Criticize Israel or be anti-Semitic?

Image: Ekaterina Astakhova
Whatsapp
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
Telegram

By RONALDO PORTO MACEDO JUNIOR*

Considerations on the case of USP students threatened with expulsion

1.

Fortunately, this week a ceasefire agreement was announced in the war in Gaza. Millions of people are rooting for its success. After 467 days of war and almost 48 thousand deaths, many heated and harsh debates have taken place about the reasons, limits and consequences of the war. As expected, many people were offended and exaggerated in their speeches. A recent episode at the University of São Paulo, still unfinished,[1] involving students, serves as a reflection on the limits of academic freedom and freedom of expression. I believe that, by knowing the case better, we can extract some important lessons from it.

In November 2023, the USP Rectorate, following representations made by professors Merari de Fátima Ramires Ferrari, coordinator of the Molecular Sciences course, and Alicia Kowaltowsky, from the Chemistry Institute, and by the professor of the Physics Institute and also USP's Vice-Rector for Research, Paulo Nussensveig, instituted an administrative disciplinary proceeding (PAD) against three students from the Molecular Sciences course and two from other courses, for alleged “anti-Semitism” and “hate speech and advocacy”. The request, which was also accompanied by an anonymous complaint, requested the immediate suspension of one of the accused students due to alleged illicit and “criminal” conduct in support of terrorism, prejudice and the dissemination of hate.

The USP prosecutor's office promptly accepted the narrative presented in the representation and proposed opening disciplinary proceedings that could result in the expulsion of the students because it “understands that hate speech is extremely serious and offensive to human dignity.” The request was based on a controversial, outdated and authoritarian provision of the University's General Regulations, written in 1972, which states:

“Article 249 – The penalties referred to in Article 249 of these Regulations shall be applied in the following cases:

III – suspension penalty in cases of repeated offenses already punished with a reprimand and whenever the violation of the order is of greater gravity;

IV – Penalty of permanent elimination in cases where it is demonstrated through an investigation that the student has committed a serious offense.

Article 250 – The following constitute disciplinary infractions by the student, subject to sanction depending on the severity of the offense committed:

IV – Committing an act that violates morality or good customs;

VII – Disrupt school work as well as the functioning of the USP administration;

VIII – Promote demonstrations or propaganda of a political, racial or religious nature, as well as incite, promote or support collective absences from school work”.

The disciplinary types mentioned above are not only broad and imprecise, but they are also deeply compromised by the authoritarian environment in which they were created. They make illegal conduct that is “attacks morality and good customs”, without specifying what this would consist of. Furthermore, they prohibit “political, religious or racial demonstrations” (a common occurrence in student life), as well as mere support for strikes and other “collective absences from school work”. Similar university disciplinary legislation may still exist in some regulations in North Korea or Afghanistan. Nowadays, this is certainly a source of shame for an institution like USP and should prompt some reflection from its academic community and its public prosecutor’s office about its potential to violate human dignity.

What facts could justify the accusation of anti-Semitic conduct and expression of “hate speech” whose gravity should justify the expulsion of the students? The facts, as always, matter. However, in this episode, they were not sufficiently disclosed because the administrative procedure was covered by a certain secrecy (partially breached due to the disclosure of some documents), which is why, in many contexts, the narrative of the authors of the representation prevailed that there had been practices of racism, incitement to terrorism and anti-Semitism. Let's look at the facts.

2.

It all started on October 10, 2023, three days after the brutal Hamas attack on Israel, when an assembly of the students of the Molecular Sciences course who were on strike took place. About 35 students were present. On this occasion, minutes were produced, in which the following allegations were made, which were later formally retracted. I transcribe the text in its entirety, as it is relevant for the correct contextualization of the facts.

“Report on the situation in Palestine

On Saturday morning, Palestinian forces launched a historic offensive against Israeli colonialism from the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian region that has been occupied by Israel for 16 years in a colonial manner, based on colonial settlements on stolen Palestinian lands and cities. The armed forces involved in Operation Storm Al-Alqsa are several, led by Hamas, the most organized and well-structured force, although controversial among the Palestinian people. All Palestinian political forces maintain basic contact to ensure unity of military action.

The offensive was historic and left the Israeli army paralyzed in the first hours, during which several settlements were retaken and several Israeli soldiers were taken prisoner. As soon as the retaliation from Israel began, with indiscriminate bombings in civilian areas, as can be seen in a video posted on the Israeli Prime Minister's social media, 250 Palestinians were quickly killed. The cowardly bombings continue to this day and are intensifying, with more than 750 Palestinians dead, of which almost 200 are children.

Furthermore, the Israeli defense minister, declaring that Palestinians are human animals who should be treated as such, announced the cutting off of water, electricity and fuel supplies to the Gaza Strip, which has been, for 16 years, a walled, open-air prison whose flow of goods and people is completely controlled by Israel.

This type of siege, in addition to being illegal under international law, prevents the functioning of health services and hospitals in the Gaza Strip, while bombings increase. It is important to remember that this offensive by the Palestinian resistance occurred in response to the desecration of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the assault on women involved in the mosque's operations. In addition, in recent months Israel has been escalating the conflict with repeated attempts to invade Jenin, the third largest city in the West Bank and an important center of the organization of the Palestinian armed struggle.

The bombings are close to the border with Egypt and Israel has already bombed Lebanon, which retaliated and mobilized for a larger-scale military response.

The Brazilian media, aligned with the US imperialist bloc, has been focusing on a disinformation campaign, interviewing Brazilians who live there and telling personal stories of family members or friends who suffer from the conflict, trying to get people emotional and trying to generate hatred towards the Palestinians, dehumanizing them and characterizing them as terrorists who kill Israeli civilians for no reason.

It is important to emphasize that there are no civilians in Israel, and even less so in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, regions of more recent colonial settlements, which are extremely militarized to ensure the theft of Palestinian land. Every Israeli, upon turning 18, has to serve in the army for three years (2 years and 8 months). Thus, considering the colonial situation and the fact that all Israelis, men and women, are military, what we have is a militarized non-civilian population inhabiting stolen land. There are therefore no civilians in Israel, just as there were no French civilians in Algeria in the XNUMXth century or French civilians in Haiti in the XNUMXth century during the Haitian revolution.

To contextualize the fascist, colonialist and racist genocide that Israel practices, before the beginning of this conflict, 208 Palestinians had been murdered by Israel this year and, in the last 21 years, Israel has murdered an average of one Palestinian child every three days. The Israeli army is one of the richest and best equipped in the world, receiving billions in donations from the US every year.

It is the role of every human being who cares about oppression and exploitation to stand against the Zionist project, against Israeli colonialism, against the State of Israel founded on genocide and colonialism. It is essential that we stand in defense of the struggle and the lives of the Palestinian people.”

In view of the negative repercussions of the terms of the document transcribed above, a letter of retraction was drafted and released the day after the document was released. It read: “In reference to the section entitled “Report on the situation in Palestine” in the minutes of the course assembly of October 11, the Favo 10 Academic Center hereby publicly retracts its statement, acknowledging its serious error in the form and content of this report, thus expressing a sincere apology to the entire Molecular Sciences Course community and to the entire Jewish community. We would also like to clarify the circumstances of the issuance of this report.(…)

We also recognize that there were undeniably serious errors in the report. In addition to the general lack of sensitivity, offensive statements were made on sensitive topics, such as that 'there are therefore no civilians in Israel' or that 'the offensive was historic'. We understand that the State of Israel has a militarized nature, but that there are, of course, civilians in Israel who suffer the consequences of the conflict, and that we should never glorify civilian suffering. Furthermore, we emphasize that all war crimes and loss of human life are equally regrettable, saddening and revolting. Therefore, we express our deep regret for the offenses that the statements caused.(…)

The Academic Center assumes full responsibility for the poor drafting of the minutes, which did not indicate, for example, the authorship of the report or the entity that was being represented. (…)

3.

Despite the quick retraction and the debate that the original document provoked, including the proposal to “create a study group on the conflict and open a plenary session for students,” one of the representations made against the students considered it insufficient and understood that “These minutes (…) are racist, glorify violent actions by terrorist groups, and dehumanize victims of their attacks.” Furthermore, it concluded that “there is no real accountability in the ‘retraction’ document that is consistent with the extreme gravity of the material presented in the minutes.” These arguments were accepted by the order of the Deputy Provost of Undergraduate Studies, Professor Marcos Garcia Neira, who, accepting the arguments of the USP Attorney General’s Office, initiated the administrative process.

During the investigation and collection of statements, other facts and statements on social media were mentioned that amplified the feeling of offense expressed by the authors of the representations. Among them, an opinion was reported by a student posted on social media stating that he “did not regret the death of a Brazilian victim of a Hamas attack” due to the context of the war. However, since such statements are outside the scope of the initial accusation, I will not present them in detail.

The first point to be highlighted is that the university environment was seriously affected by the war in Gaza and the severe repression imposed by the State of Israel on the Palestinian population. Numerous reactions occurred in several prestigious universities around the world, especially in Europe and the United States. It would be strange if this had not occurred in view of the enormous violence of the atrocities that started the conflict and that continued for months of disproportionate retaliation, the object of broad condemnation by several international institutions, countries and human rights organizations.

What is not understood, however, is the immediate and irresistible appeal that the adoption of repressive and harsh measures has as a solution to deal with differences of opinion. After all, why should a declaration of support for the Palestinian people, made without much thought regarding its form, marked by a clear emotional impulse, but which was promptly retracted, justify the expulsion of the students? After all, doesn't the point of the frank debate of ideas lie precisely in the possibility of fostering dialogue, rather than silencing it?

The second point to be highlighted is that the episode that occurred at USP is an authoritarian political strategy of imposing a narrative and labels that, instead of stimulating and creating freedom for the debate of ideas, limits it. This is clear in relation to the accusation made against the content of the students' minutes as “racist and anti-Semitic” and constituting extremely serious conduct. Reading the document makes it clear that its criticism is directed at policies adopted by the current government of the State of Israel, and not at the Jewish people.

The distinction between the Jewish people and the State of Israel is clear and well-known, but in the rhetorical war of versions, it is often deliberately neglected. The terms anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are also not identified. Distinguishing Zionism from anti-Semitism is essential. Zionism seeks the creation of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, while anti-Semitism involves prejudice and discrimination against Jews based on their ethnic or religious origin. Some formulations of the Zionist ideal have historically assumed more or less inclusive and sectarian features.

On the subject of labeling criticism of the State of Israel's war practices and anti-Semitism, it is worth remembering what the International Criminal Court (ICC) has said about the current situation in Palestine. On this occasion, the court unanimously rejected the State of Israel's challenges presented under Articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute, stating: “The ICC has issued arrest warrants for Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr. Yoav Gallant, for crimes against humanity and war crimes committed from at least October 8, 2023 until at least May 20, 2024, the day on which the Prosecutor's Office filed the requests for arrest warrants.

With respect to the crimes, the Chamber found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel at the time of the relevant conduct, and Mr. Gallant, Minister of Defense of Israel at the time of the alleged conduct, each bear criminal responsibility for the following crimes as co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts. The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime.”[2]

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterized the ICC decision as an expression of “anti-Semitism.” The same had already occurred in January 2024, when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed the plausibility of the hypothesis of genocide by Israel in the Gaza Strip and imposed provisional measures aimed at stopping acts of genocide. At that time, Netanyahu labeled the decision as an act of “discrimination against the Jewish state.”

In a similar context, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant characterized South Africa’s request to declare the illegality of acts committed by the State of Israel as “an expression of anti-Semitism.” The episodes reveal how well-founded criticisms, based on serious investigations carried out by international organizations such as the ICC and the ICJ, were quickly classified as expressions of anti-Semitism and discrimination.

It is also worth remembering that President Lula was accused of expressing “anti-Semitic hatred” when, in February 2024, he compared what was happening in Gaza with what Hitler had done against the Jews during the Nazi era. He stated, during the press conference that ended his trip to Ethiopia, that “what is happening in the Gaza Strip with the Palestinian people has not happened at any other time in history. In fact, it did happen. When Hitler decided to kill the Jews.”[3] Some groups and collectives quickly came out in defense of the president's right to freedom of expression, refuting the accusation of anti-Semitism.[4]

However, other voices insisted on the accusation. Netanyahu published in X that “the words of the president of Brazil are shameful and serious. They are trivializing the Holocaust and trying to harm the Jewish people and Israel’s right to defend itself.” In a speech in Israel, he returned to the charge and stated that Lula acted as an “anti-Semite.” He alleged that: “by comparing Israel’s war in Gaza against Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization, to the Holocaust, President Da Silva disrespected the memory of 6 million Jews killed by the Nazis, and demonized the Jewish State as the most virulent anti-Semite. He should be ashamed.” Criticism of Lula’s statement was also issued by the US Holocaust Museum, which repudiated his statements as “false” and “anti-Semitic.”[5]

These facts indicate that the mere accusation of anti-Semitism cannot be taken as true unless the content of what was said and its circumstances are examined with caution and commitment to objectivity. Thus, while the note made by the Favo22 Academic Center was inappropriate in form and content, as the retraction stated, on the other hand, it does not constitute the practice of racism or anti-Semitic prejudice simply because some people who felt offended say so. Neither the ICC, nor President Lula, nor the ICJ express anti-Semitic speeches simply because Netanyahu interprets the criticisms directed at Israel's military actions in this way. In fact, they were not anti-Semitic speeches, but rather harsh censures of the way in which the war in Gaza was conducted by the Israeli government.

It is important to remember that accusing someone of being “racist,” “anti-Semitic,” or “a hate speech user” is, in many circumstances, a strategy of censorship, silencing, and embarrassing the most forceful and eloquent critical discourse. In these situations, the labeling accusation can become a form of imposing a severe social consequence (through damage to the speaker’s reputation, “cancellation,” or stigma) or a legal consequence through the risk of a serious sanction, such as expulsion from university.

This is exactly what happened in the case in question, when the strategy of dialogue and pedagogy was replaced by the violence of the process, threats, accusations of committing a crime and silencing, always to the detriment of freedom of expression. In other words, when an attempt was made to silence a critical voice of the students through the threat of punishment by expulsion and stigmatization by the label of “anti-Semite and racist”. It is important to emphasize that it is not necessary to agree with the students’ ideas to recognize their right to express them without the threat of repression.

Thirdly, the case is also interesting because it involves a situation about which society in general and the USP community had only limited and partial knowledge. This is because the administrative process is being conducted in secret and only gained some publicity due to an article published in the newspaper Folha de S. Paul on October 24, 2024,[6] more than a year after the events that led to the opening of the procedure. Subsequently, a group of USP professors, which included Marilena Chaui, Leda Paulani, Carlos Augusto Calil, Sérgio Rosemberg, Ricardo Abramovay, Renato Janine Ribeiro, Paulo Eduardo Arantes, among more than two hundred, organized a manifesto in defense of the right to freedom of expression and against the expulsion of the students, understanding that, “apart from criticism of Israel”, there is “nothing that constitutes a hate crime or anti-Semitism”.[7] A similar document prepared by students also criticized the initiation of the administrative process.

The public debate on this topic of sensitive interest to the community, since it involves the important issue of academic freedom and censorship, was practically ignored by the public. Due to its enormous importance, several prominent intellectuals got involved in the cause, not only in solidarity with the students, but also in defense of freedom of expression itself. Professors Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Francisco Rezek and Paulo Borba Casella attached opinions in defense of students' freedom of expression, responding to the request made by the combative lawyer Maira Pinheiro. If it were not for this publicity and the light shed on the facts, a case of silencing would have passed silently through the university's bureaucratic bodies. A central issue for academic freedom would have been limited to the examination of just three people who make up the investigation committee.

Fourthly, old confusions and conceptual errors would end up thriving without the community itself realizing it. Among them, the lack of differentiation between anti-Semitism and criticism of the policies of the State of Israel, the confusion between incitement to illicit conduct and the mere advocacy of ideas, the authoritarian reliance on the imposition of sanctions based on an ambiguous and ill-defined concept of hate speech, and also the shallow and mistaken understanding of the meaning of freedom of political expression and academic freedom.

Fifthly, the case points to a worrying trend in the country's political and cultural climate of increasingly treating freedom of expression issues as police matters, appealing to the blind or opportunistic faith that good reason will be the zealous guardian of good customs, civility and truth. The authoritarian inclination of our censorship institutions seems to gain momentum in contexts of heightened divisions of opinion. However, the ideal would be for tolerance and debate of ideas to prevail instead. For this to happen, it is essential that the debate of issues such as this be held publicly and with broad debate.

Cases similar to the case against the five students who protested against the extreme violence in Gaza occur daily, in countless academic and non-academic contexts. The best lesson we can learn from them is to debate them, seek the best justifications for our positions and remain cautious about the paths preferred by censors who quickly appeal to bureaucratic authorities in search of a solution. Let us hope that this wave of repression in Gaza has truly come to an end, because attacks on freedom of expression will continue, whether full or empty of good intentions.

*Ronaldo Porto Macedo Junior is a full professor at the Faculty of Law at USP.

Originally published in the newspaper The Globe.

Notes


[1] Given that the defense's final allegations have been made, the final decision by the Processing Committee and subsequent decision by the Rector of USP are still awaited.

[2] See: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges

[3] https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/internacional/netanyahu-diz-que-lula-cruzou-linha-vermelha-ao-comparar-gaza-com-matanca-de-judeus-por-hitler/

[4] Report “Jewish collective defends Lula and says that PT member expressed ‘what is in his imagination’”, published in the newspaper Folha de São Paulo. Available at: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/monicabergamo/2024/02/coletivo-de-judeus-defende-lula-e-diz-que-petista-externou-o-que-esta-no-imaginario.shtml

[5] https://www.terra.com.br/amp/noticias/brasil/por-que-comparacao-de-lula-entre-gaza-e-holocausto-enfureceu-israel,9b540333d1d0d90b30e7c0b55fe7fe9775uyyfk0.html

[6] See: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/educacao/2024/10/usp-move-processo-pela-expulsao-de-cinco-alunos-acusados-de-antissemitismo.shtml. Earlier, on 01/03/2024, a report from the USP Teachers Association drew attention to the case in the article Rectorate persecutes, prosecutes and threatens to expel five students who protested against genocide in Gaza: https://adusp.org.br/universidade/procadmin-gaza/

[7] See: https://www.band.uol.com.br/bandnews-fm/noticias/monica-bergamo-professores-da-usp-se-unem-contra-expulsao-de-alunos-que-criticaram-israel-202412170928


the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE