London School of Economics resists Israel ambassador's call to cancel event on Hamas book
A leading British university has resisted a campaign by pro-Israel groups and the Israeli ambassador to cancel the launch of a new book about Hamas.
The book, Understanding Hamas and Why That Matters, which is edited by Helena Cobban and Rami Khouri, was launched on Monday afternoon at the London School of Economics amid widespread outrage, with a pro-Israel protest held outside the university.
The Israeli ambassador to the UK, Tzipi Hotovely, wrote to LSE vice-chancellor Professor Larry Kramer asking him to cancel the launch, organised through the university's Middle East Centre, accusing it of platforming "Hamas propaganda".
She claimed that the launch could "serve to grow support for a brutal terror organisation among your students and beyond".
But the university did not back down, with a spokesperson saying: "Free speech and freedom of expression underpins everything we do at LSE. Students, staff and visitors are strongly encouraged to discuss and debate the most pressing issues around the world.'
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
The book's description says that it "provides much-needed insight into a widely misunderstood movement whose involvement in a just resolution of the Israel/Palestine conflict will be critical".
"This book does not advocate for or against Hamas. Rather, in a series of rich and probing conversations with leading experts, it aims to deepen understanding of a movement that is a key player in the current crisis," it continues.
"It looks at, among other things, Hamas's critical shift from social and religious activism to national political engagement; the delicate balance between Hamas's political and military wings; and its transformation from early anti-Jewish tendencies to a stance that differentiates between Judaism and Zionism."
'Misrepresentation' of Hamas
Contributors to the book include Jadaliyya co-editor Mouin Rabbani and academic Azzam Tamimi, author of Hamas: A History from Within.
The event, chaired by the Middle East Centre's director Michael Mason, was addressed by Rabbani and co-editor Cobban, as well as Jeroen Gunning, a founder of the field of critical terrorism studies, and international relations lecturer Catherine Charrett.
During the event, all speakers condemned war crimes committed by Hamas and the targeting of civilians.
Cobban said during the event: "It's crucial for us to recognise how complicit corporate media in this country have been in the misrepresentation - and I would even say the 'disrepresentation' - of both Hamas as a movement and its actions."
She added that "resistance to occupation" is "permitted in international law".
London university described pro-Palestine protesters as 'dressed as terrorists' Read More »
"I am definitely prepared to condemn all attacks that violate international humanitarian law, whether on 7 October or any other day," she said. "However, it's important to note that much of what Hamas did on 7 October involved attacking military targets inside Israel."
Gunning argued that labelling Hamas terrorists "erases the historical context of the 7 October attacks... It allows Israel to claim these were irrational, evil, unprovoked attacks, and that it's about hatred and nothing else."
LSE has previously been embroiled in controversies related to pro-Palestinian protests on campus.
In January, Middle East Eye revealed that students who staged a protest to draw attention to the university's investments in Israel were described as being "dressed as terrorists" in emails between senior staff.
Footage of the incident analysed by MEE showed that some protesters had covered their faces with the Palestinian keffiyeh.
Last year, the LSE became the first British university to evict its students from an encampment for Gaza after securing a court order to disperse them.
LSE reportedly has £89m ($113m) invested in 137 companies involved in possible war crimes in Gaza, the arms industry and fossil fuels.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Will France recognise Palestinian statehood at UN conference next week?
France is more likely than not to formally recognise a Palestinian state, with expectations that the UK, Canada and other western nations could follow in a co-ordinated diplomatic move, experts say. The potential shift comes amid heightened diplomatic efforts to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though the exact terms of recognition remain under negotiation. French officials have said President Emmanuel Macron is leaning towards recognising a Palestinian state ahead of a UN conference that France and Saudi Arabia are co-hosting from June 17 to 20. Mr Macron has said he is 'determined' to recognise a Palestinian state, but also set out several conditions, including the 'demilitarisation' of Hamas 'It is unclear whether it will be an outright recognition, or a time-bound, staged one contingent on certain conditions, such as holding Palestinian elections within a year and the disarming of Hamas,' Rym Momtaz, editor in chief of Carnegie Europe's blog Strategic Europe told The National. 'The negotiations on this will go down to the wire and intensify when leaders meet in person at the G7 summit in Canada at the beginning of the week.' Ms Momtaz noted that 'extreme reactions' from parts of the Israeli government indicate that France's potential recognition carries significant weight and an action Arab partners require and want. France would be the most prominent western power to recognise Palestinian statehood. 'Emmanuel Macron has leverage and has been the main engine for this conference. But undoubtedly, it is US President Donald Trump who is the game-changer,' said Ms Momtaz. European governments are increasingly doubtful that Israel intends to relax its control over the Palestinians, and they view formal recognition of a Palestinian state as a potential tool to pressure Israeli officials. Mr Macron's position has been described by Karim Bitar, associate research fellow at the Institute for International and Strategic Affairs in Paris (IRIS), as 'extremely difficult' because Israel-Palestine is no longer merely a foreign policy issue. 'It has become a domestic political question in France with a deeply polarised public opinion,' Mr Bitar told The National. 'France thinks that the time has come for a paradigm shift, and France is trying to leverage its excellent relations with Gulf countries in order to at least open a pathway towards a Palestinian state,' he said. '[Macron] would like to show the Israeli government that it has to change its antics without completely burning all the bridges with Netanyahu.' Robert Danin, whose career as a diplomat and Middle East scholar included more than 20 years working on the region at the State Department and White House, said the timing of the conference is 'unfortunate … because you can't expect to focus on a long-term diplomatic objective in the middle of a war'. Mr Danin criticised Mr Macron's approach, saying that he 'demonstrated in Lebanon and elsewhere this tendency to sort of come in, want to fix everything in 24-48 hours, and then not see anything through. And this looks like another such effort to do something quick and flashy.' In a phone interview with The National, Yossi Beilin, former Israeli minister, peace negotiator, and crucial figure in the Oslo Accords, argued that the priority should be getting both sides back to the negotiating table to talk about a two-state solution. Recognising a Palestinian state without Israel's involvement is 'not a big deal', he said. 'It is a gesture which I don't denounce … but the big deal should be for the Europeans and other leaders to come to the region, meet with Netanyahu, meet with Abu Mazen, talk with them very seriously about what can be done and … this is not what is happening.' In an open letter to Mr Macron, Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a group of former senior UN diplomats called The Elders, urged world leaders to 'fulfil their stated commitment to recognise the State of Palestine without condition or delay'. 'Israel does not have the right to veto Palestinian self-determination or statehood,' they said. 'Nor should recognition be linked to governance reform, or the form that a sovereign, unified Palestinian state will take. These are separate issues from statehood itself.' In an interview with Bloomberg on Tuesday, US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said an independent Palestinian state no longer appears to be a goal of US foreign policy and suggested that if such a state were formed, it would not be in the occupied West Bank. 'Unless there are some significant things that happen that change the culture, there's no room for it,' Mr Huckabee said, adding that such changes were unlikely to occur 'in our lifetime.' Max Rodenbeck, the International Crisis Group's Israel-Palestine director, has raised concerns over the hastily arranged nature of the coming conference on Palestinian statehood at the UN, warning of disorganisation and unclear objectives. Speaking after a month-long visit to the region, Mr Rodenbeck said that the impression among stakeholders was one of uncertainty. 'The conference is happening rather hastily, and there is a bit of disorder. No one quite knows what's going to happen,' he said. While he downplayed the likelihood of widespread recognition of Palestine by several countries at the UN next week, he acknowledged that such a move would send a 'strong signal'. 'There's a shift in world opinion as well that's reflected at the UN and, there's a wide global recognition that this war really has to stop,' Mr Rodenbeck said. He added that the reality on the ground shows that 'there is not much left of any Palestine to create a state with' and Israel's war in Gaza is 'not achieving much' militarily or strategically, leading to growing dissent within Israel. According to Mr Rodenbeck, opposition to the conflict is not driven by an inherent rejection of the war or a desire for peace at any cost, but rather by the belief that the current campaign is yielding diminishing returns. 'I would point out that over time, Israel has won every war … but Israel has also lost almost every peace afterwards.'
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Labour's bruising road to sanction Israeli cabinet extremists
After almost a year of pressure to take action against Israel's more extreme government members, Britain sanctioned two cabinet ministers whose actions 'led to the deaths' of Palestinians. In the hardest-hitting statement from the British government to date, Middle East minister Hamish Falconer outlined the case against Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. To supportive shouts from Labour MPs, Mr Falconer stated that the ministers incited occupied West Bank settler violence 'which has led to the deaths of Palestinians civilians and the displacement of whole towns and villages'. Britain, along with Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Norway, would 'not sit by while they wreck the prospects of future peace'. The path to sanctioning Israel's hardline cabinet members over Gaza has been arduous, bruising and, for many in the UK's Labour government, long overdue. Former Conservative foreign secretary David Cameron was exasperated at Israel's intransigence over aid to Gaza and almost sanctioned the pair in the spring of last year but the July general election intervened. In opposition, Labour had been rattled after Keir Starmer admitted in a radio interview shortly after the October 7 attacks that Israel had the 'right' to cut off power and water to Gaza to enforce a siege. That affected heavily in the July election when Labour lost four stronghold seats to Muslim independents standing on a pro-Gaza platform. Shaken and outraged by reports of death and human misery in Gaza, Labour MPs have since berated the government at every opportunity for not sanctioning the pair. The path to that action has been tentative, and for the Labour front bench, quite painful. Initially in September, it hoped to quell the disgruntled voices – and pressure Israel – by imposing a partial arms embargo on 30 weapons export licences to the country. The first hint of sanctions came in October after Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that action was being considered following new incendiary comments from the pair. Mr Smotrich had stated that starving two million people in Gaza 'might be justified and moral', while Mr Ben Gvir's labelled illegal occupied West Bank settlers who killed a teenage Palestinian as 'heroes'. But with the diplomatic push for a ceasefire with Hamas and release of Israeli hostages in the new year, the pressure for action receded. That was until Israel resumed its latest grim offensive with MPs in March accusing the British government of double standards on its position towards the country. A beleaguered foreign secretary was sent by Downing Street to make a statement in the Commons largely to placate the anger of Labour backbenchers fed up with the government's position on Israel. David Lammy admitted there had been an 'appalling loss of life', and said the UK is working with France and Germany to send Israel a 'clear message' that they 'strongly oppose' the resumption of hostilities. By April, The National had been told in confidence that Mr Lammy was now actively pushing for the pair to be sanctioned – as well as Palestinian state recognition – such was the anger felt in London over the humanitarian blockade and continued loss of life. But it became clear last month that relations with Israel had reached breaking point. Suddenly Mr Lammy's language had changed, condemning the country's actions in Gaza as 'intolerable' and 'repellent'. 'We must call this what it is. It is extremism. It is dangerous, it is repellent,' Mr Lammy told Parliament. 'I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.' Throughout last year, Labour back bench MPs have been outspoken in putting pressure on the government to change its stance. Joined by the Lib Dems, and a handful of Conservatives, their voices have been listened to with action now taken. But the pressure will not stop there. Calls will intensify for recognition of a Palestinian state and a full arms embargo. And a new line of attack emerged on Tuesday, with Mr Lammy asked why sanction the ministers but not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself. His response was that the pair had used 'horrendous extremist language', indicating that their boss had not. Britain's and its allies' actions has affected the Israeli government which condemned them as 'outrageous'. Yet it will probably take its strongest ally, the US, to change its position for a significant impact on Israel's actions. Mr Falconer also warned that the two state solution 'is in peril' due to the 'catastrophic conflict in Gaza and a shocking deterioration in the West Bank'. Israel's actions were 'an attempt to entrench a one state reality where there are no equal rights', he stated.
Khaleej Times
3 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
US ambassador to Israel says he does not think Palestinian state is US policy goal
Washington's ambassador to Israel said he did not think an independent Palestinian state remains a US foreign policy goal, prompting the State Department to say he spoke for himself while the White House referred to past comments from President Donald Trump expressing doubts about a two-state solution. "I don't think so," US Ambassador Mike Huckabee said in an interview with Bloomberg News published on Tuesday, when asked if a Palestinian state remains a goal of US policy. Asked about Huckabee's comments, the White House referred to remarks earlier this year by Trump when he proposed a US takeover of Gaza, which was condemned globally by rights groups, Arab states, Palestinians and the UN as a proposal of "ethnic cleansing." The White House also referred to remarks by Trump from last year before he won the 2024 election when he said: "I'm not sure a two-state solution anymore is going to work." . Asked whether Huckabee's remarks represented a change in US policy, State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to comment on Tuesday, saying policy-making was a matter for Trump and the White House. "I'm not going to explain them or really comment on them at all. I think he certainly speaks for himself," Bruce told reporters. Huckabee, an evangelical Christian, is a staunch pro-Israel conservative. "Unless there are some significant things that happen that change the culture, there's no room for it," Huckabee was quoted as saying by Bloomberg. Those probably won't happen "in our lifetime," he said. Trump, in his first term, was relatively tepid in his approach to a two-state solution, a longtime pillar of US Middle East policy. Trump has given little sign of where he stands on the issue in his second term. Huckabee suggested a piece of land could be carved out of a Muslim country rather than asking Israel to make room. "Does it have to be in Judea and Samaria?" Huckabee said, using the biblical name the Israeli government favors for the Israeli-occupied West Bank, where some 3 million Palestinians live. Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, has been a vocal supporter of Israel throughout his political career and a longtime defender of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Trump has pursued strongly pro-Israel policies as president and his choice of Huckabee as ambassador signaled that they would continue. The United States has for decades backed a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians that would create a state for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza alongside Israel. The latest bloodshed in the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict was triggered in October 2023, when Palestinian Hamas militants attacked Israel, killing 1,200 and taking about 250 hostages, according to Israeli allies. US ally Israel's subsequent military assault on Gaza has killed nearly 55,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry, while internally displacing nearly Gaza's entire population and causing a hunger crisis. The assault has also triggered accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice and of war crimes at the International Criminal Court. Israel denies the accusations.
