Editor’s Note: The views expressed within this letter do not necessarily align with the views of The Mac Weekly.

The following is a reprint of a public letter. It has been edited only for journalistic style and clarity.

Dear Macalester Community,

I read with appreciation the detailed proposal submitted to the College by the Mac for Palestine coalition. However, the Divestment Proposal perhaps understates the need for Macalester to take a position on these issues by not drawing greater attention to Macalester’s consistent public alignment with the United Nations (UN) by flying its flag for almost 75 years and Macalester’s request of the late Kofi Annan ’61 to name the Institute for Global Citizenship in his honor.

Secretary-General (SG) Annan accelerated the transformation of the UN from an instrument used exclusively by its Member States (and, originally, their empires) to enforce incumbent government power to an institution with explicit duties also to protect people. SG Annan was particularly instrumental in and proud of the UN adopting its doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) during his tenure. The R2P specifically sets forth the responsibility of each Member State “to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.” Prior to its adoption, the UN’s official position was that what happened within a country was solely the provenance of that nation’s government.

It is in this context that SG Annan, when discussing in his memoir “Interventions” the debate about genocide that contributed to the slow international response to the massacres in Darfur, Sudan, stated “the ‘genocide’ label does not hold a monopoly over the most heinous crimes against humanity, and should not be the sole trigger for action.” Again, we find ourselves in 2024, in the context of Israel’s action in Gaza and the West Bank, having academic debates about what constitutes genocide and apartheid instead of focusing, as SG Annan would wisely have us do, on ensuring that “sovereignty is no longer a shield behind which gross violations of human rights can be committed.”

Fortunately, Macalester doesn’t have to make a determination as to whether gross violations of human rights and international law are taking place. For while the position of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on Palestine and Israel has been politicized and muddied over the years by many factors, not least the veto power in the Security Council of the U.S., there are other UN institutions on which Macalester can rely.

Within the UN lies the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is neither politicized nor muddied in its thinking, and to which, unlike the somewhat controversial International Criminal Court, all UN Member States belong. In July, subsequent to the Mac for Palestine coalition submitting its proposal to Macalester, the ICJ ruled on a UN General Assembly request from January 2023 for an advisory opinion: “On the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.”

The ICJ found by a significant majority that “[t]he Court considers that the violations by Israel of the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force and of the Palestinian people’s right to self determination have a direct impact on the legality of the continued presence of Israel, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The sustained abuse by Israel of its position as an occupying Power, through annexation and an assertion of permanent control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory and continued frustration of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, violates fundamental principles of international law and renders Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful.”

While the U.S. and Israel disingenuously dismiss actions by UNGA as being the work of subversive countries or anti-Semites, the ICJ ruling was rigorous and supported by judges representing strong allies of Israel, including the United States, Germany and Australia. Even when judges dissented from the majority, their dissents mostly reveal technical concerns with the rulings rather than disagreement with the substance (the decisions and dissents are quite interesting reading and are available on the ICJ website.) The sound reasoning and broad consensus of the ICJ strongly supports the positions set forth by Mac for Palestine.

Furthermore, in light of this recent ICJ decision, there are other measures, in addition to those suggested by Mac for Palestine, that the Board of Trustees should take. These measures reflect Macalester’s mission, acknowledge its shared values with the United Nations and respect the enormous contributions made by SG Annan in evolving the UN to an institution concerned with the rights of people in addition to the sovereignty of States. Macalester should:

• Endorse the findings of the ICJ as being sufficient to a Macalester finding of Grave Social Injury. Leveraging the rigorous findings of the ICJ allows Macalester to mitigate the criticism that Macalester is not equipped to evaluate the issues at hand and that taking action in this case will require it to opine on every international crisis.

• Adopt a policy of not maintaining institutional ties with governments (or their affiliated educational institutions) that have been found by the ICJ to be in fundamental violation of international law. Such a policy would distinguish, in this case, between the people of Israel, many of whom are appalled by their government and have spent many days, both before and after Oct. 7, protesting it, and the government of Israel, in which key government ministers regularly advocate the rape, killing and/or displacement of Palestinians. Such a policy should also be written to require Macalester to sever any ties with entities, such as Hamas, that the U.S. government has declared to be terrorist organizations, but I suspect such a policy already exists.

• Recognize the State of Palestine. Of the UN Member States, 146 of the 193 Nations, which hold over 90% of the world’s population, have recognized the State of Palestine, including nine of the G20. Of the 10 members of the G20 that have not recognized Palestine, seven are former colonialists (or members of the British Commonwealth) who cling to the colonial notion that an Occupying Nation must consent to the freedom of the occupied.

• Condemn the violence in the region against all civilians by all parties. Macalester should take action but also ensure that its actions are not perceived by any party or constituency as endorsement of violence.

The perpetual excuse for inaction in the Middle East is that it’s complicated. But nuance cannot be an excuse for failing to act in accordance with our values when there are clear avenues for constructive actions. The issues raised by Mac for Palestine go to the heart of the mission and public posture of Macalester.

With its emphasis on internationalism and multiculturalism and its belief in the values and role of the UN, Macalester has an opportunity today to live its values. The decision of the ICJ provides a framework for action. I have confidence that Macalester’s Board of Trustees will find a response to the Mac for Palestine proposal that is anchored in the shared values of our community and recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and equality under the law.

Michael Huber ’90

Macalester College Trustee

2009 – 2021