Africa generally to the Palestinians – which is nothing. The anti-Israel noise by some South Africans may be emotionally satisfying to these few boycotters but the constructive support continues to be provided by Israel. By their actions, in attempting to prevent Israeli support of Palestinian institutions, these few boycotters may best be described as anti-Palestinian rather than anti-Israel, much like the Ottoman Empire (the Turks), British and Jordanians pre-1967.

Israel is now to be “punished” by a boycott for permitting the establishment of universities in the West Bank and Gaza, against the opposition of Arab governments such as Jordan. Until 1967 the world was silent which means the world at that time consented to the Arab opposition to universities in the West Bank. The criticism of Israel and its academics and the boycotting of Israeli academics is simply living proof that no good deed goes unpunished.

Kafka? Orwellian? I doubt whether these Israeli haters even know who these guys are.

 

 

image001 (16).jpgABOUT THE AUTHOR

Charles Abelsohn, a co-founder of Truth be Told, retired several years ago as the legal manager of one of the most well–known entities in Israel. He is a graduate of three universities (Cape Town, Stellenbosch and U. of South Africa) in South Africa in Law, Transportation Economics and Finance. His interests, even as a young student, were Judaism, Israel, Economics and Finance.

 

 

Feature picture credit: Yaser Wakid

The Lara Alqasem Affair

Rethinking the Entry into Israel Law

By Michal Hatuel-Radoshitzky, Amir Prager, and Shahar Eilam

*courtesy of INSS

The amendment to the ‘Entry into Israel Law’ enacted in March 2017 prohibits issuing an entry visa or residency permit to foreigners actively involved in promoting the boycott of Israel. The amended legislation was intended to equip the State of Israel with an effective tool for fighting the BDS movement, and after it was passed, Israel’s Population and Immigration Authority issued criteria for its enforcement. The ‘Lara Alqasem affair’ offers a test case for assessing the cost benefit ratio of the amended legislation and provides a window to assess the overall policy and potential constructive adjustments to the law and its implementation.

The benefits of the amendment to the ‘Entry into Israel Law’ appear to be largely local tactical benefits, whereas the potential damage is more significant and extensive. As the amendment falls short of aiding the struggle against the delegitimization of Israel, and arguably might even intensify it, measures should be taken to prevent further damage resulting from additional legislative measures or the flawed use of existing tools. The amendment to the ‘Entry into Israel Law’ enacted in March 2017 prohibits issuing an entry visa or residency permit to foreigners actively involved in promoting the boycott of Israel.

image004 (14)
An About Face. Lara Alqasem denied any current connection with BDS and two pro-BDS organizations,

The amended legislation was intended to equip the State of Israel with an effective tool for fighting the BDS movement, and after it was passed, Israel’s Population and Immigration Authority issued criteria for its enforcement. Thus far, the BDS movement has failed in most of its efforts to harm Israel through the promotion of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions. However, the primary provocation posed by the movement is its challenge to the legitimacy of Israel’s existence as the nation state of the Jewish people and its negative impact on Israel’s international standing. More than a year and a half after the amendment was put into effect, the ‘Lara Alqasem’ affair offers a test case for assessing the cost-benefit ratio of the amended legislation and provides a window to assess the overall policy and potential constructive adjustments to the law and its implementation. The case of Lara Alqasem in August 2018, US citizen Lara Alqasem, who had registered at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was issued an entry visa to Israel and a student residency permit for a period of one year. However, upon arriving at Ben-Gurion Airport in October, the Ministry of Interior, based on the recommendation of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, denied Alqasem entry on the grounds that she had held leadership positions within the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) organization, where she had worked to promote boycotts of Israel. Two weeks later, however, after Alqasem’s appeal to enter was refused twice, the Supreme Court ruled in Alqasem’s favor and stipulated that denying her entry does not serve the purpose of the law and does not meet the criteria defined by the law. The Court explained that despite the importance to the struggle against BDS, there is no evidence in the case at hand of activity by Alqasem to promote boycotts against Israel since she had left SJP in April of 2017. Also deemed important were her declaration that she is no longer active in promoting the boycott of Israel and her commitment to refrain from doing so during her stay in the country. Her very enrollment in the Hebrew University strengthened this legal position.

Innocent Student or Boycott Activist

The legal proceedings sparked an Israeli public debate on whether Alqasem was an innocent student or a boycott activist who had managed to manipulate the Israeli legal system. Also debated was the issue of “national honor,” as reflected in the state’s sovereign right to deny entry to particular individuals. Coverage of the affair quickly focused on familiar friction between the political system and the legal system in Israel. The affair also received extensive coverage outside of Israel, with an emphasis on Israel’s flawed conduct vis-à-vis BDS supporters. Jerry Silverman, President of the Jewish Federations of North America, maintained that Israel was adding fuel to the fire of delegitimization, and attorney Alan Dershowitz, who is known to defend Israel in international forums, said that “Israel should have never detained” Alqasem.

The Significance of the Legislative Amendment

The amendment and the criteria for its enforcement, which define Israel’s authority to prevent the entry or residency of boycott activists, are intended to withstand a judicial challenge. Since the amendment was passed, only a few activists have been denied entry into the country, rendering the law’s direct impact on keeping BDS activists outside of Israel minimal. The amendment is likely to have a deterring effect on activists, and presumably some have chosen or will choose to not try to enter Israel. Still, it is difficult to assess the overall impact of the law and its role in curtailing the efforts of those seeking to boycott Israel, as the actions of the delegitimization organizations around the world – though fueled by events occurring in Israel – are not dependent on the physical presence of activists in the country or in the Palestinian territories. It can also be argued that the legislative amendment prevents foreign activists from taking part in violent demonstrations and disorderly conduct in Israel or the territories, although such actions are not unique to boycott activists, and other tools exist to deal with them.

Rhetoric vs Resilience

In the global campaign against the legitimacy, image, and international standing of the State of Israel, both pro-Israel and anti-Israel activists strive to influence the consciousness and perceptions of large audiences, with an emphasis on liberal target groups in the West. In this campaign, Israel’s most significant asset is the fact that it is a democratic state that champions individual rights and freedom of expression. However, the amendment of the ‘Entry into Israel Law’ is one in a series of recent legislative measures and government decisions perceived by progressive audiences around the Western world as anti-democratic and anti-liberal, and in turn, arouses antagonism toward Israel. In such a battle over hearts and minds, the polarized public debate within Israel regarding the law, as manifested in the Lara Alqasem case, is more likely to have showcased examples of extreme rhetoric voiced within Israeli society, than it is to have communicated the strength and resilience of Israel’s democracy.

Furthermore, the 2017 legislative amendment triggered controversy among Jews in the United States, who are at the forefront of the struggle against delegitimization and the BDS movement, even though many of them oppose Israeli policy in the territories. Opponents of the 2017 amendment included first tier Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the American Jewish Committee (AJC). Such controversy could affect this important constituency’s overall relationship with Israel and its willingness to defend the state over different platforms. This concern has likely grown since the amendment was enacted, marked by some problematic security encounters of individuals attempting to enter Israel – even if these are unrelated to the amendment. A case in point, which made major headlines, is the interrogation at Ben-Gurion Airport of well-known Jewish American journalist Peter Beinart, a strong opponent of current Israeli government policy. Beyond the concern among supporters of Israel who oppose current government policy that they will not be able to enter Israel, in the cognitive battle for image and awareness, Israel is perceived as a state that is motivated by fear of the media and civil political organization. This image strengthens the perception that Israel has something to hide, and thereby bolsters the narrative that BDS activists seek to promote in the international arena.

.
Back to School. After her initial appeal was rejected, Alqasem appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court where her appeal was accepted and was granted entry into Israel.

Impact on Conferences

Another downfall is the law’s impact on Israel’s academic institutions, which raised concerns that it would prevent scientific conferences from being held in Israel on the grounds that not all potential participants would be eligible to enter the country. In line with this logic, the Hebrew University denounced the state’s decision to deny Alqasem’s entry into Israel, arguing that it would significantly damage Israeli efforts to establish cooperative academic efforts around the world. A similar message was voiced by the international Association for Israel Studies (AIS), whose members are a counterweight to the hostile narrative on Israel on international campuses.

Finally, the original ‘Entry into Israel Law’ provided the Minister of Interior with extensive powers to prevent entry into Israel, including supporters of the boycott, even without the amendment in question. Although the amendment is likely to bolster the state’s ability to withstand judicial review, it narrows the Minister’s discretion on this issue, and it draws unnecessary and damaging public attention to a controversial subject.

image002 (9)
All Smiles. Lara Alqasem after Israel’s Supreme Court overturned her deportation at Ben-Gurion International Airport, October 18, 2018.(Credit. Dudu Bachar)

Recommendations

The benefits of the amendment to the ‘Entry into Israel Law’ thus appear to be largely local tactical benefits, whereas the potential damage is more significant and extensive. As the amendment falls short of aiding the struggle against the delegitimization of Israel, and arguably might even intensify it, measures should be taken to prevent further damage resulting from additional legislative measures or the flawed use of existing tools. First, legislation is a showcase of the Israeli democracy. Therefore, in processes of legislation, including in domestic areas, it is imperative to examine possible implications for the international status of Israel and for Israel’s relations with Diaspora Jewry on the frontlines of the struggle against Israel’s delegitimization.

Second, legislation should be accompanied by written opinions of relevant professionals prior to its completion, and by subsequent supervision to determine whether the law and its implementation suit the purpose for which the law was enacted.

Third, as seen from the Alqasem affair, it is necessary to improve the coordination between all involved parties: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the consulates, which issue residency permits to foreigners in Israel; academic institutions, which accept foreign students into study programs; the Population and Immigration Authority, which is responsible for the entry gates of Israel; the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, which formulates recommendations regarding boycott activists; and various security bodies.

And fourth, amendment or annulment of the March 2017 legislative amendment should be considered. In any event, Israel would be wise to limit the invocation of this legislation, and to deny entry and residency in Israel only in extreme cases that fully meet the requirements and criteria of the law.

Such measures should only be taken after considering the potential broad implications for Israel’s international status and relations with its friends and supporters around the world.

INSS Insight No. 1105, November 13, 2018