Yes, but going with a bottom-up approach would be easier to pass than a full top-down PACBI/BDS boycott. A good example is the University of California Chancellor’s statement rejecting the PACBI boycott ; through CHRA, a small Physics research lab leader or an Anthropology department can adopt the CHRA requirement without defying university rules. It wouldn’t count as a rule-bending all-out boycott because it offers a ‘way out’ that is difficult to oppose as it is based on the simple defense of human rights for all.

In the name of free speech, the one exception for not needing to sign the declaration is when the subject of the organized event/discussion is the conflict itself. Otherwise, when the event is about unrelated subjects in science, art, sports, etc. this declaration presents an opportunity for the speaker to show their support for equal rights for all.

The individuals targeted are influential public figures with some number of ‘followers’, e.g. CEO of smaller private companies, university professors, research group leaders, athletes, not-yet-famous singers i.e. people who have some power of spreading a message. These are individuals who want to be in a public position and enjoy teaching, being influential, or professing their opinion and should be using their status to influence public opinion against oppression and in the pursuit of peace.

These countries do not enjoy any level of freedom of expression (Index score significantly below 0.40). The signing or not of such a declaration has no effect on public opinion in these countries, as signees cannot be seen as making a choice based on their own convictions. Even if it were to affect public opinion, it will not have an effect on policy because of the autocratic nature of such countries. Nevertheless, speakers are strongly encouraged to sign the declaration if it does not put them or their families in danger.

Absolutely not. This declaration applies to any individual irrespective of their religious creed or ethnicity. At this moment in history the Israeli government and army are committing mass killings in the name of Israeli citizens, including academics, athletes and performers. This declaration is an opportunity for Israeli personalities to publicize their positionality on this topic in good faith. In retrospect, had a similar requirement been in place during the Vietnam war or during apartheid South Africa, it would not be considered a tool to distinguish between “Patriotic” and “Unpatriotic” academics.

It means that any event organized by you will require attendees from the countries defined in the declaration to sign the declaration before attending the event.

By signing the CHRA-declaration, you essentially acknowledge your support of equal basic human rights for all people, please check all the individual points in the declaration above. Additionally, you agree to show this support publicly by having your name listed here.

No, quite the opposite: assuming that academics from Israel fully support policies and actions of their government against Palestinians carries a prejudice. The signing of this open declaration is a simple way to publicize their support for human rights for all and their valuing human lives, while concentrating on their subject matter during the University event. Short of this, the audience is likely to assume that academics are in line with their government policies and their condoning of civilian killings carried out in their name by the Israeli military.

Part of this initiative is the discussion created within the department during the adoption process. One can argue with the following points:

• There is no single point in the required declaration that is controversial, what exactly would the head of department be opposed to?
• If not adopted, practically there is already a “gray boycott” happening with individual academics shying away from organizing events and organizing events with reduced audiences
• Events would actually be more inclusive once a CHRA-requirement is in-place
• Sub-groups within the department will anyway become CHRA-requiring entities, so might as well have the whole department sign-up

Each university has its own rules and you should check the details, but there should be no rules against adding the CHRA-requirement if the Staff and Head of Department decide so; in fact all universities already require people to accept some agreement when attending conferences or participating in workshops. Any collective level is possible and becoming a requiree isn’t restricted to departments, it could be a research sub-group, student union, discussion forums, etc.

This initiative started in reaction to Israel’s brutal response in Gaza to the 7 October attack by Hamas. Israel inflicted mass killing and starvation of a population it besieges in the Gaza Strip. The International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel’s assault on Gaza possibly amounts to genocide.
By all accounts, the scale of the atrocities committed by Israel in response to the Hamas attack, in an extremely short time span, is unprecedented since the Second World War and thereby compels us to take a stand. At the same time, the wording of the text is broad enough to apply to any military conflict.
The signature and publication of this declaration will help clarify the signatory’s position of potential invitees with respect to civilian killings. This is important at a time of heightened global political and social tensions as a result of the mass killings. It also contributes to sensitizing populations to the topic of civilian killing in war zones.

The above points serve as a condemnation of all perpetrators of unarmed civilian killings but especially the ones done by an army or militia claiming to represent the invited speaker.

Not at all. Quite the contrary, the above points speak of the resolving of conflicts, which includes ending all kinds of massacres, occupation and colonization, dismantling of all kinds of structures that segregate on the basis of identity, regardless of citizenships involved. The declaration also acknowledges the right of resisting armed occupation soldiers by all means according to international laws.

The declaration is a simple means to help individuals voice opposition to the killing of civilians carried out by their governments. The reasoning is that, by definition, in a democratic country, wars are carried out in the name of citizens. Indeed, through the electoral process and other civic mobilisations, citizens have a possibility of expressing opposition to government policies, including engaging in wars and committing war crimes. Citizens of non-democratic countries do not have such privileges and voicing opposition to government policies can have grave personal consequences including on one’s safety.

This declaration is an invitation to boycott of individual academics, athletes, performers, and other individuals with a public stature and power to shape public opinion who do not publicly endorse that all humans are equal. The declaration is an opportunity for such individuals from countries engaging in mass civilian killings to express their opposition to such action.

No, Israel proclaims itself as a democracy and its citizens continue to openly disagree with the position of the army. At the same time, an individual who has served in the army in the past and who decides to sign this public declaration expresses thereby their disapproval of the Israeli military’s mass civilian killings. If an individual refuses to sign because they feel proud of belonging to the Israeli army when it is engaged in mass civilian killings, or is associated with militias that are engaged with mass civilian killings or whose academic work is funded by the military, then the CHRA-adopting organization reserves its right to not be associated with such an individual.

Settlements are illegal under international law and they do not enjoy support of the entire Israeli population. Additionally, building settlments where only people of one religion are allowed to live should be opposed.

One of the ongoing injustices since 1948 is the issue of refugees; addressing this topic is essential and the only way to create a lasting peace would be to find a solution to this issue as part of a process of transitional justice towards reconciliation.

It’s essential for individuals with a public stature and power to shape public opinion to use their platforms towards creating a more peaceful world. Signing this declaration is a simple way to do so. Additionally, by signing this declaration, when academics whose countries engage in mass civilian killings participate at University events, they can avoid the ‘elephant in the room’ and indirectly address the audience’s likely question on their positionality vis a vis such government policies.

In contrast, the possible reasoning for an academic refraining from signing the declaration is either because they believe that civilian killings can be justified in some instances, or because their work is associated with a military entity complicit in civilian killings, or because they themselves participated at in the past in such military activity or may do so in the future. We believe this would reflect the individual’s prejudice or racism as they would not believe in basic human rights of all people and runs counter to most academic codes of conduct. In any such event, the CHRA-adopting entity reserves its right to not be associated with them nor offer them a platform.

By making the signing of this declaration a prerequisite to taking part in events, a university affirms, for example, its “special social responsibility and […] the exemplary functions that come with it” to offer a space that ensures and shields itself from “intolerance, discriminating or offensive behavior” (taken from the Code-of-Conduct of the University of Vienna as an example). Students can thereby be guaranteed that speakers dissociate themselves from discriminatory practices, including mass killings, against particular groups of individuals.

From the perspective of a university, requiring individuals speaking at an event at the university’s premises either physically or online to sign this declaration ensures that its platforms consistently and by principle uphold human rights and non-discrimination against all people. Furthermore, requiring the signing of this declaration will allow the university to contribute to the public debate and sensitize the general public to the high impact of lives lost to man-made wars irrespective of who the perpetrator is. This can also help shift public opinion away from resorting to wars as a solution.

A slightly amended version of this declaration could be added to the university’s code of conduct as a way to anticipate any tensions within the university halls among students and faculty and serves to attenuate any possible such tensions. Indeed, short of implementing such a rule, accusations and counter accusations among students are likely to arise, weakening the social peace within university premises. For example, it could be that students supporting Israel’s invasion of Gaza will be attacked knowing that some call the invasion a genocide. Similarly, pro-Palestinian students who oppose the actions of the State of Israel may also be subject of attacks as some call any opposition to Israel a call for genocide. Along the same, lines, students opposed to continued support for Ukraine can be attacked as some say this will enable a Ukrainian genocide by Russia.

In an event where an invited speaker feels they cannot agree with the declaration’s points and cannot therefore sign it, this could stem from the following possible reasoning: it is either because they believe that civilian killings can be justified in some instances, or because their work is associated with a military entity complicit in civilian killings, or because they themselves participated at in the past in such military activity or may do so in the future. We believe this would reflect their prejudice or racism as they would not believe in basic human rights of all people and runs counter to most academic codes of conduct. For this, the CHRA-adopting organization upholds its right to not give them a platform and refuses to be associated with them.

War on Ukraine, war on Afghanistan, war on Iraq, among others conflicts with mass civilian killings perpetrated by a democratic country.

In an unfortunate way yes, it’s similar, with the difference being that most non-Arab audiences by now know that Hamas’ actions targeting unarmed civilians do not represent all Palestinians, just as much as ISIS does not represent Islam. Whereas the Israeli government continues to push the narrative that it is the sole spokesperson for its citizens as well as all Jews everywhere – this has also become an accepted and adopted narrative among governments and institutions including universities of the Global North. For this, it is important for individuals in question to be offered the opportunity to distance themselves from such a narrative.

The line has to be drawn at some value; a CHRA-adopting organization can decide to have a different threshold.

This is not about views or opinions, it’s about acknowledging basic human rights to all. Those who refuse to sign actually give their own ‘tribe’ special rights (self-defense, right-of-return, etc.) but deny it to others. None of the points listed in the declaration are controversial, are based on human rights and should accordingly apply to all people.

Yes, that’s a potential problem that would render this declaration moot, however, since the signature is public this indirect contribution to the oppression system would at least create a discussion on social media.

The signee would be acknowledging that all humans are equal and all have the right to self-defense according to international law. Giving one’s own ‘tribe’ the right to self-defense but denying it to others is just racist.