Relegating discussions on the Gaza genocide to parallel sessions not only marginalised the issue but also signalled a broader reluctance within global forums to tackle polarising and politically sensitive topics head-on.
By SHAKIR ACHMAT
THE International Network for Hate Studies (INHS) partnered with the Psychological Society of South Africa (PsySSA) to co-host a conference in Cape Town, from November 25 to 27, which addressed vital global issues surrounding systemic hatred, misinformation and marginalisation.
Among the most compelling presentations were those of Sumayya Ebrahim, titled ‘We are fighting human animals, and we are acting accordingly’, and Masoodah Chikte, who presented on ‘The spread of misinformation and fuelling of hatred in the media’. Both papers critically explored the dehumanisation of Palestinians, systemic Islamophobia, and the role of the media in fuelling bias and misinformation.
While these contributions were powerful, the conference fell short in addressing the magnitude of the Israeli genocide in Gaza. The ongoing crisis – a polarising and well-documented case of state-perpetrated hate – was relegated to parallel sessions rather than given the prominence of plenaries where panellists could further discuss the themes. This marginalisation diluted the opportunity for INHS to lead a critical global discourse on state sponsored hate and global complicity.
Ebrahim’s presentation delved into the systemic dehumanisation of Arabs and Muslims, drawing on Edward Said’s Orientalism.
She explained how the West constructs Arabs and Muslims as barbaric and violent and then using these narratives to justify their subjugation. Ebrahim linked this historical discourse to the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestine, emphasising how the Palestinians’ legitimate resistance is framed as terrorism to delegitimise their struggle.
Chikte’s presentation further dissected the mechanisms of anti-Palestine hatred, focusing on how media narratives shape public perception.
She examined instances of misinformation, such as the widely debunked claim of Hamas fighters beheading 40 babies, to illustrate how false narratives perpetuate the idea of Palestinians as aggressors. By diverting attention from systemic violence, such narratives obscure the realities of occupation and human right violations.
Together, these papers highlighted the role of media in reinforcing global Islamophobia. By framing Arabs and Muslims as threats to democracy and Western values, media outlets sustain a narrative that dehumanises these communities and justifies their marginalisation.
The inclusion of Ebrahim’s and Chikte’s papers demonstrates that the INHS conference acknowledged the gravity of the genocide in Gaza. Their work aligned with the conference’s stated mission to confront hate and marginalisation. However, the lack of dedicated plenaries, panels or thematic focus on Gaza undermined the depth and impact of this engagement.
This omission is troubling given that Gaza represents one of the most urgent examples of systemic hate and state perpetrated violence. Relegating such discussions to parallel sessions not only marginalised the issue but also signalled a broader reluctance within global forums to tackle polarising and politically sensitive topics head-on.
Additionally, the absence of Palestinian scholars, human rights advocates and journalists in other sessions were a glaring shortfall. Without authentic representation, the discourse risks becoming detached from the lived realities of those most affected. Future INHS conferences must ensure that crises like Gaza’s are central to their agenda, incorporating interdisciplinary exploration of legal, political and media critiques.
In response to questions regarding the conferences approach to the Palestinian Genocide, Professor Zoë James, a representative of the INHS and Criminology Professor at the University of Plymouth, stated, ‘The International Network for Hate Studies does not engage with media queries as we are a networking organisation that provides space for academics, policy makers and practitioners to discuss issues relating to hate, including those referred to in your questions. Our conference reflected this position and as such people were provided the opportunity to come together to raise their concerns and then act on them going forward as individuals in their various areas.’
This response highlights the INHS’s neutral stance on the matter, yet it underscores its limitations in addressing systemic hate on a collective level.
Dr Fatima Seedat, Executive Director of PsySSA, clarified that PsySSA was a co-host of the INHS conference, not the primary organiser.
She explained that the conference call was widely disseminated, inviting submissions from scholars, activists and policy makers.
Dr Seedat also noted that there were only two invited plenary slots without parallel programming. The first plenary, held on day one, focused on the increasing relevance of hate studies in a politically volatile global environment, with discussions on Palestine included in several parallel sessions. On day two, the second plenary featured South Africa’s Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Act, which, sparked significant interest among hate studies scholars, particularly its provisions related to hate speech.
Nazneen Firfirey (photo right), a clinical psychologist, posing an insightful question on how to create meaningful change in addressing the oppression of the Palestinians.
(Photos RIEZAAN TALIEP)
During the audience engagement session, Nazneen Firfirey, a clinical psychologist, posed two poignant questions that resonated deeply with the audience. She asked how individuals might address their own helplessness in the face of the genocide of the Palestinians and how they could make meaningful changes to assist Palestinians in their plight.
Ebrahim responded with a heartfelt call to action, urging attendees to use their voices and platforms to challenge dominant narratives and support Palestinian resistance.
In an interview with Muslim Views, Ebrahim reiterated the importance of grassroots activism, emphasising that ‘the most accessible and easiest step is to use our voices and action wherever we may be in the world.’
She encouraged people to participate in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, attend solidarity events and amplify Palestinian voices through social media.
Ebrahim also shared her personal commitment to maintaining connections with individuals in Gaza and the West Bank, highlighting how even seemingly small acts of solidarity – such as resharing posts or wearing symbolic t-shirts – can have a profound impact.
Another question, posed by Jasmin Seijbel from Erasmus University, highlighted the increasing adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which often silences criticism of Israeli policies. Seijbel argued that this trend stifles advocacy for Palestinian rights under the guise of combating anti-Semitism.
Ebrahim acknowledged the complexity of the issue, stressing the need to differentiate between genuine anti-Semitism ad legitimate criticism of state policies. She emphasised the importance of safeguarding the space for critical discourse and resisting attempts to equate advocacy for Palestinian rights with hate speech.
The INHS conference provided valuable insights into systemic hatred and the role of media in perpetuating bias. However, it’s failure to give the Palestinian genocide the prominence it warrants highlights the need for the paradigm shift in how such events address global crises.
To maintain its credibility and relevance, the INHS must place polarising issues like Gaza’s genocide at the forefront of its agenda. This includes creating dedicated plenaries and thematic panels that explore these crises from multiple perspectives, amplifying the voices of Palestinian scholars and advocates, and fostering interdisciplinary engagement.
Conferences like the INHS also have a responsibility to critically examine their own priorities and structures. Addressing systemic hatred requires not just acknowledgement but a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths and challenge global systems of power.
Ebrahim’s concluding remarks captured the urgency of the moment: ‘We have the power, the ability and privilege to speak truth to power.’ Her words serve as a reminder that fighting systemic hatred and supporting Palestine begins with individual and collective action.
The Palestinian struggle is not a regional issue but a global one, representing the intersection of colonialism, imperialism and systematic hate. By placing this crisis at the centre of a global discourse one can challenge the structures that sustain oppression, and work toward a future rooted in justice and equality.
