One of the reasons political scientists are silent on the Israel-Gaza conflict is the fear of being marginalised by the community, writes Catherine Moury. She suggests concrete actions scholars could take to avoid normalising what she – and many fellow academics – consider is nothing short of genocide
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?
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, the UK 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.
My ideas on concrete actions scholars can take:
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
It is sad but in no way surprising that this (just like any other pro-palestinian opinion piece I've read) does not even mention - let alone analyse - the rampant antisemitism. The author cannot even be bothered to mention the brutal attack with which Hamas started this war.
What is surprising to me, is that the editors don't refrain from publishing an article that openly calls for supporting BDS by lying about their aims and tactics (of course BDS works relentlessly to exclude Israeli scholars from international networks and events) and that calls to protect protests on campus rather than protecting Jewish students, who have been violently attacked again and again all over Europe and the US.
I believe that raping men and women, killing them in cold blood, starving and murdering hostages, aiming to destroy the state that the Jews got after 6 million of them were prosecuted is not an issue. Maybe because Jews are evil? Or maybe just because the world is simply divided between bad and evil?
As a person who is critical of Israeli government, I cannot understand how someone can call himself a political scientist and have such a simplistic worldview.
My grandmother and grandfather ran away from Nazi Germany less than 100 years ago; where should I live if you support the cause of those who want to rule from the river to the sea?