Hastings' board pulls UC brand from rights meeting

[Douglas Carpenter]

Hastings' board pulls UC brand from rights meeting

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Edited to confirm to forum/copyright requirements:

UC Hastings College of the Law made a last-minute decision to cancel a speech by its dean and remove its name from a conference it hosted on using the courts to promote Palestinians' rights after hearing protests from Jewish groups, campus officials said Tuesday.


Bisharat said opponents had wrongly accused the conference of "Israeli-bashing" and were also off base in arguing that the event was biased because none of the speakers supported Israel's conservative government. The purpose was to train lawyers in defending Palestinian rights, not to debate whether those rights exist, he said. "If you had a conference on Holocaust reparation cases, you wouldn't include Holocaust deniers," Bisharat said "One of the key premises of the conference was that lawful and peaceful means of resolving disputes ought to be encouraged."


Basil Plastiras, president of Hastings' fundraising foundation, which had been listed as co-sponsor, said the school has hosted many conferences on litigating human-rights cases in foreign countries and never found it necessary to include "balancing" comments from representatives of those countries.

The directors' action dismayed Hastings' faculty. Nearly all of its tenured professors signed a letter to the board last week saying that academic freedom includes providing forums for controversial topics, and that the attempt to disavow the conference "undermines our commitment to maintaining both the college's fiscal viability and its high standards."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/12/BABN1IV958.DTL#ixzz1JTXKdcGG

.

[Douglas Carpenter]

1. Anti-Defamation League and SF Jewish Community Relations Council Embarrass Selves:

this from Muzzle Watch - a website run by Jewish Voices for Peace:

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/ - http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

Anti-Defamation League and SF Jewish Community Relations Council Embarrass Selves: Try to police thought at UC Hastings Law School

Posted on April 13 2011 by Cecilie Surasky

The growing campaign to criminalize pro-justice Israeli-Palestinian campus activism and even thought has come to UC Hastings.

The Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and the San Francisco Jewish Community Relations Council are probably crowing over their successful effort to get UC Hastings Law school to distance itself from a March 24 conference devoted to the legal rights of Palestinians called “Litigating Palestine: Can Courts Secure Palestinian Rights?” (Read an excellent piece on the events by Lisa Hajjar over at Jadaliyya.)

link to article at Jadaliyya: http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/1081/what-emergency-the-adl-academic-freedom-lawfare-an


But the truth is that their efforts to stop–in the name of Jews– a conference promoting legal and human rights for an oppressed people is a profound embarrassment to any of us who consider ourselves part of any Jewish community.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, in an email to supporters, JCRC head Doug Kahn called the conference, which featured an impressive range of human rights lawyers and professors from leading law schools, “anti-Israel”. (The conference was organized by the brilliant and highly regarded legal scholar George Bisharat whose primary crime seems to be that he is Palestinian.) Kahn said the JCRC and the ADL, plus the American Jewish Committee met privately with UC Hasting leaders days before the Hastings’ Board of Directors decided at a closed-door, emergency meeting to “take all steps necessary to remove the UC Hastings name and brand” from the conference. This included canceling a planned welcoming talk by dean and chancellor Frank Wu.

But the pressure didn’t just come from these groups.

Another campaigner against the conference was the prolific anti-free speech crusader, UC Santa Cruz Hebrew lecturer Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, who infamously led a successful effort to cancel a UC Santa Cruz speaking engagement by Israeli and Palestinian peace activists who wanted to talk about the negative impact of militarism on Israeli society. She said that allowing such a talk to happen on campus created the same intimidating environment for Jewish students that a noose created for African American students. (The peace activists were not amused. )

Benjamin, building on longtime and successful efforts of the Zionist Organization of America to get the US Department of Education to reinterpret the Civil Rights Act so that it could be used to stop pro-justice Israeli-Palestinian activism, recently filed a nearly 30 page complaint about anti-Semitism at UC Santa Cruz dwelling almost entirely on programming related to Israel and Palestine. The Office of Civil rights opened an investigation based on her complaint, and in a sharply worded letter to UC Hastings’ Wu , which she ccd to every Jewish pro-occupation group she could think of, she threatened the same including the possible withdrawal of federal funds.

The pressure campaign also succeeded in getting the Cummings Foundation to withdraw funding for the conference, though the ADL continued to bitterly complain that attendees could still earn higher education legal credits and that the UC Hastings logo hadn’t been removed from materials fast enough.

Meanwhile, advocates for legal rights for Palestinians are likely writing private thank you notes to Kahn and company for politicizing an entirely new group of students, administrators and academics who were profoundly ticked off by such a clumsy McCarthyite attempt to use far-right talking points to smear lawyers and police thought in an academic setting. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the UC Hastings’ board decision to yield to the external pressure campaign produced few good feelings:

The directors’ action dismayed Hastings’ faculty. Nearly all of its tenured professors signed a letter to the board last week saying that academic freedom includes providing forums for controversial topics, and that the attempt to disavow the conference “undermines our commitment to maintaining both the college’s fiscal viability and its high standards.”

Way to go Rossmore-Benjamin, ADL, AJC and JCRC! Next time you all shout anti-Semitism! in a crowded room, I’m sure we can REALLY count on these folks (not) to come running for help.

Presumably, while the ADL, AJC and JCRC insist on perpetuating the myth that such embarrassing moves represent the will of the Jewish community, they would have absolutely no trouble with a conference on the legal rights of the Israeli government to build settlements on Palestinian land. Because that is exactly what they stand for when they take these actions.

The only word for the growing anti-human rights campaigns driven by old-school Jewish organizations is Shandah, shame.

http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2011/04/13/anti-defamation-league-and-sf-jewish-community-relations-council-embarrass-selves-try-to-police-thought-at-uc-hastings-law-school/

[shaayecanaan]

6. was the event itself allowed to proceed?

its not entirely apparent. Either way this is a ham-fisted an inept about turn from the university.

[Jefferson23]

7. UC Hastings provided a video stream:

A decision by the College to host or financially support an academic conference does not constitute endorsement of any viewpoints expressed at a conference, or the academic goals of the conference. UC Hastings has removed its name and brand from this conference; it has offered this video stream as an accompaniment to the public forum it committed to providing and to honor its previous agreement with conference participants who indicated they would attend via this virtual means.

http://www.uchastings.edu/media-and-news/event/2011/03/Litigating-Palestine.html

[azurnoir]

10. seems to be quite the power flex

one of the principle elements of Frank Luntz and The Israel Project was to control the dialogue make the rules so to speak as to what can be discussed, sadly it seems to working and with this new addition to Title VI even anti-occupation or Palestinian Statehood is called "antisemitism"

Finally, we believe that this event may be in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Right Act. As you probably know, there has been a recent change in the interpretation of Title VI by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. Now, under Federal law, anti-Semitic animus on campus is comparable to other forms of bias and must be aggressively combated by the university administration. The Office of Civil Rights has already opened two investigations of possible Title VI violations at the University of California. One of the complaints, submitted by one of us, argues that university funded/sponsored events that are virulently anti-Israel have created a hostile environment for Jewish students at the University of California Santa Cruz, in violation of federal law.

or in other words if it does not suit our agenda we'll sue you

[shaayecanaan]

11. how have students in general reacted to this (if anybody knows)?

it seems extraordinary that Muslim students would be charged with heckling a speaker. That sort of stuff is normally de jure at the universities...

[Jefferson23]

12. Look at the language used, it is careful

to say "may be" in violation of. Agreed, the language is to intimidate, referring to Office of Civil Rights opened two investigations is being
framed with one complaint submitted by "one of us".

I would not interpret this to mean the complaints necessarily have legal merit, not at all.

[shira]

8. The ADL and 60 Jewish organizations rightly condemned this pro-BDS antisemitic event...

Letter from Tammi Benjamin to Chancellor Wu of UC Hastings College of Law regarding anti-Semitic event planned for campus

Dear Chancellor Wu:

On March 25 and March 26, 2011, University of California Hastings College of the Law is officially co-sponsoring and funding a conference entitled “Litigating Palestine: Can Courts Secure Palestinian Rights.” The conference is listed on Hastings’ official website, and you, in fact, are opening the conference by welcoming the participants.

It is, of course, completely within the purview of Hastings College of the Law to examine lawfare as it pertains to the Israeli-Arab conflict. However, the authorized description of this event makes it clear that conference participants will be advocating for one side of the conflict, the Arab side, and seeking to exploit Western courts in order to agitate against Jews and the Jewish state through anti-Israel lawfare. This is not only a misuse of the name and resources of the University of California for political and partisan purposes, it is also ethically and morally reprehensible.

Moreover, we believe that this event fits within the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism issued by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), endorsed by the U.S. State Department in its Reports on Global Anti-Semitism, and used as well by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in its examination of campus anti-Semitism. As the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has observed, “Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism.”

The EUMC Working Definition identifies the following practices as anti-Semitic and distinguishes them from acceptable forms of criticism of a sovereign nation’s policies:

Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination

Applying double standards by requiring of Israel behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

The Trans-Arab Research Institute, which is the sponsoring organization, has stated that part of its mission is the elimination of the Jewish state. Several of its board members are affiliated with the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign and serve as some of its leaders. In addition, more than half of the speakers at the event are also affiliated with the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaigns, and at least one talk will be devoted to finding legal strategies for defending these campaigns.

This leaves no doubt that the conference was organized for the purpose of harming the Jewish State. Your law school has provided funding and is therefore complicit in this effort.

The heads of sixty Jewish organizations — including the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, Bnai Brith, Hillel, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox movements, both Democratic and Republican supporters, as well as organizations from Mexico, Australia, Belgium and the United Kingdom — have recently signed a statement identifying Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaigns against Israel as “part of a greater effort to undermine the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their homeland, Israel.” They condemn such campaigns and assert that its “proponents have provoked deep divisions among students and have created an atmosphere of intolerance and hatred.” We are copying this letter to the heads of many of those organizations.

Finally, we believe that this event may be in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Right Act. As you probably know, there has been a recent change in the interpretation of Title VI by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. Now, under Federal law, anti-Semitic animus on campus is comparable to other forms of bias and must be aggressively combated by the university administration. The Office of Civil Rights has already opened two investigations of possible Title VI violations at the University of California. One of the complaints, submitted by one of us, argues that university funded/sponsored events that are virulently anti-Israel have created a hostile environment for Jewish students at the University of California Santa Cruz, in violation of federal law.

For the reasons we have outlined above, we urge you to publicly announce that you are withdrawing all Hastings College of the Law funding and sponsorship of this event, as well as your own participation in it.

Sincerely,

http://jporis.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/letter-from-tammi-benjamin-to-chancellor-wu-of-uc-hastings-college-of-law-regarding-anti-semitic-event-planned-for-campus/

[shira]

9. More on the ugly antisemitic infestation throughout the BDS movement...

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/antisemitism-and-the-boycott-david-hirsh-responds-to-ran-greenstein/

[shira]

13. Muzzlewatch (JVP) cheered Michael Oren being muzzled...

http://muzzlewatch-watch.blogspot.com/2010/02/jvp-cheers-muzzlers-really-and-they.html

Gotta love the irony.

[shira]

14. And here's Muzzlewatch (JVP) actively trying to muzzle a Netanyahu speech.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/9/protesters-interrupt-netanyahus-new-orleans-speech/

:eyes:

[Jefferson23]

2. letter that was sent to the Chancellor.

What a shock, the charge is...ANTI-SEMITISIM.

Tammi Benjamin sent me a copy of the following letter, which she wrote to Chancellor Wu to protest an upcoming event entitled “Litigating Palestine: Can Courts Secure Palestinian Rights.”
I am copying the letter in its entirety, and hope you will forward it to as many people as you can, and that you will voice your concerns about this event to Chancellor Wu.

Dear Chancellor Wu:
On March 25 and March 26, 2011, University of California Hastings College of the Law is officially co-sponsoring and funding a conference entitled “Litigating Palestine: Can Courts Secure Palestinian Rights.” The conference is listed on Hastings’ official website, and you, in fact, are opening the conference by welcoming the participants.
It is, of course, completely within the purview of Hastings College of the Law to examine lawfare as it pertains to the Israeli-Arab conflict. However, the authorized description of this event makes it clear that conference participants will be advocating for one side of the conflict, the Arab side, and seeking to exploit Western courts in order to agitate against Jews and the Jewish state through anti-Israel lawfare. This is not only a misuse of the name and resources of the University of California for political and partisan purposes, it is also ethically and morally reprehensible.

Moreover, we believe that this event fits within the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism issued by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), endorsed by the U.S. State Department in its Reports on Global Anti-Semitism, and used as well by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in its examination of campus anti-Semitism. As the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has observed, “Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism.”
The EUMC Working Definition identifies the following practices as anti-Semitic and distinguishes them from acceptable forms of criticism of a sovereign nation’s policies:

◦Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination

◦Applying double standards by requiring of Israel behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
The Trans-Arab Research Institute, which is the sponsoring organization, has stated that part of its mission is the elimination of the Jewish state. Several of its board members are affiliated with the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign and serve as some of its leaders. In addition, more than half of the speakers at the event are also affiliated with the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaigns, and at least one talk will be devoted to finding legal strategies for defending these campaigns.
This leaves no doubt that the conference was organized for the purpose of harming the Jewish State. Your law school has provided funding and is therefore complicit in this effort.

The heads of sixty Jewish organizations — including the Anti-Defamation League, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, Bnai Brith, Hillel, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox movements, both Democratic and Republican supporters, as well as organizations from Mexico, Australia, Belgium and the United Kingdom — have recently signed a statement identifying Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Campaigns against Israel as “part of a greater effort to undermine the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their homeland, Israel.” They condemn such campaigns and assert that its “proponents have provoked deep divisions among students and have created an atmosphere of intolerance and hatred.” We are copying this letter to the heads of many of those organizations.
Finally, we believe that this event may be in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Right Act. As you probably know, there has been a recent change in the interpretation of Title VI by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. Now, under Federal law, anti-Semitic animus on campus is comparable to other forms of bias and must be aggressively combated by the university administration. The Office of Civil Rights has already opened two investigations of possible Title VI violations at the University of California. One of the complaints, submitted by one of us, argues that university funded/sponsored events that are virulently anti-Israel have created a hostile environment for Jewish students at the University of California Santa Cruz, in violation of federal law.

For the reasons we have outlined above, we urge you to publicly announce that you are withdrawing all Hastings College of the Law funding and sponsorship of this event, as well as your own participation in it.

Sincerely,
Leila Beckwith, Professor Emeritus, University of California at Los Angeles
Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, Lecturer, University of California at Santa Cruz
CC: Hastings College of the Law Board of Directors
Governor Jerry Brown
Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom
State Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg
Assembly Speaker John A. Perez
Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Fiona Ma

Heads of the following organizations, who are signatory to a statement condemning Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaigns against Israel:
Aish HaTorah
Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity
American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE)
The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
American Jewish Committee (AJC)
Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
Association of Reform Zionists of America (ARZA)
B’nai B’rith International
The Board of Deputies of British Jews
Boycott Watch
Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations
The Fellowship for Campus Safety and Integrity
Hadassah
Hagshama – The Department for Diaspora Activities of the World Zionist
Organization
Hasbara Fellowships
Hillel: The Foundation for Jewish Campus Life
The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists
Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC)
The Israel Project (TIP)
Conrad Giles, Rabbi Steve Gutow
Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA)
The Jewish Federations of North America
Jewish National Fund (JNF)
Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI)
Masa Israel Journey
MERCAZ USA
National Conference on Soviet Jewry (NCSJ)
National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC)
Orthodox Union (OU)
Rabbinical Assembly
Republican Jewish Committee (RJC)
Simon Weisenthal Center
StandWithUs
Union for Reform Judaism (URJ)
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism and campus division KOACH
Women’s League for Conservative Judaism
World Jewish Congress, North America
Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)

http://jporis.wordpress.com/2011/03/24/letter-from-tammi-benjamin-to-chancellor-wu-of-uc-hastings-college-of-law-regarding-anti-semitic-event-planned-for-campus/

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. What Emergency? The ADL, Academic Freedom, Lawfare and Palestine

What Emergency? The ADL, Academic Freedom, Lawfare and Palestine

by Lisa Hajjar

snip:

As a matter of fact, the insult-to-injury was the libelous proclamation about the purportedly uniform views of participants, and the preemptive—and thus unfounded--assertion that the proceedings would lack academic integrity. But for the ADL, a conference with the word “Palestine” in the title is deemed “problematic” and thus, grounds for the kind of offensive to which UC Hastings was subjected. Sandman opines: “This conference is especially troubling coming at a time when there is a coordinated global campaign to isolate Israel politically, economically and culturally through boycotts and the perversion of international legal principles. We expect that no institution seriously committed to pursuing the highest ideals of justice would associate itself with a conference of this nature and provide cover for the promotion of a base political meeting disguised as legitimate academic discourse.”

Let’s examine the claims in Sandman’s quote. He complains about the timing—“coming at a time when”—which is “especially troubling.” If one were to take his words literally, no time would be the right time to hold an academic conference that addresses Palestinian rights or Israeli (and other) government policies that affect Palestinians as long as there are people around the globe who are pursuing a boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign. At the actual conference—as opposed to the ADL’s imagined conference—the papers addressed and analyzed the record of litigation of Palestinian claims, prosecutions and other types of jurisprudence in Israeli courts as well as courts in other parts of the world. The fact that legal cases involving Palestinians and/or the contested concept of “Palestine” aren’t suspended by some ostensibly inconvenient timing in and of itself justifies intellectual inquiries of the kind that were featured at the conference. To suggest otherwise is baldly censorious.

Sandman also claims that the conference was a “cover” for “a base political meeting.” Base? The use of this harsh word would seem to suggest that a gathering where “Palestine” is the topical agenda is illegitimate. How does the ADL make the connection between a conference about “Palestine” and “base” politics? By equating “Palestine” with “pro-Palestine,” which is conflated with “anti-Israel,” which is conflated with “anti-Semitism.” Anti-Semitism is indeed base. But the slippery slope reasoning that precedes it is contradicted by an empirical reality that is far too complex to be subsumed by a simplistic “pro-Palestine” versus “pro-Israel” dichotomy. If we were to assume that “Palestine” and “pro-Palestine” were seamlessly linked, what are the “pro” and the “Palestine” referencing? Given that the geo-demographic area typically understood these days as Palestine—the West Bank and Gaza—is neither politically unified nor populated by people whose experiences and aspirations are ideologically monolithic, the suggested homogeneity that underlies that side of the dichotomy is intellectually baseless; it relies on and peddles ignorance. Rather, the pro-Palestine/anti-Israel dichotomy is instrumentalized for polemical purposes, namely to attack anyone or any institution (in this case UC Hastings) that engages with issues relating to “Palestine.”

The conflation of anti-Israel and anti-Semitism also serves a polemical purpose, in this case to silence criticism and stifle analysis of Israeli state policies, particularly as they affect Palestinians. The cousin of this conflation is the so-called “self-hating Jew,” a slur directed at anyone Jewish who dares to be critical or skeptical about Israeli state policies and practices. If anti-Semitism were understood to mean “anti-Jewish” (which is what it should mean), then anyone who called someone else a “self-hating Jew” would be engaging in anti-Semitism. (A number of conference participants were Jewish, and some were Israeli—both Jewish and non-Jewish.)

snip:

The ADL’s attack on the UC Hastings conference can be seen as part of this strategy to disarm people who wish to engage critically with Israeli policies by averring that such an undertaking constitutes a threat to Israel itself. The ADL is free to attack who or what it wants, within legal limits, and for the reasons it chooses. And anyone who finds the ADL’s reasoning flawed and motivations suspect is also free to attack. But the Hastings conference was not “an attack” on Israel. It was an occasion for scholarly deliberation about litigation and other legal initiatives that involve or affect Palestinians in courts around the world. By any academic measure of excellence, “Litigating Palestine” was a great success.


http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/1081/what-emergency-the-adl-academic-freedom-lawfare-an

[Jefferson23]

4. The alleged anti-semitic agenda:

LITIGATING PALESTINE: CAN COURTS SECURE PALESTINIAN RIGHTS?

AGENDA

All participants speak in their individual capacities. Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.

Friday March 25
3:00 Introduction by Professor George Bisharat, UC Hastings College of the Law
3:15 – Panel I – Palestinian claimants and defendants before U.S. Courts
 Professor Gwynne Skinner, Willamette University Law School, “The Nonjusticiability of the Middle East:
U.S. Human Rights Litigation and the Misuse of the Political Question Doctrine”
 Noura Erakat, Adjunct Professor, Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, Georgetown University,
“Palestinians in US Federal Courts: Constructing a ‘Terrorist’ Prototype”
 Linda Moreno, Esq., “Political Prosecutions in America: Prosecuting Other People's 'Terrorists’”

5:15-5:30 – Break

5:30-6:15 – Keynote Address
 Professor Jules Lobel, University of Pittsburgh Law School, “Success Without Victory: The Politics of
Palestinian Litigation”
Saturday March 26
8:45 – Panel II – Courts in Israel/Palestine
 Jamil Dakwar, Esq., ACLU – New York, “Hollow Justice: Litigating Palestinian Equality In Israeli Courts”
 Nimer Sultany, SJD Candidate, Harvard Law School, "The Master's House and the Master's Tools:
Occupation and the High Court"
 Diana Buttu, Esq., "Fitting a Square Peg Into a Round Hole: The Use of Palestinian Courts to Secure
Palestinian Rights"

10:45-11:00 – Break

11:00-1:00 – Panel III – Other National Courts and the International System
 Emily Schaeffer, Esq., Law Offices of Michael Sfard, "Litigating Bil'in in Canada: Victories and Obstacles
in the Face of an ‘Inconvenient’ Forum"
 Daniel Machover, Esq., Hickman and Rose, “Delegitimising the Rule of Law – The Israeli Campaign
Against Universal Jurisdiction”
 Victor Kattan, Lecturer in Law, SOAS, "Litigating ‘Palestine’ before International Courts: The
Prospects of Success and Perils of Failure"

 Lisa Hajjar, University of California, Santa Barbara, Discussant

1:30-2:30 On Campus Lunch

2:45- Panel IV – Beyond Litigation
 Yasmine Gado, Esq., "The Russell Tribunal on Palestine: London Session on Corporate Complicity in
Israel's Violations of International Law"
 Matthew Ross, Esq. and Elizabeth Jackson, “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions: Defending the BDS
Movement from Legal Challenges”
 Samera Esmeir, Professor of Rhetoric, UC Berkeley, “International Strategies of Rule and Liberation
Struggles: Between Revolution and War”

4:45-5:00 Closing Remarks by Professor George Bisharat, UC Hastings College of the Law

http://www.uchastings.edu/media-and-news/event/docs/LP-Agenda.pdf

[azurnoir]

5. Muslim students arraigned for disrupting Israeli ambassador

The students were arrested on February 8, 2010, at the University of California, Irvine, after shouting in protest at the speech by Michael Oren on U.S.-Israeli security. The students were arraigned Friday in Orange County Superior Court on misdemeanor conspiracy to disturb a meeting and misdemeanor disturbance of a meeting.

<snip>

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at the Jewish Federations General Assembly in New Orleans in November was marked by repeated heckling from young Jewish audience members.

The coordinator of that protest, 17-year-old college student Hannah King, from Seattle, said her group sought to protest the attempt to delegitimize criticism of Israeli policies, which she said goes against Jewish values.

There have been no reported arrests of Jewish students stemming from these incidences of heckling, although their behavior would seem to be similiar to those of the Muslim students who protested Oren at University of California at Irvine.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/muslim-students-arraigned-for-disrupting-israeli-ambassador-1.356231