Harvard journal scraps article on Gaza genocide

BOSTON: A prestigious journal published by Harvard Law School refused to publish an academic article accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza after editors feared a backlash.

The Harvard Law Review, which is run by the school’s student body, declined the 2,000-word essay by a Palestinian doctoral candidate, Rabea Eghbariah, after it had been edited, fact-checked and initially approved.

The article would have been the first by a Palestinian scholar ever published by the review. It argued that events in Gaza met the terms of genocide as defined by the United Nations convention.

The article also called for a legally recognised crime of “Nakba” (catastrophe), the Arab word used to describe the forced removal of Palestinians from their homes at the time of Israel’s founding in 1948.

But plans to publish it as a blogpost were abandoned after a crisis meeting of more than 100 editors. The rejection was reportedly driven by fears that publication might harm editors’ career prospects by provoking a backlash that could include having their personal details disclosed in an attempt at public shaming, a process known as “doxxing.”

The decision was criticised in a statement issued by 25 editors, who said such a rejection was unprecedented and motivated by fear. “At a time when the Law Review was facing a public intimidation and harassment campaign, the journal’s leadership intervened to stop publication,” they wrote.

“The body of editors – none of whom are Palestinian – voted to sustain that decision. We are unaware of any other solicited piece that has been revoked by the Law Review in this way.”

The review’s editor Apsara Iyer told Eghbariah in an email that the decision “was not based on your identity or viewpoint”. However, a separate email written by online editor Tascha Shahriari-Parsa suggested otherwise.

“The discussion did not involve any substantive or technical aspects of your piece,” online editor Tascha Shahriari-Parsa, wrote Eghbariah in an e-mail.

“Rather, the discussion revolved around concerns about editors who might oppose or be offended by the piece, as well as concerns that the piece might provoke a reaction from members of the public who might in turn harass, dox, or otherwise attempt to intimidate our editors, staff, and HLR leadership.”

In response, Eghabriah, a human rights attorney, complained to editors that the decision amounted to “discrimination” and “outright censorship”. The article was eventually published by the Nation under the headline The Harvard Law Review Refused to Run This Piece About Genocide in Gaza.

In it, Eghbariah cites several scholars who argue that Israeli actions meet legal criteria for genocide, before adding: “And yet, leading law schools and legal scholars in the United States still fashion their silence as impartiality and their denial as nuance.

“Palestine is where genocide can be performed as a fight of ‘the civilised world’ against the ‘enemies of civilization’ itself. When contrasted with Jewish-Israeli life – the ultimate victims of European genocidal ideologies – Palestinians stand no chance at humanisation.”

Noting that genocide was enshrined into the UN charter and international law due to the crimes of the Holocaust, he envisions a similar legally defined outcome for Palestinian experiences.

“We must imagine that one day there will be a recognised crime of committing a Nakba, and a disapprobation of Zionism as an ideology based on racial elimination,” he concludes.

The controversy over the article follows a series of rows that have engulfed Harvard and other universities in the wake of Hamas’s assault and attack by Israel.