Boycotting Israel as moral masturbation

[oberliner]

Just for the sake of argument, let's suppose that you're a British academic. You believe strongly that the occupation must end, that the Palestinians should have an independent state, that Israel's military and diplomatic policies are wrongheaded to the point of immorality.

What to do? Simple. Find the one group within Israeli society which has consistently, vigorously and courageously campaigned against the occupation since its inception.

Then attack them.

<snip>

Choose your victim with care. Select the one group in Israel which has taken substantive physical, professional, legal and personal risks, which has defied the spirit of Israeli nationalism and the letter of Israeli law, in order to seek out Palestinians to search for equitable solutions.

Select the one group which has, from the very beginning, spoken out eloquently for the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination, to freedom from Israeli domination, to freedom from disproportionate and often indiscriminate use of force, to freedom from social injustice.

Then denounce them.

Decide that your moral vision fully empowers you to declare Israeli professors and other university and college faculty to be unworthy of practicing their calling. All of them.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=865499

[bemildred]

1. It's not about the professors.

They just have the misfortune to be in the way. It would be interesting to see what the attitude of the Israeli academics is towards the boycott, how many support it, how many oppose, what their reasons are.

Burston is an interesting writer, I always enjoy his rants.

[Tom Joad]

2. Many Israeli academics are busy supporting the occupation, so may not

have the time to respond.

[oberliner]

3. Or they might be too busy demanding freedom of movement for Palestinian students

JERUSALEM: A group of internationally renowned Israeli authors and university presidents demanded Wednesday that Israel grant Palestinian students from the Gaza Strip free movement to superior universities in the West Bank.

In a joint letter to Defense Minister Amir Peretz, they called on Israel to lift its sweeping ban on the travel of Palestinians between the West Bank and Gaza so students could pursue their education.

"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 states.

The appeal was signed by authors Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua and David Grossman, and the presidents of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University, Haifa University and the Technion technology institute.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/30/africa/ME-GEN-Israel-Palestinian-Students.php

[bemildred]

4. And off we go ...

:popcorn::popcorn:

[Shaktimaan]

23. Tom, similar to most other highly charged, complex or significant problems...

there exists a wide spectrum of opinions and ideas as to the best way they might be solved. Israel in particular is known for having a surplus of competing ideologies, from hardliner religious fanatics who refuse to recognize the state they live in nor participate in its workings, to practitioners of obscure Socialist dogmas, each with one or two smaller yet splinter movements that split off at some point. Seeing the world solely in black or white works as poorly for any of us as it does for Bush.

On that note, try and see how someone might hate the occupation, find it ethically bankrupt, protest against it regularly and work continuously towards the goal of full disengagement, YET still report for duty as a reserve soldier and even deploy in the territories if need be without considering refusing to report for duty. I'm serious. Are you able to imagine how an Israeli might be able to consciously reconcile these conflicting beliefs without compromising them? Attempting the "mile in their shoes" thing is a worthwhile exercise sometimes. Especially if you're passing judgment.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. Attempting the "mile in their shoes" thing is a worthwhile exercise sometimes.

Fair enough, as long as one also tries the "mile in their shoes" with the Palestinians. Especially when passing judgment.

The Palestinians are afterall human beings too.

[Shaktimaan]

27. Well, of course.

That goes without saying.

I was really just challenging Tom's statement as extra-super-overly simple. "Supporting the occupation" by way of reserve duty doesn't necessarily symbolize a "Supporting the Occupation" ideology. And it is as foolish to try and label students and professors as being either "supportive of the occupation" or "the opposite" regarding a complex issue that is comprised almost entirely of grays and nearly devoid of absolute truths and falsehoods.

[Douglas Carpenter]

30. thank you for clarifying that

I sometimes though get the feeling that point is missed on many western people.

I recall the cover story of a Time or Newsweek magazine back in 1982 shortly after the Sabra and Shatila massacres in Beirut. The just of the article was about how many Israelis were feeling saddened and despondent over the news of the massacres in which the IDF had been complicit. Well it is certainly a good thing that those events led to some soul searching. But what seems to have escaped the attention of the authors of the article and much of the popular discussion in the American media was that however sad and despondent many Israelis were experiencing paled in comparison to the sadness and despondency in the refugee camps of East Beirut.

.

[msmcghee]

32. Since we're comparing levels of despondency . .

. . as if that means something significant, since the parties you are comparing were feeling despondent over two entirely different things (the deaths of friends and relatives vs. the death of civilians in a society that is at war with your own) - then how about comparing apples to apples - as in the emotions experienced when innocent civilins die on either side of this conflict?

The reactions I observe on the Palestinian side don't just pale in comparison to what happens in Israel when innocent Palestinian civilians are killed - it's in the opposite direction entirely.

In Israel, when innocent Palestinians die in an IDF attack the response ranges from - war is a necessary but dirty business - to incriminations to sadness to calling for an end to the occupation. I've never seen Israelis celebrate the death of innocent Palestinian civilians.

OTOH successful killings of Israelis and westerners at the hands of Jihadis are often expressed in Palestine by dancing in the streets, waving the flag, shooting AK47's into the sky and other forms of celebration - perhaps similar to some of the celebration we witnessed in Gaza after the WTC attack.

I sometimes get the feeling that point is missed on many here.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. innocent Palestinians die almost every day or at least a few every week

and the conditions imposed on them by the occupation and dispossession are with them constantly. Degrading and humiliating treatment is experienced by almost all Palestinians.

As far as this image that some have of Palestinians, as I have said before, I hope everyone visits Palestine and meets real live Palestinians and talks with them as equals. And they will see for themselves that there are few people in the whole world more kindly hearted, forgiving and desiring of peace.

[Shaktimaan]

40. Uhmmmm...

As far as this image that some have of Palestinians, as I have said before, I hope everyone visits Palestine and meets real live Palestinians and talks with them as equals. And they will see for themselves that there are few people in the whole world more kindly hearted, forgiving and desiring of peace.

Well, I have known quite a few Palestinians. A few in Israel and a few here in New York. I take issue with the idea that Palestinians are inherently MORE forgiving or kind hearted, etc. than any other ethnic or national group. Firstly because it implies that Israel is inherently more violent or desire peace less, and thus must be responsible for the ongoing violence. Next because you are making this judgment call based on what people have said to you, not on their individual or collective actions. The Palestinians I have known did not strike me as being particularly peaceful or particularly violent. They struck me as normal people. The only thing that stands out as different was the change in attitude we once received upon my girlfriend's nationality was made known. (she's Israeli.) But that was a one time incident. Most importantly, your statement is just flat out untrue. Were the Palestinians anywhere close to your description, we would not have witnessed decades of violent events that were so often instigated or perpetuated by them. You seem to feel that the connection between Palestinians and violence is nothing more than weightless propaganda, that it has no merit.

I'll tell you who I personally think the most forgiving people might be. The Tibetans. And if you compare the actions of the Tibetans under China's occupation with those of the Palestinians you will notice that they could not be more different. If they were so forgiving then why don't they have a cottage industry of peace organizations similar to Israel? Why do captured Israelis and suspected collaberators sometimes actually torn limb from limb by mobs of enraged Palestinians? Why were Hebron's European Observers, who were only there to help the Palestinians, attacked by a mob which had become enraged by the Muhammed cartoon scandal?

I mean, come on! The MOST desiring of peace? In the WORLD? Who are you comparing them to?

[Douglas Carpenter]

41. as I have said

I hope people visit Palestine and at the very least they will agree that Palestinians are at the very least, very "Normal" people to use your words. I have had a great deal of personal interaction with Palestinians over many, many years.

They are indeed in a very, very long and very, very bitter struggle longing to be free in their homeland; or at least a small part of it. And of course terrible acts of violence have come from their side as well.

I would not imply that Israelis as people are fundamentally different. I apologize if that is how it sounded. That was not my intention.

[Tom Joad]

5. Why I Favor a Boycott of My Own University by Ilan Pappe

http://hnn.us/articles/11873.html

I appeal to you today to be part of a historical movement and moment that may bring an end to more than a century of colonization, occupation and dispossession of Palestinians. I appeal to you as an Israeli Jew, who for years wished, and looked, for other ways to bring an end to the evil perpetrated against the Palestinians in the occupied territories, inside Israel and in the refugee camps. I devoted all my adult life, with others, creating a substantial peace movement inside Israel, in which, so we hoped, academia will play a leading role. But after 37 years of endless brutal and callous oppression of the people of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and after 57 years of colonization and dispossession of the Palestinians as a whole, I think this hope is unrealistic and other means have to be looked at to end a conflict that endangers peace in the world at large....

[oberliner]

6. But what does Juan Cole say?

The American Association of University Professors has quite rightly come out against a recent resolution of the British Association of University Teachers (one of two main such organizations in the UK) that an academic boycott should be imposed on the University of Haifa and Bar Ilan University.

Long-time readers know that I oppose boycotting our Israeli colleagues. I don't think most of the problems with Israeli policies on expropriating Palestinian land or oppressing occupied Palestinian populations are best dealt with by an academic boycott, more especially since it would inevitably be unfair in its actual working. (An exception for "progressive" Israeli faculty members establishes an ideological litmus test, where what "progressive" might be is not even entirely clear.)


http://www.juancole.com/2005/05/boycott-of-israeli-universities-wrong.html

[Tom Joad]

7. obviously there are differences of opinion. The best way to pressure

Israel to change its policies would be a cut-off of military aid, especially from the US.
That's not likely to happen, to say the least... not except after years of grassroots organizing.

Waiting for a US president to make real changes, to do something other than tell Palestinians to accept Israel's demands (a la Clinton) -- that doesn't seem likely either.

It takes grassroots actions, actions that may cause discomfort for some who don't deserve it (including some Palestinians, but for the most Part the Palestinians are insisting on boycotts and sanctions... as many black South African's did despite the short-term costs)

If you really oppose sanctions and boycotts, perhaps you can lend an effort to stop the US/Israel led boycott of Palestine... when in the last hundred years has their been sanctions imposed on a people under military occupation???

The sanctions in place on the Palestinian people cause real hunger (as is its intention, no debate about that), real pain... not just canceled lucrative lecturing opportunities.

[pelsar]

8. actions that may cause discomfort for some who don't deserve it

...sounds like "collateral damage"...so all those joint research projects that involve palestenains, israelis and europeans (like helping to increase the food production of the palestenians) should all be shut down.

The sanctions in place on the Palestinian people cause real hunger ....seem your for letting them suffer....supporting their going hungry. Cant have it both ways

support the boycott, support the palestenains going hungry....

----------
Researchers in Israel, the Palestinian territories and Germany want to transform female freshwater fish into males, a sex change they hope will put bigger fish on the dinner table.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1749752.htm

[Shaktimaan]

9. Excellent point!

when in the last hundred years has their been sanctions imposed on a people under military occupation???

Never. Because the nature of both makes them mutually exclusive.

[Tom Joad]

42. The Palestinians are under a brutal sanctions regime. The Palestinians are under a brutal

and deadly military occupation. It's happening now.

[msmcghee]

43. You need to examine your premises.

The Palestinians are under occupation, true. The reason for that is that the last regime to occupy the currently disputed territory was Jordan - who lost a war in 1967 while attacking Israel from that territory. After that war Jordan was not interested in taking any part of the territory back - even though Israel offered to negotiate to do that.

As the victor in that war that left Israel as the legal occupier according to the UN until borders can be negotiated as per UNR-242

The occupation has brutal aspects and it is sometimes deadly. That's not because they are occupied by Israel. There have been other occupations by western powers in recent history - Japan and Germany for example - that led to great growth and better standards of living in those countries. That required only that the occupied people accept their fate and cooperate with their occupiers.

This occupation is brutal because Palestinians keep launching deadly attacks against Israel from their territory. The militants have evolved their tactics so that the only defense that Israel can apply that works - is an occupation regime that is sometimes brutal and deadly.

That is the purpose of the militants' attacks - to make Israel seem to be a brutal occupier and thereby have other western powers condemn Israel. It's a PR game with the Palestinians launching deadly attacks against Israeli civilians - and hoping for a brutal response that will cause some other western states to condemn Israel.

Both the occupation and the brutality of it are under the Palestinians' control to eliminate. They can eliminate the brutality simply by not trying to kill Israelis and pledging to seek peaceful coexistence with Israel. Doesn't seem like a lot to ask.

They can then eliminate the occupation itself by negotiating final border solutions with Israel and by recognizing Israel as a state in the ME that has the right to live in peace. The UN and all the world's powers would rejoice if they did that.

But, so far they* have decided that killing Israelis and teaching their children to hate Jews is a better option than taking those steps. I'll bet Israel can wait longer than they can to see them change their minds - if they ever do. The only question is how many innocent civilians on both sides will die while we are waiting - and how much needless unhappiness and deprivation Palestinians will have to put up with in their lives while the world waits for them to become part of the solution instead of the problem.

* I don't mean all Palestinians - just those who do what I describe. There are enough of those and enough attacks on Israelis from that segment of Palestinian society to force Israel to respond as they do in defense. However many of those Palestinians exist - it is enough to dictate the parameters of the occupation - which is their goal.

[richards1052]

10. Preposterous

Burston's claim is preposterous. One can no more say that Israeli academia as a class oppose the Occupation, support creation of a Palestinian state, and seek out Palestinians for "equitable solutions" than one can say that U.S. academica as a class opposes the war in Iraq or the various depredations of the Bush administration.

But one example that proves the weakness of Burston's claim is the http://www.forward.com/articles/british-professors-approve-israel-boycott/">Yigal Arens case in which Israeli government computer security experts succeeded in pressuring Ben Gurion University to rescind an invitation to Arens to speak at an Israeli academic conference (scheduled for next wk.) on terrorism. All this happened because Arens is known as a critic of Israeli Occupation. If Israeli academia is such a champion of Palestinian co-existence & willing to 'defy the spirit of the law,' why did BGU cave to government pressure?

[pelsar]

11. mccarthyism....

so i take it, your for the idea that academics and others must first pass a "moral test" based on a certain groups version of morality?

sort of like saying:

I'm against the occupation ....now my lecture about increasing energy production based on renewable non polluting resources is.....

wait let me revise that:
"i'm against the occupation, for womens rights in certain societies (but not where its against cultural norms), against suicide bombers, against collective punishment....sometimes, against nuclear power, unless of course is hydrogen based........now that i''ve clarified my moral stand, my lecture.....

[richards1052]

16. Don't put words in my mouth!

"so i take it, your for the idea that academics and others must first pass a "moral test" based on a certain groups version of morality?"

You have violated an unwritten rule I've read others advocate for here: don't assume the viewpt. of someone you're arguing with; don't put words in their mouth. If you want to know my views on something--ask. Don't tell me what I believe. It's cheap & easy grandstanding. Not to mention that yr comment was snarky as well as a poor attempt at wit.

I really wish it were so that Israeli academics as a group did universally condemn the Occupation. If that were so I would oppose a boycott on principle. Personally, I think a boycott is using a sledgehammer when a scalpel in what's really necessary. But as http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/39503.html">Mark LeVine points out in his discussion of the boycott question:

"...It is undeniable that the Israeli academy as a whole--that is, institutionally--has been complicit in the occupation. The movement back and forth of mid-level and senior military and intelligence personnel from active duty service to academic institutions, which I've witnessed first hand during my affiliations with Isareli universities, is a major contributor to the normalization of the occupation within Israeli society, especially among educated Israelis, almost all of whom have served in the army (which has the highest rate of active/combat service of any army in the world). It is worth asking what those who oppose the boycott think should be done about this relationship. Do they think it's okay for people involved in systematic violations of international law to move in and out of academia without censure or sanction? I, for one, do not, although I am doubtful whether a blanket boycott on all academic institutions--and what does 'institutions' mean, universities as a whole, schools, departments, individual professors or students who actively participate in the occupation through their work for the government?--will achieve the desired goal."

[pelsar]

17. so what are you saying?

I really wish it were so that Israeli academics as a group did universally condemn the Occupation. If that were so I would oppose a boycott on principle

since academic freedom demands exactly that...that everyone should be able to say what they want...and it would be a sad day when they would actually as a group "say the samething"..in fact just wishing it were so strikes me as not just anti liberal but smells of McCarythism....

perhaps its "progressiveness" to wish that everybody would think the same...but then i'm a liberal

[Shaktimaan]

18. I don't understand this.

"...It is undeniable that the Israeli academy as a whole--that is, institutionally--has been complicit in the occupation. The movement back and forth of mid-level and senior military and intelligence personnel from active duty service to academic institutions, which I've witnessed first hand during my affiliations with Isareli universities, is a major contributor to the normalization of the occupation within Israeli society

Pretty much every male Israeli serves in the IDF reserves. It is not something you can exactly choose to opt out of. So following LeVine's logic here, the universities are complicit in the occupation because... Many of the students and professors are reservists. Since these reservists spend several weeks every year in the IDF being soldiers or intelligence personnel, they are always moving back and forth, from university to army and back again. And since the universities do their best to accomodate this practice, and do not take active political stands against the IDF, the occupation and the reservists, the universities are complicit in the occupation. Am I wrong that this is pretty much what he's going for here?

It sounds pretty much as though Mr. LeVine considers them complicit in much the same way that we could hold Apple Computers as complicit in the Iraq war. You see, Apple has a policy of paying taxes to the US Federal Government, even though they know that much of this money is being used to fund the Iraq war. Of course all the educated people in Israel belong to the reserves, EVERYONE BELONGS TO THE RESERVES! And yes, the higher ranking officers, etc. are the ones GOING TO THE UNIVERSITY.

This guy mostly seems to be holding Israeli Academia guilty of the crime of not agreeing with his point of view. "a major contributor to the normalization of the occupation within Israeli society," he says? So the universities are guilty of... not being active enough in broadcasting the view through Israeli society that the occupation is NOT normal. OK. It's weird, he doesn't seem to be angry at Israel's academics because of anything they did. Rather he's mad because they HAVEN'T done anything. Namely, they haven't done what he wants them to do.

[HamdenRice]

19. Most outsiders did not understand the theory behind the S. African boycott

And I can agree it may not be as applicable to Israel. The ANC had a particular Marxist (and convincing imho) theory about South Africa.

South Africa had a very unusual history and social structure -- especially for a capitalist society. To make a long and controversial historical theory short, the idea was that the South African apartheid state and the capitalist class were not the same. In the early 20th century, the capitalist class in South Africa (the mines especially) were becoming somewhat color blind. The white workers revolted creating a Johannesburg soviet under the slogan, "workers of the world unite for a white South Africa." (I kid you not!) Jan Smuts led the troops that crushed the white workers strike.

To pacify the white workers and divide the working class, the capitalists then had to accede to a welfarist state for whites -- first segregation and then apartheid. The capitalists were able to benefit from apartheid as well because it kept black wages low.

The idea behind the boycott was not to hurt everyone, but to hurt the capitalist class which the ANC believed was the ultimate power behind the apartheid throne, and make them rethink their position on apartheid. The idea was that the capitalists supported apartheid opportunistically because it was profitable, but if it could be made unprofitable, they would throw over the white working/bureaucratic class. Sanctions were a way of hurting the capitalist class, not all of South African society.

Although it sounds kind of mechanistic, that's pretty much what happened.

I'm not sure that theory applies to Israel.

On edit: This was the theory behind the economic boycott, sanctions and disinvestment, not the cultural boycott.

[richards1052]

44. This is disingenuous...

YOu know that's not what LeVine is talking about. Or if you don't, you should. He's not talking about a professor who serves in miluim (reserves) & then returns to his academic position. He's talking about generals or Mosad operatives who serve as professional soldiers in intelligence, engineering, IT, counter-terror or whatever capacity & then parlay that expertise into an academic position teaching perhaps about counter-terrorism, computer security, the psychology of interrogation, or a military engineering specialty. It's almost exactly what happens with exchange between U.S. military officers & the defense industry where officers parlay their military experience into million dollar salaries lobbying their former gov't & armed forces colleagues.

Though in the cases LeVine is talking about these people are attempting to give the techniques & mindset learned in the IDF the veneer of academic respectability. That is what he objects to.

[msmcghee]

20. Your high dudgeon is quite dramatic, but . .

pelsar: "so i take it, your for the idea that academics and others must first pass a "moral test" based on a certain groups version of morality?"

richards1052: "You have violated an unwritten rule I've read others advocate for here: don't assume the viewpt. of someone you're arguing with; don't put words in their mouth. If you want to know my views on something--ask. Don't tell me what I believe. It's cheap & easy grandstanding. Not to mention that yr comment was snarky as well as a poor attempt at wit."

The "so I take it" and the question mark at the end of pelsar's sentence indicates that he was doing just what you said he should do - he was asking if that was your view.

[breakaleg]

25. hardly,

the "i take it", when followed by 'something I never said' makes it NOT a question but an accusation the poster knows full well (assuming the read the post) that the person said nothing of the sort.

I know you are aware of this since you've claimed it was a "debating tactic" in the past. Do we need to have a 'how to ask a question 101' course? Or can't we all just play nice?

[msmcghee]

26. So I take it you believe that . .

. . pelsar was engaging in a dubious debating tactic - rather than asking for a confirmation that he correctly extrapolated the consequences of the poster's premise?

Or, should I take it that when someone states a premise - you think it's a dirty trick to point out the adverse consequences of that premise - as one way to possibly discredit it? ;)

[breakaleg]

28. I see nothing wrong with extrapolating on a person's statements in such a way as

saying "if you believe A, then do you also believe B" or "it follows that B will happen....". That's not what's going on here. For that to happen, an intelligent person's "B" would logically follow "A". It's not a next logical step, it's a turn in a different direction.

Deliberately misinterpreting a person's words so that you can attack them for things they haven't said, is indeed a dirty trick. And let me ask you, if the person engaging in the dirty trick has such a valid argument for his pov, why must he resort to dirty tricks? Seems to me, that an intelligent argument can stand on its own.

[Shaktimaan]

29. I didn't see this as a trick or anything.

It seemed like he was making a pretty straightforward description of your stance. I didn't see it as bellicose.
Seriously, how do you feel your viewpoint here deviates from Pelsar's description? Since it seemed accurate to me then I must be misunderstanding your stance.

No sardonic cracks, just curiosity.

[breakaleg]

31. The choice of the word

"trick" was not mine. I was simply commenting on what the person in question stated, which was that someone was putting words in his mouth.

Don't you think that there is enough to discuss and comment on, enough areas in which we disagree that we shouldn't have to resort this? This is one of the areas that takes away from all of the good that can be had in this forum. It's not about making points or winning an argument. At least it shouldn't be. The very tone that comes about when this happens prevents us from reading openly and trying to understand other points of view.

[pelsar]

34. a suggestion...

how about if the poster simply answered my question directly?

[breakaleg]

35. I've said this before. Perhaps you should phrase your questions as questions and not accusations

and maybe you'd have better luck.

[pelsar]

36. doesnt make a difference...

my questions not being answered are not because of the way i phrase them.......

true i could have written:

in my opinion i find that your stance has some similar qualities that which were found during the period of "McCarthyism' in that certain peoples were expected to believe in a certain philosophy and infact denounce their friends....I admit this is what i thought of when i read your post and find it hard to believe that a progressive would hold such views. Perhaps you can explain how you expect an academic group to hold one singular view point and if not deserve to be boycotted?

or i could have written it direct and to the point: expecting an academic group to have a single opinion on a political issue and be pro boycott if they are not, stinks of McCarthysim...i prefer the latter, but i did at least make it into a question.

[breakaleg]

37. In fact, you said neither of your two options.

There are other posters in this forum who hold similar views to yours and their questions do get answered. I'll leave you to figure out why.

[Tom Joad]

38. It is part of the way of some on the I/P forum. "questions" like

"You really think beheading homosexuals is a progressive position?" is not above the unethical types we have posting in these parts.

[pelsar]

45. how about this....then....

I noticed what may be a contradiction in your posts, i bring this to your attention in the hopes of getting a further explanation. I fully expect that i may have misread or misunderstood what you have written so i humbly request that you invest a few moments of your time to explain further.

In many of your posts you express much concern over the children involved in the conflict, you've also expressed a lack of patience with the idea of "collateral damage" when it comes to israeli bombings, etc. In fact you have also expressed your outrage at an israeli govt employee for his jokes about palestenians "going on a diet." Yet you seem to (as i understand) express a support of the boycott of israeli academia.

I have linked earlier to a specific research project between israel, German, and the Palestenains whos goal is to increase the food production within the palestenian areas. Your support of the boycott would close such a project.

Perhaps i am mistaken but i do find that your position rather contradictory in this reguard, how can you express a support of a boycott when such a boycott would stop a project whos goal is increase the nutrition intake of the palestenian children?

[pelsar]

33. no trick...a straight question...

I really wish it were so that Israeli academics as a group.........

that is a very anti liberal stance in my opinion hence i asked a question as symbolized by the question mark at the end of the sentence...more so in my opinion when someone believes all people should act/think the same way, to me it stinks of McCarthyism, hence my question. (perhaps thats part of the definition of progressiveness....)

i did notice that i did not get an answer

[bemildred]

12. Oh, it's OK when they do it, it's the other way around that's not good.

You are right that Burston wallows in stereotypes and emotional drivel here. Nothing like a good emotional outburst to shore up injured egos.

[HamdenRice]

13. From first hand experience in S. Africa, I think it's simplistic to condemn the boycott

I read that COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) has also called for a South African boycott, and it reminds me of how sophisticated the South African cultural boycott was.

I went to do human rights related work based at a South African university during the apartheid years. There was a cultural boycott that banned exchanges with South African universities.

But it wasn't a mindless, all or nothing boycott. In order to go, I made contact with ANC-connected exiles. They passed my proposal on to the ANC which vetted whether an exception should be made, and it was. There were many progressives doing work at South African cultural institutions -- ie many, many exceptions granted -- and all you had to do was contact the ANC. Similarly anti-apartheid South African academics were welcomed at US universities as exceptions to the overall strategy of the boycott.

The point of the boycott was both symbolic and to limit contacts that gave legitimacy to the regime -- not to hurt those sectors in South African society that were doing positive work and whose work could be bolstered by outside contacts.

[bemildred]

14. Boycotts can be a very effective tactic.

Like social shunning, it has a long history, but half-ass efforts don't do much, and it can take time to build up to an effective level, and you have to target things that can be forgone. Nobody boycotts food when they are hungry.

[Shaktimaan]

15. my 2¢.

I do see the logic in your proposal. Whenever you oppose some policy, like apartheid or the occupation, and want to advance change by using boycotts or sanctions, the issue of "collateral damage" arises. Most weapons, be they physical, economic or social, are dumb, and will indiscriminately hurt allies and foes alike. In this case, the boycott punishes some of the anti-occupation movement's most vocal supporters just as much as it does its denouncers. So it seems like a natural thing to figure out an effective way to keep them from catching too much flak.

But the method they chose, categorizing academics according to their political beliefs, raises its own set of ethical issues, especially for universities, which have traditionally been seen as "safe-houses" where all ideas, no matter how radical or unpopular, are freely debated, studied and experimented with. I am against the boycott, it's true, but I am much, much more concerned by this "selective boycott" that's being proposed, for totally unrelated reasons. There's something that I find fundamentally disturbing about splitting people up into two groups, one that is punished and one that is praised, according to their political ideology. It really does smack of McCartyism.

There's a limit, of course. For some jobs, I understand the need to filter out people whose ideology may pose a danger to people or conflict with their ability to do the work required, (for instance I would not argue against turning down someone who is highly active in the white supremacy movement for a national security position.) But if said white supremacist also happens to be a highly esteemed physics professor, (I know, I know), then barring him from participating in all things academic is harmful to everyone. Even a policy that bars white supremacists from giving lectures ON white supremacy is a mistake in my opinion.

And who is going to be deciding which professors are "progressive" enough to warrant an exemption? Will they issue a "loyaly test"? What if someone opposes occupation but (as pelsar mentioned), are somehow otherwise deemed not "progressive" enough. It's a slippery, slippery slope here. (And if I see it then this whole buycott thing is totally fucking DOA.) It's abandoning a core principle of liberalism in support of a specific cause. Do the ends justify the means? (ie: Is the threat of terrorism great enough that we should abandon some of our core rights, as the president suggests?)

Not to mention, purely on a practical level, it also renders the boycott itself ineffective... even turning it into a different kind of animal altogether, I think. Now, instead of boycotting Israel, as a whole, you are targeting individuals based on their beliefs. Rather than foster a national conversation over the occupation, as is intended, this policy creates divisions within the state, whereby only those who believe the occupation is truly necessary will pay a penalty for it, which will give this group a sense of solidarity among themselves and deepen the rift between themselves and those deemed "progressive." Especially in Israel, where sacrafice for the state is held as an extremely noble trait and doing otherwise, as in allowing your fellow Jew to shoulder the burden while you benefit, is a grave sin, a policy like this will end up encouraging a "bunker mentality" and fostering resentment between political lines just when what you really want is for the opposite. Because if you want a real shot at ending the occupation, you are going to need real solidarity between Israelis of otherwise different ideologies to do so.

[HamdenRice]

21. It certainly is censorship and it is devisive, but ...

The cultural boycott in SA was definitely a form of censorship as you point out. I think a big difference between SA and Israel is that outside of SA there was such a unified consensus that apartheid was bad and easily gotten rid of, while there is not as strong a consensus as to how the end the occupation.

Also the censor is completely different. Back in the 70s and 80s, the liberation movements in Namibia and SA sought to have the UN bestow on them the status of "sole legitimate representative" of the people in their countries struggling for majority rule. SWAPO actually received that status, but the ANC didn't because of the rivalry between the ANC and Pan-African Congress (PAC). Nevertheless, the ANC was a coherent, organized, fairly open-minded progressive organization that represented the overwhelming majority of black South Africans.

I'm not sure whether the PLO got that status at some point, but now there are Hamas and other Palestinian organizations. To whom would a visitor submit a proposal? And would they be as open minded as the ANC.

As for divisiveness, in a way that was a goal. It made white South Africans think and take sides.

I actually think that the criticism that Israeli officials make of the Palestinians is equally true of the Israelis -- that they have to stop fearing divisiveness. The Israelis say that the Palestinians need the kind of internal "civil war" that Israel almost had after independence when the government crushed the remaining paramilitary groups and forced them into a unified IDF -- ie the PLO needs to crush the terrorists.

In a way the Israelis who want to make peace have to realize they are simply not going to bring along a chunk of Israeli society. The bitter enders are just going to have to live with the end of occupation.

I believe this because my view of what happened in SA in 1993-94 was that the SAn state basically fell apart. Did you know there were fire fights between the SADF (which was in favor of the elections and new constitution) and the security police (which was anti-elections)?

It took the collapse of the SAn state and the alliance of the pro-constitution elements within the SAn state with the ANC, and the crushing of the obstructionists (especially the battle of Bophutatswana) for the elections to take place.

I think something like that is going to have to happen to BOTH the Israelis and Palestinians for them to move forward. The pro-peace factions of both sides have to unite and forget the anti-settlement factions on both sides.

In other words, divisiveness within both sides can be a good thing.

[Shaktimaan]

22. Good post.

I'm not sure whether the PLO got that status at some point, but now there are Hamas and other Palestinian organizations. To whom would a visitor submit a proposal? And would they be as open minded as the ANC.


The PLO does have "sole legit. rep." status for the Palestinians. But as you said there are a million groups. The PLO itself is a coalition of a million groups, Fatah being the most dominant. To whom would a visitor submit a proposal for what? A peace proposal? Good question. Technically speaking, I have no idea. But on a practical level, since each group has the ability to derail any peace deal that doesn't suit them, you would have to appease everyone. For example, even though the PLO committed to the Oslo Accords, Hamas rejected them outright and announced that they wouldn't follow them. So, how much does it matter that the UN designated the PLO with a special status if rival Palestinianas don't recognize it?

I didn't know all of what you said about S.A. You're right, it's interesting. There's a lot that differs between SA then and Israel now, I don't think the occupation/apartheid comparison makes much sense personally. If anything, the occupation looks more like Kashmir than anywhere else, but even that comparison is super weak. Aside from whether the comparison is relevant, I don't like it because it leaves many people with the idea that we can use the same tools to end occupation that worked for apartheid. But the issues that defined apartheid are very different than the issues in Israel. I have no idea what this boycott is supposed to achieve. I'm left thinking that they are boycotting academia because that's the only thing that these specific people had the power to propose. And they wanted to do SOMETHING!

As for divisiveness, trust me here, Israel's already divided on this thing. And there isn't just a family conversation going on, there's a family feud. Or, at least, there used to be. Since the second intifada the left in Israel seems to have lost a lot of faith in their stance on this issue. It isn't because everyone suddenly became conservatives or that they are merely angry and want to hurt the Palestinians out of spite. During the past 10 years or so the left saw most of their main strategies for peace fail catastrophically when implemented as policy. Lebanon is a perfect example. For YEARS my mother in law spent every weekend protesting against the occupation in Lebanon. Leave Lebanon, they thought, and Hezbollah will no longer attack us. We will no longer have to counterattack. And maybe we can have a little peace. And the Israeli Right forsaw the opposite, (they protested on the other side of the street.) They predicted that Hezbollah would take advantage of the weakened security and far closer position to entrench themselves on the border and go on the offensive against a broader range of available Israeli targets. It was a bitter pill to swallow for the left, but they were mistaken. And they've been forced to eat quite a few of those pills lately and the mood is one of desponance. They may hate the occupation deeply, but unlike the british boycott organizers, the Israelis can't afford to choose ideology over realism. Unlike SA, the overwhelming motive is not profit. No matter how compelling a case one can make for ending occupation, it will never be compelling enough unless the Israelis feel like it won't explode in their faces. And since there really isn't a simple answer to ending the occupation easily, calls from Britain to "stop the apartheid" seem naiive to many Israelis, and don't inspire much interest at all, let alone sparking a national debate.