It is often maintained that the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” expresses a genocidal and antisemitic intention. But this is generally not the case....

Read More

It was recently reported that the union which represents civil servants – the Public and Commercial Services Union – was considering taking legal action to prevent its members in the Department for Business and Trade “from being forced to carry out unlawful acts”. In this case, being required to process arms sales to Israel, which the union suggested could make them criminally liable for being complicit with war crimes.  

The Government continues to maintain that arms sales to Israel are lawful, with Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden recently telling the BBC that Israel is "still facing this existential threat from Hamas" and was "prosecuting a legitimate war of self-defence".

He added that the UK would “of course act in accordance with our obligations under law in respect of arms sales", implying that arms sales could be suspended if there is clear evidence of systematic Israeli violations of international humanitarian law.  

Dowden’s position is inconsistent with separate comments, made in a leaked recording by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons’ Committee on Foreign Affairs, Alicia Kearns, suggesting that the Government has already received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law. 

The matter could quickly be cleared up if the Government was willing to publish its internal legal advice, but it has so far refused to do so – on the basis that the advice is confidential. Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, has repeatedly pressed ministers, including Foreign Secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received and called for the Government to come clean.  

Adding to the pressure, last week former Supreme Court justices were among 600 lawyers who wrote to the Government saying that weapon exports to Israel must end because the UK risks breaking international law over a "plausible risk of genocide" in Gaza.  

This controversy has fuelled a long-running debate over who is to determine what is lawful and ethical in government policy, and what the duty is of civil servants in such cases. Such matters were highly topical during  Brexit, and have also been at issue in the context of the Government’s handling of immigration.  

Some commentators argue that it is civil servants’ duty to obey ministers, who have democratic legitimacy by virtue of their election to office, no matter what. Others point out that the civil service code, which defines and expands on four core values of the civil service, is crystal clear in its obligation on civil servants to act with integrity and to comply with the law.  

I explored this issue at length previously, in which I discussed the dilemmas facing public servants when they are tasked with implementing a policy with which they do not agree or that they consider is unethical or illegal. “Is our primary duty to the elected government of the day, even when it may be breaking the law or wilfully deceiving the public?" I observed. "Or is our duty to some broader notion of the 'public good’"?

If the latter, how is that to be defined, and by whom? If we stay silent in the face of wrongdoing, do we become complicit ourselves? But if we speak out, are we breaking our pledge of impartial service to the government of the day and undermining the foundation of trust between politicians and officials?”  

After grappling with the matter from several different angles, I eventually came to the conclusion that the only viable course for a civil servant who felt conflicted, and unable to carry out ministerial orders, was to ask to be reassigned or to resign.

As I put it in my own resignation letter from the Foreign Office in 2019, “each person has to find their own level of comfort”. You don’t have the right to change policy – that is for elected politicians and the ultimate verdict of voters. But you do have a right to your own personal conscience, and a right not to be a part of something you believe to be unethical. 

That may sound like a harsh judgement, requiring blameless civil servants to lose their jobs for something which may in hindsight end up being determined to have been wrong. But, government could not function if officials downed tools any time they had a concern. In a democracy, advisors advise, and ministers decide.  

There will always be ambiguity over what is unlawful, unconscionable or unethical because these are subjective decisions. In the case of arms sales, the UK’s export licensing criteria only provide overall guidelines, which are open to interpretation.  

Ruins of a destroyed mosque in Khan Yunis, south of the Gaza Strip. Photo: Abed Rahim Khatib/dpa

For example, when I was Head of Human Rights in the Foreign Office, it was our department’s responsibility to advise on whether a particular arms sale might put us in breach of the export guidelines’ human rights criteria.

We had to weigh up considerations such as: whether the recipient country was a functioning democracy; whether it had a disciplined and accountable chain of military command, subject to civilian oversight; its overall record on respect for human rights and humanitarian law; whether breaches are properly investigated and perpetrators duly punished, or whether there is a pattern of repeated violations, and failure to sanction those who commit them; the circumstances in which the weapons might be put to use – for offensive or defensive purposes; for legitimate military reasons to protect national security against a legitimate enemy, or to suppress internal dissent; to be used in a proportionate manner, or indiscriminately, in a way which put unacceptable numbers of civilians at risk; whether the equipment in question had a dual use function, different from the one for which the weapons were ostensibly being sought, which meant they might end up being used for inappropriate purposes; and the risk of the weapons being diverted from their intended destination and falling into the hands of a terrorist group or unregulated militia instead.   

Thus, for example, a country might ask to buy a relatively innocuous sounding piece of equipment, such as protective armour or night vision goggles, for the ostensible purpose of helping their police forces maintain order during large public demonstrations. This sounds reasonable. However, if the country in question has a track record of ruthlessly suppressing internal dissent, or of oppressing particular minorities, then we might recommend against the sale.  

In short, we had to weigh up the kind of weapons being sought, the nature of the country trying to buy them, and the circumstances in which the weapons might be used. Different analysts can come to different conclusions – as evidenced by the fact that the Foreign Office’s human rights department often used to end up in vigorous disagreement with different parts of Whitehall over the appropriateness of certain arms sales.  

In the case of Israel, I can see why arguments might be made in either direction. There are many, grave concerns, which I share, about Israel’s conduct of the conflict in Gaza and its blocking of aid to the desperate civilians there, as well as over its long-standing treatment of Palestinians, occupation of the West Bank, and construction of new settlements in violation of international humanitarian law.   

If I was still Head of the Human Rights in the Foreign Office, I would definitely argue in favour of suspending arms sales, until we saw more consistent efforts to protect civilians and aid workers, and facilitate aid into the Strip. 

But, whatever my personal abhorrence of Israel’s current Government, and deep anguish over its conduct in Gaza, I accept that others might come to a different conclusion – pointing to Israel’s status as a democracy, with a civilian-led, generally disciplined military, which is entitled to respond to the unprecedently brutal attack on it on 7 October 2023 by Hamas. Not least since Hamas continues to assert its desire to destroy Israel, continues to hold more than 100 Israeli hostages, and bears prime responsibility for putting civilians at risk by its own tactics of hiding among them.  

It is hard to write about this subject without risking a ton of opprobrium on my head, from those who can see no good in the Palestinians, or only evil in Israel. But, as so often in foreign policy, nothing is black and white.

I have no doubt that behind the scenes there is a vigorous debate going on across Whitehall, and between civil servants and ministers, on the UK’s overall approach towards Israel and Gaza. That is entirely as it should be, and civil servants should neither be lionized or penalised, for simply doing their job.   

Jewish actress posts no-holds-barred video supporting Jewish Council of Australia, attacked by Zionists for ceasefire call

Jewish actress and national treasure Miriam Margolyes, a joint UK and Australian citizen, has posted a video supporting the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) call for an immediate and permanent halt to Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza – along with the imposition of sanctions and an immediate end to Australia’s military ties with Israel.

The JCA has been heavily attacked by pro-Israel groups for the call, with the attacks following similar lines to the dismissal in the UK of left-wing Jewish groups by right-wing nationalist organisations and politicians.

In her video, Margolyes says she has never been more ashamed of Israel – which she described as a ‘vicious, genocidal, nationalist nation’:

Despite the antisemitic representation by western governments and media as if all Jews support Israel, very many do not – and even many who have supported it are disgusted by Israel’s mass murder of, so far, more than forty thousand Palestinian civilians, overwhelmingly women and children, and the blockade and assaults it is using to starve two million more. The UK and Australian establishments continue their complicity in Israel’s war crimes.

SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.

If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

The University of Cologne yesterday withdrew its invitation to Nancy Fraser (New School) to take up its 2024 Albertus Magnus Professorship, a visiting position that the university considers a “special honor,” because Professor Fraser had been one of several hundred signatories of the “Philosophy for Palestine” open letter published last November.

[Albertus Magnus is disappointed (from a fresco by Tommaso da Modena]

An announcement from the university states, in part:

It is with great regret that the University of Cologne has cancelled the events of this year’s Albertus Magnus Professorship 2024.

The reason for this is the public letter ‘Philosophy for Palestine’ of November 2023, signed by the philosopher Professor Nancy Fraser, who was invited to take up the Albertus Magnus professorship. In this letter, Israel’s right to exist as an “ethno-supremacist state” since its foundation in 1948 is called into question. The terror attacks by Hamas on Israel of 7 October 2023 is elevated to an act of legitimate resistance. The signatories call for the academic and cultural boycott of Israeli institutions.

The Albertus Magnus Professorship is an important matter to the Rector with great internal and external symbolism for the university. It is associated with public events and seminars as well as an entry in the University’s Golden Book. It is perceived as a special honour of the University of Cologne associated with the explicit approval of the Rectorate. However, the statements in the philosophers’ letter are not in line with the statements of the University of Cologne dated 9 October and 22 October 2023 on the situation in Israel and the Middle East, neither with our close ties to Israeli partner institutions.

Ms Fraser’s invitation to the Albertus Magnus Professorship was already made at the end of 2022. Unfortunately, it was only in March 2024 that we realized that Ms Fraser was one of the signatories of the public letter of November 2023. She was then asked to explain and define her position. Ms Fraser’s reply has not provided any new information on the situation and her opinion on Israel.

After thorough discussions and consideration, the decision has been made to withdraw the invitation.

Several academics have signed onto a letter objecting the university’s decision and urging it to change its decision. It says, in part:

The actions of the Cologne university management threaten to be perceived internationally as an attack on what a university should be: a place for intensive and controversial exchange on socially relevant issues, and a space for trusting exchange across disciplinary and national boundaries. (translated from German by Google Translate)

The decision by the university is clearly at odds with prevailing conceptions of academic freedom.

Article 5, Clause 3 of the German Basic Law states:

Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution.

Others better acquainted with German law and practices in this regard are welcome to comment on how (or if) this clause applies to the case at hand.

Albertus Magnus, for whom the visiting professorship is named, was a philosopher, scientist, and Bishop. He is known for his commentary on Aristotle’s works, making them accessible to others, and doing the same for Muslim thinkers Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and Averroes (Ibn Rushd). He taught for several years at the University of Cologne. Named by the Catholic Church the patron saint of natural scientists, in one of his works, De Mineralibus, Magnus says: “It is [the task] of natural science not simply to accept what we are told but to inquire into the causes of natural things.”

UPDATES (4/9/24):

1. Donna Shalala, interim president of The New School, wrote to Cologne’s rector, Joybrato Mukherjee, calling his decision to revoke Fraser’s invitation “outrageous”. You can read whole letter here.

2. The authors of the open letter objecting to the decision, quoted in the original post here with translation via Google, have provided a translated version of the letter, which is here, below the German.

3. On Twitter, Hanno Sauer (Utrecht), following up on a comment from Tobias Schlicht, suggests philosophers publicly and collectively commit to never accepting an invitation by the University of Cologne to become the Albertus Magnus Professor.

There should be a collective and public commitment by all philosophers and academics to henceforth not agree to become Albertus-Magnus-Professor, thereby depriving the University of Cologne of this institution entirely https://t.co/LOxrO5ITrQ

— Hanno Sauer (@hanno_sauer) April 9, 2024

Perhaps such a commitment could be “until they reverse their decision to disinvite Professor Fraser”.

4. They had already printed the flyers for Fraser’s lectures, and reportedly they’re posted at “universities all across Germany”:

The post University Revokes Philosopher’s Visiting Professorship over Signing of “Philosophy for Palestine” Letter (updated) first appeared on Daily Nous.