Op onze uitnodiging om te reageren op de kritische tekst die enkele studenten schreven naar aanleiding van zijn lezing, heeft Bernard Wasserstein in een vriendelijk schrijven aangegeven zich hiervan te willen weerhouden. Toch blijft zijn lezing voor discussie zorgen. Daarin komt scherp naar voor dat het historische (en dus ook het huidige) conflict tussen Israël en Palestina vanuit heel verschillende perspectieven kan worden bekeken. We geven graag ruimte aan duidelijke formuleringen van die perspectieven. Niet omdat we zelf een neutrale positie zouden aannemen in deze kwestie – die is immers onmogelijk – wel omdat we geloven dat slechts dan een gesprek mogelijk wordt waarin de verschillende deelnemers naar elkaar luisteren en van elkaar leren. Dit is de oorspronkelijke bedoeling geweest van het initiatief dat Power in History, het Centrum voor Stadsgeschiedenis, het Instituut voor Joodse Studies en de Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte gezamenlijk hebben genomen. Trouw aan deze intentie bieden wij op deze blog een forum voor goed onderbouwde reflecties op de lezing – en bijgevolg ook op de geschiedenis van het Israëlisch-Palestijnse conflict.
Om die reden vroegen we aan dr. Janiv Stamberger, die in 2020 zijn proefschrift aan de UAntwerpen en de Université Libre de Bruxelles verdedigde over de Joodse geschiedenis van België vóór 1940, om zijn impressies bij de lezing en bij de reactie van de studenten aan deze blog toe te vertrouwen. We zijn hem dankbaar dat hij dat op korte termijn en op een heel doorwrochte en genuanceerde manier heeft gedaan. Hij deed dat in eigen naam. Intussen ontvingen we ook een reflectie door Annelys de Vet, die aan ARIA een doctoraat in de kunsten voorbereidt en daarbij intense contacten onderhoudt met Palestijnse ontwerpers. Zij is in haar tekst heel scherp op de keuzes die gemaakt zijn door de initiatiefnemers van de lezing. Precies omdat we geloven dat dit gezamenlijke initiatief als grote meerwaarde heeft een open en constructieve dialoog mogelijk te maken, vinden we het belangrijk ook deze kritiek te publiceren en ter harte te nemen.
Dat het debat in de huidige context soms emotioneel en met scherpe bewoordingen wordt gevoerd, vinden wij normaal. We grijpen redactioneel slechts in wanneer we vinden dat de grenzen van de academische deontologie worden overschreden. Dat is met name het geval wanneer mensen niet worden beoordeeld om wat ze schrijven, maar om wie ze zijn, of wanneer hen kwade bedoelingen worden toegeschreven. Het (al dan niet terecht) aanduiden van eenzijdigheid in wat iemand zegt of schrijft, behoort volgens ons wel tot de regels van het academische debat. Wij zijn dan ook van oordeel dat de deontologische grenzen in de voorliggende teksten niet werden overschreden. Uit de tekst van Janiv Stamberger blijkt dat daarover het oordeel sterk kan verschillen. Ook dat kan dus het voorwerp uitmaken van een respectvol debat.
Roschanack Shaery-Yazdi en Marnix Beyen, editors van de blog
As a PhD candidate interested in how participative design practices can support social-political struggles, particularly in relation to the question of Palestine, I attended the presentation of Professor Emeritus Bernard Wasserstein with professional interest. For many years I have been working with Palestinian artists, designers and artisans and co-organised workshops with cultural and educational institutes in places like Ramallah, Birzeit, Bethlehem, Jerusalem and in 2015 in Gaza and Khan Younis. These experiences have provided an existential insight into the history, violence and impact of the occupation, as well as the continuous forceful silencing of Palestinian narratives.
I was tentatively encouraged that UAntwerp engages actively in current political discussions with such a public lecture, responding to the urges that also students raise, and inviting knowledgeable speakers to provide historical context. However, the fact that the announcement had forwarded this presentation as one of two lectures on ‘the history behind the Gaza conflict’ by a person known for his contributions to modern Jewish history raised questions over which perspective this history would be narrated. First, it is fundamentally flawed to call the current genocide[1] in Gaza merely a conflict. Second, wouldn’t it be more legitimate to invite someone known for their contribution to Gaza’s modern history? This lack of contextual reflexivity touches on the most significant omission of this presentation, both as the choice for this speaker and from the focus of the lecture.
I listened carefully to the historical lines that Professor Wasserstein brought to the fore as a concatenation of seemingly neutral facts without acknowledging the partial perspective he presented, nor doing justice to fundamentally different views on and experiences of history; from the trivialisation of the Nakba[2] and its attendant historical trauma to the biased question of who among the Palestinian leaders should be negotiated with for the establishment of a possible state. He dismissed valid political representation insisting that Palestinian politics are corrupt and that without elections, there is no democracy. Although there is no denying that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are authoritarian and corrupt, Professor Wasserstein simply leaves out the fact that the Israeli occupation forces have done everything possible to make a healthy political system and representation in the Palestinian territories impossible, including the incarceration of the most popular Palestinian leader Marwan Barghouti[3] who continuously promoted dialogue. Although Wasserstein referred to certain elements of that policy, he failed to point out its systematic nature, including leaving out that Hamas was the legitimate winner of the last democratic elections in 2006[4], but was not allowed to represent Palestine. The lack of solid political representation does not justify the Israeli military rule of Palestinian territories, nor does it turn Israel into a fair partner for negotiation. Israel is an Apartheid state[5] based on Jewish law, with a significant part of those living under their rule without a right to vote[6]. It continues an illegal military occupation and systematically violates human rights as well as international law. The Israeli state also restricts a free press, as seen with the recent closure of Al Jazeera.[7] Not to mention the recently discovered secret operation to thwart the ICC’s probe into alleged war crimes[8] where for over nine years, ICC members were spied on, their sources hacked, and false information was produced to counter the reports of Palestinian human rights organisations.[9]
According to the same ICC, there are reasonable grounds to believe that Benjamin Netanyahu bears criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity. How come there was no question of Israel’s democratic legitimacy[10] in Wasserstein’s presentation?
In the seemingly neutral historical narration, I systematically missed mentioning questions of justice; there was no acknowledgement of the need for restorative justice and accountability. As if the injustice should be ignored, and those on the ground should lay the puzzle of a one- or two-state solution by two equal parties, not an occupying and occupied party. As Wasserstein signals that one side is not valid to take part as they are not democratic, his words could be interpreted that it should be up to the specialists in modern Jewish history to force a ‘solution’ to this ‘conflict’.
But more than directing my dismay at Professor Emeritus Bernard Wasserstein, I want to express my incredulity at The Institute of Jewish Studies, the History Department and the Faculty of Arts and Philosophy of the University of Antwerp for their choice of this speaker at this pivotal moment in time. Students, not only in Antwerp but worldwide, are taking a stand against injustice, teaching us what is important, and more fundamentally, demanding our institutions to embrace a more ethical and accountable modus operandi. The will for dialogue is to be welcomed, as well as the collaboration of the various departments. However, the framing of the presentation left me puzzled by the lack of political and humane reflexivity, and in this way, again contributing to the silencing of Palestinian narratives.
Annelys de Vet (1974, NL, she/her) is a Belgium-based designer, researcher, and educator with a practice for long-term, participative design projects that actively engage in social and political struggles. Currently, De Vet is a PhD researcher at ARIA, a practice-led doctoral study at Sint Lucas School of Arts and the University of Antwerp. Her research focuses on the conditions of design pedagogy to counteract oppression and injustice through design. She teaches in the master’s program in a social-political context at the Sint Lucas School of Arts, and regularly lectures on alternative cartography, critical pedagogy, and relational design practices at various institutions worldwide.
Awakening goggles.
Sleeping mask embroidered with the eyes of the artisans
These Awakening goggles are designed to symbolically envision Palestinian women travelling around the world while catalysing a broader, more open view and preventing people from covering their own eyes when it comes to the occupation of Palestine. It was hand-embroidered by women working at the [now fully destroyed] Open Studio of the Red Crescent Hospital in Khan Younis, Gaza. The women depicted their own eyes on these masks, metaphorically allowing them to see beyond the walls of the Gaza Strip, under siege since 2007, and currently under genocidal attacks.
Design: Tessel Brühl for Disarming Design from Palestine
© Photo : Celine Callens
[1] https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976
[2] https://blog.uantwerpen.be/power-in-history/a-critical-review-of-prof-bernard-wassersteins-lecture-on-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict/
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/17/the-most-popular-palestinian-leader-alive-releasing-marwan-barghouti-could-transform-territories-politics
[4] https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/carc/2018/03/01/mapping-the-fatah-hamas-conflict/
[5] https://al-shabaka.org/briefs/beyond-south-africa-understanding-israeli-apartheid/
[6] https://www.972mag.com/gets-vote-israels-democracy-2019/
[7] https://www.article19.org/resources/israel-al-jazeera-ban-is-an-attack-on-media-freedom-and-war-reporting/
[8] https://www.972mag.com/icc-israel-surveillance-investigation/
[9] https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-state
[10] https://jacobin.com/2017/05/israel-palestine-democracy-apartheid-discrimination-settler-colonialism
Als je aankondigingen van nieuwe blogteksten in je mailbox wil ontvangen, stuur dan een bericht naar charris.desmet@uantwerpen.be.