Seeks legacy of education and coexistence
Some institutions become synonymous with the individuals who guide them, some of whom become institutions themselves. Such is the case with Palestinian educator Dr. Sari Nusseibeh and Al-Quds University, where Dr. Nusseibeh, who recently announced that he is stepping down from the presidency after twenty years.
The Media Line’s Felice Friedson visited Dr. Nusseibeh at the university’s Abu Dis campus.
TML: Dr. Nusseibeh, what made this the time to call it quits as president of Al-Quds University?
Nusseibeh: Simple answer: my age. You know, I’ve turned sixty-five this year and as we have a rule in the university which makes me tell people who reach that age to retire, I had to apply that, too, to myself in the administration.
TML: I would be remiss if I didn’t ask the crowning achievement question: What do you view as your greatest achievement during the last twenty years?
Nusseibeh: In terms of the university, the fact that it’s created, that it’s been created as a university. When I came it had a small number of programs, a few employees, a small debt. Now it has a large number of employees, a large number of programs, and a larger debt.
TML: If you look at the bar now and where that bar was set when you began here in 1995, how has the quality of education and campus life improved?
Nusseibeh: Well, it’s improved in the sense that now we have many more scholars teaching, there’s much more research being done, there’s much more interaction between the different faculties and the different pursuits of different programs. And we have in fact, over the years, tried to develop the content and the quality of the teaching through introducing different programs. We’re based on the American system in general so it’s a four-year course for undergraduates unless they’re doing things like professional degrees in engineering or law or medicine. Within the context of the four years, we’ve been able to introduce trial from the beginning, for instance, in the liberal arts program. We’ve been able to introduce courses about critical thinking from the beginning and this we’ve been building up over the years and in that sense we’ve done a lot in order to improve the quality of the teaching being done at the university.
I think we also influenced to some extent other universities through our masters programs. Four years ago when we engaged in our partnership with Bard College in the United States and created through this the joint program at Al-Quds as a special experiment, I think this has actually also done a great deal of service to us and to the students and to the campus at large in terms of developing the quality of education and putting more pressure and focus on the students to become independent pursuers of education themselves.
TML: Three campuses, how many students? And what is the ratio of women to men?
Nusseibeh: Well, the ratio, it’s like most universities in the West Bank and Gaza. I think it’s about 50% female or just over. We have now over one hundred programs, different programs, and masters and bachelors degrees. The major campus we have in Abu Dis and we have two other sites here in Jerusalem and in Al-Bireh. We have a small program in Gaza and we have a partnership actually with Al-Aqsa University in Gaza with our medical degree, we have just under 13,000 students together.
TML: While your colleagues in the West sometimes speak about presiding over turbulent times, what forces do issues related to directing an educational institution in a conflict zone assert on the business of running a university?
Nusseibeh: Well, I want to distinguish first between running a university and, in a sense, establishing one, because I didn’t come to a place which was already very well-established. I came to a place which was still in bits and pieces, scattered, not properly united. The question was how to deal with those problems; how to deal also with the problems of our legal situation vis-à-vis the Israeli Higher Council of Education; how to deal also with the Palestinian Council for Education; how to deal with the development of the institution and all of this was happening, as you rightly point out, in the middle of political turmoil. What can I say? I mean, it’s been very exciting; preoccupying, it took up all of my time. But it was also very challenging. It sort of required me to put in a lot of energies in different areas towards different directions, such as to try and develop a public space of discourse both at the level of the faculty and the administration; and between that body on the one hand and the student body on the other. And all of this was happening as we were trying to establish the kind of university we wanted.
We were trying to establish something within the university that would last, so we were trying to establish the fabric of an institution, of a democratic institution that would last. We tried to establish the fabric of a climate of freedom of expression, of decentralization, of people being able to take on and take off and do things they thought to try and open it up for people with creative ideas. And at the same time, among students, to develop dialogue and to try and make people go for differing with each other, but not by beating up each other. I come from a background, I must tell you, where for things that I have thought or said or did back at another university before I came to Al-Quds I was actually beaten up and by students. So I was very conscious of the problem of violence and the need to protect people with different opinions. And so my focus over the years has been to insist on allowing variety and pluralism.
TML: Beaten up as a teacher?
Nusseibeh: Yes, yes, yes. I was attacked as a teacher. I was beaten up by four people who appeared later to have been students at the university and it was to do with my — this was in the 80s — involvement in politics, my dialogue with Israelis, my support for some kind of solution. That was before major things had taken off in terms of developing dialogue and going on to negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis.
TML: Do you feel that you’ve accomplished anything in terms of developing those dialogues with Israelis and do you feel that that has trickled down to your students?
Nusseibeh: Yes, absolutely, I think a lot was done. Certainly my involvement in the 80s in trying to develop a climate of dialogue, of trying to push for getting to a solution with the Israelis on the occupation, coincided with other things that were happening. In the beginning, very slowly, but eventually we got to the point where I think after the first Intifada or even during it, the whole idea of making peace on the basis of two states, Palestine and Israel, became legitimate, which it wasn’t before.
TML: You seem to have gone through a personal change between the first Intifada in the 1980s and the second Intifada in 2000. During that time you moved from advocating a two state solution to a one state solution. So what moderated your outlook?
Nusseibeh: I was never, and I am not, in favor of one solution or the other. I am in favor of peace based on justice and I imagine that justice comes about through some kind of equitable distribution of rights. I’ve always said that such an equitable distribution of rights, in my opinion, can be based on partition of land or on distributing rights individually among people. I never had a major prejudice in favor of one such solution or the other.
In the 80s, it seemed to me that the majority of the people were thinking of two states and so I said that’s good, let’s go for two states. So, that’s what I’ve supported and I would still support if such a solution was, or did come about, or did seem possible, or realistic. But now, between 2000 and now, I’ve come to the realization that maybe we’re all talking about a pipe dream when we talk about the two state solution and that maybe we should try to think again about what a proper solution, what a real solution, how peace can be achieved. So, I haven’t really changed at the bottom level. I’ve stayed insistent on needing peace for the two peoples and needing to find such a peace based on some kind of equitable distinction — a distribution of rights.
TML: With the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, do you see things moving forward?
Nusseibeh: It’s too early to tell what the significance of the recently announced reconciliation will be. But, you know, wherever it is going, we’re still left in a situation where as before, we’re still waiting for God or waiting for some kind of thing to happen, some miracle that will lead everyone sanely towards a solution. I very much hope that the Palestinian people will be united under one banner, even if people had different points of view, just like in Israel, where people have differences but they’re still united under one banner. And being united under one banner is guaranteed by a system of democracy and pluralism, so, we need to have that on our side. And we need, in addition to that, to have peace with the other side.
TML: Maintaining a safe balance on campus between education and political activism must be a challenge. How did you maintain equilibrium and how do you deal with it and what do you tell those who advocate a militant agenda?
Nusseibeh: To those who advocate a militant agenda, I tell them basically that they are wrong for different reasons, one having to do with my personal opinion about these matters. I’ve always advocated about a non-violent approach to solving matters between us and Israel, even non-violent resistance to Israeli occupation. So, from that perspective my point of view has always been very clear. But I’ve also expressed my feeling that it is counter-productive to advocate such an agenda. It’s been hard, but you know, it’s been under control. Yes, we’ve had outbursts and we continue to have them over the years, such as students suddenly coming up holding placards of cartons with machine guns or things; and anti-Israeli propaganda or sentiments being expressed. But it’s a long process, and it’s a process in which one has to judge by the overall climate, and the overall climate has been, over the past twenty years, the [non-violent] policy that I’ve advocated.
TML: When you step down, will that continue?
Nusseibeh: I think, you know, I wouldn’t be boasting if I said that I believe that I’ve created an institutional system, which will now run by its self. And you know, I’ve been working on this for some time now, especially over the past two, three years as I was preparing for my stepping down. I’ve been preparing for this by putting people in the places that they need to be placed to take over. And, you know, I’ll be continuing here as a teacher and I think my physical presence will have some kind of effect in making people feel that things are more or less the same even though they’re different.
TML: In 2005, the Palestinian Teachers Union called for your dismissal for working with Israelis. What did you say to them then and what do you say about “normalization” today?
Nusseibeh: This was the union of teachers of the universities in the West Bank and Gaza. The union of my university was part of it, so they joined with the other unions. And when this happened I had just signed a declaration with the president of the Hebrew University expressing my own beliefs, that we should … build bridges between the two sides. People were angry about this. And so, when I came back I held a meeting and I invited all of the people in the university — employees, teachers, whoever wished to come — and I told them that this is what I believe and I prefer to do what I believe than to bow to other people’s pressures and that, if they don’t want me, fine, but I’m not going to change my mind. It went fine, everybody seemed to be happy with the fact that I said what I said and therefore it didn’t have any effect having called for the bringing down of my presidency. So within the university the institution remained basically as before in spite of my signature. Even before the signing of Oslo and ever since I became president we had relationships between our institution and counterpart Israeli ones. And this went on right until the last invasion of Gaza and this went on in spite of the fact that there was an overall position of boycott of our Israeli counterparts by our sister universities in the West Bank and Gaza. But I maintained a free position, even within the Palestinian authority education, of no boycott.
When Gaza took place, since it wasn’t my policy to go by what other people say outside of the university but to develop this democratic kind of institution, I called for a meeting of all the people who were involved in such cooperative projects and asked them to talk it out. And the majority of them told me that they don’t feel able, after that Gaza thing to continue with what they’ve been doing. And so I took that over to the university council, and they took a decision which I think was a good decision, not to engage in any new counterpart projects with counterpart Israeli institutions; but not to stop any ongoing projects. And to make sure, ensure that as individuals, anybody in the university wishing to engage in such projects continue to do so and to have the right to do that and the protection to do that by the administration. So I myself, for instance, was involved as an individual not as the president in teaching a course at the university in cooperation with somebody doing it at Bar Ilan and somebody at the Hebrew University and somebody in the United States. It was very important for me to tell people that individuals have freedoms and they have to be protected.
TML: Dr. Nusseibeh, how many joint-programs, have you had?
Nusseibeh: Well, Israeli counterparts, I mean over the years I can’t really count them but there must have been more than one hundred, you know, we’ve had a lot of problems.
TML: And today?
Nusseibeh: Today, maybe ten? Something like this that are ongoing. And some are in research projects in various science or basic science or medical or health related issues and some maybe programs like masters programs that we have.
TML: Has normalization impacted on any of these programs?
Nusseibeh: Well, the issue of normalization has been there from the beginning. What’s the attitude towards it now? When people called for anti-normalization right at the beginning I didn’t believe in this, and indeed, took my university in the opposite direction. But to give it its due, to understand normalization, we have to go back in history to the late 70s and early 80s. At the time, before Oslo, Palestinian universities were under siege, unable to have cooperation amongst themselves, with people being unable to move freely between one university and the other throughout the West Bank and Gaza. It was a time that the Israelis came, some of them, and said, “Let’s have cooperation between your universities and ours.” The point was made at the time, and I think rightly, that how can we have cooperation between one university like Birzeit for instance, and one Israeli university, like Tel Aviv, when the Palestinian students and teachers are prevented from going to Tel Aviv freely? And also, when you are preventing me and Israeli students and teachers from having cooperation?
So there was a kind of paradox here, and there was a kind of consensus among Palestinian universities that we shouldn’t have cooperation agreements with counterpart Israeli institutions until the time comes when we are able to have freedom of movement amongst ourselves. And this was the position people had right up to Oslo.
Now, when Oslo took place, things changed throughout the Palestinian spectrum except in education. In other words, when Oslo took place, lots of cooperation programs began to develop between the two authorities, but the educational establishment, the higher education establishment, remained set to its previous position. The only exception was Al-Quds University. And I defended that position myself personally. I said Oslo now is upon us, everyone is cooperating and we should be cooperating. And I did for all those years from 1995 to 2005.
Today, nobody knows what the future holds, and it’s not clear to us that there will be two states. And so one has to, once again, reconsider. If I were asked my opinion, I would say we should now even intensify our cooperation agreements, because even if the direction we’re taking in spite of ourselves is towards a single state, even if that’s the case, then clearly, cooperation is required. But also for reaching an agreement through negotiations over two states, also that’s required.
TML: Dr. Nusseibeh, several months ago there was negative reaction from American schools you partner with demanding you take action against inappropriate demonstrations on campus. What happened?
Nusseibeh: Well, these were three schools, one with whom we had an agreement, Brandeis University. We developed a lot of mutual agreements between the two campuses and I had a very good relationship over the years with a person involved in that center by the name of Dan Terris, as well as with the president of the university, Judah Reinharz. There were anti-Palestinian sentiments expressed at different times at Brandeis, including once over an art exhibition, and on our part there are constantly signs of opposition to the occupation and the people at Brandeis saw this as a normal thing since the place was under occupation. With the changeover of the president at Brandeis the incoming new president, visited very quickly once here, but he didn’t have the time to become fully acquainted with the long history and the details of that history. So, when he saw that particular demonstration of Hamas or of the [Islamic] Jihad taking place, he justifiably felt there’s something wrong. He was horrified to see what seemed to be like Nazi signs with the arms being extended by the students. So he called me up and I agreed with him. His sentiments were fully justified; he had every right to be horrified. Something went wrong and I told him I’ll deal with it in my own way. But he had apparently pressure upon him. He was waiting for something he probably hoped would look like something that would reflect what he might do in the United States of America. I have my own way of dealing with students with the atmosphere. So, you know, when I came out with my statement to my students, he didn’t like that and said I want to call off relations with you. So I said, “Fine. I’m sorry but I’m here so whenever you want to come back and re-establish [relations] we’ll be ready to establish them as a university, although not as a person.”
TML: Which begs the question of the West’s understanding of Middle Eastern mentality.
Nusseibeh: I’ve been in the university for 20 years, I know what my problems are, and I’ve been trying to work year after year on trying to solve them. I think I’ve succeeded to a large extent in doing what I think is right. In this case, maybe you come into a situation where you don’t have enough time, you haven’t looked at everything, all the possible contradictions and conflicts and histories of what you’re dealing with. And your standard of measurement and judgment is therefore a totally different perspective or background, and you see something happening and you take a position or make a decision or make a declaration or statement that seems totally off, that doesn’t quite fit in with the situation here. And that’s probably true in this case. Let us say somebody in an American school goes around shooting people with a gun. We on our side here, may tend to make a judgment very quickly about that situation: a generalization about American culture, which would miss the point, because they wouldn’t actually be seeing the situation in historical terms.
TML: Dr. Nusseibeh, do you intend to run in Palestinian elections?
Nusseibeh: No, I intend to continue in my and develop my academic engagement. I intend to go on teaching, but no politics, that’s it as far as I’m concerned.
TML: Dr. Nusseibeh, thank you very much for your insights, your time at the close of a long history with Al-Quds University.
Nusseibeh: Thank you very much.
Transcribed by Ariela Alberts.