甚麼是丹·大衛獎？

      九個歷史和考古學領域的學者被今年的「丹·大衛獎」選中，其中包括：

• 姜學豪，華語圈酷兒歷史學者，著有《閹人之後》與《跨托邦在華語語系太平洋》，並擔任《華語圈酷兒文化》一書的共同編輯。

• 安德魯·利普曼，專研美國東北部原住民歷史的歷史學家。

• R·伊莎貝拉·莫拉萊斯，公共歷史學家，專研美國奴隸制與解放史。

• 維蕾娜·邁爾，歷史學家，研究重點為納粹時期對辛提人和羅姆人的種族滅絕。

      總部位於特拉維夫大學的丹·大衛獎，只是以色列眾多試圖在國際舞台上為其政策賦予正當性的獎項之一。特拉維夫大學本身，便是以色列對巴勒斯坦人所犯暴行的共犯結構之一環。該校距離加薩僅約四十英里，其校園所在之地，正是1948年遭以色列軍隊摧毀的巴勒斯坦村莊舊址。校內的研究人員與教職員，長期以來透過國家安全研究所等管道，與以色列的軍學複合體保持緊密連結。

為何巴勒斯坦人呼籲學者不要接受丹·大衛獎？

      過去，「巴勒斯坦學術與文化抵制以色列運動」（PACBI）便曾呼籲丹·大衛獎得主拒絕領獎，直言該獎項與種族隔離制度沆瀣一氣。時至今日，以色列在加薩的種族滅絕行動，已將當地全部十二所大學化為廢墟，同時摧毀了數百座檔案館、圖書館、博物館與書店。這場對巴勒斯坦學術機構與學術社群的全面毀滅，已不僅是戰爭附帶損害，而是有意的「學術滅絕」。除了奪走無數巴勒斯坦教職員與學生的性命，以色列軍隊更徹底摧毀了巴勒斯坦的教育與學術基礎設施。

      正如歷史學家埃斯馬特·埃爾哈拉比（Esmat Elhalaby） 在其有力的公開信中所言，透過丹·大衛獎，「歷史學者被徵召參與由特拉維夫大學和以色列主導的一項公關計畫……旨在為以色列在全球舞台上的存在賦予正當性。」

      丹·大衛獎的任何得主均無義務接受該獎項。事實上，接受該獎項將直接違反巴勒斯坦方面發出的呼籲——即抵制以色列學術機構，以及那些掩蓋以色列種族隔離政策的文化活動。

      去年，丹·大衛獎頒發給亞裔美國移民史學者貝絲·盧-威廉斯（Beth Lew-Williams）——正值加薩種族滅絕最嚴峻之際——此舉引發了她的同事們在一封公開信中的抗議，但信中未直接點名她。這為亞裔及亞裔美國學術圈內的種族滅絕辯護，以及跨越巴勒斯坦學術與文化抵制倡議PACBI紅線的行為，樹立了一個令人不安的先例。

拒絕領獎的先例

      儘管個人榮譽與豐厚的獎金往往令人難以割捨，仍有許多人選擇基於良知而斷然拒絕。早在2016年，歷史學者凱瑟琳·霍爾便公開發聲，拒受丹·大衛獎。2024年，普立茲獎得主朱帕·拉希里拒絕接受紐約野口美術館的獎項，以聲援因佩戴巴勒斯坦頭巾而遭解雇的館員。同年，數十位入圍美國筆會年度獎項的作家，因抗議加薩種族滅絕而集體撤回作品，最終迫使美國筆會取消當年度頒獎典禮。2025年，學者蒂蒂·巴塔查里亞亦拒絕接受現代語言協會（MLA）頒發的南亞研究獎，以抗議該協會領導層壓制會員就撤資決議案進行投票。

      在聲援巴勒斯坦學者與學生的學術抵制浪潮日益高漲之際，以色列作為一個實施種族滅絕的殖民實體，其本質早已赤裸裸地暴露在世人眼前。若此時仍選擇接受丹·大衛獎，最終只會為自己的學術生涯留下難以洗刷的污點。

酷兒女權主義者反對「粉紅洗白」 

      姜學豪表示，這項肯定「印證了我一直以來的信念，就是把歷史研究視為一項充滿創造力、想像力與倫理關懷的工作，為的是邁向一個更光明、也更符合社會正義的未來。」

      我們想問，當以色列可以肆無忌憚地繼續存在，對從巴勒斯坦到黎巴嫩殺害記者、綁架醫生，性侵囚犯，我們還能想像什麼樣社會正義的未來？

      接受這項獎項，所反映的早已不只是個人的選擇，更會讓其多年來苦心經營的學術項目與研究社群，一併蒙上恥辱。姑且不問這些學者為何缺乏基本的道德直覺，拒絕這座獎項——難道TA們眾多的合作夥伴與同事，都沒有人出面勸阻，提醒他這項決定有多不光彩嗎？如果是這樣，那他所在的學術圈裡，究竟瀰漫著何種缺乏骨氣与背離原則的風氣，才讓這種事發生？

      身為華語圈的酷兒女權主義者，我們主張姜負有政治責任，去拒絕「粉紅洗白」及錫安主義的公關活動。接受一個謀殺巴勒斯坦酷兒的種族隔離機構所給予的認可，是一種道德背叛。

      我們敦促學者們支持「抵制、撤資、制裁」（BDS）運動，拒絕讓我們的知識領域被挪用來助長以色列為其種族滅絕戰爭、殖民佔領及種族隔離政權正名所展開的宣傳活動。

WHAT IS DAN DAVID PRIZE? 

This year, 9 scholars in the fields of history and archaeology were awarded the Dan David Prize. 

Among the recipients are:

• Howard Chiang, scholar of Sinophone queer history, author of After Eunuchs, and Transtopia in the Sinophone Pacific, and co-editor of Queer Sinophone Cultures

• Andrew Lipman, historian of Native Americans in the Northeast

• R. Isabela Morales, public historian and scholar of slavery and emancipation in the United States

• Verena Meier, historian whose research focuses on the genocide of Sinti and Roma during Nazism

Headquartered at Tel Aviv University, the Dan David Prize is one of many Israel-based awards that attempt to legitimize the Israeli state and its policies on a world stage. Tel Aviv University is fully complicit in Israel’s crimes against Palestinians. Located about 40 miles from Gaza, the university occupies land that was once a Palestinian village destroyed by Israeli forces in 1948. Its researchers and faculty have longstanding ties to Israel’s military-academic apparatus, including through the Institute for National Security Studies.

WHY DO PALESTINIANS URGE SCHOLARS TO REJECT THE DAN DAVID PRIZE?

In the past, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) has urged Dan David Prize recipients to reject it for its complicity in the apartheid. In the genocide in Gaza, the state of Israel destroyed all twelve universities in Gaza, along with hundreds of archives, libraries, museums, and bookstores. The wholesale destruction of Palestinian academic institutions and communities of scholarship is scholasticide. Beyond killing untold numbers of Palestinian faculty and students, Israeli forces have annihilated Palestine’s educational and scholarly infrastructure.

Through the Dan David Prize, as the historian Esmat Elhalaby puts it in his compelling open letter, “scholars of history are enlisted in a PR project hosted by Tel Aviv University and Israel…to legitimize Israel’s presence on the global stage.”

Nothing obliges any of the Dan David winners to accept the prize. In fact, doing so is in direct violation of the Palestinian call for the boycott of both Israeli academic institutions and cultural activities that obscure Israel’s apartheid policies.

Last year, the Dan David Prize awarded to Asian American migration historian Beth Lew-Williams—amid the height of the Gaza genocide—sparked protests from her colleagues in an open letter that stopped short of naming her. The episode set a troubling precedent for genocide apologism and for crossing the PACBI line within Asian and Asian American academic circles.

SCHOLARS AND WRITERS WHO REJECTED THE MASTERS’ PRIZE

Although individual honors and lucrative awards may be difficult to turn down, some individuals have done so as a matter of principle. Back in 2016, historian Catherine Hall publicly refused the Dan David Prize. In 2024, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jhumpa Lahiri refused to accept an award from New York's Noguchi Museum after it fired staff members for wearing keffiyeh. Dozens of nominated writers withdrew their work from PEN America over the genocide in Gaza and forced it to cancel its 2024 awards ceremony. In 2025, Tithi Bhattacharya rejected the Aldo and Jeanne Scaglione Prize for South Asian Studies from the Modern Language Association to protest the MLA leadership's suppression of a vote on a BDS resolution.

In the growing momentum of academic boycott in solidarity with Palestinian scholars and students, accepting the Dan David Prize in a moment when the nature of Israel as a genocidal settler colonial entity is fully exposed will only add a stain to one’s career. 

QUEER FEMINISTS REJECT PINKWASHING

Howard Chiang says the recognition “confirms my commitment to promoting the study of history as a creative, imaginative and ethical undertaking for a brighter, more socially just future.” 

What kind of socially just future can we possibly imagine when israel is given a pass to continue to exist, murder journalists, kidnap doctors, and rape prisoners from Palestine to Lebanon?

The craven decision to accept the reward reflects not just on individual choices but plunges the entire scholarly project and community that they have built into disrepute. Set aside the question of why the scholars lacked the basic moral intuition to reject this prize. Did none of their many collaborators and colleagues intervene to caution him against this shameful decision? What kind of spinelessness, opportunism, and lack of principle reigns within their corner of academia for this to even be possible? 

As sinophone queer feminists, we assert that Chiang has a political responsibility to reject pinkwashing and zionist PR. Receiving recognition from an apartheid institution that murders queer Palestinians is an ethical betrayal. 

We urge scholars to honor the BDS movement and refuse the appropriation of our fields of knowledge in service of Israel’s campaign to legitimize its regime of genocidal warfare, colonial occupation, and racial apartheid.