Despair and disappointment  

When I read about atrocity after atrocity happening in Palestine, I feel despair, anger, paralysis, and, within the political science community, loneliness. At conferences I attend, academics barely address the topic, or awkwardly avoid it. I read the X feeds of colleagues who post every day about current events, but not once about Palestine.

And, even though it offered to organise a ​​series of online seminars to discuss the topic (a very good thing), ​​​​ECPR's Executive Committee declined to issue a statement condemning Israel's actions in Gaza and in the West Bank, in response to an open ​​letter asking it to do so. Indeed, the reaction from a former Executive Committee member argued instead the case for ​​‘institutional neutrality’. It is worth noting that the ​​American Association of Anthropologists and ​​American Association of Sociologists have both made statements.  

At conferences I attend, academics barely address, or awkwardly avoid, the Israel-Gaza conflict

With notable ​​exceptions, I am disappointed by a community of scholars who are paid to study political matters, but seem unable to take a strong stance against a genocide. Today, and as I see it, it is simply dishonest to dispute the use of such a word, given the evidence in declarations by ​​Israeli ministers, the ​​rulings of the International Court of Justice and ​​International Criminal Court, in reports from IDF soldiers, ​​surgeons and ​​Israeli journalists, and in the ​​​​analysis of scholars of international law or genocide (including prominent Israeli scholars working on the Holocaust such as Amos ​​Goldberg and Omer Bartov).

So, I wonder: what can political scientists do about the genocide in Palestine?  

The continuation of action  

Earlier this year, Adam Standring and I posted on X an open ​​letter calling on ECPR to condemn the killings of civilians in Gaza. Nearly 500 political scientists signed the letter, and we received many messages from (precarious and tenured) researchers in response. Some explained that signing the letter might damage their already slim chances of getting a position or a grant if they publicly expressed a pro-Palestinian view, or even signed a letter supporting a ceasefire.

Vladimir Bortun received the ​​same letters after publishing his piece in the leftwing US magazine Jacobin, in which he addressed the financial links of many universities with sponsors as an explanation for their silence on Gaza. Those fears are anchored in reality. Academics have lost their jobs and even been arrested for their views on Palestine in countries including Germany and France. This is only the​​ tip of the iceberg.

It is not easy to take a stance, and precarious workers are rightly afraid for their career

In that context, it is not easy to take a stance. Precarious workers are rightly afraid for their career. Nobody, me included, likes to feel isolated in a group that constitutes us. The system has educated us to behave ‘professionally’. Now academia is telling us is that serious, respectful political scientists do not condemn the genocide in Gaza.  

What can I do now? What can we do now?

My ideas on concrete actions scholars can take: 

1. Keep writing (open) letters, articles or blog posts, signing and posting, organising workshops, raising the issue at conferences. You might fear this risks becoming marginalised by the academic community. But the more people condemn, even with a post on X, the less other people will fear doing so. Social-media activism – a letter or signature – might sound frivolous in response to such tragedy. But it tells people where you stand, and this may give others courage to speak. People can make a difference when they act together.  

2. Use your tenure, if you can. Only 13% of those who signed the ECPR letter are full professors, who risk less in speaking out. If tenure protects you, you have a special responsibility to act. Do not leave precarious workers on their own.  

3. It's ok to change your mind as events unfold. If you supported Israeli actions initially, but now think Israel has crossed a line, say it. It is never too late.  

4. If you want to launch a written initiative, do it with others. It feels less isolating, less risky, and your final text will be more inclusive and impactful.   

5. Remember that the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement does not target individuals, but institutions. It does not advocate for ceasing to work with scholars in Israel, refusing to publish them or banning them from conferences. BDS, rather, is about stopping agreements with complicit Israeli institutions. Support for BDS shows that many in academia condemn Israel's actions.

6. Protect your students when they protest, even if protests disrupt university affairs. Remember that the point of collective action is disruption. Sometimes the Dean or Rector is torn about what to do with student camps. Put your weight behind a peaceful, constructive resolution that does not involve the police.  

Normalising genocide is not an option 

It is tempting to be discouraged. Anyone who cares about civilians in Palestine feels so powerless right now. The number of political scientists – including several full professors – who did not hesitate to sign the open letter to ECPR reminds me that many colleagues do care. But inaction is not an option. Normalising genocide is not an option. A friend told me that he fears his children will ask him what he did during the genocide. Let’s all think about this when deciding on what to do right now.  

⛓️ No.11 in a Loop series examining constraints on academic freedom in a variety of global contexts

The post ⛓️ What can political scientists do about the appalling events in Gaza and the West Bank?   appeared first on The Loop.