Israeli Academic Boycott / international disgrace

[sebbysteiny]

I don't know if many people have heard, but the NATFHE union has voted for a motion encouraging people to boycott all Israeli academics unless they denounce their government's 'arpartheid policies'.

This motion was a disgrace to UK academia and is both racist and intollerent.

First, this motion has a flawed premise: that the Israeli government's policies are indeed arpartheid. Although the Palestinians and their supporters love linguistical gymnastics and have called Israeli actions everything under the sun from Nazi to Arpartheid, Israelis have a very different view. Israelis, who have to endure suicide bombings by Palestinians (described as crimes against humanity by amnesty international), believe that the government's policies, however harsh, are the ONLY policies that can keep Israelis alive.

This debate is VERY intense, with some good arguments on both sides. Both sides have very different views and neither side appears to have a good understanding of each other. It is vitally important that not just the Palestinians, but also the international community listen to the Israeli view and that Israelis and the international community listen to the Palestinian view because there are such different views about the rights and wrongs about what goes on there. This is done by dialogue, not boycotting, and there is nowhere else on earth that such dialogue takes place most than the campuses of Israeli Universities, which have many Israeli Arabs and even some Palestinians.

Whilst some academics may favour the Palestinian view to the Israeli one, boycotting all academics, scientists or humanities, simply because they have the audacity to have a different political view to yourself is disgusting, intollerant and wrong. What next, boycott all British academics who do not distance themselves from Blair's policies on Iraq? Maybe we can declare that anybody who declares themeselves to be a conservative, or a communist, must be boycotted from the pursuit of universal knowledge simply because a majority in one room at one time dislikes their views.

Many supporters of the boycott cite 'but the Palestinian universities are calling for a boycott so we must listen'. Erm, wrong. This goes back to genuine arpartaid South Africa where the South African universities themselves called for a boycott. However, Palestinian universities, a semi state that views Israel as an enemy and are not Israeli universities. Israeli universities are not calling for such a boycott: infact, almost all students, including the Israeli Arabs, who are treated very well in Israeli Universities, strongly oppose such a boycott. If we allow an enemy nation's calls to boycott a country to be taken seriously, then it is a serious precedent. I hear there are some Madrasses in Pakestan calling for an academic boycott of Britain and France. That's it then: we must boycott ourselves because a place of education somewhere in the world has asked for it. What a stupid idea.

We could also target academics from the US for their invasion of Iraq, Britain for their part in prisoner abuse there, China for their role in tibet, or even Zimbabwe for doing everything that is bad. But the fundamental tenat of academia is that every voice must be heard and must be accepted however challenging to the masses. So why have many people in UK decided to be racist against Israelis by targetting them and their views more than any other nation on Earth including many more 'deserving' nations (if there is such a concept of 'desrving' to be boycotted from the pursuit of knowledge).

This is even more troublesome and worrying because a lot of Israelis are Jewish, and when Jews were boycotted from academia last time, it resulted in 6 million deaths in the death camps including 1 million in the gas chambers of Aushwitz. How is sending this message to Israelis supposed to be positive?

Galalao was a minority of one, but he was right. Einstein was a minority of one but he was right. Martin Luther King was at one time a minority of one but he was right. The pursuit of academic knowledge demands that we include ALL views and genuinely listen to them rather than boycott those that we disagree.

Lets not forget that such actions are totally illegal according to the rules of all UK and international university because they are intollerent and essentially racist.

If anybody here comes accross such a boycott, please do not join it, and also report it to the University authorities so that the lecturers involved can be retrained into tollerence.

[Tormod]

You come forth as speaking for all Israelis, but do not forget that you are only speaking for yourself here.

Equating criticism of Israel with the prosecution of Jews is ignorant to the extreme.

I do not necessarily condone boycotts of any kind but I fail to see where your tolerance lies here. There is a lot of anger in your post.

Maybe you can help us understand the issue by providing a more balanced presentation of the matter?

[TheFaithfulStone]

You are obviously pretty upset about it.

But I see your point. It doesn't make much sense to boycott the academics of a country because you don't agree with the countries government's policies.

I agree that it runs contrary to the principles of academia.

But I think you might want to tone down the Holocaust rhetoric there. You do that enough and it become like Hitler comparisons, they lose their power. In a room where everybody is shouting, the loudest sound is a whisper...

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

Sure, I'll be happy to elaberate.

Firstly, I'm not speaking for all Israelis, I'm speaking for all of hunaity: boycotting a group, nation, or race from academic contribution simply because many of them have different political views to another academic, or a group of academics, is unprecedented and outright wrong.

Bias

As for being bias against this proposal, your right. I am extremely bias against the idea of an academic boycott because I believe it to be repugnant, as do many others. I admit that I am coming accross a little strongly, but I am passionate against racism and discrimination wherever it may be. Further it is very rare for the UK government to condemn the behaviour of academics but the UK government released a criticism fiercely criticising this decision. AAAP, another major world wide academic body has made its protest, and it has gone down like a lead baloon in Israel.

Background
Yesturday, Britain's largest lecturers' union, National Association of Teachers in Further and higher Education (Natfhe) yesturday voted in favour of a boycott of Israeli lecturers and academic institutions who do not publicly dissociate themselves from Israeli's 'apartheid policies'. This was dispite a petition from over 5000 academics. This particular resolution criticised what it calls 'Israeli Apartheid policies, including construction of the exclusion wall, and discriminatory educational practices' and invited members to 'consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those that do not publicly dissociate themselves from such policies'.

Arguments supporting the boycotters
"The majority of Israeli academics are either complicit or acquiesent in their government's policies in the occupied territories. Turning a blind eye to what an Israeli colleague thinks about the actions of their government is culpable blindness" - Tom Hickey (proposer of the motion)

"the vote is a historic step forward in helping persuade our Israeli academic colleagues that it is time to cease silent complicity with the illegal acts of the Israeli state". Stephen Rose (British Committee for the universities of Palestine).

"Natfhe's inspiring and historic decision ... will effectively contribute to the civil struggle aimed at ending the Israeli occupation and other forms of oppression of the Palestinians, but attaching a considerable price tag to Israel's unrelenting disregard of international law. The truth about the collusion of Israeli academic institutions in maintaining Israel's colonial and racist policies has come out. ... Indeed, Israeli academic instutions have consistantly cordened, even encouraged, the work of academics who advocate ethnic cleansing, apartheid, denial of refugee rights, and racial discrimination against the Palestinians. ... Sanctions and boycotts are morally and politically sound tactics which in the past, succeeded in bringing down the apartheid regime in South Africa." - Omar Barghouti (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural boycott of Israel).

My problem with the boycott

Being impartial, I think it is fair to say that the debate about the rights and wrongs in the Israel and Palestinian conflict is a very open one with many different respectable (and unrespectable) points of view on both sides. There are cirtainly no easy black and white answers or faultless parties. Whilst many of the Israeli tactics are hard on the Palestinians, they are militarily effective tactics, and without them, Israelis would face certain death at the hands of the extremist Palestinian suicide bombers.

However, those favouring such a boycott (such as Omar Bargouti) have come to the view that all the fault and blame lies on Israel. Not content, they have gone on to take the dangerous view that any Israelis who does not agree with them (ie by condemning the Israel government's policies) must be boycotted from academia. This is effectively Tom Hickey's argument. This seems to me to be tantamount to a McKarthan witch hunt designed not to convince but to silence views that arn't liked by them. This means that Israeli scientists requesting tissue samples to cure cancer or other deseases will have their requests turned down owing to their nationality. Other Israeli scientists leading the fight against climate change will be denied needed data. Clever, decent, hard working Israeli students will be turned down for jobs for modern languages (as what happened in UMIST, where the professor involved was severely disciplined, but the Israeli student never went to UMIST). These things being called for by the boycotters have nothing to do with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. It is this element of the Boycott that I am repulsed by because it is, in effect, either racist or intollerent.

Further, the caviat that Israeli academics that denounce their overnment's "arpartaid" policies is in practice a demand to state that the academic is ashamed of his nationality. Many proud Israelis trying to make life better for the Palestinians will still never that statement. Thus boycott supporters will still refuse to engage in scientific experiments with such people.

Counter productive

Further the point cannot be lost that the most likely target of such a boycott will be Jews. People supporting the boycott such as Stephen Rose believe (or say they believe) that somehow they might make Israelis listen harder to their views if they boycott them (how that works, I don't know). However, the point that all previous academic boycotts targeting Jewish people has lead to genocide (eg the holocaust) cannot be underestimated when it comes to dealing diplomatically with Israelis. This might explain why the decision is a front page story on nearly every Israeli and Jewish newspaper. This, combined with rising antisemitism in Europe over the last decade makes them particularly resentful and fearful of such boycotts. This may not have been intended, but basic cultural understanding shows this is a diplomatic blunder akin to drawing pictures of mohammed with a bomb for a turben. Already, the disappointment in Israel is such that the very integrity of British academia is being questioned. Such a boycott, if allowed to stand, will put an irrepairable barrier between Israelis and all British academics, which will achieve the very opposite of what is in the interests of peace.

Racist connitations
I believe that there is a clear line between political activism and spreading hate, which has been crossed by this McKarthan style boycott. Being against the boycott does not mean you are against the Palestinians. Although most Palestinian groups have expressed delight with this boycott, many of their sympathisors, including the Union's general secretary, have said, despite being critical of the Israeli government, he still opposes the boycott.

I would also like to make it clear. I am not equating criticism of Israel with persecution of Jews. There are many ways to criticise Israel without being racist.

However, one should note that extreme criticism of Israel is a favourite topic for modern day anti-semites. Don't take my word for it, go to Neo Nazi websites. They are full of articles using Israel to spread their real agenda of antisemitism.

Further, although it may not have anti-semitic motivations, if you organise a boycott of Israeli Jewish academics but no one else in the world, it is an anti-semitic policy.

Other options for spreading political views

In todays world, it is not like there are a shortage of alternative options to get your point accross. They could do a lecture at any one of these universities, or participate in a debate on the campus. You could make a film and play it in the universities, or write an article in the university papers.

But boycotting a view, or a people where a view is prominant, from academia is merely abusing academia for political ends. I would be just as opposed to any academic boycotts of Palestinian universities because I believe dialogue is more important than confrontation.

Illegality and the Boycott in practice
The idea of discriminating against a nation or a race in eductation for political beliefs is illegal in the UK and many other countries. Wherever this boycott has surfaced in the UK, the University Authorities have taken strong action often compelling the culprit to undergo retraining. However, to get round this, the boycotters are now urging a 'silent boycott' whereby the decision takes place without explaining the real discriminatory nature of their decision.

Skewing the debate
I believe this whole issue is bad for free debate because this debate assumes that Israel's policies are actually bad, when infact this, as well as the Palestinian policies, should be the main Israeli Palestinian debate. On the one hand, those against the boycott say a boycott is extremely bad, while those supporting the boycott say Israel is very bad. There is no room for people to argue that Israel is good or the Palestinians are not perfect. By skewing the debate in this way, Israel is losing the real debate not by good arguments but by a psycological trick. This is not helpful for peace and mutual understanding.

Conclusion

I would like to begin a debate here about whether academic boycotts are appropriate in this case, if ever. I believe that discrimination is outright wrong and should be confronted wherever possible. I believe this includes the boycott. I hope that others might agree with me and notify the University Authorities whenever they come across an example of discrimination against Israelis in consequence of this boycott.

I am not intending a debate on the substantive issues in the Israeli Palestinian conflict especially since such a debate will innevitably be skewed, so please try, for me, to keep "Israel's racist, nazi, arparthaid policies that commits genocide against all Palestinians and living things on the planet and stealing all their rights", or "Palestinian mad terrorist child eating murderers who have no humanity, and were born from the devil" to a minimum. Thanks.

[Qfwfq]

I don't think such a boycott is a great idea but I disagree with your rhetoric.

I have often been labelled antisemitic for having criticized military Zionism and related policies, some Zionists, whether Jewish or their supporters, resort to no end of pettiness to uphold their point of view.

[sebbysteiny]

I agree with you Qfwfq. There are alot of zionists that do cry 'antisemetism' at every opportunity. This is extremely frustrating because people stop listening to their other arguments, which is not an appropriate response. I haven't accused anybody of being anti-semitism in this debate.

However I am saying that an academic boycott is discrimintory in nature and appears to have only been applied to the case of Israel, where it could quite easily be applied to hundreds of other states. It seems the Univeristy Authorities agree.

But you don't have to accept every argument I say to accept the conclusions.

[sebbysteiny]

I agree with you Qfwfq. There are alot of zionists that do cry 'antisemetism' at every opportunity. This is extremely frustrating because people stop listening to their other arguments, which is not an appropriate response. I haven't accused anybody of being anti-semitism in this debate.

However I am saying that an academic boycott is discrimintory in nature and appears to have only been applied to the case of Israel, where it could quite easily be applied to hundreds of other states. It seems the Univeristy Authorities agree.

But you don't have to accept every argument I say to accept the conclusions.

[Qfwfq]

It is certainly a very delicate issue and it goes far beyond the borders of Israel/Palestine. One thing that I find serious is the fabrication of Truth that we've been seeing, perhaps the university authorities are getting fed up with it.

[sebbysteiny]

Your right Qfwfq, the Israeli Palestinian conflict is delicate and there is ALOT of abuse of truth. Having said that, it is not for the Universities Authorities to stop freedom of speech. Just racism and discrimination such as this boycott.

I have no idea how people who claim to value human rights and tollerance could support something as ugly as this.

[HydrogenBond]

Universities are not isolated entities but are often tied to govenment politics if the government supplies research funding. It is not nice to insult the quirks of one's benefactor. But this can lead to the silencing of opinions that could have a negative impact of that relationship. When money is involved people will often do tricks instead of act naturally.

The boycott could be a mechanism that will apply a different pressure to the university administration. They will have to weigh the opposing pressures maybe taking a more balance position that allows professors to voice new opinions that can detour off the mainstream.