As we reflect upon the events of the past year in the Middle East, we grow increasingly concerned that the circumstances we are living through may bring the entire world to the brink of apocalypse. Hamas’ brutal attack on Israel on Oct. 7 last year, followed by the devastating invasion of Gaza and tragic loss of over 40,000 lives, along with the rapidly escalating war between Israel, Hezbollah and Iran, all are dire threats to world peace. On Sept. 4 of this year, hundreds of thousands of Israelis protested in the streets and launched a general strike throughout the country to condemn the government’s failure to negotiate in good faith for a cease-fire and release of all hostages.
Our current global situation invites sober reflection on our individual and collective responsibilities. We must ensure the international legal conventions designed to prevent genocide and violations of international humanitarian law, and peaceful resolution of difference, are upheld. We ALL, as taxpaying citizens of the United States, have a duty to take concrete steps to end the genocide, and the war crime of the mass killings of Palestinians in Gaza.
Pomona College stands complicit in this crisis. We have witnessed votes by students and faculty alike to seek a policy of divestment from specified U.S. corporations profiting from war in Gaza. Pomona also saw the formation of a pro-Palestinian encampment on campus and the arrests of 20 protestors at Alexander Hall on Apr. 5, 2024.
I used my degree from Pomona in International Relations and Law degree to specialize in international human rights. This experience leads me to ask: how does Pomona view its obligation to uphold international humanitarian law and to seek a peaceful and deliberative resolution of the students’ protests? In service of this solution, I propose an academic conference bringing all sides together to discuss the issue of Israel and Palestine.
I acknowledge there are those community members who support President Starr’s decision to call in the police to clear Alexander Hall on the day of the arrests. I am also keenly aware there are many students, faculty and alumni alike who believe that the broader issues raised by Pomona Divest from Apartheid (PDfA) cannot be resolved by police force and academic sanctions, but rather by reconciliation and rational debate in the manner suggested by Pomona Professor of Politics Amanda Hollis-Brusky.
Following a Pomona College faculty vote in favor of a divestment resolution, Hollis-Brusky noted the examples of more peaceful resolutions at other institutions. “There were institutions across the country that had listened to students and faculty and diffused tensions on campus and came to more of a peaceful, deliberative resolution,” she wrote.
I strongly agree. Many of the criminal cases brought against protestors around the country have been dismissed, including those in Columbia University and the charges against the “SeaTac 46,” whom I helped represent.
As U.S. taxpayers who are financing military aid to Israel, including its war in Gaza, we have a civic responsibility to oppose U.S. support for a war in which Israel has been found by the World Court to be committing genocide and/or war crimes against Palestinian civilians.
Would dropping all charges and academic discipline against the protestors who were arrested at Pomona last spring not be one concrete action you can take to foster a deliberative reconciliation process as well as to do what is right under international law?
Would calling for a dialogue between ALL sides of this debate to come together to convene an academic conference on Israel/Palestine?
The Geneva Convention defines genocide as committing specified acts “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such.” Israeli officials made their intentions quite clear on Oct. 9, in the prelude to the invasion of Gaza when Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.”
The government of South Africa presented an application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, seeking a ruling declaring that Israel is engaged in genocide in Gaza. After a trial, the ICJ ordered six provisional measures, including for Israel to refrain from acts under the Genocide convention of the Geneva convention to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide and take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza. According to the Human Rights Watch as of Feb. 2024, the government of Israel has failed to comply with these legally binding orders.
Complicity to commit genocide is a standalone crime, triggering both State responsibility and individual criminal responsibility, regardless of position, under the Genocide Convention. U.S. taxpayers’ dollars are being used to provide armaments to Israel, thus funding the Israeli war in Gaza and sharing responsibility to end the genocide.
The US Department of Defense War Manual (updated 2023) states:
“States fighting against one another must adhere to rules relating to the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello), regardless of whether a State may be considered the aggressor or whether the initial resort to force was lawful under jus ad bellum. The protection of civilians against the harmful effects of hostilities is one of the main purposes of the law of war.“
Thus, Israel has a legal duty to protect civilian populations, medical facilities, schools and infrastructure. Its use of population displacement, cutting off food, power and water in this war violates the law. The Israeli IDF’s killing of over 40,000 innocent civilians, including thousands of children, its repeated bombings of hospitals, humanitarian aid convoys and U.N. infrastructure clearly violate the principle of proportionality and thus constitute war crimes. We make no excuse for Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7, 2023, its taking of hostages and its use of Gazan civilians as human shields, all of which also violate international humanitarian law.
Moving to the charges and academic discipline against the protestors who were arrested at Pomona last spring, I ask once again, could dropping all charges not serve as one concrete action the institution could take in fostering a deliberative reconciliation process as well as adhering to international law?
Civil disobedience has shaped American law, policy and public opinion throughout our history. Relying on the opinion from United States vs. Kabat (1978), a pivotal course in the protection of free speech: “We must recognize that civil disobedience in various forms, used without violent acts against others, is ingrained in our society and the moral correctness of political protesters’ views has on occasion served to change and better our society.”
In short, there are times when committing “illegal” acts is necessary to try to prevent a great evil. Such a “necessity defense” is an issue for the jury in these cases. But the point is that protesters committing civil disobedience are on the right side of history. Those who arrest them are not.
In my experience representing mass protest movements, including the arrests by the Seattle Police Department in the 1999 anti-WTO protests, I would also argue that those who engage in nonviolent civil disobedience have their own responsibilities. There should not be physical violence or property destruction, nor should Jewish students be targeted.
With this in mind, I reiterate again my call for a dialogue between ALL sides of this debate to convene in an academic conference on Israel/Palestine.
Such a conference would invite all sides to participate, free of the threat of criminal sanctions, with an agenda and speakers to be agreed by them. This conference can facilitate an informed conversation on the divisive and emotional topic of Israel and Palestine. Conflicting narratives of the historical record have dominated the discussions of culpability both for the start of the war and how it is currently being conducted.
How do we create a new narrative to work toward shared power and peace? This conference will discuss the use of the terms “antisemitism,” “apartheid,” “globalize the intifada” and “from the river to the sea” to determine whether systems of oppression may be harbored there and how we need to understand and acknowledge the emotions these terms evoke. The goal is to redirect the heated and contentious discussion that has occurred on campus to a more positive and peaceful place.
For instance, it might discuss such topics as: (1) Is the war in Gaza the graveyard of international humanitarian law? (2) Is Israel an apartheid state? (3) What is our individual responsibility to take steps to support a cease-fire in Gaza and oppose violations of international law? (4) Does divestment from corporations who profit from the war in Gaza serve the mission of Pomona College?
This Conference would be similar to the lecture series conducted by the Henry Jackson School of International Studies of University of Washington’s earlier this year which I attended. I have provided a draft proposal for a conference, including topics and potential speakers that could be used as a starting point for such a conference or even a “teach-in” at Pomona. I call upon PDfA, Jewish students and organizations at Pomona, the administration and the faculty to participate in such a conference, but first charges should be dismissed.
It is time for President Starr and the Pomona College Board of Regents to fulfill their responsibility under international law. It should convene an academic conference on Israel-Palestine, call for a divestment from corporations that profit from sales of military weapons to the IDF and ask local authorities to dismiss all charges against those arrested on campus. Let us all make this a teachable moment.
Mike Withey graduated from Pomona College in 1968. He attended USF Law School, obtaining his J.D. degree in 1971. He has practiced law in Seattle since 1972 and litigated the case of Domingo v. Marcos against the former dictator of the Philippines Ferdinand Marcos and his allies for the murders of two anti-Marcos union activists in 1989.