Coalition of American Civil Rights Group Sends Letter to Employers Demanding They Protect their Employees’ Rights to Show Solidarity with Palestine

Nov 11

November 9, 2023

Dear Workplace Leaders,

The undersigned legal organizations write to share with you the enclosed letter from over 600 legal organizations and lawyers throughout the US, urging institutional leaders to take immediate measures to protect against anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim discrimination, and to protect advocates for Palestinian rights from retaliation for their political views. This is urgent in this moment when advocacy for Palestinian rights is being punished on a mass scale, and is causing a discriminatory and hostile environment for individuals who are connected to and are morally compelled to speak out about the current crisis in Gaza and throughout Palestine.

We also share this urgently today as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) urges companies to undertake its “Workplace Pledge to Fight Antisemitism.” It is absolutely critical that workplaces create inclusive environments and prevent discriminatory and hostile environments for their employees based on their protected characteristics. Antisemitism, along with other bigotry based on people’s racial, religious, ethnic, and other backgrounds, should not be tolerated in any workplace.

It is incumbent upon us, however, as organizations that have a history of defending human and civil rights, and with a deep commitment to social justice, to expose the troubling history of the ADL, which reveals one of its objectives in asking employers to sign this pledge. For many years, the ADL has played a significant part in concertedly attacking speech critical of Israeli policy or favorable to Palestinian rights. While branding itself as a civil rights organization, the ADL has pursued an agenda that has undermined social justice movements and has used its positioning to attack Palestinian, Muslim, Black, LGBT+, immigrant and other communities and movements.

The primary tool that it has used in attacking Palestinians and their allies is to label critics of Israel and advocates for Palestinian rights as “antisemitic.” For example, the ADL’s website unequivocally states that “Anti-Zionism is antisemitic, in intent or effect, as it invokes anti-Jewish tropes, is used to disenfranchise, demonize, disparage, or punish all Jews and/or those who feel a connection to Israel, equates Zionism with Nazism and other genocidal regimes, and renders Jews less worthy of sovereignty and nationhood than other peoples and states.” To render opposition to Zionism as antisemitic is itself anti-Palestinian. Zionism is a political ideology that calls for a Jewish state in historic Palestine. As it has been implemented in practice, the creation of Israel as a self-described “Jewish state” has meant the dispossession, exile, military occupation, and unending violations of the international human and national rights of the Palestinian people. To declare that opposition to Zionism is the equivalent of antisemitism is to declare all Palestinians and their supporters as anti-Jewish because they aspire to end the decades-long occupation of their land and to live freely and in full equality in their homeland. Needless to say, political ideologies are not protected characteristics under anti-discrimination law, and any attempt to make them so should be rejected.

Signing this pledge will, unfortunately, put corporate offices in the position of being arbiters of political speech on Palestinian rights issues, lead to Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and other groups 2

feeling targeted for expressions of their identity, and thereby create a hostile environment for these groups and other advocates for Palestinian rights. A primary tool that the ADL has widely promoted to enforce its own political views on Israel is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism that it and other Israel-aligned groups have pushed in legislatures, institutions and now workplaces around the country. The IHRA definition has been widely discredited as a tool of censorship that, rather than making Jewish people safer, uses the stain of antisemitism to target critics of Israel.

In this moment, when the atrocities unfolding in the Gaza strip (“Gaza”) and throughout Palestine are undeniable, Palestinian and allied voices calling for an end to Israel’s genocide and for Palestinian freedom from Israel’s 75-year long occupation are more important than ever. As of the date of this letter, the Israeli military has so far killed over 10,000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including over 4,000 children. The Israeli government—through its serial bombardment—has coerced the mass exodus of Palestinian civilians from northern Gaza to the south of the besieged strip, while attacking putatively safe and humanitarian exit-corridors. It has also struck other civilian targets and is depriving the entire civilian population in Gaza essential access to water, food, medical care, internet service and electricity—even while remaining hospitals are overrun with critically injured patients. Israeli soldiers and settlers have also killed over 150 Palestinians in recent weeks in the occupied West Bank, as settler rampages drive Palestinians out of their lands and homes. All of these measures against Palestinian civilians contravene international law, rise to the level of genocide and ethnic cleansing, and flout the condemnation of the World Health Organization and United Nations.

To condemn these state actions against Palestinians and demand their safety, hundreds of thousands of people have protested in solidarity with them worldwide. High-ranking officials within the U.S. and abroad have, too, undertaking defiant and public resignations. Unfortunately, as the enclosed letter details, the ADL and other Israel-aligned groups have undertaken a campaign of mass censorship, even calling for the criminalization of student activists.

To cast as antisemitic the criticisms that human-rights advocates globally have of Israeli state policy, which is infused with racist and genocidal rhetoric, lacks rigor and cheapens the serious dangers of bona fide antisemitism (meaning, animus against Jewish people because of their ethnic and/or religious identity)—an undeniably real and present danger that all of the undersigned take seriously and uniformly decry.

We therefore ask you, as the enclosed letter urges, to reject attempts to push a distorted definition of antisemitism that aims to censor criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights by falsely labeling it anti-Jewish. The ADL’s pledge does just that – not explicitly, but in its reference to the National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism and the Shine A Light Campaign, both of which make explicit reference to the IHRA working definition as a tool to combat antisemitism, and which the ADL has had a significant hand in shaping.

Following the lead of a group that has proven itself as dedicated to undermining Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities, as well as social justice causes across the country, will put you in the position of replicating the ADL’s anti-Palestinian agenda. It will counter the work of DEI offices by encouraging exclusion of and discrimination against Palestinian, Arab and Muslim 3

employees and creating a hostile environment for these groups and all people who support Palestinian rights, including many Jews. Instead, we urge you to address antisemitism along with other bigotry in the workplace in a holistic manner that allows you to create safety and inclusion for all people – not comfort for some at the expense of others. We recommend instead resources on antisemitism such as PARCEO’s “Curriculum on Antisemitism from a Framework of Collective Liberation,” and Jews for Racial and Economic Justice’s Understanding Antisemitism,” and Jewish Voice for Peace resources. In addition, it’s critical that workplaces understand how anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigotry manifests, and we urge you to reach out to this letter’s signatories for resources on those issues.

Thank you for your urgent attention to this matter, and for your careful consideration of any affiliation with the ADL.

Respectfully,

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee

The Center for Constitutional Rights

Council on American Islamic Relations

Law For Black Lives

National Lawyers Guild

Palestine Legal

Project South Encl.

Read More

UBC Faculty Response to Interim President and Vice-Chancellor Deborah Buszard’s October 11th Statement

Oct 24


At time of publication, this letter has been endorsed by over 125 faculty members
and over 1,030 students and community members

LINK: Sign to Support This Petition

As members of the UBC academic community and educators committed to principles of social
justice and equality, we are troubled by the statement that UBC Interim President Deborah
Buszard issued on October 11th titled “Supporting the UBC Community.”

The statement explicitly refers to “the atrocities from the terrorist attacks on Israel” but remains
silent regarding the ongoing state terror committed by Israel against Palestinians.

At the time of this writing, and as reported by UN bodies, Human Rights Organizations, and
news agencies, Israel has:

● Killed more than 3,500 Palestinians including over 1,000 children
● Displaced over 260,000 civilians and ordered the forcible population transfer of over 1
million
● Cut off supplies of food, water, medicine, fuel and electricity, along with humanitarian aid
● Bombed schools, media offices, universities, ambulances, hospitals, houses of worship,
and civilian residences
● Used white phosphorous in its bombing of Gaza and southern Lebanon
● Called for hospitals in Gaza to rapidly evacuate, which as the WHO states is a death
sentence to the sick and injured.

These actions are a clear violation of international humanitarian law and amount to crimes
against humanity.

They are taking place while Israeli officials continuously dehumanize
Palestinians. Israel’s defense minister called Palestinians “human animals.”

Members of Israel’s house of representatives, the Knesset, and apologists abroad openly advocate for slaughter, ethnic cleansing, collective punishment, amounting to another Nakba, or catastrophe, when
over 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes in 1948.


President Buszard’s statement also makes no reference to Palestine or Palestinians,

choosing to refer instead to “Israel, Gaza and elsewhere”.

The erasure of Palestine as a geography, Palestinians as a people, and their plight as a nation dehumanizes Palestinians and denies them the fundamental right to safety, security, freedom and liberation.

It runs contrary to the claim that UBC is committed to “providing a safe, inclusive environment, with a shared value of peaceful relations.”

UBC’s declared support for decolonization and practices of equity, diversity and inclusion ring hollow in light of this partisan approach.

Such dehumanization comes in the wake of similarly lop-sided statements by UBC’s Faculty Association and other university administrations across Canada, the US, and the UK.


Statements that erase or dehumanize Palestinians may have a dire impact in Palestine and in
the diaspora, as made evident by the hate-driven murder of Wadea Al Fayoume, a 6-year old
Palestinian-American child in Chicago.

In light of all of the above,

We send a message of support to all Palestinian colleagues and academic communities across
North America and Europe that are facing a hostile climate of intimidation from their
governments, media, and university administrations.


We affirm the right of the Palestinian people to freedom and sovereignty from Israeli occupation,
settler colonialism, and apartheid.


We renew our commitment to and valuation of the safety and well-being of UBC’s Palestinian
students, faculty, staff and their allied colleagues.


We demand that the UBC’s President’s office:

  1. Rectify the statement and condemn Israeli state violence and violations of international
    humanitarian law.
  2. Publicly denounce and actively prevent attempts to silence, demonize, or harass any student,
    staff, or faculty member for expressing their solidarity or support for justice in Palestine.
  3. Reiterate UBC’s full commitment to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech,
    including the right to teach on Palestine and criticize any state or group’s crimes and violations
    of international humanitarian law
  4. Provide meaningful support to all faculty, staff, and students who are subject to bullying or
    harassment in class or on campus as a result of their support for justice in Palestine

    LINK: Sign to Support This Petition
Read More

Palestine and the Melian Dialogue: Thoughts on the Ongoing Slaughter in Gaza

Oct 20

For anyone with the least awareness of the recent history of the Middle East, the most recent violence that began when Hamas launched a devastating assault on Israeli military bases and kibbutzim along the cease-fire lines between Israel and the Gaza Strip, was the culmination of a more than 75 year history of conflict between first, Zionist settlers, and then, the Israeli state, and Palestinian Arabs who were obstacles to the realization of the Zionist state. We are now fast approaching the denouement: either peace based on recognition of the equality of Jew and Palestinian Arab in historical Palestine, or something approaching genocide. If Israel chooses the latter strategy — and it seems likely that it will — it will not stop with Gaza. It will quickly turn its attention to the Palestinians in the West Bank and seek to liquidate as many of them as possible too. The only way to put an end to this slaughter, and restore a dynamic for peace, is intervention by outside powers, namely, the United States, but everything seems to suggest that the United States, under the leadership of “Genocide Joe” Biden, has come to accept genocide as a solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

How did we get here? In my opinion, the basic dynamic of the conflict between Israel and Palestine can only be understood through what behavioral economists call the ultimatum game. One of the lessons of the ultimatum game is that human beings have a general tendency to reject unjust outcomes, even when submitting to an unjust outcome would advance their economic welfare from the perspective of classical economics.

The tendency of human beings to prefer self-destruction over submission to unjust outcomes is well-illustrated in the famous Melian Dialogue of Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian Wars, the classical account of a several decades’ long war between Athens and Sparta over domination of the ancient Greek world.

In 2005, before I became a law professor, but was already despondent over the future of the Middle East and despairing over a just settlement of the Palestine/Israel conflict with the collapse of the Oslo Peace Process, I wrote a short essay, “Palestine and the Melian Dialogue.” The Melian Dialogue is a poignant presentation of the conflict between perceived right and the realities of might, precisely what I believe drives the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The Zionist movement, and later Israel, has always relied on overwhelming military might to create facts favorable to its political ambitions, and then seeks to compel the Palestinians to recognize those facts, regardless of the dubiousness of Israel’s normative claims. Given the structure of the interactions between Israel and Palestine, the only rational moves for Palestine are either to surrender or, by engaging in effective, but ultimately self-destructive, violence, convince Israel that it would be better off making a more generous offer. But for a strategy of resistance to superior power to prevail, the weaker party must also rely on the possibility of third-party intervention, others moved to act based on the injustice they see being done. Hence, the necessity of international law for the Palestinians, but its irrelevance to Israel.

We are witnessing this dynamic in real time today, as Israel applies genocidal violence against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, and supporters of the Palestinians’ rights are mobilizing worldwide to restrain Israel in the name of international legality. My 2005 essay, although written almost 18 years ago, is frighteningly relevant to current events. I reproduce it below:

Watching the progress of the bloodletting among Palestinians and Israelis, one feels that he is a witness to a reenactment of Thucydides’ Melian dialogue.  Thucydides, the celebrated ancient Greek historian, tells us that when mighty Athens “invited” the tiny island of Melos to join its empire, the Melians responded by noting pessimistically that “all we can reasonably expect from this negotiation is war, if we prove to have right on our side and refuse to submit, and in the contrary case, slavery [if we submit and accept your terms].”  The Athenians dismissed the relevance of the Melians’ response, telling them that “you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”  The Athenians warned the Melians of the grave consequences that would befall their land if they stubbornly insisted on independence, warning them against entertaining hope in either the gods or their kindred against Athens’ awful might.  The Melians, however, disdained the path of prudence, and instead, did choose to place their trust in “the gods . . . and in the help of men.”  Unfortunately for the citizens of Melos, the gods and men proved themselves unworthy of their trust. The Athenians laid siege to their city, and after some initial setbacks, they took the island, killed all the adult males, enslaved the women and children, and replaced the Melians with Athenian settlers.

Today’s Palestinians are in a situation not substantially different from that facing the Melians – either to stand on right, and face almost certain annihilation, or to accept the path of prudence, and submit to permanent Israeli domination.  In a rare moment of lucidity, Newsweek, at the time of the Camp David II negotiations, noted that peace would require Palestinians to “accept the bittersweet reality of permanent domination by Israel.”  In that one sentence, the naked power that lay behind the peace process was made plain to all by disclosing, honestly and forthrightly, that the purpose of the peace process was not to establish reasonable terms of coexistence between Arabs and Israelis; rather, its purpose was to enshrine Israeli domination over the Palestinians by “convincing” them that it was more prudent to submit to superior power than it was to stand fast on principle.  As we now know, the Palestinians, like the Melians before them, “foolishly” chose to have hope in the future rather than to submit to a certainty of domination, a domination made more “bittersweet” if obtained under the imprimatur of a legitimate peace treaty.

That the expected outcome of the peace process was not to be peace so much as submission should not have surprised any but the most casual observer of Israeli-Palestinian relations.  When Theodore Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, dispatched two rabbis on a fact-finding mission to Palestine in the late 19th-century, they reported to him that “[t]he bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man,” a reference to the incontestable fact that Palestine was not an empty land awaiting Jewish settlement, but a land that already teemed with inhabitants, inhabitants who lived in its cities and towns, inhabitants who developed that country with their labor, as demonstrated in their arts, crafts, agriculture, business, and other manifestations of human civilization.   Instead of this fact deterring the Zionist project, however, the Zionist movement adopted the strategy of the “Iron Wall”: Zionism would prevail over the Palestinians not on the basis of a superior moral claim that could be presented to Palestinians with the reasonable expectation that they would give it their assent, but on the basis of overwhelmingly superior power, presented in the nature of a fait accompli or ultimatums, that would compel the Palestinians to submit to the Zionist program.  

Zionism’s stubborn refusal to recognize the existence of inalienable Palestinian rights in historical Palestine has resulted in the two sides being caught in a deadly ultimatum game.  The internal logic of an ultimatum game requires that each move be accompanied by a marginal increase in violence until one of two possible long-term outcomes is reached: either both parties realize the irrationality of the game, and abandon it in favor of a compromise based in equality, or the stronger player obliterates the weaker one. 

The collapse of the peace process, the ensuing bloodletting, and the strategies subsequently deployed by both the Israelis and the Palestinians during Intifada II are perfectly predictable consequences of a framework that afforded no concern to legality.  Some might dismiss a stubborn insistence upon legal rights as either pie-in-the-sky idealism, or extremely dangerous insofar as it promotes false hope in the Palestinians, or both.  Yet, lawyers know that in the absence of a baseline of entitlements that only law provides, it is virtually impossible for any negotiation to be concluded successfully.  In a context of lawlessness, each party gets only what it is strong enough to take.  By its very nature, therefore, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, has encouraged unilateral actions that only produces in the other side the desire to strike quicker, faster, and harder. 

Moreover, because the Israelis enjoy overwhelming military, the Palestinians know that the end game is their annihilation, and accordingly, the only way they can “win” this game with Israel is to convince it that the cost of victory is too high by demonstrating their toughness.  Indeed, if we are to believe Thucydides, the Melians, upon rejecting the Athenians’ offer, did not sit around waiting for the inevitable Athenian invasion: They immediately initiated hostilities with Athens. But, because of the overwhelming disparity in the power of the two sides, the only likely outcome, if the parties are left to themselves, is the destruction of the Palestinians. Certainly Israel has no incentive to abandon the game, and the Palestinians, cannot abandon the game without surrendering.  The United States is the only power that can impress upon both parties the desirability of abandoning their game.  Were the Bush administration to insist that the peace process proceed on the basis of the universal values enshrined in international humanitarian law, it would rescue the Israelis and the Palestinians from the ever-increasing spiral of violence that marks the grim progress of an ultimatum game.  So far at least, the Bush administration has eschewed a law-based approach to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and has tacitly chosen to remain passive in the face of Israel’s decision to proceed in its next round of escalation.  In these circumstances no one, especially President Bush, should be surprised that, in the words of Yeats’ Second Coming, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,” and we are all left to wonder “what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?”  And, Israel too, ought to heed both the prudential words of the Melians – that exercise of might unrestrained by justice inevitably reduces security, as all will feel threatened and will eventually confront what they collectively perceive to be a dangerous threat – as well as the eventual, disastrous defeat the Athenians suffered at the conclusion of the Peloponnesian War.   Israel may very well its immediate battle with the Palestinians, but in so doing, it may also end up losing the war.

Read More

Muslim Students at Berkeley Respond to Wajahat Ali’s Atlantic Piece, “A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers”

Jun 01

Since The Atlantic published Wajahat Ali’s piece, “A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers,” a firestorm has erupted within the North American Muslim community, largely focused on what seemed to most Muslim and pro-Palestinian readers to be an apology for Zionism, and the author’s relationship with the controversial Muslim Leadership Initiative.  I personally found the piece offensive for many reasons, particularly the way in which it tended to equate the religious fanaticism of the Israeli settlers with the determination of the Palestinians to resist their messianic fantasies.  I was particularly offended by his incredulous reaction to the Palestinian in Khalil (Hebron to those unable to move beyond the time frame of the Old Testament) who, despite being surrounded by fanatic Israeli settlers, was unwilling to sell his house to them for $4 million, or for any price.

In any case, there have been several excellent critiques of this article on Facebook, including this one by Sylvia Chan-Malik, deconstructing the sympathetic language Wajahat used to describe the Zionist settlers, with the judgmental and hectoring rhetoric he reserved for the Palestinians.  Hafsa Kanjwal also had on her Facebook page an excellent critique of Wajahat’s attempt to set the Kashmiri struggle against that of the Palestinians and exposed it for a classic case of “whataboutery”, noting her disgust as a Kashmiri that her struggle would be used to undermine that of the Palestinians.  Many others have been disgusted by his reaction of running to the Atlantic, and publishing there a complaint about the Muslim reaction to his first piece, which led the Islamic Society of North America to disinvite him to their annual conference.  He is now taking on the appearance of a free speech martyr as a result.

I have said before, and I will say it again: I greatly admire Wajahat’s work on Fear, Inc., the Roots of the Islamophobia Network.  It is ironic that since teaming up with MLI, he is actually cooperating with some of the very same funders of the Islamophobia Network in the name of inter-religious dialogue.  In a brief exchange with Wajahat on Facebook a couple of weeks ago after his first Atlantic article, I told him that he was not entitled to speak anywhere, and that he had to take responsibility for his participation in MLI, and he could either admit it was a mistake (which I counseled him to do), or defend it, and try to persuade us that we are mistaken.  But he could not attempt to hide from it, pretend it was not a big deal, and then resent being excluded by Muslim groups who find collaboration with Uber-Zionists to be, well, at a minimum, distasteful.

What many of us may not have heard, however, is the voices of Berkeley MSA students from the years Wajahat mentioned in his Atlantic piece. One of them sent me an essay he wrote in response to the Atlantic piece, defending the Berkeley MSA against Wajahat’s charges, and basically calling him out for many half-truths.  With his permission, I am reproducing the response below:

Read More

Write a Letter to the Trustees of the University of Illinois in Support of Steven Salaita

Sep 04

Despite the vast amounts of negative publicity the University of Illinois has received, and continues to receive as a result of its decision to terminate Professor Steven Salaita, it has yet to reverse its decision.  Its Board of  Trustees will be meeting on September 11, and they should be made aware directly of the consequences their decision will have on the University, both in terms of the law and its academic reputation.  Please take some time and write an e-mail to the trustees expressing your opposition to the decision to terminate Professor Salaita and demand his reinstatement.  The names and the e-mails of the trustees are set out below:

Read More

University of Illinois Rescinds Offer to Professor for his Anti-Israeli Tweets

Aug 06

This morning, I read this disturbing report that the University of Illinois rescinded an offer it made to a professor to join its faculty on account of his anti-Israel tweets. It is important that we write to the University of Illinois protesting this decision.  Please consider sending an e-mail the University Chancellor, Phyllis Wise, explaining why this decision is not consistent with the values central to a university in a democracy.  Her e-mail address is chancellor@illinois.edu (or in the alternative, pmischo@illinois.edu).  Here is the note that I sent her:

Read More