UK 'regrets' NATFHE boycott decision -- Jerusalem Post 5/29/2006

[Coastie for Truth]

The British government regrets the decision by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) to vote in favor of boycotting Israeli academics and institutions, British Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Lord Triesman said Monday.

"The British Government has a record of supporting academic freedom for academics throughout the world. We also recognize the independence of NATFHE. We believe that such academic boycotts are counterproductive and retrograde. Far more can be obtained through dialogue and academic cooperation," a statement read.

<<<snip>>>

On Friday, The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) also announced that it condemned the proposed boycott and similarly urged NATFHE to withdraw the motion.

The statement released by the AAAS board of directors said it joined with other organizations "in condemning this proposed boycott as antithetical to the positive role of free scientific inquiry in improving the lives of all citizens of the world, and in promoting cooperation among nations, despite political differences." It added, "Free scientific inquiry and associated international collaborations should not be compromised in order to advance a political agenda unrelated to scientific and scholarly matters."


<<<snip>>>

[BayCityProgressive]

1. Ah yes

nothing quite like Anti-semitism. Why are the British not picking on the Saudis, North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians, ect???Nothing but pandering to anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish radicals.

[Jim Sagle]

2. Remember, folks...it's not antisemitism, it's anti-Zionism.

;-)

[Englander]

25. It's neither, it's anti-Apartheid. n/t

[Jim Sagle]

29. Apartheid's gone. Do try to keep up.

[Englander]

34. Not in the OPT. Haven't you noticed? n/t

[Jim Sagle]

44. No, And no one else has either. But some folks like to pretend.

[Englander]

45. That it doesn't exist in the OPT? They shure do. n/t

[Jim Sagle]

46. Apartheid is race-based. Israeli security practices are security-based.

Duhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

[Englander]

47. See post #34. n/t

[Jim Sagle]

48. Nothing to see.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. More knee-jerking...

The comment in yr post looks like it comes straight from the school of thought where criticism of Israeli policy equals Antisemitism. Rather than repeat what I've already said in yet another thread Coastie started on the boycott, here's a link to it. Once you've read that thread, can you please explain how a boycott of Israeli academics who support the occupation is Antisemitic?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x126252#126292

Violet....

[Coastie for Truth]

4. There is a conference on "Does Anti-Zionism=Anti-Semitism"

here in the Metro San Francisco Area next Monday.

As to your question "Once you've read that thread, can you please explain how a boycott of Israeli academics who support the occupation is Antisemitic?" - When I started out in elective Progressive politics in 1969-70, where the hot button issues were "African-Americans" and

• School integration,
• Job Opportunities - including affirmative action,
• University Hiring - including affirmative action,
• Open Housing and Restrictive Covenants, and
• Land use, Eminent Domain ("White Folks' Highways Through Black Folks' Bedrooms")

bigotry was in the eyes of the target or recipient. I do not see any difference.

[Violet_Crumble]

5. You didn't answer my question...

Which was: 'can you please explain how a boycott of Israeli academics who support the occupation is Antisemitic?'

You are NOT the target or recipient of this boycott, so seeing as how you replied to my post where I asked the question, how about trying to explain how an academic boycott of Israeli academics who support the occupation is Antisemitic?

Violet...

[Jim Sagle]

6. The occupation is shrinking, not growing. That's why.

Another reason why is that there would be NO occupation if the Palestinian side would cease its exterminationist terror campaign. The boycotters are effectively aiding, abetting and promoting this exterminationist terror campaign.

See, all ya gotta do is ask.

[Tom Joad]

7. There is no basis for your statement.

"there would be NO occupation if the Palestinian side would cease its exterminationist terror"
First, "exterminationist" is really over the top. Second, if Palestinians were sending flowers every day to Olmert the occupation would not stop... the settlers are there because Israel believes the land is theirs, and they are not about to share it with Palestinians. Third, the occupation is not really shrinking at all, it is consolidating to something very permanant.
See Bisharat
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x126374

Why not promote a non-violent campaign of divestment to change this situation?

[Coastie for Truth]

10. I am such a Progressive that not only do I not call for a boycott of

Bisharat, but I actually paid my own money to attend a seminar he gave at Hastings.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. But you haven't yet explained how the boycott is Antisemitic...

With all yr talk about yr expenditure, I'm tempted to post my last grocery receipt ;)

Violet...

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

23. And i was replying to Mr. Sagle. so you interrupted.

Surely Mr. Sagle can respond on his own.

[geek tragedy]

30. I'll take up the challenge.

It's anti-Semitic if they only direct their boycott efforts at the Jewish state, but happily entertain Saudi, Sudanese, and Chinese colleagues.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Sorry, but you just failed the 'challenge'...

For several reasons. The boycott isn't aimed at Jews, but at Israeli academics who support the occupation. And last time I checked it was Israel occupying the Palestinian territories, not any other country. So when countries like the US only direct their efforts when it comes to sanctions on an Arab state, you also think that's bigotry against Arabs in action? If not, why not?

Violet...

[geek tragedy]

43. Why no boycott of Chinese academics?

Why no boycott of Sudanese academics? Or of Saudi academics? Or American academics? Or of pro-war British academics?

Why only Israeli academics?

Throughout history, it's always been a politically expedient tactic to play "Kick the Jew."

When British leftists start showing a similar amount of concern for the people of Darfur or Tibet, then I'll believe that this boycott is born purely of human rights concerns.

This tactic reminds me of the "loyalty oath" thuggery that took place during the 1950's in the USA. Ironic, but not surprising, that the Trots are behind this effort.

[pelsar]

31. is it anti semetic....by default....

even though there are muslim israelis, christian israelis etc....i would bet that 99% of the "victims of this boycott will be jews.....it may not be "stated" that they are anti semetic nor will their supporters, yet the reality is that it will in fact be directed against a single social/religious/national group known throughout the world as jews who live in israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

37. I see. So you see criticism of the occupation as default Antisemitism?

After all, it's criticism of a country known throughout the world as the Jewish state. Same deal...

Violet...

[pelsar]

40. your confusing issues again...

criticizing the occupation is one thing.....boycotting a select group that is probably 99% jewish has a very similar ring to it....

[pelsar]

42. one is a "state"..the other is directed at people

critcising israeli policies is criticising a state.....boycotting people who happen to be jewish because they dont think properly or dont pass the proper loyalty test stinks of something else. It would be bad enough if it wasnt so specific to a group who share the same religion..but its not.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I didn't ask for weird answers that make no sense...

Opposing the occupation = Antisemitism is the sort of crap that the conservatives are fond of but progressives should be much too smart to fall for....

btw, making the sort of broadbrush negative statements about the Palestinians that were made in yr post is imo just a bit on the stinky side....

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

8. If one speaks against busing for racial integration of schools

any African-American can call the speaker a racist -- the burden is on the speaker to refute the allegation.

If one speaks in favor of restrictive covenants - anyone excluded can call the speaker a racist. The burden is on the speaker to refute the allegation.

If one advocates a boycott of Israeli academics (regardless of face saving weasel words and lawyer talk) the burden is on one who supports the boycott to show that it is not Antisemitic.

That has been the rule in Democratic Party circles since, at least, Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, and definitely as recently as the 1968 Presidential campaign.

This is neither a red herring nor evasion. This is "precedent" and "stare decisis."

[Tom Joad]

9. Was the boycott against the South Africa apartheid state

"racism" or political action taken to liberate millions of people from an unjust system?

[Coastie for Truth]

11. Please explain your question.

[Tom Joad]

22. Did you prefer Reagan's "constructive engagement" policy with

South Africa or Dellum's Divestment policy with apartheid South Africa?
Or Israel's full military support of South Africa (they helped South Africa to develop nukes)?

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Sorry, but that is a red herring and an evasion...

If one advocates a boycott of Israeli academics (regardless of face saving weasel words and lawyer talk) the burden is on one who supports the boycott to show that it is not Antisemitic.

Coastie. It's not very difficult to grasp. The boycott is NOT against Jews. For anyone to claim that it's Antisemitic imo just shows how eager they are to label just about everything and everyone Antisemitic....

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

15. They have an expression in the cattle ranches of Texas

Coastie. It's not very difficult to grasp. The boycott is NOT against Jews. For anyone to claim that it's Antisemitic imo just shows how eager they are to label just about everything and everyone Antisemitic....

COW PADDIE

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Then try explaining how this boycott is against Jews...

It shouldn't be too difficult to do if that's what you believe it is...

Violet...

[eyl]

27. Well,

I am a target of this boycott, so let me ask this:

The NATFHE doesn't have any specific interest in this conflict. That is, it is not an organization dedicated to either Israel, the Palestinians, or even the Middle East*. That being so, presumably they have a dedication to global rights globally.

Yet, doing a Google search, I can find no mention of their so much as contemplating a boycott on political or HR grounds against any other countries other than Israel; including countries with far worse HR abuses generally and against academic freedom in particular.

Does this mean the NATFHE is anti-semetic? Personally, I doubt it (though of course some of their memebers may be). But there is no question that they are singling out Israel for a level of criticism they apparently consider sufficiently severe for no other country. This is particularly egregious given their accompanying decision to increase ties with Palestinian academic institutions, with no regard or even mention that those facilities have given considerably more support to terrorism than Israeli ones have given to the occupation. They certainly aren't required to affirm that they have no ties to terrorism.

EDIT: See also this

*To clarify, let me give a counterexample; B'Tselem is an HR organization specifically focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So the fact that they never have any criticism of, say, China, does not indicate any lapse or hypocrasy on their part, because it's outside their purview.

[pelsar]

32. excellent response

I am far more concerned to see solidarity in action with the Palestinians – both in the occupied territories and Israel itself - than with verbal support extracted through blackmail. It may be that the proposers of the NATFHE boycott were not conscious anti-semites. It may be that the loyalty test was clumsily added as a “compromise” against a blanket boycott. So what? It doesn’t make it any less anti-semitic in its consequences. If I were a Israeli academic campaigning for Palestinian rights I would only have one response to the NATFHE demand – the response would be to get lost. Otherwise I would not be able to live with myself in the morning


http://www.engageonline.org.uk/blog/article.php?id=444

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Yr not a target of the boycott unless you support the occupation...

And the impression I get is that you support a two-state solution. When it comes to trying to equate asking Israeli academics what is a simple question to McCarthyism, that's not even in the same ball-park. The 'reds under the beds' hysteria of the McCarthy era is in no way the same as asking an Israeli academic whether or not they disavow a long-term and brutal occupation their own country is carrying out. I used to open tenders for large construction and maintenance work and there was a question in the tender documents asking if the tenderer used goods or services from a particular country that our govt had some issues with. If the answer was yes or the question wasn't answered, the tender was put to the side and disregarded. There's about the same tinge of McCarthyism to that as there is to the boycott, imo. After all, goods and services are the building industries tools of the trade, while for academics it's their thoughts...

Personally, I'm not all that fond of boycotts, mainly coz they do have a habit of hurting folk who the action isn't aimed at. I think a more fruitful result would come from increasing ties with both Israeli and Palestinian academics while making it very clear that neither the occupation or terrorism are acceptable ideologies to support...

Violet...

[eyl]

39. Read the reports of the boycott again

I'm a target so long as I do not publicly disavow the occupation; something I certainly won't do under duress.

To prevent spreading this discussion over five different threads, let me repeat what I asked you in the other one:

What does it mean to "support the occupation"? And who defines it? For example, I've argued on this board in favor of the barrier extending beyond the Green Line, because I believe it can't fulfill its security functions if it were on the Green Line. I support the two-state solution, but I also support the current goverment's policy of unilaterally setting the borders if negotiations do not ensue. I support Israel retaining the settlement blocks with a territorial swap (something, mind, that has been agrred to by Palestinian negotiators, eg at Taba and the Geneva Accords). I think that the assassination policy is justified in principle (though not necessarily in all the cases it's been used).

Do any of these positions make me a "supporter of the occupation"? If so, which? I suspect that to the supporters of this boycott, the answer would be "all of them".

And the flip side of the question: who decides what is a sufficiently abject decleration of "opposing the occupation"? Do you merely need to declare your support of a two-state solution? Condemn the settlers? Condemn the IDF? Maybe the government?

I also disagree that you can draw an equivalence between goods and ideas. In the realm of politics (in the broad sense of the word), ideas are the basic building blocks. How can you get anywhere if you cut off a segment of the population you should be debating with.

Furthermore, the free exchange of ideas is at the heart of academic activity. An academic boycott runds directly against that. Goods are usually interchangable. If you can't buy, say, nails from one country, you can get them from another; they'll probably be just as good. Ideas, however, are not. Say that if a British researcher collaberates with an Israeli researcher, they finda cure for cancer. That result might not be replicated by any other partnering the British researcher might make.

[Englander]

26. So, how is this boycott a-S?

Also, this boycott is not aimed at yourself, Coastie, it's aimed at Israeli academics who support
the occupation. Since you are not the target or the recipient, how can you declare that this boycott,
which clearly isn't 'bigotry', is something that it clearly isn't? If that is the definition that you
are using to define this boycott as a-S, then by your definition, you are saying that this boycott is
not an eg of bigotry. The only way that this boycott could be defined as bigotry, is if it is falsely
represented, & mis-understood. It's a selective, voluntary boycott.

Conference notes continuing Israeli apartheid policies, including construction of the exclusion wall, and discriminatory educational practices. It recalls its motion of solidarity last year for the AUT resolution to exercise moral and professional responsibility.

Conference instructs the NEC to facilitate meetings in each university and college, and to circulate information to Branches, offering to fund the speakers' travel costs.

Conference invites members to consider their own responsibility for ensuring equity and non-discrimination in contacts with Israeli educational institutions or individuals and to consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those that do not publicly dissociate themselves from such policies.

[pelsar]

16. its mimics the best of the facist govts....

The boycott is aimed at those who do not disavow the occupation. That's not the samething as supporting it

The requirement of political compliance is something usually demanded by probably all facists/dicatatorships...its political correctness thats all it is:

"you dont agree with my views..then you have "no right" to join the community of intl researchers.....funny thing about their paticular political correctness, i dont recall it including palestenain researchers who dont disavow suicide bombers.

I also noticed the principed lacking: "we wont use israeli reseach that includes researchers that dont disavow the occupation" seems to me that should go hand in hand with such a boycott.....

[Violet_Crumble]

18. No-one who opposes the occupation would have problems disavowing it..

So no matter how it's twisted, it's the same thing. Also, speaking of fascist govts and mimicking, I seem to recall fascist govts were big on occupying territory that didn't belong to them :)

Violet...

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

24. why stop at the occupation?

seems to me if one is going to demand political obediance from people there sure are a lot more areas that such a thing can be demanded of....

or is this just an israeli occupation thing....or can i understand from your comments that you are for additional boycotts of additional countries where the researchers dont follow the correct political line?

[Violet_Crumble]

38. If you read my posts....

...you'd have noticed that I've stated quite a few times that I'm conflicted on the entire boycott thing and I've stated why. So why are you asking me if I'd support additional boycotts??

Violet...

[pelsar]

41. I've read and dont understand the problem...

one is either for 'thought control" , witchhunts, book burnings etc or one is against it....trying to play around and decide which thoughts and which political viewpoints are "correct" and which ones deserve to be boycotted is the realm of racists and dictatorships....

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

19. Paul Krugman had an article this morning

about how the Bush Administration and his PNAC backers, Big Oil, enforce political otrhodoxy among scientists--

Swift Boating the Planet, Paul Krugman, NY Times, 5/29/2006
<<<snip>>>
But soon after Dr. Hansen's 1988 testimony, energy companies began a campaign to create doubt about global warming, in spite of the increasingly overwhelming evidence. And in the late 1990's, climate skeptics began a smear campaign against Dr. Hansen himself.

Leading the charge was Patrick Michaels, a professor at the University of Virginia who has received substantial financial support from the energy industry. In Senate testimony, and then in numerous presentations, Dr. Michaels claimed that the actual pace of global warming was falling far short of Dr. Hansen's predictions. As evidence, he presented a chart supposedly taken from a 1988 paper written by Dr. Hansen and others, which showed a curve of rising temperatures considerably steeper than the trend that has actually taken place.

In fact, the chart Dr. Michaels showed was a fraud — that is, it wasn't what Dr. Hansen actually predicted. The original paper showed a range of possibilities, and the actual rise in temperature has fallen squarely in the middle of that range. So how did Dr. Michaels make it seem as if Dr. Hansen's prediction was wildly off? Why, he erased all the lower curves, leaving only the curve that the original paper described as being "on the high side of reality."
<<<snip>>>

The teachers union are the real Neocon-PNACERs with BushCo thought control. The more "Progressive" they try to be - the more PNAC-Neocon-Bushco they become.

[pelsar]

28. Thought Control at its best...

"if you dont think like us....be on the "proper side"....you shall be boycotted....

well they've certainly made themselves clear: how more anti liberal/anti progressive can one get.....should we now start to burn the books of those researchers who dont disavow the occupation...or perhaps boycott the scientific journals that carry their articles... (burning is more dramatic)

what about the israeli companies, the company mission statement. Perhaps if they dont contain the proper political message they too shall be boycotted....


but not intel, or motorola or amdocs...companys which israeli reseach has improved the lives of the boycotters...that after all would inconvience them...hypocrisy at its best. (we'll boycott you, but we'll use your reseach....)

and for those who are "pro boycott"...any ideas for other countries we should target?