The cancellation of a lecture by journalist Rania Khalek, who was invited to speak on the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill campus by Students for Justice in Palestine on February 27, 2017, raises important issues of tactics and strategy within movements for social change.
The whole statement, posted on Facebook the night before, reads:
“After receiving much feedback and after careful consideration, we have decided to cancel tomorrow’s event with Rania Khalek. We do not endorse nor reject her views on the Syrian civil war as they remain relatively unclear according to our members’ diverse opinions of Rania’s analyses. Although Rania was not going to speak about Syria, we understand the Syrian conflict is a contentious issue and the invitation was met with a lot of anger. We appreciate the concerns of those who have reached out to us, especially our Syrian supporters and believe her invitation would mistakenly imply SJP to hold such views. SJP supports liberation movements for all oppressed people and recognizes their right to self-determination.”
We note: the UNC-SJP event organizers cancelled the event (which was to be on the intersection of Palestinian rights organizing and the Black Lives Matter movement) based on the speaker’s views on Syria, a topic the speaker was “not going to speak about”, that “remain relatively unclear” to them, out of concern that “her invitation would mistakenly imply SJP to hold such views”. This means that:
- No one was prepared to state what disqualified Khalek from speaking.
- The event was canceled based on assertions about her views made by others.
- The cancellation was based on the notion that there is a political litmus test of views on Syria that are requisites to have a public voice in the Palestinian rights movement.
We also note that some of those who lobbied UNC-SJP to cancel the event have stated publicly that they want to destroy Khalek’s reputation and livelihood. This is a coordinated smear campaign, using many of the same tactics that Palestine solidarity activists have faced from pro-Israel organizations, and with many of the same targets.
The signers of this statement hold a range of views on Syria. Some agree with Khalek; others disagree – in some cases quite vehemently. But we feel that when a group seeking justice in Palestine subjects speakers or members to a political litmus test related to their views on Syria, it inevitably leads to splits, silencing, confusion, and a serious erosion of trust. It runs contrary to the possibility of people learning from one another, changing their minds, and educating one another through their activism. Disagreements about political issues exist inside every movement coalition. They must not be made fodder for targeted vilification of activists in the movement.
Signed,
Nahla Abdo
Rabab Abdulhadi
As`ad AbuKhalil
Ali Abunimah
Suzanne Adely
Max Ajl
Sami AlBanna
Michael Albert
Louis Allday
Mark Ames
Said Arikat
Reza Aslan
Carl Beijer
Medea Benjamin
Keane Bhatt
Max Blumenthal
Audrey Bomse
James W. Carden
Joe Catron
Noam Chomsky
George Ciccariello-Maher
Helena Cobban
Andrew Cockburn
Dan Cohen
Elliot Colla
Jonathan Cook
David Cromwell
Omar Dahi
Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz
David Edwards
Karim Eid-Sabbagh
Rami El-Amine
Zein El-Amine
Joe Emersberger
Lee Fang
Nina Farnia
Liza Featherstone
Glen Ford
Drew Franklin
Peter Gose
Kevin Gosztola
Greg Grandin
Glenn Greenwald
Bassam Haddad
David Heap
Doug Henwood
Edward Herman
Brad Hoff
Adam Horowitz
Abdeen Jabara
Bruno Jännti
Rula Jebreal
Zaid Jilani
Adam Johnson
Charlotte Kates
Sameera Khan
Jerome Klassen
Ken Klippenstein
Kyle Kulinski
Paul Larudee
Carlos Latuff
Daniel Lazare
Michael Levin
Antony Loewenstein
Mairead Maguire
Abby Martin
Mario Martone
Rania Masri
Todd Miller
Amina Mire
David Mizner
Mnar A. Muhawesh
Corinna Mullin
Elizabeth Murray
Robert Naiman
Jana Nakhal
Jim Naureckas
Ayman Nijim
Ben Norton
Anya Parampil
John Pilger
Adrienne Pine
Justin Podur
Gareth Porter
Vijay Prashad
Syksy Räsänen
Afshin Rattansi
Corey Robin
Brahim Rouabah
Al Awda SF
Gregory Shupak
Bill Skidmore
Norman Solomon
Rick Sterling
David Swanson
Linda Tabar
Dahlia Wasfi
Mark Weisbrot
Asa Winstanley
Col. Ann Wright
For more information, visit here or email againstblacklisting@gmail.com
Having been blacklisted on Alternet (some of whose contributors signed here, e.g. Max Blumenthal) I have little sympathy for this plea. I find Khalek’s views as a Soviet/Assad apologist reprehensible and I think they did the right thing to disinvite her. And I say that as an advocate for free speech – I personally would have loved to hear her speak but I think a group has every right to decide whom to invite as they are engaged in a noble quest for justice. Similarly, Alternet has every right to ban me, but then don’t come whimpering for me to defend you. That is hypocrisy.
And before you respond, let me state up front:
Khalek and Blumenthal have done great reporting exposing US support for the rebels that has not to my knowledge been discredited. I think both sides are evil – the goal is to create a refugee flow to exploit for labor and outrage.
I think the root of the problem is lack of free speech in Russia – which prevents people from speaking out – and which Khalek and Blumenthal have never acknowledged. (In their defense, few have.)
I think that being right on 99% of the issues but wrong on 1% can be entirely disqualifying – e.g. “Progressive Except Palestine.”
I would have loved to hear her speak but I defend any groups’ right to choose.
“using many of the same tactics that Palestine solidarity activists have faced from pro-Israel organizations”
True and this is a GOOD thing – it forces people to take sides when their brothers are getting killed. A few months ago Oz Katerji was begging Khalek to defend the rebels and refugees. It was pathetic! If not for splits like this he’d probably still be doing it.
No one has a duty to listen to any opinion. That is not silencing the person you choose not to hear. But disinvitation is silencing – and indeed insulting – the disinvited person. It should happen only if something really unexpected comes to light after the invitation has been issued and rarely even then. It is particularly important not to back down just because news of the invitation rouses people who disagree with the speaker to protest. That is equivalent to shouting down by a mob.
Very disappointed in Mondoweiss’s decision to publish this tract. First, as Mondoweiss should know, being blacklisted is what happens to academics and students who speak out on Palestine and are then denied jobs. This is *not* the same as having an SJP group cancel your talk after learning that the speaker has violated core solidarity principle through her anti-refugee, anti-Muslim, pro-“War on Terror,” and pro-Assad rhetoric. Second, it is disgraceful that you’ve chosen to side with an Islamophobic Assadist over and above showing support for the students of SJP being attacked in this letter. Third, as a matter of accountability, does this mean you’ll be retracting your statement on Gilad Atzmon from 2012? After all, this too was — in the parlance of this letter – a case of “blacklisting” someone who violated core solidarity principles. Presumably, you now feel that Atzmon and Alison Weir, among others, deserve a platform, since their anti-Semitism is surely also a “political litmus test” that the authors presumably so despise. We look forward to seeing your defense of these other speakers. Otherwise, we would like an explanation as to why you think Islamophobia should be tolerated but not anti-Semitism. Shameful.
It seems to me the solution to these controversial talk predicaments is to have speakers from both sides on the same platform together, debating. This is what the debate format is for. The people who don’t want to share a platform with their opponents are trying to hide something and mislead their audience. The debate format gives the audience the best opportunity to compare the two positions, side by side, and approximately simultaneous.