The shaky legality of NTNU’s case: Why is Israel on trial?

A classic from 1956

Sidney Lumet’s 1956 classic 12 angry men, starring Henry Fonda, is said to be the greatest legal drama of all time. More interestingly, the plot and moral of the movie is directly applicable to NTNU’s meeting on November 12^th. It is at this meeting that NTNU will decide whether or not to be the first western university to punish Israel with an academic boycott. Here is an extract from a review of the classic movie by DVD Times:

As the case seems pretty much open-and-shut, the members of the jury seem anxious to deliver a quick ‘guilty’ verdict. Well, all but one of them. Juror number 8 (Fonda) believes that a boy on trial for his life deserves more than just a simple show of hands and feels that a discussion of the evidence presented at the trial is called for. And so the stage is set for a battle of wills as Fonda tries to persuade his fellow jurors, led by a very temperamental Lee J. Cobb, that the case is not as cut-and-dried as they initially thought.

So Fonda’s job is to persuade the other jurors to give the boy a fair trial. In the case of NTNU’s impending boycott we must ask: Is Israel been given a fair trial? A more relevant question: Why is she on trial at all, while hoodlum states go free? She certainly has not been represented by any defenders at this autumn’s seminar series on Israel, which many feel was arranged just in order to set the stage for the boycott proposal (The seminars were organized by prominent leaders of the boycott movement). Apart from the fact that NTNU has singled out Israel and put her on trial without allowing her the opportunity to defend herself, we find the following legal objections from the Opinion on the legality of UCU motion 25 of May 13th, 2008, England:

1.3

a) If the motion is passed it would expose Jewish members of the union to indirect discrimination… Additionally, the Union faces potential liability for acts of harassment on grounds of race or nationality. The substance of the motion may also involve the Union in becoming accessories to acts of discrimination in the employment context against Israeli academies.

b) Second, the terms of the Motion are outside the powers given to the Union under its rules. Specifically, the Motion calls on its members to undertake acts of harassment and discrimination against others on grounds of national origins… Overall, it is difficult to see how any of the Union’s aims and purposes are furthered by the Motion.

2.1 Proposals for an academic “boycott” of Israel or Israeli academic institutions have a lengthy history which provides an important factual context to the legal issues on which we are asked to advise. The Motion and its particular language have been formulated against that context.

2.4 It is against this backdrop of advice from specialized and experienced Counsel that a call to members by way of resolution directly to boycott Israeli institutions would be unlawful as breaching discriminatory law and would also exceed the Union’s constitutional powers.

5.5 We observe that the severing of links with Israeli institutions, which is mooted in the motion, cannot logically be dependent on whether those parties do or do not accept the wrongfulness of the occupation. Either links with such institutions are appropriate, or they are not…

5.7 In any event, those who proposed the motion are clearly opposed to continued educational links with Israeli academic institutions.

5.8 This appears unambiguously from the partisan way in which the factors which Congress is asked (at the outset of the motion) to note are described. The proposers wish to secure support among the Union membership as a whole for their views that such links are inappropriate. Whether or not more is contemplated in the wake of the discussion may be obscure: that at least is clear.

From just a cursory reading of the document above, it appears evident that there are strong similarities between the incident in question, in England, and the present call for boycott at NTNU which is to be resolved at the board meeting on November 12th. Yet the legal matters involved have not been given any attention whatsoever. The question of legality has not even been raised. This speaks for the process as a whole.

In the movie 12 angry men to which reference is made above, the day is saved by juror number 8, Henry Fonda. The question is, will there a juror number 8 present at the NTNU meeting on November twelfth? If so, whom of them will it be?

The “jurors” in this trial are the members of the NTNU board: Ådne Cappelen, Anne Kristine Børresen, Bjarne Foss, Haakon Anfelt Moe, rektor Torbjørn Digernes, Helge Holoen, Julia Iablokova, Karin Röding, Kristin Dæhli, Marit Arnstad, Morten Loktu or Morten Olimb.

The board is facing a call to boycott which has been signed by prominent members of one of Norway’s most prestigious universities. The decision the board has to make concerns a country which has been demonized for decades. Turning the proposal down will not be an easy decision to make. Yet it would be morally, and very likely also legally, wrong not to do so. The obvious truth is that if one single country is to be boycotted, it must be a country which is worse than the others. This is not Israel.

This site will in future posts elaborate on the legal issues concerned, as well as on the individual members of the NTNU board. Who are they, who are they attached to, and how can we expect them to vote? Perhaps we cannot expect them to refuse to sentence someone who has been dragged into court for doing only what others do every day, and not been allowed to defend herself. The pressure on them is to high, with the rektor himself endorsing the seminar series upon which the case builds. But can we at least expect them to do the decent thing, and turn away from their most obvious prejudices like in the clip below? Will the board not at least admit to “reasonable doubt”, when the defendant has been singled out for no good reason, and allowed no counsel?