In light of the mass atrocities still being committed on the occupied Palestinian territories along with the loss of many civilian lives since the 7th of October, a dangerous trend can be observed within academic circles. This trend is characterized by a delusive embrace of pseudo-intellectual justifications rooted in internal biases, maintaining the age-old dilemma of orientalist academic pretentiousness. The detachment from reality, particularly when perched atop the ivory tower of academic privilege, exacerbates this situation. Consequently, when assuming the mantle of an active academic voice, failure to consider one's positionality leads to flawed judgments. The university motto, 'understanding society,' enjoins legal scientists to perceive societal dynamics holistically, necessitating the processing of information as integral constituents of that society, eschewing a mechanistic approach. This is because empathy and morality infuse the collective laws and rules we opt to adhere to with inherent value.

Emphasizing this point, a skilled scientist indeed relies on verifiable data, meticulously aligning their findings with the same. That being said, the supposed "complexity" of social issues is not completely impossible to decipher if the scientist has observed the principles of research integrity and has freed themselves from possible biases. The commonly professed "complexity" or “sensitivity” of social issues often serves as a veil to obfuscate inadequately substantiated opinions. Upon concluding what the historical, socio-legal and political realities depict, it is criminal for one to turn away from the truth and rally for the dissemination of their findings.

Social scientists are not meant to be mathematicians

There is a difference between research conducted in pure sciences and social sciences. For example; it can be observed that legal methodologies are more open to flexibility and that legal terminologies are conducive to interpretation because they are meant to cater to the ever-evolving needs of humanity, ultimately aiming for the dispensation of justice. Alternatively, mathematical methodologies strive for rigid quantifiable, conclusions and aim for principles to hold across different environments. The outcome of this route of investigation is in stark contrast to social science findings which are intended to be context-specific because social phenomena are often influenced by cultural and historical factors.

A good social scientist does consider all variables, however, maintains their ability to interpret data with as much accuracy and fairness rather than making a rigid mathematical equation which may not reflect what the ground reality may be. This of course, only works with controls especially equipped for humanities research which require for racist, sexist, xenophobic or any other prejudicial tendencies to be eliminated at the outset.

The contextual placement

A simple perusal of academic literature on Palestine and Israel underscores the contextual genesis of events in Gaza since October 7th 2023. The assertion that Hamas's attack was 'unprovoked' falls afoul of the historical context dating back to the establishment of the Zionist-Israeli settlement project in 1947, corroborated by entities such as the UN, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International to name just a few. Jewish organizations and scholars, too, decry Israel's war crimes against the indigenous Palestinian population. As a scientist, a lawyer and a human being, there is enough evidence to condemn the Israeli government’s present-day indiscriminate attacks on the Gaza Strip.

In the wake of such circumstances, Dutch universities decided to release neutrality statements regarding the massacre of Gaza’s civilian population. This was made worse by the Netherlands voting against the call for a ceasefire and the EU’s absolute support for Israel regardless of the widespread violent ethnonationalism and the International Humanitarian Law violations being committed regularly by the Israeli Defense Forces.

In a bizarre article on this platform, authored by our colleague Jan Jaap de Ruiter on 27/11/2023, initially published with comical Hamas fanfic, a strange allegation was made. This allegation extended from blaming another colleague, Michiel Bot on multiple accounts of being oblivious to the motivations of ‘both parties’. He further went on to state that Bot is not a neutral lawyer and that his writings can be used by Hamas to justify their attacks. Both these claims are riddled with deep-seated prejudice and incorrect conflations. For the sake of argument, as a self-standing point divorced from the factual reality, the hypothetical critique of Michiel Bot's perspective on the Palestine-Israel conflict raises valid concerns about potential one-sidedness in academia. However, de Ruiter’s article itself fails to maintain the balance it advocates. It hypocritically criticizes Bot for focusing on Israel's actions and human rights violations without offering a more comprehensive analysis of the motivations of both parties involved. By doing so, the article perpetuates the very issue it criticizes, presenting a somewhat one-sided perspective on the critique itself. It also reduces the issue to ‘Hamas- Israel’ misleadingly in the title, when in reality the largest casualties of the conflict since the beginning of the recent armed attacks have been that of Palestinian civilians. 

Being a lawyer, our thinking skills are fine-tuned to weigh all perspectives and critically evaluate every piece of evidence that we encounter. When it comes to clear violations of international law, there are no two sides. There is a distinct difference between the power and military might that Hamas and the Israeli military yield. No fair court of law will ever let a government with an advanced, organized military get away with the disproportionate use of force against a civilian population while using self-defence as an excuse when the attack emanates from the territories that it occupies. Along with expert legal opinion, statements by UN officials and the statutory text of International Humanitarian Law, the side that we as lawyers are supposed to support is quite clear. A ‘neutral lawyer’ in this situation would be a ‘bad lawyer’.

The second part of the allegation is a classic case of a false cause fallacy. The support of innocent Palestinian civilians being carpet bombed is not synonymous with the support of Hamas, just as critiquing the colonial Zionist project is not synonymous with being antisemitic. The massive support for upholding human rights in Palestine from many Jewish organisations destroys this myth. As the Israeli academic Ilan Pappe eloquently stated “...most Zionists don't believe that God exists, but they do believe he promised them Palestine''. In response to de Ruiter, I ask, what if your article is used by the IDF to justify the disproportionate killing of innocent Palestinian children because the IDF also falsely argues that it has valid ‘motivations’ to bomb civilian buildings?

Michiel Bot pioneered a conscientious and academically informed stance in times even when academic institutions were reluctant to do so. He has created a safe space for students and colleagues of all backgrounds to come together at the academic table and discuss the conflict from all perspectives i.e., anthropological, historical, legal, political, social, religious etc. He ensured that these conversations were done in a format that the conflict could be understood from various angles, which was indeed a very special part of the event he organised on 28/11/2023 titled Palestine/Israel/The Netherlands: Racism, Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and Critical Solidarity. The speakers invited were notable experts in their fields and gave intellectually satisfying and balanced responses to the audience. Furthermore, the attendees stayed long after the well-attended event was over to have one-on-one discussions with the speakers. To pass judgement on such an event as being ‘one-sided’ or ‘unacademic’ is rather distasteful. This was an academic conversation, not a trial. It is in a courtroom that due process obligates both parties to submit their arguments regardless of whether they are guilty or not. An academic conversation simply demands that experts share their findings with the public and open the floor for questioning.

Universities are not just factories for producing diplomas but rather important social institutions that weave morality into the social fabric while staying true to the benefit of humanity as a whole. Situations which require morally upright and legally compliant stances cannot be dealt with silence. Neutrality turns into complicity in this case. Our job as academics does not stop with just ‘understanding society’, it is where it begins. In conclusion, a good university and a good, ethical scientist are not the ones that stand in the middle but rather the ones that stand for human rights and dignity, come what may.