Professors Discuss Palestine and Genocide

Professors Discuss Palestine and Genocide

Last-minute request for anonymity precedes criticism of Israel and US policy.

(Four faculty panelists discuss Palestine in a room full of students, faculty, and community members. Source: The Spectator)

Students, faculty, and community members filled Northen Auditorium to hear four interdisciplinary professors have “A Candid Conversation about the Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza” at 5 PM on Wednesday, February 14, 2024. 

The conversation and subsequent Q&A focused on whether Israel’s response to the October 7 Hamas attacks constitutes a genocide against Palestinians living in Gaza. Each panelist approached the conflict and explored Israeli-Palestinian relations through their academic background, though the speakers were generally critical of Israel’s invasion of Gaza.

Four professors spoke during the event: Seth Cantey, head of the Middle East and South Asia Studies (MESA) program and an associate professor of politics whose work focuses on intelligence, terrorism, and American foreign policy; Lubabah Chowdhury, an assistant professor of English whose work focuses on transnational feminism and postcolonial literature; Mark Drumbl, director of the W&L Transnational Law Institute and a professor of law whose work focuses on international law and post-conflict justice; and Romina Green, an assistant professor of history whose work focuses on structural racism and settler-colonial policies in Chilean history.

One of the panelists also read a statement by Theodore Van Loan, a visiting professor of art history whose work focused on Islamic art and architecture.

[At the beginning of the event, Cantey requested that attendees neither record nor attribute comments made by any of the panelists and audience members. Cantey justified this request by describing the Chatham House Rule, which he said “is used all around the world in effort to bring down some barriers [and] foster an environment of trust.” He further hoped that the event would operate in such a way “where we don’t have to worry about getting taken out of context on a particularly sensitive, difficult, complex, and…emotive issue.”

Because The Spectator did not object to Cantey’s request at the start of the event, this article honors the Chatham House Rule by not attributing quotes to any particular speaker. Readers with further questions about The Spectator’s decision may contact editor@wluspectator.com.] 

“The history of the Americas is a history of genocide in it’s many forms: ethnic, poltical, social, and cultural,” began the first panelist.

“Israel’s genocidal goals against the Palestinian people is something we have seen before. We have witnessed the tactics. We have seen the discourse of terrorism used as an excuse to make room for mass graves. We have seen the dehumanization of a entire ethnic group … to justify genocide,” the panelist said. “The world has watched genocide … countless times throughout the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries.”

The speaker emphasized the importance of “intent” in the 1948 legal definition of “genocide,” which they said “differentiates an occupation — ruling over a people — versus ethnic cleansing.”

The speaker also said that “the limited definition of a group as only a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group” excludes political ideologies. This latter group, the speaker continued, had been targeted in Central and South America by “regimes backed by the United States” in the 1970s and 1980s. During this period, “a series of military dictatorships … carried out the systematic murder and torture of an entire generation of mostly young people who are members of a communist, socialist, and left wing parties.”

They gave the example of Argentina, where “some 30,000 Argentines” disappeared as a result of “political genocide … to save [children] from a communist upbringing.” The speaker then described the Guatemalan Civil War — where “150,000 indigenous Mayans were murdered” — as “an ethnic genocide.”

The speaker compared these cases to Israel by reading National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s far-right comments. “It’s not just about genocide or comments. It’s about genocidal intent through action,” the speaker concluded.

A student challenged the panelist at the beginning of the Q&A:  “You allege political genocide against Hamas … Did we commit political genocide against ISIS? Did we commit political genocide against Al-Qaeda?”

The panelist denied having talked about Hamas, at which point the questioner interrupted that “there is one political group” in Gaza.

The panelist responded that Hamas is not targeting Israel because of their political affiliation. “Israel is a state. Hamas is not,” they continued. “What Israel is doing is the targeting of an entire people.” Whether that constitutes ethnic cleansing, or social and cultural genocide is something “that people negotiate and debate.”

Reflecting on that conversation in their closing statement, the panelist said, “I feel like the comment that was made to me was not really one that was engaging. It was one that was just a declaration and somewhat of an attack.” 

They also expressed their hesitancy to speak at the event, having “read the many stories of professors who lost their jobs for just speaking about their opinion about Palestine … But I’m also here because I feel like I have to for ethical reasons.”

They concluded with a question: “What do we need to do to actually have more of that political discourse?”

On the question of Hamas, a second panelist responded that even if Hamas committed genocide, “there is a notion in international law called tu quoque … If someone else commits an international crime, that doesn’t get you off the hook.”

That panelist focused on the legal definition of genocide, which was developed between 1944 and 1948 in response to the Holocaust.

“Genocide has three major components,” the professor continued: an actus rea (or physical act), a mens rea (or mental act), and the groups protected from these acts. “The mental intent for genocide is the highest mental intent of any crime in any books and in any statue … It is the mental intent of eliminationism,” to remove a group “from the face of the Earth.”

The panelist explained how the US and other world powers “watered down” the definition and scope of genocide after World War II. Consequently, the definition is so narrow that it only legally applies to the Holocaust after Nazis adopted the Final Solution.

Discussing South Africa’s December 2023 filing with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the speaker explained that “it is extremely difficult to establish genocidal intent” and could take years to litigate if Israel is accused of violating the ICJ’s preliminary order.

“I rate it as extremely unlikely that the International Court of Justice will find a breach of the Genocide Convention,” the panelist declared.

Their solution? To pluralize the conversation: “recognize that law, verdict, and courtrooms are not messianic [and] not all-encompassing solutions.”

But the speaker maintained the importance of these international bodies. “By saying that there’s a social and political definition [of genocide] means the legal definition doesn’t matter, and that the law doesn’t matter.” Such an attitude “erodes the value of these international institutions.”

The third panelist expressed their desire “to give voice to a Palestinian perspective.” The professor continued: “My sense is that in the United States, there are a lot of people who are familiar with the Israeli version of the story. And I want to give you another version of that story.”

They focused on Zionism, the creation of the Israeli state, and its impact on the Arab population in Palestine.

“The idea of Jewish self-determination … and a national homeland for the Jewish people in the abstract … sounds like a noble, righteous goal to me, particularly in the aftermath of the Holocaust.” But, the speaker continued, “Zionism … is not just a Jewish homeland.” It is a homeland already populated by Palestinians.

“How do you create a Jewish state in a land that is more than 90% Arab?” the speaker asked. “The hard truth is … immigration and ethnic cleansing.”

The panelist explained how the Jewish population in Palestine rose from around 5% in 1880 to about one-third in 1947. 

After the Israeli “War of Independence,” “two-thirds of the Palestinian population that existed within the borders of what is today Israel had been forcefully expelled,” the speaker continued. “The majority of the population in Gaza today are refugees or descendants of refugees from that war.”

Responding to the current conflict in Gaza, the panelist said that “it is okay to look at Israel and say, ‘what I see is not okay.’” According to them, “This is the worst humanitarian crisis on the earth right now.” And while they believe that the US has an “extraordinary” amount of leverage on Israeli policy, they also believe that US foreign policy towards the war has been “one of the worst” in recent history.

The fourth and final panelist also criticized the American response. “The United States is an imperial power that has decimated the lives of people in the Middle East,” they said. “Until the United States stops throwing around its political weight in the United Nations and other international courts to protect Israeli aparthied … and the genocide that is happening in Gaza, I cannot think that American military or humanitarian intervention is advisable or even wise.”

In addition to reciting a poem by Refaat Alareer — who was killed by an Israeli airstrike in Gaza — the speaker referenced multiple works by literary critic Edward Said. 

“While Israel commits genocide in Gaza, I am reminded of Said’s critique of a legal and political system that always provides too little, too late.” Drawing from Said’s theory, the panelist said that “Israel has gone from being the dominant economic and political power in Gaza to exercising its necropower … to decide who lives and who dies.”

The panelist concluded the event by also indicating their hesitation to speak. “It may even cost me my job. But people are dying and that’s way more important.”

Most students The Spectator spoke to enjoyed the panel.

Fatma Nayer, ‘27, told The Spectator that the event did a good job educating students on a topic they might not keep up to date with. “As humans we have to talk about things, even if they don’t affect us directly … Every human life matters, whether it’s a Palestinian, an Israeli, or someone else,” she concluded.

But not everyone liked the event.

One student, who wished to remain anonymous, said they were disappointed by the panelists. While they thought the legal explanation of genocide was “very interesting,” they criticized many statements that went “unchallenged.”

“The problematic impact is that every single person who walked into that room without a prior opinion, without prior knowledge on this topic…walked out of that room undoubtedly, with the belief that Israel is a settler colonialist state pursuing a genocide against the innocent people of Gaza,” the student continued.

Regarding Cantey’s request for anonymity, the student at first “thought that sounded reasonable.” In hindsight, the student continued, “I guess I should have seen that [request] as a warning … I don't think that anonymity is a fair excuse to protect yourself from intellectual dishonesty.”

“I would love to see a panel with one or two other individuals…who could explain why Israel is doing this…and why the history of the Jewish people will prevent it from pursuing a genocide,” the student concluded.

[Editors Note: This article was corrected to change the number of indigenous Mayans murdered during the Guatemalan Civil War from 50,000 to 150,000.]