Following a written complaint lodged by students attending Cambridge University, the University's Israel Society has cancelled an invitation it extended to "Islamophobic hate speaker" Benny Morris who was scheduled to speak at an event last week. The students contend that the Israeli historian's visit to the university is "insulting, threatening to Arab and Muslim students in particular and also goes against the spirit of CUSU's stated anti-Islamophobia policy." It was requested that the Student Union make clear that views such as those espoused by Morris are both offensive and abhorrent.

In an interview with the Israeli daily, Haaretz, on 8 January 2004, Morris, an Israeli history professor and specialist on the Palestinian 'Nakba' or Catastrophe of 1948, clearly states that he sees nothing morally reprehensible in the criminal actions of Israel during that period. This, despite the many atrocities he himself avidly describes in his work and which undoubtedly amount to war crimes and a systematic policy of terrorising a civilian population. In particular, he finds justification in the mass ethnic cleansing that took place and further yet, maintains that under certain conditions, the future ethnic cleansing of Palestinians will again be justified and perhaps even essential.

Morris' views on Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims are apparently founded on a belief in their genetic and cultural inferiority. He characterizes the Arab world as 'barbarian' and without moral inhibition asserting that the Palestinian reaction to oppression betrays an inherent problem within them and within Islam. Describing Palestinian society as 'sick', he asserts that "something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."

Morris is also of the opinion that Arabs understand only force and has argued for pre-emptive nuclear strikes on Iran.

The Israel Society later conceded that the views of their intended guest are indeed offensive but that it was not their intention to give racism a platform. According to some reports, the hugely controversial Morris' invitation was part of a calculated strategy aimed at pre-empting a visit to the University later in the month by the academic and vocal supporter of Palestinian rights, Dr Daud Abdullah. Having withdrawn Morris' invitation, the Israel Society now plans to demand the withdrawal of Dr Abdullah's invitation despite the lack of any similarities between the types of view held by the two. The effort to repress Dr Abdullah here appears to simply be based on the fact that he is an advocate of Palestinian rights.

Such tainted tactics carry with them the obvious risk of transferring the dangers of the Middle East conflict onto British university campuses; a conflict in which the upper hand lies with those who are able to manipulate others by withholding information and brooking no criticism. The Israel Society, subconsciously or not, appears to be playing into the hands of external pressure groups; those who would block open debate and stifle both academic freedom and free speech in order to limit access to facts and ideas that are inconvenient to them.

The issue of Dr Abdullah having been a signatory of the Istanbul Declaration published in the wake of the war on Gaza has been raised in regard to his suitability as a speaker; an issue about which he has made his stance abundantly clear in the media. Moreover, Birkbeck University, where he is currently a part-time lecturer released a statement in his support last week which states "we are not aware that Dr Abdullah is a member of any proscribed organisation or that he has broken any laws or college regulations." Birkbeck also voiced concerns about a need to protect academic debate and to promote activities and areas of study which enrich university learning and help inform public debate.

Traditionally, British universities have provided a platform from which a range of ideas and views can flourish and have encourage openness and debate. This ability to explore the fullest range of ideas on a given issue is essential to any learning process as well as to arriving at a considered opinion. To seek to prevent the free expression of advocates of the Palestinian cause, or of any other point of view, is not only an infringement of a human right, but threatens the foundations of university life and social cohesion by seeking to impose a homogeneity which stunts progress and nurtures the tunnel vision that can sometimes lead to radicalisation. 

Efforts have been made to prevent Palestinian academics and other activists from speaking on university campuses such as in the case of Dr Azzam Tamimi - director of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London. It has been claimed by the tabloid press that during one of his recent speeches he glorified terrorism and has advocated suicide bombing. Despite numerous attempts on his part to clarify such misconceptions, he continues to be vilified and misrepresented. Indeed, the main theme of the speech in question was justice as a guiding principle within Islamic thought. Dr Tamimi himself says: "I've always said, and I do say it again, no matter how angry one may be, there is no justification for anyone to respond to murder with murder. Taking the life of one innocent person is like taking the lives of all humans and saving the life of one person is like saving the lives of all humans. This is the Islamic position and this has been my position all a long."

As long as what an individual advocates falls within the remit of the law, then they should be entitled to express that opinion freely. Of course there must be consideration for others based on the principle of not causing undue offense and where the likes of Geert Wilders and Benny Morris would fall short. Indeed it could be argued that Morris' views on ethnic cleansing and genocide which contravene accepted standards of morality and the principles of the Nuremberg Charter, border on incitement. Nevertheless, if the facts of such abhorrent views and rabid racism of a bygone age are laid bare, as with any other racism, they will be defeated in open debate and rejected by rational individuals.

Moreover, when concerted efforts are made to gloss over issues and manipulate public opinion like that of Jonathan Hoffman, co-vice chair of the Zionist Federation who stated in defence of Morris "Benny Morris has made some robust remarks about Palestinians, but the idea that he is 'Islamophobic' is absurd. He has taught Jewish and Muslim students" then, as a society we are headed for catastrophe. We'd be on safer ground hearing directly from a hundred Benny Morris(s) who is apparently far more open about his views as well as the legacy of Zionism.

It should not and cannot be allowed for the dangerous political power games that play out on the national and international stage, specifically with regard to the Middle East conflict, to be transferred onto British University campuses. A means must be sought by which students with differing political persuasions can seek, receive and impart information and ideas without censorship or seeking to censor others. As Noam Chomsky said, if you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in it for views you don't like. And after all, this is a democracy we live in.