Guest writer and President of KCL Israel Society, Karin Samokovlisky, argues in defence of Dr Rana Baker and comprehensive historical education, following weeks of protests over the academic.
Editor’s note: All students are invited to write for Roar. The views expressed by commentators are not those of the newspaper.
The Israeli experience on campus has not been an easy one. Israelis have been crying out for nuance for decades, frustrated at over-generalised blanket statements made at them that lead to false conceptions. We are filled with fear when Israel is being spoken about: Are we going to be given the benefit of the doubt? Do people assume certain things about us? Are we going to be alienated? We are not only concerned about the effect it has on our social relations, but also about whether the experiences that shaped our upbringing are being portrayed truthfully. Are our peers aware of the historical reasons that led to Israel’s creation? Or the uncomfortable fact that some governmental decisions have some rationale behind them?
We speak of education and the importance of our side of the narrative being included, frustrated at the existence of a subjective narrative in the first place. In this situation, it seems that these fears have accumulated in one spot: the case of Dr. Rana Baker’s seminar on Middle Eastern History. Through newspaper articles, posters, and the retelling of the story from word of mouth, emerged an image of an antisemitic terrorist supporter indoctrinating KCL history students with dangerous Islamist propaganda.
A protesting movement has emerged advocating for the “ban” of Dr. Baker, with the slogan and goal to “stop hate on campus,” “stop teaching terror,” and “protect Jewish students.” In opposition— and continuous with previous protests accusing the University of complacency in the war— are protests claiming to stand against censorship, intimidation, and erasure, to “defend academic freedom.”
The situation began with articles published in GB News, The Jewish Chronicle, The Daily Mail, and covered by Roar. JC published that part of a handout given for one of the weeks of the module included an excerpt from a Hamas Media Office document titled “Who is Hamas?”. The entire document outlines what actions they claim to have taken place on 7 October and their reasoning for it, but no other excerpt than the mission statement was included. What is being omitted from this story is that, along with a week on the Palestinian movement in this module (which included the above excerpt), there was also a week that discussed the Zionist movement and the creation of Israel. The primary readings included David Ben Gurion, Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall, and Theodore Herzl’s The Jewish State, all key texts that are essential to understanding this period of time, and the motivations behind the Zionist ideology. In studying Israel’s history, especially its turbulent nature, is it not as necessary to study the texts that led to its founding as those that stand against it? Especially if the protestors seek to highlight the atrocities committed and advocate for the release of the hostages, engaging with content directly from Hamas is crucial.
In condemning the study of such text in an academic setting, we make a dangerous implication for historical education. The study of history, particularly at the academic level, aims to evaluate the roles that ideologies and narratives play in historical events and developments. If our goal, in addition to expanding our historical knowledge, is to stop injustices from recurring as they have in the past, we have to look at what conditions have led to their occurrence in the first place. It seems necessary, then, to engage with these primary sources to understand the significance of these events. I find an apt analogy to the necessity of studying Nazi primary texts as part of holocaust education. In the International Holocaust Association (IHRA)’s recommendations for teaching and learning about the Holocaust, the organisation finds it essential for education to:
“Provide historical resources that enable learners to unpack the complex factors influencing human action. Show how real people made choices that contributed to the events that happened, by discussing that people’s actions were influenced by a wide range of factors such as societal structures, economics, ideology and personal conviction and motivational factors”.
They emphasise, too, that “The intent is not to normalise but to understand how humans came to do what they did. Understanding is not condoning.” If we choose to follow these recommendations, the conclusion is that a wider breadth of resources is a sign of a good history module.
Several tweets have been circulated from Dr. Baker’s Twitter account as proof, along with the module handout, for the accusation of her supporting terrorism and being antisemitic. It seems to me to be in bad faith to draw conclusions from tweets that are from 2014 and earlier, so I do not take them into consideration. Broadly, her since deleted tweets were either commentaries on the Palestinian experience and liberation movement, or severely critical of the State of Israel, calling it violent and settler-colonial. It is difficult to make the accusation of antisemitism without having to speculate and infer much more about Dr. Baker’s worldview than what is provided. Overall the tweets fall under the umbrella of anti-Zionist sentiment, and though the speech within might spark controversy and disagreement, it is protected under The Equality Act 2010. Is the discomfort with the sentiment arising from its actual malicious intent, or an ideological disagreement?
Importantly, in none of the sources in the accusations does Dr. Baker deny, minimise, or justify the events of 7 October, nor does she insult or threaten Jews or Israelis.
It is important to mention that the Jewish community is not in full agreement regarding Dr. Baker’s alleged antisemitism. In early February, a letter was sent, undersigned by 13 Jewish societies in London, condemning Dr. Baker and calling for her dismissal. A response letter was released both in support of Dr. Baker and in offense to the generalisation that all Jewish student societies are in support of her dismissal. That letter was signed by 20 Jewish UK societies, 7 of which are in London. As echoed by many before me, neither Jews nor Israelis are a monolith. I do not claim to represent the entirety of the Israel Society in this article solely because I am its current President, but I hope to offer a differing opinion which I found many in the community to express, although not as loudly as others.
So, in the distribution of the reading material for a Middle Eastern History module, is Dr. Baker announcing her agreement with the content? And are her tweets damning evidence for both antisemitism and a bias that renders Dr. Baker incapable of teaching? I claim the answer to both is no.
