Why are scholars being targeted for stating facts?

Elite institutions across the globe, particularly those in the United States, pride themselves on their erudite scholarship, rigorous academics, and groundbreaking research which impacts collective consciousness. Such pride, however, should not be misplaced or be one-sided. It should also apply to scholars who are critics of “Israel’s” genocidal regime and have the audacity to undertake groundbreaking, seminal, and comparative analyses of historical and contemporary realities to advance knowledge on the subject. 

That certainly has not been the case with Harvard University, one of the most prestigious institutions in the world. The university’s Law Review decided to purge the article of renowned Palestinian human rights lawyer, Rabea Eghbariah whose essay was the first to be published by a Palestinian legal scholar in the prestigious Harvard Law Review journal. The crux of his essay is an argument which establishes the 1948 Nakba as a formal, legal concept, which widens its scope and application. It is essentially, a comparison between the 1948 Nakba and “Israel’s” 2024 genocide in Gaza. 

Yet out of the blue, Eghbariah’s work faced unwarranted editorial scrutiny and ensuing censorship from the Harvard Law Review. The decision to spike his article was made by the Review’s board of directors, who targeted Eghbariah’s well-rounded arguments on the Palestinian cause. He was deliberately pushed back by those at the echelons of power. 

His ignominy didn’t end at Harvard as editors from another Ivy League school did so as well. Columbia University reached out to the human rights lawyer while students from the Columbia Law Review solicited a new piece. Eight months into “Israel’s” genocide in Gaza however, Eghbariah’s work was curbed by the Columbia Law Review’s board of directors, which consists of law school professors and alumni who supervise the students running the review. After being published on the CLR’s website, the Review’s board of directors took the entire website down and stated that the page was under ‘maintenance.’ Such treatment was meted out to a scholar despite Eghbariah working with the CLR editors for five months and producing a more than hundred-page article on the subject. 

Such censorship is completely uncalled for. All Eghbariah’s article did was expand on the argument for the Nakba to be considered as a legal concept in international law. His insights are aimed at creating a legal framework which equates the Nakba with genocide and apartheid in South Africa, which is quintessentially correct.

If one closely examines the arguments, then what is unfolding in Gaza is eerily similar to atrocities committed in Nazi Germany or in pre-1994 South Africa as “Israel” pounds Gaza and continues its proliferation of illegal settlements on Palestinian lands. Akin to apartheid in South Africa is the undeniable fact that Palestinians have been systematically relegated as second-class citizens and are being butchered with impunity, as was the case during the Sharpeville massacre of 1960.

The element of racism in Zionism cannot be discounted either, as it is very much prevalent today. Also, the Nakba was characterized by ethnic cleansing, forced displacement of an indigenous population, and the dispossession of property, belongings, and land. 

The 2024 Israeli genocide is no different in this regard either. 

Eghbariah’s contribution is hence, significant. According to the CLR’s previous editor-in-chief, Margaret Hassel, his work fills a notable gap in legal literature and has ensured greater legal and moral clarity on the subject. It becomes unfathomable that he has been subject to editorial board interventions which are otherwise, increasingly rare. Such rare occurrences were not received well by all CLR editors. The Review’s diversity, equity, and inclusion chair, Erika Lopez, stated that she was disgusted with the CLR’s intervention and extensive editorial process.

In fact, such interventions are a bloat on the reputation of institutions such as Harvard and Columbia. It demonstrates that even scholars who produce seminal work rebutting “Israel’s” murderous campaign by citing historical precedent, creating legal frameworks, and appeals to moral conscience, will be muzzled out. Such muzzling takes place as pro-Zionist, pro-status quo, and pro-genocide academics are given a free hand to promote, disseminate, and analyze “Israel’s” barbarity. Many such pro-Zionist academics have freely attacked pro-Palestinian protestors on university campuses and censured those calling out Israeli brutality. Yet little action has been taken against them or Nakba denialists who continue to produce publications protecting Israel from universal criticism. 

It is, therefore, imperative to stand in solidarity with scholars such as Eghbariah. His scholarly dexterity and ability to draw analogies between genocides are increasingly relevant in this day and age. Much of his controversy is manufactured, with those censoring him doing so without any valid reason, justification, or factual evidence. In fact, such repression only validates insights and vindicates the views of scholars who shed light on harrowing realities which the world must take into account when examining “Israel’s” genocide. 

For those championing the Palestinian cause, however, it is clear. One should ask the question: Why are scholars in reputed universities being targeted for stating facts?