Lecturers back boycott of Israel (UK)

[oberliner]

University lecturers today threatened to provoke international condemnation over academic freedom by forcing their union into a year-long debate over boycotting work with Israeli universities.

Delegates at the first conference of the new University and College Union in Bournemouth voted by more than three to two to recommend boycotts in protest at Israel's "40-year occupation" of Palestinian land and to condemn the "complicity" of Israeli academics.

The conference motion said there should be "a comprehensive and consistent boycott" of all Israeli academic institutions, as called for by Palestinian trade unions.

Delegates voted by 158 to 99 in favour of the motion. The union's leadership must now circulate calls from Palestinians for a boycott of Israeli universities to all branches throughout the country.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,2091498,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

[Tom Joad]

1. Nonviolent action against military occupation. That is the key to progress in the Middle East

This is an example of that. May many more unions and institutions follow this lead.

[oberliner]

2. Dialogue and communication would be another helpful approach

Cutting off communication among academics appears seriously counterproductive.

Sad that so many unions and institutions (particularly in Britain) are approaching the conflict in this matter.

The key to peace is dialogue.

It is ridiculous to, on the one hand, demand that Israelis talk to Hamas (a terrorist organization), while on the other hand refuse to conduct dialogue with Israeli professors and other creative thinkers in order to help bring about an end to this conflict.

[Tom Joad]

3. 40 years of UN resolution and "peace processes" have brought nothing but

expanded settlements. Israeli leaders should have realized that this lawlessness will bring nothing but isolation.

[oberliner]

4. They've brought about an end to the occupation

In Sinai, which was returned to Egypt in exchange for peace between those two countries.

A peace agreement which, as former President Jimmy Carter often points out, has been upheld to the letter since its signing.

They've led to a peace agreement between Israel and Jordan which established normalization between those two countries.

They've led to Palestinian self-rule in parts of the West Bank and all of Gaza.

[Tom Joad]

17. It has brought nothing but increased misery for the Palestinians.

"Self rule"? When a Wall can go through their farmland? When their farms can be plowed under? When their homes can be destroyed? When a new settlement can be created? What kind of "self rule" is that?

Like maybe they get to choose what day the garbage is picked up?

[Shaktimaan]

18. Don't be silly.

The matter of who gets to choose garbage day is still under negotiations.

[pelsar]

10. some prefer the boycott...even if it hurts the palestenians....

research by israelis and germans and palestenians to better feed the palestenains (including the children) and aid in their health isnt as important as a boycott of israels liberal institutions....strange set of priorities for those who profess to care about the palestenians welfare: (or maybe some are "expendable?")

______________

Israeli researchers are working closely with Palestinian counterparts on a number of scientific projects designed not only to lead to breakthroughs which will help mankind but to also support the growth of the burgeoning Palestinian scientific community.

Thanks to funding from Detusche Forschunsgemeinschaft (DFG), the German Research Foundation, Israeli, Palestinian and German researchers from Hebrew University, Al-Quds University in east Jerusalem and the University of Hohenheim in Germany, are working closely together in trilateral cooperation on a number of projects.

The group has been working on an environmentally safe method for increasing the yield of the Nile tilapia, better known in Israel as St. Peter's fish. Success of the project, it is hoped, will lead to fish pond farming in the Palestinian economy, something which is very rare at present.

Currently a water recirculation system is being built at Al-Quds University in East Jerusalem to facilitate further work on this project, which has been ongoing for a year.

It has also helped in retaining scientists in the region and in building friendship and leadership that will work together for a better future and peace."

http://www.israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Articles%5El1409&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Democracy

[LeftishBrit]

5. Just because the meeting recommends it, doesn't mean it will happen

Most academics will just go their own way.

By the way, my own local branch of the AUT had a recent vote and voted decisively *against* a boycott.

[henank]

6. Haaretz opposes the boycott

Britain has become in recent years the battlefield in Israel's fight for its existence as a Jewish state.

The number of British organizations calling for the boycott of Israel, their public campaigns, and their constant comparisons between Israel and the apartheid regime of South Africa have made the battle for British public opinion particularly significant.

On Wednesday, representatives of the new British University and College Union (UCU) will be meeting in Bournemouth. On the agenda is another proposal to boycott Israel's academic institutions. These proposals have become as regular and as predictable as Qassam attacks on Sderot. The fact that studies at the Sapir Academic College in Sderot are not taking place because of the constant rocket fire from Gaza, even though the college is not in occupied territory and Gaza is no longer occupied, apparently does not bother British academia.

Hypocrisy anyone?

The fact that Hamas, which controls the Palestinian Authority, does not recognize even pre-1967 Israel, and commits acts of terror against civilians, does not matter either. These nuances did not stop one boycott initiator from saying last week that justice in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is entirely on one side.

In the face of boycott proposals by Britain's National Union of Journalists, by a group of British doctors and a group of architects, and in the wake of the Anglican Church's decision to divest from companies cooperating with Israel, even the Israeli left - which opposes the occupation and has been working against it for years - has no choice but to fight back. Taking off the gloves in this debate involves knowingly foregoing the kudos that British academia lavishes on all who are willing to express anti-Israel stands. The UCU has even had the termerity to proclaim that Israeli lecturers who disown the policies of the Israeli government will not be boycotted. It is British academics who should lose sleep over this McCarthyistic demand. Academic freedom means first of all an open exchange of opinions, without coercion, and not shutting people's mouths. Moreover, the British boycott is directed at Israel's academic institutions that in any case are a bastion of opposition to the occupation.

...snip...

The anti-Zionist winds blowing in Europe, mainly in academia and in Britain, strengthen the position that the very birth of the Jewish state was a mistake. The European hard left regards the Law of Return as the root of all evil; however, without acknowledging the Jewish character of the State of Israel, there is not even a basis for dialogue. British academia is in fact demanding that Israel democratically cease to exist as a Zionist entity, and that it be swallowed up in the non-democratic region in order to pander to the latest trend.

Haaretz

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Hypocrisy indeed...

The bit you bolded from the editorial:


'The fact that studies at the Sapir Academic College in Sderot are not taking place because of the constant rocket fire from Gaza, even though the college is not in occupied territory and Gaza is no longer occupied, apparently does not bother British academia.'

Let's talk about hypocrisy. According to some, an academic college in Sderot not being able to run its classes normally because of rocket attacks is something to be outraged over, but not once was it mentioned that Israel has closed Palestinian universities. Apparently academic freedom and all those ideals should only apply to Israeli universities...

Israelis close two Palestinian universities
January 17 2003


Alaadin al-Burini, a senior at Hebron University, went to the campus yesterday morning and found the gates welded shut.

The Israeli army had closed the university overnight along with another academic institution in town, the Palestine Polytechnic University, and soldiers were dispersing students and imposing a curfew with stun grenades, sirens and loudspeaker calls.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/16/1042520725582.html

Israel urged to lift ban on Palestinian students
Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
Wednesday May 30, 2007

Four Israeli university presidents and several high-profile authors today called on the Israeli government to lift its restrictions on Palestinian students.
The call, in a letter to the defence minister, appears to have been timed to coincide with the vote among British academics over a proposed boycott on Israeli universities.

The group said Israel should lift a ban that prevents all Palestinian students in Gaza from studying in the West Bank. Several courses, including medicine, occupational therapy and health administration are only available in the West Bank, but Gazan students are not given permission to travel there to study. Israel usually cites security concerns.

"Blocking access to higher education for Palestinian students from Gaza who choose to study in the West Bank casts a dark shadow over Israel's image as a state which respects and supports the principle of academic freedom and the right to education," the letter said.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,2091528,00.html

Academic Freedom in Palestine
'The University Will Remain Closed'
By Abu Salma
September 1990; pages 12-13; Volume 2, No. 1

To a UT student, it would perhaps be welcome news: "The Universities Will Remain Closed." But for some 17,000 Palestinian students in the Occupied Territories, it's a condition they will have to endure for a third consecutive year. Palestinian schools and universities were closed shortly after the breakout of the Intifada in December of 1987.

The Israeli Civil Administrator, carrying out the orders of the military, closed all Palestinian educational institutions (including, eventually, kindergartens), thus beginning a new era of Israeli harassment against education. Schools and universities were subjected to military harassment in the past, but the level of brutality and the singling out of education as a target for this brutality are the direct results of the Israeli effort to further supress the will for self-determination on the part of the Palestinian people.

Officially the Israeli Civil Administration, as of mid July 1989, has allowed the reopening of the schools. Most schools, however, remain the targets of individual or local closing orders. The five major universities will remain closed until further notice. As of today, only the Health Professions and the Sciences Departments of al-Quds University were allowed to reopen (largely due to international efforts). The Israeli Administration claimed that this was only a test, and the remaining departments and universities would follow only if no further "disturbances" occurred. In the past the shooting and killing of a Palestinian student by Israeli soldiers was considered adequate reason to close the universities. Thus, many Palestinians are skeptical about the results of this test.

http://www.utwatch.org/archives/polemicist/vol2no1_closeduniversities.html

[Shaktimaan]

16. Yes, hypocracy.

Violet, It's no secret that Palestinian universities were occasionally shut down during the intifadas. The difference is that they were not shut down because of any danger that the student body might be blown to smithereens at any given time as is the case in Sderot, and there was not any large scale boycott of Palestinian academia being organized anywhere. Moreover, there was often a legitimate reason for Israel to close some Palestinian schools. The closures reflected security concerns and were not intended to be any sort of punishment or reprisal against the greater Palestinian population. As such, the closures were infrequent and usually short.

For instance, the first closure you listed was the result of students using the chemistry labs at the two universities to manufacture bombs used in an attack that left 23 Israelis dead.

I only know of one university that was closed for what seems like an unjustifiably long period of time. In any case, there still isn't any correlation between Palestinian U closures and the British boycott. If the British were claiming that they would no longer work with Israeli universities because of security concerns or some other kind of real danger being posed, there'd be something to that argument. It would also make more sense if Israel had ruled out any academic collaberation with Palestinians or something similar. But doing so would be nearly as impotent and counterproductive as the British doing so. Not quite though.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Yes, it is total hypocrisy to be outraged about one and not the other...

Security concerns is not an excuse to shut down universities and schools the way Israel has.

If the British were claiming that they would no longer work with Israeli universities because of security concerns or some other kind of real danger being posed, there'd be something to that argument.

Oh, so the occupation isn't any kind of real danger being posed to anyone? Somehow, I don't think Palestinians would agree with you on that...

[Shaktimaan]

27. So, let me get this straight.

I want to make sure that I am clear on your position. Let me know if any of the following is an innaccurate understanding of your viewpoint.

• It is hypocritical to be outraged by rocket attack induced school closure in Israel without feeling an equal amount of outrage over Palestinian school closures enforced by Israel due to security concerns.

• It does not make sense to reject the British boycott without also rejecting Israel's decision to close Palestinian schools.

• Israel is not closing Palestinian schools because of legitimate security concerns but as a means of inflicting collective punishment on the Palestinian population at large.

Thanks, let me know if I misunderstood you at all. And I don't see how the following ties in to our discussion.

Oh, so the occupation isn't any kind of real danger being posed to anyone? Somehow, I don't think Palestinians would agree with you on that...

Do you mean that the rocket attacks on Sderot are an attempt to minimize the danger posed to Palestinians by the occupation? I don't see how rocketing Sderot will result in greater (and not less) security for Palestinians. And I also don't see how Sderot's college closure in any way benefits the Palestinian's security situation or otherwise has anything to do with the occupation. And I really don't see what this has to do with the boycott at all.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. No, you didn't get it straight...

• It is hypocritical to be outraged by rocket attack induced school closure in Israel without feeling an equal amount of outrage over Palestinian school closures enforced by Israel due to security concerns.

I didn't say anything about an equal amount of outrage. I've yet to see even the slightest bit of outrage. And as I explained that 'security concerns' is just an excuse made to justify why it's okay to close academic institutions which is swallowed hook, line and sinker by some...

And I don't see how the following ties in to our discussion.

'Oh, so the occupation isn't any kind of real danger being posed to anyone? Somehow, I don't think Palestinians would agree with you on that...'

I'll refresh yr memory. It was in response to you saying: 'If the British were claiming that they would no longer work with Israeli universities because of security concerns or some other kind of real danger being posed, there'd be something to that argument.'

[Shaktimaan]

30. Ah, I see.

So what real danger is posed to anyone, British or Palestinian, by Israelis attending British schools?

[Violet_Crumble]

32. No, you don't see...

How did the occupation get morphed into Israelis attending British schools?

[Shaktimaan]

35. I was never discussing the occupation.

This thread is about the British Academic boycott, isn't it? You responded to this comment I made...

If the British were claiming that they would no longer work with Israeli universities because of security concerns or some other kind of real danger being posed, there'd be something to that argumen

by saying that the occupation poses a real danger. So I am asking you, what sort of danger does the occupation pose which is a result of Britain's and Israel's academic ties to one another, and how does the British ban help to alleviate said danger?

[Shaktimaan]

7. Totally counterproductive.

Academia is usually an area that operates as independently from politics as possible. That it is the academics themselves who are proposing this and not just a politician is a sad indicator for British academia. Academia is a tool most effectively used to build bridges as international collaboration benefits all parties, particularly in research fields that have very real medical and scientific benefits. The flip side is that withholding such access is not exactly a great hardship that affects anyone's day to day life, thus it is an ineffective item to threaten to withhold. This is obviously more about getting press than it is about imposing any real pressure on Israel.

Considering that it is British lecturers threatening to boycott makes this seem even sillier or at least more hypocritical. The British put down the Arab Revolt of '36 to '39 using similar methods as Israel now uses, markedly different only in that the British were substantially more brutal than Israel is.

Moreover, Britain's participation in the Iraq War has them occupying another country themselves. The difference being that Israel's occupation resulted from a defensive war which has never been adequately resolved. God only knows why we attacked Iraq. And if we compare the number of civilian casualties in Iraq that of Palestine, (as well as the casualty ratio), it would seem that Britain has a lot to learn about keeping them to a comparative minimum. Perhaps they could learn from Israel, provided they don't follow through with their pointless and hypocritical boycott.

Incidentally, Israel engaged the PLO in negotiations before Britain did with the IRA. Despite the far greater threat posed by the PLO. Britain should look in a mirror.

[LeftishBrit]

9. I agree with this, except that it's important to clarify that this is not 'British academia'

as a whole.

It's a noisy minority who like to go to meetings and make empty gestures.

I do agree that if we're going to boycott Israel, then logically we should boycott America - and boycott ourselves - over the Iraq war.

[Shaktimaan]

11. You're right of course.

Apologies for lumping y'all together. Or all of British Academia, I guess.

I hate it when people do that, too. It was unintentional.

[LeftishBrit]

31. Thanks - no problem!

Some of the background to my comment is that I am a British academic, who has been continually frustrated for years by the ineffectualness of the UCU and its predecessor the AUT in doing the sort of things that a trade union is actually *supposed* to do!

[Violet_Crumble]

14. The problem with Shaktimaan's logic is where it leads when it comes to other boycotts...

Right now our cricket team is boycotting Zimbabwe. I've heard and read arguments for and against it, and am still torn on whether the boycott should be happening and if it will have any effectiveness at all. While the differences between the boycotts is one is sporting and the other is academic, and the UK one is not one where the British govt is supporting or imposing the boycott while ours is, our cricket boycott has led to accusations of racism and selectivity. Anyone who wants to claim that the UK unions are being selective might want to explain to me why the Australian cricket boycott isn't selective. After all, we play against England, and shouldn't we be boycotting them and ourselves over the Iraq war? ;)

[Shaktimaan]

19. The Australian cricket boycott?

How is cricket similar to Academia?

Seriously, it's one thing to boycott something like a sporting event or a company. But it is a far cry from the severity and utter pointlessness of academic sanctions. Consider the difference between your cricket boycott and if Australia chose to pinkslip all visiting professors and students who are on exchange or have transfered from Zimbabwe and proclaimed a blanket ban on allowing future collaboration between Australian and Zimbabwean (sp?) academia. Including a ban on admitting students and professors currently teaching or studying at any of Zimbabwe's schools.

There's also the matter of perhaps allowing academics who publicly denounce "the policies of the Israeli government" to be exempt from the ban. As evidenced right here on DU, in the discussions between you and I even, there is a wide range of differing opinion on this conflict, none of which are invalid. Despite what some believe, there is no aspect of this conflict that is simple, and neither side bears either total responsibility or control over the failure of the peace process. If there is any subject that can benefit from increased discussion from the widest array of viewpoints available, it is the Israel/Palestine debate. Restricting professors and students based on their adherence to a particular ideology, (no matter what that ideology happens to be), seems to me to be an affront to the whole point of going to university.

I remember back when I was in school, our university's Black Student Union brought Khalid Abdul Muhammed to speak. I went to hear what he had to say, and the man is utterly racist, repugnant and little of what he said was even factually accurate. But I would not have agreed with an attempt to keep him from visiting. And I would have vigorously fought any movement that tried to require students to publicly denounce his ideas in order to be allowed to register for classes.

It also needs to be said that there is a tremendous difference between the policies of Israel and those of Zimbabwe. Selecting Israel as the constant target for attacks while nations like Saudi Arabia, China, Cambodia, etc. are seldom, if ever, focused on, implies that it isn't JUST about the occupation or the actions of the IDF. There's clearly other motives at work. What they are, exactly, is open to speculation.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. You appear to have missed the point...

My argument wasn't that sports and academia are the same, which is why I said: 'While the differences between the boycotts is one is sporting and the other is academic, and the UK one is not one where the British govt is supporting or imposing the boycott while ours is, our cricket boycott has led to accusations of racism and selectivity.'

My point was about selectivity. Could you explain why our sporting boycott isn't being just as selective as any boycott of Israel?

[henank]

22. The Oz boycott is entirely different

From what I've been given to understand, the Australian cricket boycott is only a ban on Australian cricketers travelling to Zimbabwe (in order not to lend legitimacy to the government of Zimbabwe by being hosted by them). The boycott is not of Zimbabwean cricket teams or players, nor are Zimbabwean cricket teams banned from coming to Australia to play, nor (I think, no 100% sure) does the boycott call for any other sports team to boycott Zimbabwe. This is therefore entirely different to the boycott call from the UK lecturers' union, which calls for a boycott of Israeli academics and institutions everywhere, and does not call only for a ban on UK lecturers travelling to Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. No, it's not...

Well, apart from one is a sporting boycott imposed by a government, and the other one will be an academic one that isn't organised by a government. If you think that a team from Zimbabwe will be allowed to play here, yr wrong. Also, as with most boycotts, neither the Australian cricket boycott or the British academics one about calling for everyone else to boycott with them...

But as my point was selectivity, could you try answering the question I asked in my post?

[henank]

24. Selectivity?

Just count how many calls for boycotts, bans, embargos, sanctions, isolation and general condemnation there are against Israel, whether its produce, its exports or its academics. You can't can you, because they are too numerous. As has been pointed out, Sapir college in the south of Israel has been closed because of rocket fire but although I've been waiting for a condemnation, all I hear is crickets...

Now, to compare like with like (Zimbabwe doesn't enter this equation) count how many similar calls there are or have been against Arab countries who overtly discriminate against Jews, Christians and any number of other minorities. Saudi Arabia won't allow Jews to even set foot in its country, not to mention there is absolutely no freedom of religion there at all. I have yet to hear of a boycott call against Saudi Arabia. Just today the Guardian published an article about intimidation at Iranian universities Talk to foreigners and we will view you as a spy. Yet no one has called for a boycott of Iranian universities. In Egypt and Jordan, both of which have peace treaties with Israel, any trade union member who makes contact with or visits Israel is immediately punished and expelled from their union. Boycotts anybody?

So yes, Israel is selected against continuously and one-sidedly.

[Violet_Crumble]

26. Yes, selectivity...

Instead of going off on some tangent, how about answering the question I asked? And that is I'd like to see someone try to explain how the Australian boycott of Zimbabwe isn't selective while claiming any proposed boycott of Israel is....

As has been pointed out, Sapir college in the south of Israel has been closed because of rocket fire but although I've been waiting for a condemnation, all I hear is crickets...

Nope, you've seen me call anyone being outraged over that while not giving a toss about all the Israeli closures of Palestinian universities a hypocrite...

[Shaktimaan]

29. Well, Violet...

I don't judge sporting events and academics by the same yardstick. By the same token, the west imposed sanctions on Iraq under Saddam, yet via the oil for food program some items were exempted from the boycott because of their need and/or value. So sporting goods and luxury items were not sanctioned at the same level as medicine, which Iraq was given access to.

Asking what the difference in selectivity is between these two boycotts is comparing apples and oranges. But since you really want an answer... the difference is that Zimbabwe is the most despotic nation around whose citizens must bear the twin horrors of Robert Mugabe and cricket, a legacy the British inflicted on helpless nations the world over. Were it that the entire world was somehow exposed to enough industrial waste that they came to enjoy cricket en masse, it would be hypocritical to boycott Zimbabwe while playing against North Korea.

In the case of the British boycott, Israel has been singled out from a wide field of criminal states far far worse than Israel could bring themselves to dream about. None of which, incidentally, is deserving of an academic boycott, which is playing on the side of the despots against a frequently innocent population. So if Britain sees no problem with admitting radical Maoists from Nepal without asking them to publicly denounce the practices of their leader then it is hypocritical to do so to Israel. And it bears repeating, it is wrong to require that anyone subscribe to a preset belief, (especially one that condemns their nation or culture), in order to attend university. Academia should strive to provide a forum free of prejudices.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Yr still missing the point, Shaktimaan...

I don't judge sporting events and academics by the same yardstick.

Seeing I've already told you that the point of what I said was about the selectivity of boycotts, not whether one boycott is exactly the damn same as another, why are you insisting on acting as though it's not been pointed out to you?

Asking what the difference in selectivity is between these two boycotts is comparing apples and oranges. But since you really want an answer... the difference is that Zimbabwe is the most despotic nation around whose citizens must bear the twin horrors of Robert Mugabe and cricket, a legacy the British inflicted on helpless nations the world over. Were it that the entire world was somehow exposed to enough industrial waste that they came to enjoy cricket en masse, it would be hypocritical to boycott Zimbabwe while playing against North Korea.

No, it's only comparing apples and oranges if someone is intent on avoiding examining the hypocrisy of complaining of selectivity when it comes to one boycott, while ignoring accusations of selectivity when it comes to another. Also, yr hyperbole about Zimbabwe is pretty pathetic. It's the most despotic nation around? There's quite a few that are far worse. Will you be needing a list of these despotic nations that you've obviously never heard of before?

As for yr nonsense about cricket, it's one of the best legacies of the British, and you clearly have no comprehension of the economic and political impact that refusing to play in a country causes. Because they're the reasons for the boycott...

btw, you said 'Were it that the entire world was somehow exposed to enough industrial waste that they came to enjoy cricket en masse, it would be hypocritical to boycott Zimbabwe while playing against North Korea.' Let's apply that to an academic boycott by the British. You've been complaining loudly of selectivity, but do you have anything to suggest that British academics do anything with Iranian or North Korean or Sudanese academics for them to boycott?

[Shaktimaan]

36. I get it.

You are talking about selectivity in a very general way, not making a comparison of standards used by your boycott vs. Britain's, right? For the record, I genuinely was not catching your point. It was not an act. I don't count "feigning miscommunication for use as a diversion tactic" as a legit debating tactic. Next time just take a second to calm yourself and try to articulate your point in a different way. It will be appreciated.

Now, I realize that there are more tyrannical governments than Zimbabwe out there. But how many of them play cricket? (Ah HAH!) Seriously, you're quite right, I don't know anything about cricket and I should really refrain from ridiculing it. If for nothing else then just because it is really too easy a target. Bashing cricket seems unsportsmanlike, it's like playing full contact against a pee wee hockey team or mugging the elderly. Which is why I am trying to keep myself as clueless as possible regarding all things cricket. Once I discover all of the hysterical oddities of cricket that are REAL (as opposed to all the fake ones I use now which were just made up out of thin air during a lunch break), I wouldn't be able to resist picking on it. And no one likes a bully.

Anyway, if there does exist a nation that trumps Zimbabwe for similar reasons, (using an equivalent set of standards), as those that condemned Zimbabwe, (tyranny? exporting economic instability? fostering racism? grinding up christian children to bake Matzo, the Zimbabwean bread of suffering and pain, etc.) and Australia chooses NOT to boycott them as well then they are being unfair and hypocritical, and I would venture that some other unspoken reasons exist which made Zimbabwe a more attractive target than, I dunno, Afghanistan, for argument's sake. Afghanistan is an OK example because there IS a reason that they would not be boycotted despite their numerous failings.

You've been complaining loudly of selectivity, but do you have anything to suggest that British academics do anything with Iranian or North Korean or Sudanese academics for them to boycott?

First off, I used Saudi Arabia, China and Cambodia as examples and purposefully not Sudan because I don't think Sudan is in any way applicable to this discussion. I really don't want to demean the holocaust that's occurring by flippantly discussing the merits of an academic boycott against the Sudanese. Especially since most have absolutely no control over their already hideous situation. As for N.K., of course you're right, there are no academic exchanges of any sort. But if something were somehow organized in the future I am sure you'd agree with me that refusing to participate for political reasons would be both a crime and counter productive. And as for Iran, yes, Iran and Britain do have joint academic things going on to some small degree. But again, academic relationships of this sort is something that we would want to nurture and expand upon.

The same goes for Saudi Arabia, China and Cambodia. I would also like to add again that the Israel/Palestine conflict is complex and unlike apartheid in south africa there is no obvious way for Israel to unilaterally end the occupation without severely compromising both their own and the Palestinian's security. Ending the occupation without a negotiated settlement is not preferable to maintaining the status quo right now. Especially regarding the exact terms of the pullout. It isn't exactly the place of British Union workers to demand that the specifics of Middle East peace adhere to their exact guidelines or risk losing legitimacy (and the continuation of the crushing boycott.) I'm being serious here. Who are these British Union members that they feel OK about dictating to Israel what their policy must be regarding Jerusalem, (for example.) Did resolving the issue of Jerusalem equitably suddenly become possible?

When did this group decide that they should be the ultimate arbiters in hairy ethical chestnuts such as the occupation of Palestine. Just saying, "It's bad and they should leave." is not really good enough if you are also going to administer a punishment for non-compliance. That they feel comfortable issuing simplistic proclamations regarding the occupation without any thought as to what a comprehensive peace plan might look like does not fill me with confidence that they even possess a comprehensive understanding of what they are passing judgment on. For example...

Israel wanted to claim it was a normal democratic state and universities were integral to that, Mr Cushman said. " it is not a normal state. They are not normal universities. "Senior academics move from universities into ministries and back again," he said. "Regularly, lecturers take up their commissions in the Israeli Defense Force as reserve officers to go into the West Bank to dominate, control and shoot the population."

This is the guy offering his vision and leadership to the collective academics of Britain? God help them.

[LeftishBrit]

8. There are organizations campaigning against a boycott

http://www.academics-for-israel.org

http://www.links-not-boycott.org.uk

Note that the second organization is a socialist, anti-occupation group, which nonetheless considers a boycott counterproductive and unjust.

[Shaktimaan]

12. Good links.

This comment on one of the sites nails it cold.


Dear Socialist Worker,
Hilary and Steven Rose's article is peppered through with half-truths and downright lies.

The campaign against the proposed boycott is not being led by zionists or those who oppose the palestinian struggle. The picture painted of Israeli universities being key to the oppression of the occupied territories is well wide of the mark.

Our website www.links-not-boycott.org.uk hosts a large amount of articles both for and against the boycott by socialists who support the palestinian struggle. Signaturies of our founding statement which opposes not only the occupation by Isreal but also the AUT boycott include noted Palestinian acedemics.

The boycott makes no sense politically or tactically. The logic of Steve Rose's position would make more sense if he were advocating a boycott of acedemic links with US and UK universities for their involvement in the Iraq war or Chinese Universities for there systematic harrasment of the states critics.

No right minded socialist wants to see the closing of debate between academics across the world particularly when many of the academics at Haifa are active in solidarity with the palestinian struggle. As socialists, readers of a socialist newspaper we are for greater debate, not less; we are for the greater exchange of ideas(which in the end are the only thing a University actually produces) of differing opinions not less. As socialists we judge ideas, theories, articles, dissertions on the basis of what they say, not who says them and certainly not on the basis that those ideas come from a country we don't approve of.

Within the palestinians struggle an acedemic boycott makes no sense. The only beneficiaries of the closing down of ideas and debate are the reactionaries whose hegemony enforces the status quo. To punish only Isreali acedemics for the actions of the state in which they live is to open ourselves up to accusations anti-semitism. We need more links with socialist in Isreal and Palestine not boycotts.

I urge all fellow Socialist Worker readers to sign our statement at www.links-not-boycott.org.uk:

http://www.links-not-boycott.org.uk/


It's very true, an academic boycott is not the same as an economic one. What is essentially being proposed is a boycott of the exchanging of ideas and thoughts. I can't think of anything more counter-productive to the goal of peace in Palestine as burning academic bridges. Why not just pass out a flier telling people which topics are open for academic discussion and which are a violation of policy to question.

The UCU has even had the termerity to proclaim that Israeli lecturers who disown the policies of the Israeli government will not be boycotted.

Look, it's Joe McCarthy and the Thought Police! What if you're "friends" with a zionist? Do you have to name names to get into the University? Seriously, for an academic institution to say something like that... wow. It's just gross. I really am having trouble believing it.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. South Africa's largest trade union seeks Israel boycott

South Africa's largest trade union federation will launch a campaign against "the Israeli occupation of Arab lands" this week, demanding that Pretoria impose a boycott on all Israeli goods and break diplomatic relations. South African Intelligence Minister Ronnie Kasrils, who is Jewish, told Haaretz that he actively supported the initiative - which contradicts the policy of his own cabinet.

The president of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (Cosatu), Willy Madisha, announced the launching of the campaign last week in Johannesburg, calling on the government to cease all diplomatic relations with Israel after its attacks on Palestinian leaders.

"The best way to have Israel comply with United Nations resolutions is to pressure it by a diplomatic boycott such as the one imposed on apartheid South Africa," Madisha said. Cosatu belongs to a recently-formed coalition of organizations operating under the banner "End The Occupation."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/865408.html

[mystikiel]

25. The hypocrisy is...

that there is an unspoken boycott against any Arab or Iranian university or academic. At the University of Sydney in Australia, an endowment was made some years ago by the Iranian Ministry of Education, for the teaching of the Persian language at the university. Even though the U of S maintains full academic control over the appointment of academic staff, it is amazing how much controversy there it attracts. Apparently learning Persian is a sure symptom of tertiary stage hyperleftism, according to the critics.

Virtually the only Iranian academic staff in the West are dissident Western suckarses/Ahmed Chalabi types. The situation with Arab academic staff is not much better.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. Here's some more hypocrisy...

There's a bunch of posts in this thread complaining that academia is sacrosanct and shouldn't be dragged into politics, yet this stance seems to only exist when it comes to any boycott of Israel because there's none of those same complaints by the same people in this recent thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x176050#176051

[pelsar]

40. the individual vs the institution...

boycotting all academic institutions because of the state their in is quite different from telling a single person "your not wanted here".
Happens all the time when professors apply for jobs, grants etc. ...its all politics.

[Shaktimaan]

44. Wasn't it you who was complaining recently about

putting words in other people's mouths?

Here it seems you have decided how I feel about something, going so far as to ascribe a MOTIVE to my feelings, all based NOT on something I said, but on something that I DIDN'T say. Brilliant! So, I am a hypocrite, and I surely must hold this very specific viewpoint that you dreamed up, for these very specific reasons that you suppose, based on the evidence of...

My NOT commenting on a thread that you felt was related to a subject we once discussed.

:rofl:

Hats off Violet! You not only saw fit to commit a spectacular example of an act that you so often rail against, yourself, (hypocritically I might add), but you did it over something meaningless. Hurrah!

[LeftishBrit]

37. More info: they haven't actually voted to start a boycott

They've voted to demand that local UCU branches consult their members about a boycott.

Here are excerpts from an e-mail that we recently got from a local UCU representatative:



You will probably by now have seen press reports of yesterdays' vote at UCU Congress on the motion relating to Israel.
>
> Some reports are misleading,in that there was NOT a vote to boycott Israeli academics or academic institutions. For an accurate account, please go to http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2595.
>
UCU members have more than once made very clear their strong opposition to such boycotts...

> We will now consult our members further, and will report the outcome of that consultation to the General Secretary. Similar processes will take place at branches and Local Associations around the country, and there is every reason to expect that the view hitherto taken by UCU members will be very widely replicated elsewhere.
>
> Now is the time for UCU members in and elsewhere to speak up, so that the true balance of opinion can be clearly seen.

[Scurrilous]

38. Research foundation blocks new grants for Britons

UK academic boycott of Israel prompts US-based Goldhirsh foundation to cancel plans to open grant application process for British research institutions. Immigration Minister Ze'ev Boim announces intention to propose counter-boycott

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3407111,00.html

<snip>

"An American research foundation announced on Thursday that following the decision of the British University and College Union (UCU) to consider launching an academic boycott of Israel it has cancelled its plans to open a grant application process for UK researchers.

The $150 million Goldhirsh foundation supports scientists around the world in the quest for a cure for brain cancer funds research."

[Scurrilous]

39. U.K. public services union to weigh boycott of Israel

<snip>

"The United Kingdom's public services union UNISON will consider a proposal for imposing a boycott on Israel during its annual conference in mid-June, in the wake of Wednesday's decision by British lecturers to boycott Israeli academic institutions.

UNISON representatives who are in contact with the Histadrut labor federation have in recent days presented the Histadrut's international activities director, Avital Shapira, with a copy of the proposal.

According to the proposal, UNISON will urge other British unions to follow its lead and cut off all economic and cultural ties with Israel.

Histadrut sources said the impression they have received is that UNISON will vote in favor of the boycott. The conference will be held June 19-22 in Brighton.

If approved, the boycott would have a significant practical, and not just symbolic, impact, given that the union enjoys large economic influence in Britain."

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/865601.html

[bemildred]

41. Right-wing Israeli group calls for counter-boycott against Britain

Jerusalem - A right-wing Israeli group calling itself the Headquarters for the Land of Israel is urging Israeli consumers not to buy British goods, after Britain's largest lecturers union called for an academic boycott against Israel.

'Those who impose a boycott on us should realize that they will pay a price,' Aviad Visuli, the chairman of the pro-settler group, told the Ma'ariv daily Friday.

Calling on Israelis to stop buying jeans, food and cars from Britain, he said 'If we don't take intensive action against the English boycott, which is based on hatred of Jews, it will spread to other organizations and countries in the world.'

Britain's University and College Union (UCU) passed a motion in its annual conference late Wednesday, instructing its branches across the country to discuss the prospect of an academic boycott against Israel within the next year.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1312088.php/Right-wing_Israeli_group_calls_for_counter-boycott_against_Britain

[breakaleg]

42. He thinks the boycott is based on hatred of Jews? Give me a break.

[bemildred]

43. Well, he likes boycotts anyway.

He wants to boycott the British, and I would wager that the thinks the boycott of the Palestinian government is a great idea. I guess it's just a matter of who is getting boycotted. On the other hand, to be fair, he is a right-wing loon.