LSE refuses cancellation of book launch defending ‘misunderstood' Hamas
The London School of Economics (LSE) claimed it was defending 'free speech' by refusing to cancel the launch of Understanding Hamas and Why That Matters on Monday afternoon.
It comes after the Israeli ambassador to the UK called for the event to be cancelled amid concerns it could 'provide a platform for Hamas propaganda'.
Tzipi Hotovely wrote to Prof Larry Kramer, the vice-chancellor of LSE, asking him to cancel the launch.
In her letter, Ms Hotovely wrote: 'I am deeply concerned that the event is providing a platform for Hamas propaganda – a terror organisation proscribed under United Kingdom law. I worry that by promoting such a book, which sympathises with and justifies the survival and existence of Hamas, will only serve to grow support for a brutal terror organisation among your students and beyond.'
She added: 'The university should not be endorsing this event, let alone organising it through its Middle East Centre.
'Nor should the university allow this event to go ahead on its premises. Therefore, I encourage you to cancel the event.'
The university's Middle East Centre, which is hosting the event on March 10, said the book explores Hamas's 'shift from social and religious activism to national political engagement'.
It added that it 'aims to deepen understanding of a movement that is a key player in the current crisis'.
The event will feature a talk by the book's author and academics researching the Middle East.
An LSE spokesman said: '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.'
They added: 'We host an enormous number of events each year, covering a wide range of viewpoints and positions.
'We have clear policies in place to ensure the facilitation of debates in these events and enable all members of our community to refute ideas lawfully and to protect individual's rights to freedom of expression within the law.
'This is formalised in our code of practice on free speech and in our ethics code.'
Stop the Hate, a Jewish-led direct action group, has asked supporters to write letters to the university to persuade them to cancel the event. It is also planning a protest on Monday at LSE's Middle East Centre.
A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in London said: 'Particularly amid the backdrop of rising levels of anti-Semitism in the UK, including on British university campuses, the platforming of an event that is sympathetic to a proscribed terrorist organisation is especially worrying.
'Universities have a duty to protect their students from hate speech and incitement to violence, and that includes their Jewish students, too. The event should be cancelled. It should never have been allowed in the first place.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Military News
18 minutes ago
- American Military News
Report: Russian Sabotage Operations In Europe Have Quadrupled Since 2023
This article was originally published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and is reprinted with permission. Russia has dramatically increased sabotage operations throughout Europe, a new report has found, with the number of attacks targeting critical infrastructure nearly quadrupling since 2023. The findings, by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, dovetail with a growing number of press reports, indictments, and intelligence warnings alleging Moscow has made covert sabotage and surveillance operations a major priority, aimed at destabilizing European governments. 'While Russia has so far failed to achieve its primary aim, European capitals have struggled to respond to Russian sabotage operations and have found it challenging to agree a unified response, coordinate action, develop effective deterrence measures and impose sufficient costs on the Kremlin,' the report by the London-based think tank said. The scope of so-called hybrid attacks blamed on Russia includes arson attacks, incidents where ships have damaged undersea communications cables, disruption of GPS satellite navigation signals, and the hacking of computer infrastructure. The bulk of the targets, the report released August 19 found, are in Ukraine or are connected to European efforts to support or supply Ukraine with military and other civilian hardware. The uptick of incidents coincided with Russia's all-out invasion of Ukraine, launched in February 2022, and spiked in 2023 and 2024, quadrupling over that period. The report also tallied a slowdown in attacks in the first half of 2025, though it was unclear exactly what that could be attributed to. European and other Western governments have expelled dozens of Russian intelligence officers, many working under diplomatic cover, dating back to before the Ukraine invasion. That has forced Russian agencies to turn to proxy or mercenary-type of operations, where people are hired, some unwittingly, to carry out sabotage or other operations. Last month, a British court convicted three men of setting fire to a London warehouse where Ukrainian-bound equipment was being stored, a plot prosecutors said was orchestrated by operatives linked to the Russian mercenary company Wagner. In a related incident, three Ukrainians have been accused of trying to set fire to properties linked to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. 'Russia has exploited gaps in legal systems through its 'gig economy' approach, enabling it to avoid attribution and responsibility. Since 2022 and the expulsion of hundreds of its intelligence officers from European capitals, Russia has been highly effective in its online recruitment of third-country nationals to circumvent European counter-intelligence measures,' the report said. There was no immediate response to the report from Russian officials. European governments have also under-invested in maintaining security systems for critical infrastructure, the report said, even as fears mount that the covert campaign could be part of a longer-term effort by Russia. 'Some NATO member states have assessed Russia's unconventional war to be part of its long-term preparations for a potential military confrontation with NATO,' the report said.
Atlantic
19 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Why International Recognition of a Palestinian State Actually Matters
France, Britain, Canada, Australia, and Malta all say they are preparing to recognize a state of Palestine at the upcoming United Nations General Assembly in September. They would join another 147 UN countries that already do so. In some senses, the move is symbolic: It will not change the realities on the ground in the Middle East, at least not in the short term. But it is a major step nonetheless. No Israeli-Palestinian 'peace process' is currently under way, the countries pledging recognition noted in their statements. This is because Israel refuses to speak with the diplomatic representative of the Palestinian people, the Palestine Liberation Organization. In effect, Israel has held the PLO and its subsidiaries—the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the Fatah political party—responsible for the actions of all Palestinians, including the PLO's extremist archrival, Hamas. (The United States, for its part, has never had a bilateral relationship with the Palestinians.) The struggle for Palestinian statehood has been long and arduous. The PLO and PA, to be sure, have sometimes gotten in their own way. In the West Bank, the PA has overseen a corrupt system that leaves little space for civil society. And the PLO has squandered several potential opportunities to pursue statehood, especially an overture in 2008 by then–Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. But both groups have maintained a commitment to negotiation over violence, and have honored the 1993 recognition of Israel by Yasser Arafat, the PLO's former leader. The Western nations' formal acknowledgment of a Palestinian state under the leadership of the PLO will boost the idea that this kind of diplomacy, rather than the armed struggle of Hamas, is the path that can actually result in Palestinian independence and citizenship for the stateless millions in the occupied territories. From the December 2024 issue: My hope for Palestine International recognition will do as much to rebuke Hamas's maximalist demands as it will those of the Israeli right, dealing a blow to expansionist aspirations in the West Bank, the only territory that has any realistic chance of becoming a Palestinian state. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long been characterized by a basic asymmetry: The international recognition of Jewish national rights in Palestine has never been matched by a demand for Palestinian national rights. This was the case as far back as the British government's 1917 Balfour Declaration and the British mandate for Palestine, which took effect several years later. Palestinians may have had an opportunity in 1947 to create their state through a UN partition resolution. In retrospect, they should have accepted the proposal, but their rejection at the time is understandable. Jews made up about 33 percent of the population and owned a mere 6 percent of privately held land in Mandatory Palestine; the UN partition resolution would have allotted the proposed Jewish state more than 56 percent of the territory. Two decades later—after multiple wars—Israel declared itself a state that would come to control the entire territory, including East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, all of which have populations that are majority Palestinian Arab. Roughly 800,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled in 1947 and 1948, followed by another 300,000 in 1967. Almost none have been allowed to return. In 1968, Palestinians resurrected an independence movement that wrested decision making away from Egypt and other Arab countries that had been humiliated in the Six-Day War. Their crushing defeat gave Palestinians a measure of self-determination through the establishment of a renewed autonomous PLO. In the '80s, the PLO evolved into the vehicle of a drastically reduced Palestinian aspiration: the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, all territories Israel had occupied since 1967. The First Intifada, or uprising, against Israeli rule in the occupied territories, which began in 1987, gave the PLO an opportunity to greatly expand its presence there, but it also seeded a new group of rivals, the Muslim fundamentalists of Hamas. A breakthrough seemed possible in the aftermath of the Cold War. In 1993, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat wrote to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin affirming that, on behalf of the Palestinian people, the PLO recognized Israel and its right to exist free from attacks and threats. Rabin responded with a letter to Arafat recognizing the PLO as a legitimate interlocutor and undertaking to negotiate with it. But he didn't recognize a state of Palestine, and the 1993 Oslo Accords with Israel did not specify the goal of Palestinian statehood or acknowledge the Palestinians' right to a state. In the summer of 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton convened a summit at Camp David. Accounts vary on what Israel, then led by Prime Minister Ehud Barak, offered. But the Palestinians who attended came away convinced that they were being asked to accept an archipelago of quasi-independent Bantustans within a greater Israel. Because of an internal leadership crisis, among other failings, the Palestinians presented no detailed counteroffer. And Clinton entirely backed Israel. The violent Second Intifada against Israeli rule in the occupied territories began on September 28, 2000. Nonetheless, negotiations resumed that fall. In late December, Clinton unveiled what is still the most reasonable framework yet proposed for an agreement that would end the conflict. But Israel suspended the negotiations pending elections early in 2001. The right-wing former General Ariel Sharon became prime minister, and the talks were not resumed. In subsequent years, some hopeful signs for Palestinian statehood persisted. In 2002, President George W. Bush endorsed establishing a Palestinian state, and his administration voted for UN Security Council Resolution 1397, which, for the first time, explicitly called for two states 'side by side within secure and recognized borders.' Palestinian divisions intensified, however, after the 2005–06 elections resulted in the acrimonious pairing of a Fatah/PLO leader, Mahmoud Abbas, with a Hamas-dominated Parliament. In 2007, Hamas violently seized control of Gaza, precipitating a split with the West Bank that continues to this day. Jeffrey Goldberg: Sinwar's march of folly The Palestinians had one more potential chance at statehood through negotiations. In 2008, Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, offered an agreement that the PLO, led by Abbas, considered broadly reasonable. However, Abbas doubted that Olmert was speaking on behalf of Israel, or even his own government, given that most members of his cabinet reportedly opposed his proposal. Moreover, the Palestinian negotiators could not get anything in writing. The deal also included Palestinian concessions on issues such as refugees, and Abbas ran the political risk of being seen to accept concessions while ultimately being left with nothing if Israel didn't follow through. Neither Olmert nor Abbas was willing to take the issue directly to the Israeli public, and the negotiations fizzled. Since that time, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has dominated the Israeli political scene and dedicated himself to preventing any movement toward Palestinian statehood. He exploited the rift between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza, seeking to keep both in power and at each other's throats, and thereby unable to advance their respective visions of independence. The Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, betrayed the folly of this policy. But it also hardened the position of the Israeli right that to live next to any Palestinian state would be an intolerable security risk. In the nearly two years that war has raged in Gaza, Netanyahu has become ever more explicit in his refusal of a two-state solution. Just last month, he ruled out the prospect of Palestinian statehood, saying that it would only serve as a platform for the elimination of Israel. The Israelis claim that recognition would reward Hamas and terrorism. But the opposite is true. Pretty much the only thing Hamas and Fatah agree on is that they are all Palestinians. Other than that, the disagreements are almost total: The PLO is a secular national movement that still seeks a negotiated peace with Israel through diplomacy, and to establish a small Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Hamas is an Islamist party and militia that wants a theocratic Muslim government in not just the occupied territories but also what is now Israel. In Palestinian politics, the binary is so stark that virtually anything that strengthens one group weakens the other. Recognizing a Palestinian state under the authority of the PLO harms Hamas and rewards the patient diplomacy and commitment to peace of its rivals in Fatah. Already, the PLO has benefited from an apparently minor change in its status at the UN in 2012, from 'observer' to 'non-member observer state.' This gave it standing at the International Criminal Court and suggests what international recognition—something Israel cannot take away—can accomplish: the potential protection of key multilateral instruments and institutions, and thus the potential frustration of Israeli ambitions for further annexation. While the world's eyes have been fixed on the horrors of war in Gaza, far-right Israeli officials, led by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have effectively taken charge of West Bank, where they are stoking conflict by encouraging right-wing settlers to confront Palestinian villagers. When Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency last year, Smotrich celebrated, saying that the opportunity had come to annex the West Bank. The Israeli military has displaced 40,000 Palestinians in the territory, according to the United Nations, and extremist settlers have continued to harass and attack villagers. International recognition of Palestinian statehood could seriously complicate Israel's designs on the West Bank. Britain has said that it will recognize Palestine if the Gaza war continues into September, but France and Canada appear focused on discouraging Israeli annexation in the West Bank. Each is sending a clear message to Israel: End the war in Gaza, and more important, do not expand formalized control of the West Bank, the only territory that could become a true state for Palestinians. Pushing back against Israeli annexation efforts is crucial to reviving the possibility of a two-state solution. Canada, Australia, Britain, France, and Malta are not asking or expecting Israel to withdraw from the West Bank tomorrow. But they clearly understand the danger that further settlement there poses to the Palestinian independence movement. Netanyahu and his allies know this too. Smotrich has his eyes firmly on annexation, having recently announced new settlements surrounding Jerusalem that he says will 'bury' any potential for a Palestinian state. The world must act as if a two-state solution is not merely necessary, but possible. International recognition of a Palestinian state is a key start. Without such a state alongside Israel, these two beleaguered peoples, the whole region, and the entire world will be sentenced to further decades, and possibly centuries, of bloodshed and oppression. Shrugging, walking away, and accepting this outcome cannot be an option.
UPI
19 minutes ago
- UPI
Israel begins calling up 60,000 reservists ahead of Gaza offensive
Israeli tanks mass at an IDF staging area near the Gaza border in southern Israel on Wednesday as preparations gather pace ahead of an impending military offensive to take over and occupy Gaza City. Photo by Jim Hollander/UPI | License Photo Aug. 20 (UPI) -- Israel Defense Forces began calling up 60,000 reservists Wednesday as the country moved closer to launching a major military offensive to occupy Gaza City, despite opposition from the international community and a possible peace deal on the table. A spokesperson told NBC News that Defense Minister Israel Katz had approved operational plans for the ground assault on Tuesday, ahead of a meeting of the Israeli security cabinet in the coming days. The IDF said the additional troops would report for duty in September, and while most of those deployed for the mission would be active-duty personnel, the tours of duty of 20,000 other reservists were also being extended. Advance forces were already operating in the Zeitoun district of Gaza City and Jabalia, just to the north, "dismantling military infrastructures above and below ground, eliminating terrorists, and consolidating operational control, "according to a senior Israeli military official. The official said chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, was expected in the next few days to approve the plan calling for a "gradual" and "precise" operation in and around Gaza City that would ultimately see five divisions mobilized -- up to 125,000 troops. The offensive, which received the preliminary backing from the security cabinet on Aug. 8, is likely to displace hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from the north to the south of the strip, concentrating more and more people into areas where already widespread hunger is escalating into a full-blown crisis. The United Nations and NGOs have warned those areas, including al Mawasi near Khan Younis, are "overcrowded and ill-equipped to sustain human survival at scale." The U.N. and the other agencies have repeatedly warned that any new offensive would inflict a very high price on the already dire humanitarian situation in Gaza -- warnings they reiterated on Monday. "The Israeli plan to intensify military operations in Gaza City will have a horrific humanitarian impact on people already exhausted, malnourished, bereaved, displaced and deprived of basics needed for survival. Forcing hundreds of thousands to move south is a recipe for further disaster and could amount to forcible transfer," they said in a joint statement. "Southern hospitals are operating at several times their capacity, and taking on patients from the north would have life-threatening consequences," the statement added. Domestic opposition to the war, and specifically the new offensive from families fearful of what it might mean for loved ones still being held hostage in Gaza or sent to fight there, continued to mount with days of street protests and strikes across the country. Israel on Wednesday had yet to give its official response to a cease-fire and hostage-prisoner swap deal negotiated by Egyptian and Qatari officials, which Hamas and other Palestinian groups have signed onto.
