Accusations and conflict over forum
The panel, from left to right: Ghada Karmi, Greg Artus, Robin Kealy and David Newman
From:
By: Andrew Somerville
Controversy in the international press surrounding an Imperial event has led to accusations of bias in the event organisers, suppression of free speech, and “bowing to Israeli pressure,” after Dr Azzam Tamimi, one of the speakers originally invited to participate, was asked not to attend after it was alleged that he supports suicide bombing.
The row centres around the first event in ICU Political Philosophy Society’s (PPS) inaugural ‘Conflict Case Study Week’ on the topic ‘Israel/Palestine.’
The week is designed to examine the core themes and events of a series of conflicts from around the world, inviting high-profile speakers on each side to put forward their perspective on the conflict.
The furore raised the tensions at the debate to such a level that mass protest was feared, security was heightened, and several members of the audience vocalised their offence, one member of the PPS was even angry enough to also voice support of suicide bombing.
The original speakers invited to the ‘Israel/Palestine’ forum were Robin Kealy (former UK Consul-General in Jerusalem), Prof David Newman (professor of political geography at Ben-Gurion University and prominent speaker advocating progressive Israeli policy), Dr Azzam Tamimi (director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London and Hamas supporter) and chaired by Greg Artus.
On Friday, footage was brought to the attention of Prof Newman by a journalist showing Dr Tamimi on the BBC’s Hardtalk programme, and on an Iranian TV station. In these videos Dr Tamimi appeared to voice his support and admiration of suicide bombers: stating that martyrdom was “glorious and honourable,” and in response to a question on suicide bombing: “You see sacrificing myself for Palestine is a noble cause. It is the straight way to pleasing my God and I would do it if I had the opportunity.”
ICU Political Philosophy Society: Official statement by Ammar Waraich
Regarding the launch event in our ‘Conflict Case Study Week’ entitled ‘Israel/Palestine’, the panel was not as it was originally advertised and Dr Azzam Tamimi was replaced by Ghada Karmi. This change in speakers took place to carry on with the event as we originally intended it to be, where representatives from all countries would be present, which would not have been possible with the original panel due to some irresolvable differences.
The sad fact is that some inaccurate and hasty reporting from the Jerusalem Post made the situation worse in what we feel was an attempt to malign the reputation of our society, our university, and all speakers involved. We would like to protest such poor journalism and will do what it takes to clear our name.
We have also received criticism about limiting freedom of expression and being sensitive to external influence. To that effect, we would like to make it known that an offer to appear at a debate in the near future has been made to Dr Tamimi and he has accepted.
The Imperial College Union Political Philosophy Society reserves the right to call upon any speaker it chooses to in its endeavor to promote a fair and free exchange of dialogue and ideas.
Following this discovery, Prof Newman contacted the event organiser Ammar Waraich and said that he could not share a platform with a man “on either side of the political debate” who “promotes the use of violence,” and withdrew from the debate.
Dr Tamimi’s comments were previously unknown to the PPS event organizers and, wishing to avoid controversy, they then arranged a second speaker, Ghada Karmi, to replace Dr Tamimi, and invited Prof Newman to rejoin the panel, which he accepted.
The Jerusalem Post, a widely read Israeli newspaper, subsequently published a story stating that Prof Newman had withdrawn from the debate, an article which was widely disseminated in various press publications.
Meanwhile the event organisers Ammar Waraich and Farid Froghi were subject to a barrage of angry emails, messages and phone calls from people disappointed at the treatment of Dr Tamimi, also levelling accusations of pro-Israeli bias and Islamophobia at the distressed pair.
The PPS issued a statement at the event (see below) explaining the society’s position.
The majority of the debate ran smoothly and was attended by almost 150 people. However, this statement did not quell some of the ill-feeling in the audience, especially as the event itself was on such a divisive issue. One member of the audience called for an apology from the society over the treatment of Dr Tamimi, and accused the event of paralleling the “Israeli-dictated” situation in Palestine, even going on to say during the discussion of terrorist activity that: “...I also support suicide bombing, in that case.”
The organisers will be relieved that the event marginally managed to avoid descending from conflict study into an outright conflict in itself.
