A British Boycott of Israel?

[Robson]

The clubby staff lounges of British universities and the raucous meeting halls of labor unions have long shared a sympathy for the Palestinian cause that has found expression lately with a series of calls for professional unions to boycott Israel.

Any boycotts would almost certainly be a long way off. They are minority initiatives strongly opposed by the union leaderships. But they have outraged Israelis and American Jews.

The increasingly strident statements threaten to escalate into a diplomatic row despite British leaders' attempts to play them down.

The latest furor erupted after the University and College Union decided on May 30 to consult members on halting funding, visits, conferences and joint publishing with Israeli institutions.

The motion accuses Israeli scholars of being complicit in the 40-year occupation of the Palestinian territories, which it claims has denied education to Palestinians through invasions, checkpoints, curfews, and shootings and the arrests of teachers, lecturers and students.

The National Union of Journalists approved a boycott on Israeli products in April and the public services union, Britain's largest, will discuss a similar motion next week.

SNIP

In the United States, Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, a strong Israel backer, told Britain's Guardian newspaper he had lined up a 100-strong legal team ready to "devastate and bankrupt" anyone who boycotts Israeli universities.

The New York-based Anti-Defamation League placed newspapers ads decrying the motions as anti-Semitic, arguing the academics' union unfairly singled out Israel while ignoring human rights violators such as Iran, Sudan, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.

Boycott proponents say they are targeting Israeli universities for failing to take a stand on the occupation.

"If academic freedom is indivisible, it is time Israel spoke out for academic freedom for their neighbors just across the border," said Steven Rose, secretary of the British Committees for the Universities of Palestine who initiated the boycott calls.

SNIP

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1632667,00.html

[aquart]

1. Yeah, Brits ain't never been anti-Semitic.

Much.

[msmcghee]

2. As I recall, England was the only state in the world . .

. . except for Pakistan to recognize the WB as being legally part of Jordan after the '48 war. I think I'm starting to connect some dots.

[The Magistrate]

5. Not Much Signifigance To That, Ma'am

Jordan remained virtually a protectorate of England at that time: England paid its military budget until the mid-fifties.

[msmcghee]

7. Perhaps you're right about that.

But, I seem to recall coming across references to British enamoration of Arabs in books, movies and such, going back at least to Lawrence. My grandfather who was in WWI collected Egyptian curios and I seem to remember him mentioning that Arabophilia was all the rage around the time of the NY World's fair - even here in the US.

I also know that England has never been too kind hearted toward Jews - and neither was my grandfather. During the Mandate England basically did everything they could to prevent Jews from emigrating to Palestine - this while it was common knowledge that they were being exterminated and shoved into ghettos in Germany and Poland.

While doing a search to see if I was totally off track on this I came across this fascinating essay by George Orwell, written in 1945, "Anti-Semitism in Britain".

http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/England/antisemitism.html

Is it not conceivable that England was somewhat eager to recognize Jordan's claim to the WB fearing that Israel would figure a way to eventually lay some claim to it. Perhaps British politicians, sharing a basic anti-Jewish - pro-Arab sentiment with their citizens - felt that having the WB as part of an established Arab state was better than leaving it indeterminate in that regard?

[The Magistrate]

11. And To That, Ma'am

One could readily match such items as Maj. Wingate and his 'Special Night Companies' recruited from the Hagganah in the period of the Arab Revolt, and a sturdy strain of 'Christian Zionism' that has had a marked presence in English religious thought and conviction for a couple of centuries.

It is true enough that by the time of the Arab Revolt's suppression, the English government came to the conclusion that if it was to hold on to Palestine, which it very much wanted to do, it was going to have to placate the majority of its population, and not base its policy on the minority in the place, but that is not quite the same thing as what you are suggesting. It is worth remembering, too, what proportion of England's armed forces, when the bulk of the Indian Army is taken into account, was comprised of Moslem soldiers. For better or worse, raw self interest generally dictates the behavior states.

[msmcghee]

16. I am certainly in agreement . .

. . regarding allocating a state's motives to "self interest". It's hard to go wrong on that.

However, we're talking about England's self interest in 1948 and for the next few years. It seems all the examples you cited (except perhaps Christian Zionism) would only have been relevant before 1948.

I am suggesting (not asserting) that England's self interest in 1948 and beyond - was to choose Jordan rather than Israel as its closest friend in the region - and that that choice could have been motivated at least in part by anti-semitism / Arabophilia.

This seems to me the more likely because with the end of the Mandate the previous year - "holding on to Palestine" was no longer a realistic possibility - except in the sense of having as much political influence in the region as possible. Even if Israel succeeded it would never control access to the Suez, for example.

I suspect England was betting on the likelihood that Israel would eventually fail (or be militarily defeated) and they would be seen as having chosen the right partner - and that an anti-semitic / Arabophilic undercurrent in England made such an admittedly practical choice also "feel" right.

Again, this is only a suspicion on my part which I will hold provisionally - while I keep my eyes open for more evidence in either direction.

[The Magistrate]

26. As The Saying Goes, Ma'am

"Never invoke malice where stupidity will do."

England in '48 and for some years after had excellent reasons of self-interest to prefer engagement with Arab states formerly its colonies and protectorates to alignment with Israel. Its government in those days rather over-rated its capability to maintain Imperial pretensions in the region, though its best shot was given. The political scene then was very different, almost unrecognizeable to present day eyes. England and France hoped to exclude the U.S. from much influence in the Middle East; the Soviet Union backed Israel as an anti-colonialist development subversive of the elder empires' influence there, and a fellow Socialist state. All this, of course, decisevly changed within a few years.

[msmcghee]

27. So then we agree on the practical side of it.

I guess my only addition then, is my suggestion that an underlying anti-semitism / Arabophilia - made such practical conclusions all the more easy to reach.

******************** An aside:

Generally, I believe that such "emotional" inputs - both act as a filter, leading to certain emotionally satisfying conclusions being worth consideration - and then act as an arbiter between equally practical alternatives that may not enjoy equal strength in the emotional dimension.

I suspect that we tend to give reason and logic more credit than they are due in most high-level decision processes. Good logical decisions are the product of those who themselves, have a particularly strong emotional commitment to the value of reasonable and logically informed conclusions. With luck, such people find their way to advisory positions in government.

Few leaders, I believe, have such qualities - because they must first be sales oriented and politically astute - and both are almost entirely emotional.

The best leaders are logically smart too, of course. They need to know a good adviser when they see one and must be able to recognize the value in the advice they get.

Ideally, a good leader IMO will be politically astute, an intuitive salesperson and logically adept - and will know the difference between them and the contribution each should make to the process. Kinda makes me pine for Bill Clinton.

[The Magistrate]

28. So It Would Seem, Ma'am

My own inclination, while not slighting the importance of emotional influences and under-pinnings, is to accept that, since they are not directly accessible, occuring only within the minds of others, which we cannot read any more than others can read ours, we must take the material, external elements as the guide in analysis. It is too easy to conclude others really think what we think they think, or think what it would make our position firmer if they did think. Allowances must always be made for one's own subjectivity in these things. That is particularly important where one is considering the conclusion that someone is doing something because they are thinking things generally regarded as bad and evil to think.

[msmcghee]

29. I understand that view.

However, one should always remember that with any decision a human makes - whether it is to choose the Salmon over the beef - or nuclear war over negotiation - that decision is made because that person has reached the entirely emotional conclusion that they will feel better, on net, as the outcome of that choice.

And that's true no matter how much logical analysis was applied to the question - or even if MIT's supercomputers were employed. People don't make decisions according to their logical conclusions. We are not like Mr. Spock. We make them according to how much emotional value we give to the logical conclusions we (or others) produce - along with various other emotional inputs such as instincts or social pressure, etc. It must always come down to a human who feels (not thinks) that their own well-being - however their personality, intelligence and emotional makeup allows them to estimate that quality - will benefit more from that choice than from any alternatives they may be aware of.

Our own subjectivity comes in estimating how much such considerations from which emotional sources contribute to that person's decision process. Humans tend to be very good at such estimations - though some people are pretty good at it and some not as much. Those who are best at it become salespersons and politicians.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[rayofreason]

4. I wonder...

...if any of these folks will speak out against Hamas and Fatah for atrocities like throwing bound prisoners off of building to execute them and shooting up hospitals.

I won't hold my breath.

[barb162]

12. I'm glad you won't be holding your breath.

I'd much rather have you here posting.
:hi:

[bemildred]

6. You can't sue people to make them buy stuff or associate with you.

And you won't win any friends that way either. And "We're better than Iran, Sudan, Venezuela, and Zimbabwe" isn't much of a defense.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. I don't know about international law...

...but in the US, if it can be proved that a company purposely refuses to use the services of a company because of minority status (i.e. predominately African-American, Hispanic, female owned and operated), then the company most certainly can sue. I don't know if that applies to international law. Of course, I didn't see anything about suing anyone. Perhaps, I skimmed too quickly.

As for your comment about the ""we're better than..." defense"", that isn't what is really being said. If you exclude or ostracize a group for something, yet don't do the same to other groups who are doing the same thing or worse, then it is bigotry. It is that point the ADL and others were making. Anti-Israeli bigotry is a real thing despite those who cannot/will not see it for what it is.

[bemildred]

10. I was talking about Mr Dershowitz' "threats":

"In the United States, Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, a strong Israel backer, told Britain's Guardian newspaper he had lined up a 100-strong legal team ready to "devastate and bankrupt" anyone who boycotts Israeli universities."

I am pretty sure International law does not have such provisions, however this has nothing to do with minority status, one should not conflate a boycott instituted for political reasons with ethnic bigotry, they are not the same thing. The idea is not to boycott Israelis because they are Israelis, it's to boycott Israelis to apply pressure to end the occupation.

Also, there is the problem of proving such an allegation, and the fact that companies are not persons when it comes to this sort of issue, individuals may refuse to shop anywhere for any reason.

Mr Dershowitz, of course, is not serious about suing everybody, he is just trying to shut people up. I am simply pointing out that as a practical matter his threats are empty.

Edit: with regard to your other comment about the "better than Sudan" defense, it is simply not true that the problems in Sudan are ignored in favor of bashing Israel, Sudan gets lots of attention, and it is not true that Israel is being ostracized or whatever, it is being criticized for it's actions, just like any of the other places you name, and for reasons that are not dissimilar. It is a lame defense to claim you are being singled out when you are not, and even lamer to do so when you also fail to rebut any of the allegations being made. It is sixth grade reasoning: "Jimmy made me do it, it's not fair, Bobby stuck gum in her hair ..." etc.

[Behind the Aegis]

13. I was unaware of a British boycott against Sudan.

[bemildred]

14. Me neither.

On the other hand, there are a variety of international sanctions, UN resolutions, and that sort of thing.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1950303.htm
http://www.indianmuslims.info/news/2007/jun/14/us_tightens_sanctions_against_sudan.html
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L30604064.htm

Would you prefer an attempted academic boycott or UN sanctions?

Edit: since my point is simply that it is false that these other issues are being ignored, all I have to do is show that they are getting plenty of attention, which is quite easy to do.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. UN sanctions

Then again, you fail to see bigotry when right in front of your face. The number of resolutions passed against Israel versus, take Sudan, are overwhelming.

I never said the other issues were being ignored, I said they weren't receiving the same attention and reaction level that Israel's issues were.

[bemildred]

18. Well, you are right that I fail to see the bigotry, anyway.

Israel has no sanctions against it.

[Robson]

30. May I suggest that anyone who promotes one ethnicity over another is a racist

Even Allan Dershowitz would not deny that he zealously promotes Israeli interests over the causes of other ethnicities such as Palestinians. Sorry.....IMHO that makes him a racist bigot by default. One cannot take the Israeli side day in and day out at the expense of other ethnicities without losing credibility.

rac·ism(rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

edited: spelling boo boo.

[bemildred]

31. Well, you could certainly assert they are biased.

Or bigoted, or something of that sort. I personally think we are all as alike as peas in a pod, and that any Palestinian child raised as an Israeli in an Israeli home from birth would turn out to be a typical Israeli, whatever that is, and vice-versa. But these sort of opinions tend to upset people.

[AviBaruch]

36. I'd suggest you revisit the definition again

promoting interests close to you is at worst selfish. It doesn't make one racist unless you claim them to be superior, which Dershowitz doesn't do.

And he also speaks out on Darfur and other human rights causes, so your claim is specious.

[Robson]

38. So depending on the situation or parties involved, racism is only favoritism?

So favoritism is OK, but it is not racism. :rofl:

Yeah tell that to African Americans who had a history of being discriminated against...."folks, it's ok as it was nothing but favoritism and that's the only reason you weren't promoted or offered the job."

The fact remains, is if one promotes and provides opportunities based upon one's own or a preferential ethnicity over others he/she is a racist, and if it can be statistically measured and proven it is not only unethical but it is illegal in the USA.

So what does Darfur have to do with this? Dershowitz is blind to any other causes but promoting Israel.

[AviBaruch]

39. So anyone who works as an activist for only causes

that directly affects them are bigots? No, they're not. No one is obligated to stand up for any causes and when they do, they have the right to choose those that benefit them.

And I mention Darfur to show that he does focus on issues beyond Israel, negating the exact point your trying to make.

[LeftishBrit]

40. Darfur does have something to do with it...

because if Dershowitz is promoting awareness of the crisis in Darfur, then he cannot be 'blind to any other causes but promoting Israel'.

However, Dershowitz has little to do with the proposed boycott. I doubt that most of the British people proposing the boycott have even heard of Dershowitz.

One could say that some of the pro-boycott people, by your unusual definition, are 'racist' in that they are blind to any causes except promoting the Palestinian cause against Israel (e.g. they don't propose boycotting the USA over the Iraq war, or Russia over Chechnya, or China over Tibet). Nor do they seem to be proposing much action over the factional fighting that is currently harming Palestinians severely. All this is what raises suspicions in some quarters of racism (anti-semitism). Actually, I think that while some of the pro-boycott people are anti-semites, not all are by any means. Many are just people who want to make a gesture, and are choosing an easy target, and seem to find it hard to 'multi-task' about their targets.

Even with specific regard to the Palestinian issue: if the British academics in question had put some of this effort into supporting educational projects in Palestine, or scholarships, or academic links with Israeli Arabs and Palestinians - they might have achieved more than by threatened boycotts.

[msmcghee]

41. Playing the "racist" card so recklessly could . .

. . reveal a racism in your own position if you are not careful.

Palestinian militias attack Israeli civilians. Israel attacks the militias - that happen to all be Palestinian. By your definition that makes any Israeli defense of its citizens a racist enterprise since their efforts are only directed against one ethnicity.

Desert Storm was directed against an Arab regime in the ME. Does that make the EU, Japan and the other coalition forces all racists? Did they attack Saddam Hussein's regime because they hate Arabs? See how stupid such claims become when carried to their logical conclusion?

The fact that only Israel deserves your accusations of racism when it defends itself against the groups that attack it - groups that happen to be ethnically Palestinian - suggests a type of racism that most would agree - more accurately fulfills the definition of the term.

But maybe I'm reading too much into your rant. Perhaps you'd like to clarify.

BTW: I am only responding to the silliness of your "racism" accusation. I don't think that racism - I don't know if that is your motive - is necessarily a worse motive for opposing Israel's right to defend the lives of its citizens than any of the other dubious justifications that are typically offered here every day. Any motive for condemning a state for defending the lives of its citizens from deadly attacks against them - is just as odious IMO.

[Robson]

42. Couple of thoughts on this...if I may

Let's try and be objective here.

Would you agree that most of the 1st world countries are experiencing, if not making an actual effort to meld and racially and ethnically and offer immigration to many different peoples....except Israel? These countries such as USA, France, Germany, etc. don't determine the rights of their citizens based upon their race or ethnicity. Many fair minded people in the world are becoming frustrated with Israel's racially biased policies and of those who blindly support those policies such as Allan Dershowitz. That's why we see these boycotts.

Does anyone truly believe that Israel has any intentions of working to meld its country with its Palestinian neighbors, or any others, and giving equal rights and encouraging immigration to non Jews? Smarter people than I (and even an ex-President) have even accused Israel of attempting to ethnically cleanse what were the former Palestinian lands. The evidence and news has been fairly clear on that.

Israel is an ethnically based country that gives those of its religious base a big leg up as compared to others. Sorry....I don't see that as fair minded and non-racist.

What I suggest is that Israel and Palestinians merge their countries into a union of common interests or a two state country and give each resident common citizenship and the right to vote. Give the Palestinians an opportunity to the same prosperity and political power that Israelis have. It could be called the Israeli-Palestine Union.


edited: grammar

[msmcghee]

43. Let's.

Robson: Would you agree that most of the 1st world countries are experiencing, if not making an actual effort to meld and racially and ethnically and offer immigration to many different peoples....except Israel?

Despite the impossible grammar of that sentence, no. Most 1st world countries have a variety of immigration policies that are constantly changing and being re-evaluated.

Robson: These countries such as USA, France, Germany, etc. don't determine the rights of their citizens based upon their race or ethnicity. Many fair minded people in the world are becoming frustrated with Israel's racially biased policies and of those who blindly support those policies such as Allan Dershowitz.

What rights do Israeli Arabs not enjoy that non-Arab Israelis do? What racially biased policies are you talking about? List one Israeli law that clearly discriminates against its non-Jewish citizens. If you can't will you admit that you are full of crap for claiming that Israel is a racist state?

Robson: Does anyone truly believe that Israel has any intentions of working to meld its country with its Palestinian neighbors, or any others, and giving equal rights and encouraging immigration to non Jews?

What the hell does "meld its country" mean? Israel does give equal rights to its non-Jewish citizens. Israel has a right to establish whatever immigration policy they wish - just like every other country in the world. Israel's failure to conform to your requirements for immigration policy does not make Israel a racist state.

Every state has the right to set its own immigration policy - arbitrarily if they wish - and favoring or disfavoring any nationality or ethnicity. Much like Arab states did in 1948 thru 1950 when almost a million Jews were expelled from those states and their property confiscated.

Israel has never expelled any Arabs - although many voluntarily fled during the War of Independence when surrounding Arab states attempted to destroy Israel. There are now millions of Arabs living in Israel enjoying full citizenship rights. There are virtually no Jews living in any Arab state in the region. Those Arab states that did expel the Jews typically teach their children in school that Jews are grotesque animals that deserve to be killed. Now what was that you were saying about racism?

Robson: What I suggest is that Israel and Palestinians merge their countries into a union of common interests or a two state country and give each resident common citizenship and the right to vote. Give the Palestinians an opportunity to the same prosperity and political power that Israelis have. It could be called the Israeli-Palestine Union.

I can't imagine why Israel would not want to have Palestine as a sister state in a federation, especially Gaza. Perhaps you should apply for Israeli citizenship and if granted - you could then have standing to make your ideas available to Israeli leaders. Breakaleg has some good ideas about that too. You two could get together.

[Robson]

44. Sorry my grammar lost it

Ok you got me, as my grammar and spelling failed muster. But I believe my thoughts and fairness are correct.

Those of us with a sensitivity to racism and fair values have begun to see Israel as an ethnically based / racist country that puts religious heritage ahead of everything else. It is even defined as a Jewish country for God's sake...look it up.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:israel&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

How about if the USA was defined as WASP republic, would that make it racist? How about those that support such demographics are they racists? As I recollect here on DU we call them hate crimers and white supremacists.

The world is boycotting Israel because it/they are becoming frustrated with their continued arrogance that considers appropriate ethnicity as the price of admission and the price of peace. We Americans of all ethnicities subsidize Israel with billions in aid yet only a few will be offered immigration or citizenship. Is this a good deal for America or is it a super deal for Israel?

I support a politically unified Palestinian / Israeli Gaza and West Bank and returning the Golan Heights to Syria.

[msmcghee]

46. My criticism of your grammar and spelling is a comment . .

. . that you might heed. You seem to be a passionate and sincere person. I respect both is those - even though I disagree with you. Bad grammar and spelling often go with muddled thinking and I do see a connection here. Given a choice I'd prefer that you correct your thinking. Bad grammar seldom harms others. If you were to work on that - I think your spelling and grammar would benefit.

Added on edit: I make lots of errors myself. But I re-read my posts and go back and make corrections. Even then I'm sure some get through. It's the discipline and habit of the effort that helps clarify one's thoughts IMO.

For example, you said:

Those of us with a sensitivity to racism and fair values have begun to see Israel as an ethnically based / racist country that puts religious heritage ahead of everything else. It is even defined as a Jewish country for God's sake...look it up.

For whose sake?

Israel is a secular country with a Jewish heritage. As a democracy - religious Jews are free to vote for laws that reflect that heritage - within constitutional limits - just as Christians are here. Some laws are therefore bound to unfairly advantage the religious (or other ethnic groups) sometimes - until they can by overturned by the courts. The same thing happens in this country.

Most US states do not allow same sex marriage and until recently many of them outlawed mixed race marriages. That make us neither a sexist nor a racist nation. In a constitutional democracy laws are dynamic and usually evolve toward more human rights. Just is they do in Israel. It is that process - and how fairly it is administered - that qualifies a state as one that respects human rights.

Only if that evolution is stopped and reversed could you make that claim. In Israel that process is dynamic and robust. Despite religious opposition there will be a gay pride celebration in Israel this year. The Arab states surrounding Israel are not constitutional democracies - they do not have a comparable set of human rights listed in a document that their laws can be tested against and forced to conform to. Will you be attending a gay pride march in Gaza soon? Are gay Palestinians suing the government to allow them to do so?

Israel's immigration policy has nothing to do with racism. I know of no Israeli law that is overtly racist. I invited you to show us one - and you have not. I see no problem with any state controlling the ethnicity of its population by controlling immigration. That's their business. They will suffer in trade and commerce if they do it unfairly.

I judge states by the rights they provide their citizens - not by who they allow to become citizens. This is especially true when Israel is surrounded by Arab states that have attacked Israel repeatedly and some still actively call for Israel's destruction. I think Israel would be very foolish to open up citizenship for people from states who have called for its destruction. I think people who call on Israel to do so are being disingenuous - or perhaps just guilty of muddled thinking.

I am sure that most Israelis believe that their culture - being open, democratic and largely providing equal rights to all its citizens, male, female, Arab, Jew, homosexual, straight, Christian, Muslim, etc. - is superior to the Arab cultures in the ME that do not provide those equal rights.

I agree with them. That does not make me or the Israelis racists. If I was racist I would say that Arabs are incapable - as a race - of appreciating and celebrating those values. I do not believe that for a minute.

I believe that people are very equal racially. I have no such illusions regarding different cultures. Nazi culture was abhorrent and possibly the ugliest example of western ethnicity (Aryan) in history. That was because it was racist - not because it was Aryan.

I'll ask you again - either put up some clear evidence or a well thought out argument (your last post was not one of those) that Israel is a racist state - or admit that you don't know what you are talking about. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do. Are you up to it?

[Robson]

47. Is discrimination because of religion and ethnicity considered racism?

Israel is defined as a Jewish state (forget my use of the old expression "for God's sake") .

The world regularly boycotts countries (and it should) for displaying religious or racial bias.

Are you claiming that any religion or race is welcome in Israel and that Jews don't receive preference?

There is no other country in the 1st world that I am aware of that is defined by its religion and ethnicity. The US, British or French citizens aren't offered citizenship in Israel unless they have Jewish heritage. If it was reversed and Jews were not offered equal citizenship in these countries, there would be outrage and claims of anti-Semitism, as such a biased policy would be chastized as blatant racism.

Until Israel takes a broad based non-discriminatory approach to non-Jews and has equal offers of citizenship to all its residents, even Allan Dershowitz would have to agree that such policy was discriminatory.

[msmcghee]

49. I really don't think we'll be able to discuss this.

From reading your posts I can see that fundamental parts of your belief system are very different from mine. Enough so, that there probably is no point spending a lot of energy on this. As I said, I respect your passion and your sincerity - but I believe you are very wrong about the meaning of racism and what place it takes in the Israel / Palestine conflict - and that's about all it makes sense to say about it at this time.

[pelsar]

54. I disagree...

its not that his belief system is so different...its that his facts are so wrong. If his beliefs are based on just beliefs then, like a religion there is little to discuss..but if he claims his belief is based on facts...and his facts are sooooo wrong then there is.

but this then depends upon on how much he is willing to either "prove his facts" or face the fact that his beliefs are based on false assumptions.

[msmcghee]

56. We do disagree to some extent about how the brain works.

I think the mistake people make is they give too much credit to reason and facts and words in these threads. All the action is in the underlying emotions.

You can test this. The emotions are what happen without the words and facts. They are what happens inside us when we see a picture of a tank with an Israeli flag rumbling down the street in a Palestinian village. A majority of those who post in this forum will have a strong emotional reaction to that picture - that can be measured using things like MRI. The same is true of the image of a Hamas fighter wearing a ski mask firing his AK47 from behind a pile of rubble.

For each of those images - some of us will feel emotions that could be classified as fear, hate and anger. Others we will have feelings of pride, security and justice served. What labels we put on the feelings is not important. But the way we see events in the conflict and the words we write in our posts - will follow those emotions very reliably.

When we engage our brains - it is almost always to find clever ways to refute our opponents' beliefs - or find clever ways to support our own. We almost never engage our brains to assure ourselves that the emotions (and the beliefs they are based on) are appropriate.

We are all different because of the core beliefs we hold about the conflict that produce those strong emotions. Usually these consist of a set of mutually reinforcing beliefs. Some possibilities are:

At the ethnic/nationalistic level:

1a) Israel and the Jews who live there are evil people. They should never have been allowed to settle in the "Palestinians' land". Whatever bad things happen to them they deserve and more bad things should happen to them until they are driven out. I don't care where they go - just not where I live.

1b) Arabs (Palestinians) are evil. They should have accepted the Partition and learned to live with their Jewish neighbors and there would be no strife in Palestine / Israel today. They are the cause of their own suffering - and deserve to suffer because of their refusal to consider non-violent means to end the conflict - even though they've been given many chances.

At the values level:

2a) Any people from Europe or the West who try to settle areas of the world where 3rd world cultures exist are colonialists and should be resisted and driven away. Zionism is a particularly vile form of colonialism that tricked the UN into supporting it and should therefore be repudiated and the Jews in Israel (Palestine) should be forced to find someplace else to live.

2b) Relocating and settling refugee populations is always a difficult task. The Partition Plan was an approach where all the world's powers were given input to the decision. It was not a perfect decision - but the world and the ME should make the best of it now - as they should have in 1948 - and learn to live in peace. Those who choose violence instead of acceptance must be dealt with using the same or more violent means if necessary - or there is no hope for peace in the world

2c) 3rd world peoples should never submit to the domination of the big powers. They have a right to cultural dignity and to resist and kill those who would force them to submit.

2d) It is always wrong to use force to get something from others when peaceful alternatives are available. Those who choose violence instead of dialog and negotiations must be dealt with using even stronger violence if necessary - or there is no hope for peace in the world.

Note that some of these beliefs are rather harsh and we seldom express them that way in our posts. Instead we use common narratives to stand in for our beliefs - that have been tested as to their acceptability to the mods, their ability to withstand attack, their adoption by authority figures (as in Carter/apartheid) etc.

There are other belief sets but these probably cover a range that I suspect exist in various combinations in the minds of most members of this forum - and in most of us they are strong beliefs that generate very strong consistent emotions.

When we are exposed to beliefs that support our own - we feel emotional pleasure. We feel like we are in control and that the world is safe. When we are exposed to beliefs that refute our own - we feel real emotional pain that we must respond to. We feel like we are losing control in a dangerous world. We can become depressed if we don't respond somehow to protect our beliefs from attack.

We protect our beliefs (and our feelings) by using our brains to retaliate against those who hold antagonistic beliefs. We try to make our opponent look stupid, we offer arguments that are difficult to refute, etc. If a mod deletes one of our posts when we are doing that - we can get very angry since we have been deprived of the chance to relieve the pain of being exposed to our opponents' hurtful beliefs - by a force that we have no control over.

We almost never use our brains to question our core beliefs. We are all stuck with the beliefs that we brought into the forum - or variations that solidified soon after arriving here. Actually we're stuck with ways of seeing the world that were pretty well developed in us by our early twenties - and those determined how we would see this conflict when we became aware of it. In a forum like this for anyone older than that we only add cement to our beliefs - we don't really question them.

So, most posts are really just attempts at cleverness - our ability to attack our opponents' immutable beliefs and defend our own.

However, some of the beliefs driving this forum are objectively more rational than others. We all believe our own beliefs are objective of course (a core belief we all share) - which makes us poor judges of our own beliefs. Nature (reality) is the only judge that counts. Eventually nature will have its way - as it always does - and only then will we see whose beliefs were actually the more objective.

In a way the events surrounding Hamas' victory in Gaza are one example of nature having its way. Some judgments about who was objectively right or wrong in the past are now available for those who want to see them. You can get a hint about how that is working out - not from the words but by observing the emotions - in this case by noting which side is complaining about the apparent "glee" of the other.

But this is only one step along the road of a conflict with many dimensions. Some future events could show that this was an aberration - and the other side was actually the most objective according to the larger nature of the conflict. I don't think so but then I am biased in favor of my own beliefs.

[pelsar]

60. I very much agree with your defintions....

and how our brains works...especially the emotion vs logic problem. What i have discovered is that the emotional aspect is generally not accepted by both sides at the sametime and i admit it may be a bias on my part, i find the "pro Palestinians" to be far more emotional.

i've been place on ignore several times, yet it never occurs to me to put someone on ignore.... questions i've asked go unanswered with some of the lamest excuses (its the way i ask them....). When i mention that some ones belief is like a religion...boy have i been "yelled at"...but without a contrasting argument.

Actually the conflict is a very interesting laboratory in examining ones beliefs, if they're based on logic and facts and/or emotion. There have been enough beliefs that facts have proven wrong (or right), the question then: does it change ones opinion.

Netanyahu and much of the right were correct when they claimed that leaving gaza would give rise to hamas and rockets on the surrounding cities. The question for much of the left is...what does that mean? For those who believed that leaving gaza would be the start of a peaceful coexistence, well they were simply wrong. For those who believed that their arab brothers really cared about the palestenians...egypt closing its border to the citizens of gaza sure proved that wrong. Those beliefs of much of the left have shown themselves to be no more than illusions.

Within israel, where the "left" is not blind to the actions on the ground, we have seen a movement to the center, leaving one belief and modifying it to accept the changed environment. That we dont see here (well actually its been pretty quiet of the pro Palestinian crowd).

As far as changing minds.....there are those who visit these forums and those that just read. My posts are mainly for them, perhaps some actually base their beliefs on the events on the ground, have some understanding of "group think" of successful and failed societies... it is they who i believe, if they use more reason and logic will have a better understanding of the conflict.

[eyl]

51. I'll concentrate here replies to several points

You've raised throughout this subthread.

Israel is defined as a Jewish state (forget my use of the old expression "for God's sake") .

As pelsar pointed there are quite a few countries - including in the first world - which have an official religion. Furthermore, quite a few European countries are implicitly or explicitly defined as states of a certain ethnicity or cultural group - and go to some lengths to maintain that culture.

That is not, however, sufficient to support you're argument. Just because the UK is officially an Anglican country, it does not necessarily follow that it is religiously biased. Similarly, to support your argument regarding Israel, you need to show actual laws which grant more rights to Jewish citizens than to others.

The US, British or French citizens aren't offered citizenship in Israel unless they have Jewish heritage

Countries don't normally "offer" citizenship to anyone - an indivdual applies to become a citizen of a country.

It's a common misconception that the Law of Return restricts citizenship to Jews. In fact, the LoR gives Jews a fast track to citizenship - something which, again, has an equivalent in several European countries - but does not prevent non-Jews from attaining citizenship trhough naturalization.

Until Israel takes a broad based non-discriminatory approach to non-Jews and has equal offers of citizenship to all its residents

Which Israeli residents are not offered citizenship?

Does anyone truly believe that Israel has any intentions of working to meld its country with its Palestinian neighbors, or any others, and giving equal rights and encouraging immigration to non Jews

Why should Israel "meld" its country with others? I don't see the US working on becoming one country with Canada. Likewise, there's a difference between allowing immigration and encouraging it; I don't see why Israel (or any country) should be required to do the latter.

It could be called the Israeli-Palestine Union

And then we could have things shipped to IP addresses :) (sorry, couldn't resist)

[gogogodzilla]

69. Ethnicity based nations

Most nations in the world are defined by ethnicity and/or religion.

IE:

Scotland is for Scots, not Chinese.
Ireland is for Irish, not Japanese.
China is for the Chinese, not Zimbabweans.

And England is for the English, not Brazilians.

(and considering many nations in Europe have a state-sponsored church, one can also make the claim that a particular country is defined by the state religion, too.

Church of England (Anglican Church), anyone?

Or the Vatican.

---

Get it?

So there is nothing any more inherently racist in saying Israel is for Jews... than the above examples.

Maybe the British academicians should boycott England, too... for their EVIL practice of having England be English... and for pushing the Anglican Church on the people through taxes.

[AviBaruch]

70. If the boycott is based on this idea

that singling people out based on their ethnicity or structuring people around an ethnicity is wrong, it's ironic that they single people out to boycott based on that as well.

[msmcghee]

71. Had to read that twice.

Good one. :thumbsup:

Now I think I'll go make some coffee.

[pelsar]

50. countries that have official religions...they define themselves as such

note the list:

many are first world countries....now it seems your theory has a problem: your simply wrong about that

I think we should take apart your arguements one at a time to keep it easier:now that we've established that israel like many other countries has a religion "built in" to its independance, doesnt make it racist (either that or all those countries are racist) we should then move on to israeli "racist laws" which i believe you wrote: that puts religious heritage ahead of everything else....

true it will be difficult to find what doesnt exist, so I'll leave that up to you to find some examples (you'll definitly find bias and prejudice and you'll also find petitions in the supreme court (which has an arab/israeli on it which didnt even cause the slightest ripple in the society)


btw how can you possible advocate a "one state solution" when in the past few days not only did gaza break away from the westbank, but they're a most racist, fanatical group........that is now occupying gaza. Or do you not see that as a problem? (or how about the PAs offiical religion islam, which is the basis for their country. Do you advocate removing that from their base?....and do you really think that has a chance?)


-------
nations which recognize Christianity as their official religion:

· Argentina
· Bolivia
· Costa Rica
· Denmark
· El Salvador
· Finland
· Greece
· Holy See
· Iceland
· Malta
· Monaco
· Norway
· Paraguay
· Peru
· Samoa
· United Kingdom
· Vanuatu

Nations which recognize a form of Protestant Christianity as their official religion:

· Vanuatu
· Samoa
· United Kingdom
· Finland
Nations which recognize the Evangelical Lutheran Church as their official religion:

· Denmark
· Iceland
· Norway

Nations which recognize the Greek Orthodox Church as their official religion:

· Greece

Nations which recognize Islam as their official religion:

· Afghanistan
· Algeria
· Bangladesh
· Comoros
· Libya
· Mauritania
· Morocco
· Iran
· Iraq
· Jordan
· Malaysia
· Maldives
· Oman
· Pakistan
· Saudi Arabia
· Tunisia
· Bahrain
· Brunei
· Egypt
· Kuwait
· Qatar
· Somalia
· United Arab Emirates
· Yemen
Nations which recognize Sunni Islam as their official religion:

· Algeria
· Somalia

Nations which recognize Buddhism as their official religion:

· Bhutan
· Burma
· Cambodia
· Thailand
Nations which recognize Lamaistic Buddhism as their official religion:

· Bhutan

Nations which recognize Theravada Buddhism as their official religion:

· Cambodia

Nations which recognize Hinduism as their official religion:

· Nepal

[LeftishBrit]

59. A few comments

Robson:

Those of us with a sensitivity to racism and fair values have begun to see Israel as an ethnically based / racist country that puts religious heritage ahead of everything else. It is even defined as a Jewish country for God's sake...look it up.

LB:

Most countries are defined to some degree in terms of ethnic heritage, which usually includes some religious component. Being Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. Most ethnic Jews practice Judaism as a religion, but many don't. (I am an ethnic Jew as my mother is Jewish, but I am an atheist. Sammy Davis Jr is not of ethnic Jewish ancestry, but he converted to Judaism).

To take a random example, Italy is definable as a country for Italians, and most Italians are Roman Catholics, which influences the country's culture. This does not mean that it is a racist or religiously-bigoted country - unless one considers *all* national divisions and boundaries to be racist and bigoted, which is a defensible view. The same with Israel. Israel does not enforce Judaism as a religion, or govern according to Judaic law, and though the majority of citizens are (religious) Jews, there are also many Christians, Moslems and atheists.

Nor does Israel exclude non-Jews from immigrating. Ethnic Jews (there is no religious requirement) do have a fast-track to citizenship if they choose to apply, but non-Jews can and do also become citizens. Once again, most countries do favour immigrants who have some family or traditional connection with the country. One may argue about the justice of this, but it applies to most countries, not just Israel.


Robson:

How about if the USA was defined as WASP republic, would that make it racist? How about those that support such demographics are they racists? As I recollect here on DU we call them hate crimers and white supremacists.

LB:

It is not defined in that way, but America has a right to exclude people from other countries from immigrating - and will probably favour those who have American relatives, or are descended from Americans.

Many countries have offical religions. The UK has an official religion - the Church of England - but many, perhaps most, people, do not belong to this Church, and we do not nowadays suffer from state discrimination on these grounds.

Israel, though it allows the 'right of return' to Jews who wish to seek it, is not officially confined to Jews (who are themselves highly diverse). It includes Europaean Jews, Middle Eastern Jews, Arabs, Druzes, and others.

Robson:

The world is boycotting Israel because it/they are becoming frustrated with their continued arrogance that considers appropriate ethnicity as the price of admission and the price of peace.

LB:

First of all, the world *isn't* boycotting Israel. A few people propose doing so, from time to time. Secondly, the reason why people propose it has nothing to do with 'ethnicity as the price of admission'; at least officially, it has to do with the occupation, and with the Israeli over-reaction (in many people's opinions) in Lebanon.

Robson:

We Americans of all ethnicities subsidize Israel with billions in aid yet only a few will be offered immigration or citizenship. Is this a good deal for America or is it a super deal for Israel?

LB:

American foreign aid to any countries is not based on a hope that Americans will get citizenship in the countries in question. It is based on what American governments think will ultimately serve their economic, military and other strategic interests.

I doubt that many Americans, especially non-Jewish ones, will want to apply for citizenship in Israel. If they do, they can probably get it if they apply.

Robson:

I support a politically unified Palestinian / Israeli Gaza and West Bank and returning the Golan Heights to Syria

LB:

As someone who considers national boundaries to be sad but necessary, I think that would be lovely in an ideal world. However, it will not happen any time soon in the real world. Right at the moment, a unified Palestinian Gaza/West Bank would be a rather nice idea.

Most countries do not unify politically with their neighbours. Even when federations are formed (such as the Europaean Union), the countries in question continue to have their national independence (any attempt to restrict this is treated with considerable resistance) and national rivalries. Despite the Good Friday Agreement and major recent improvements in British/Irish relations ,there is not likely to be a politically unified Britain/ Ireland any time soon. Similarly, there will not be a politically unified United States/Mexico: it might in theory solve some problems, but it's not a practical solution at present. Similarly, for Israel/Palestine - especially in view of Hamas' current actions, which not only threaten Israel but currently preclude a politically unified *Palestine*.

[Robson]

45. Meld - this is my definition

Re your question on "meld":

When I said "meld a country (as in ethnicities) " I meant;

2. to mix together so that the components are
indistinguishable.

Syn: blend, mix, conflate, commingle, immix, fuse, coalesce,
combine, merge.

[Robson]

52. Curious

What rights do Israeli Arabs not enjoy that non-Arab Israelis do? What racially biased policies are you talking about? List one Israeli law that clearly discriminates against its non-Jewish citizens. If you can't will you admit that you are full of crap for claiming that Israel is a racist state?

Does Israel have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights for all citizens or does it base law on the Jewish religion? If not then what is the difference between Israel and any other theocracy that abuses human rights?

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Robson]

55. So there is no Constitution or Bill of Rights?

So then what actually protects minorities (i.e. non Jews)?

Or is it based upon the whim of judges and the these "basic laws"?

What is the basis for the basic laws and where are they written?

Or are they religious tenets interpreted by clergy?


Edited to add: Are these judges and courts that determine "basic laws" only Jewish or are minorities represented as in the USA?

Please: If you can addrees my specific points I'd really appreciate it as I want to learn about Israel, and I want to believe the country has the same unbiased open mind it expects the world to have about those of Jewish descent

PS: since I'll be traveling I may not be able to respond immediately but I will respond.

[pelsar]

57. I dont understand

If you've never heard of the basic laws, its clear you have no knowledge of the israeli judicial system....then why do you write as if you do? You've obviously made assumptions based on no knowledge whatsoever of israel, my question is where does it come from?

basic research about the israeli judicial system explains the basic laws....and no they are not based on religious tenets.
_________

the israeli court system has jewish and non jewish judges, there are jewish and non jewish lawyers and policeman...on the supreme court there is a muslim arab today.

have you ever heard of a "religious country" that has gay rights?....i doubt you 'll find one. That should be more than enough to discredit and belief that israels judiciary system is ruled by religion. (America with its bill or rights and consitition cant get over that one)

[msmcghee]

58. When someone believes something completely . .

. . when belief becomes religious-like, then they will not look for evidence to the contrary. It would pain them to do so. If somebody shows them the evidence - they'll disbelieve it. Prove it to them and they'll be sure you lied - or they'll block it from their minds.

The hot emotions of strong belief are far stronger than the cool logic of facts. It's no contest. There's nothing you can say or show them that will change their mind.

But there is value in pointing out the logical disconnect for others to see. Thanks for your efforts.

[Lithos]

66. Instead of being hyper-critical

This would be possibly an opening to show how the Israeli judicial system operates. There is indeed much unknown about the Israeli system which is probably confusing to those who are only familiar with the US system.

basic research about the israeli judicial system explains the basic laws....and no they are not based on religious tenets.

And at this point, I will agree and disagree with you. The basic structure of Civil and Criminal Courts is European in derivation, with the idea of separate magisterial courts with an appellate layer followed by the idea of a Supreme Court to rule on matters of law and that is extremely secular in basis. However, Israel does have a twist where family legal matters such as divorce, probate and other family laws are held by a religious court dependent upon the person's elected religious choice.

These family courts are most certainly based on religious law which in turn are significantly chartered by religious tenets. Witness the huge problems and disparities women had regarding divorce for many years. Even the courts themselves remained a male-dominated affair for many years with only a few women now taking the bench. While the Supreme Court has consistently supported the notion of civil law being over that of religious law, much like the issue of the US Constitution and State's Rights holds true - if it isn't explicitly spelled out, then more than likely the religious court will try and rule accordingly. While the Supreme Court has enacted precedence that civil law must be upheld even here, there are many cases such as how divorce happens where religious tradition still has far reaching influence. Witness the idea of how extra-marital affairs and "aguna" (abandonment) play out.

For those curious:

Basic document describing Israel's legal system. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/int19.htm

And an article describing some of the disparity between Women and Men which was caused by religious basis. Note: I will fully grant that there have been great strides in this field, but it has taken sometime for the Supreme Court to uphold the notion of civil law superseding religious law, usually on what appears to be a point by point/case-by-case basis. However, for it to say that there is not a large religious legal influence in family law is incorrect.

http://iwraw.igc.org/publications/countries/israel.htm

On Edit:

To expand, I understand that Israel is NOT a Sharia based system where religious law trumps civil law. Also, Israel is not the only Western Country where people base their judgement from religious legal tradition. Witness a rather famous Alabama judge and his fixation on the 10 commandments. Texas also has had its own fair share of religious zealotry coming from the bench. Thankfully the Supreme Court has generally over-turned these rulings.

[pelsar]

67. just a interesting note..

your right about much of family law being based in religion (mainly divorce and marriage)....one of the main reasons it "stays" despite the opposition is the coalition between the muslims and religious jews within the knesset. Both want to keep their jurisdiction over those areas.


and on a personal note: whereas some confusion to israels "situation" be it its courts system or culture i understand and take as part of the conflict, i do lose some patience when a poster who appears to be well read, makes such erroneous statements on some of the basics of israeli society and actually places it within the realm of iran or the taliban (and this when the gay parades are well publicized)

[Lithos]

68. Thanks

I understand, but I also think it's extremely hard for people to grasp just how nuanced and dynamic Israeli culture and society is. It is way too easy for someone to make a blanket statement and find some group in Israeli society to hold up as an example of why/how this is true even if that group is considered fringe and not indicative of the vast majority. Case in point, Neturai Karta which is generally considered an fringe group even among the Setmars, themselves a fairly fringe group.

The issue of Israel's legal system another example. Yeah w/r to Family Law, it's not what I would deem perfect by any stretch, but the reason for the continued existence is based on a strange alliance, not from some appeal or mandate from the mainstream. Even so, the Supreme Court has over the years forced them to operate more on a civil basis than religious.

On the subject of religion, the notion of how religion and religious tradition impacts basic Israeli society is extremely complicated from everything I've read and covers a wide gamut from the Haredi to the ultra-secular (1/4 of Israelis are considered atheistic) with many groups in between. How these groups interact between themselves, each other, Israel and the modern world I'm sure is almost impossible to describe. From the Internet blogs to pashkevilim, each group seems to take the world on differently. Politics seems to be no exception and again is hard for people to understand the dynamics.

Same degree of difficultry is true for the Israeli legal tradition which is dramatically different than the US model. Obviously there is the dynamic parliamentary system which makes our own bi-party system look tame. Then there is the idea a country such as Israel (or the UK) can derive organization, authority, and precedence from something other than a Constitution is also difficult.

To me, this is an extremely fertile field for adding to people's knowledge of an extremely complicated landscape.

your right about much of family law being based in religion (mainly divorce and marriage)....one of the main reasons it "stays" despite the opposition is the coalition between the muslims and religious jews within the knesset. Both want to keep their jurisdiction over those areas.

and on a personal note: whereas some confusion to israels "situation" be it its courts system or culture i understand and take as part of the conflict, i do lose some patience when a poster who appears to be well read, makes such erroneous statements on some of the basics of israeli society.

[Jim Sagle]

65. They should merge just on your say-so. Good luck with that.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[LeftishBrit]

9. Not going to happen

There are a number of Brits who like to make cheap and easy gestures which don't harm them, and calling for a boycott of Israel is sometimes one of them. It's easier for some people to call for a boycott of Israel, than to say "Let's boycott the United States over Iraq and instantly lose half our funding and collaborations" or - which would be logical - "Why don't we boycott ourselves, over all the nasty things Blair has been doing?" But most British people are not interested in boycotting Israel, and the unions and organizations concerned don't have the power to make them do so. The university teachers' union (UCU, formerly AUT) has rarely been organized enough to take any sort of collective action effectively, including campaigning and action over pay or conditions, and certainly is not going to get all its members to boycott Israel. Let us note that the motion by UCU was not to boycott Israel; it was to *consult* the branches and members about whether to boycott Israel. Our own local branch has already voted overwhelmingly against doing so.

This organization (left-wing, anti-occupation, but also anti-boycott) has some interesting comments on the issue:

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

Same with other calls for boycotts. A lot of talk, but it won't and shouldn't happen.

[barb162]

15. As I'm sure you've read, there's a move for a counter-boycott

by academics signing a petition declaring themselves honorary Israelis for purpose of the OP boycott attempt.

[AviBaruch]

19. One has to wonder how this is any different

than right wing pundits trying to force universities to provide their perspectives lest they be boycotted. It's actually worse in that they are staking out specific punishments for not agreeing with them. When left wing folks act in the worst manner of right wing folks, it's just sad.

The issue of whether this is anti-semitism or whatnot doesn't even matter. For those who oppose this, hit those who support where it hurts. Don't call them anti-semites, call them right wingers. That's how they're acting.

[barb162]

20. Interesting points. I doubt if this boycott will be voted for by

the members of the union as the poster upthread mentioned. The members will probably turn out to be more interested in "little" things like pay, benefits, etc.

Welcome to DU!

[AviBaruch]

21. You're most likely correct

It just comes off in the worst possible way for those outside Britain and outside the Union aside from those who hate Israel (which admittedly is a large group). My understanding is that much like the last boycott call, it's a few far left folks pushing this onto a larger group who isn't interested.

But the boycott culture is not going away and there needs to be some way to combat this ignorance.

[barb162]

24. The Guardian had an interesting letter on this

that a fraction of one percent wanted the boycott. I'm confident when or if the members vote on it, it will be voted down by a huge margin. (Oh, it .15%.)
Whenever these kinds of things come to a vote, the people who want them usually get laughed down by the more moderate people and other groups, such as the people in this letter who start to set the would-be boycotters straight. BTW, I think there is anti-Semitism invoved in these boycott attempts. The fact they aren't proposing boycotts on some other nations' academics tells the story.


Boycott plan puts our reputation at risk
Tuesday June 12, 2007
The Guardian


The proposal by the University and College Union for a boycott of Israeli universities is against all the principles of academic freedom that universities espouse. Such action threatens the universality of research and learning and is condemned by the Royal Society, the Academy of Medical Sciences, and Universities UK, representing all universities' vice-chancellors. It is explicitly opposed by the International Council for Science on the grounds that it conflicts with the vision of universities founded on freedom of inquiry, independent of political pressure. Nor will a boycott help the cause of the Palestinians or their universities, where there are many ongoing Israeli-Palestinian joint academic activities. These constitute one of the few avenues for dialogue between the two peoples and, as the president of al-Quds University has stated, a boycott would be harmful to the Palestinian cause.
We strongly believe these efforts, by less than 0.15% of the membership of the UCU, to undermine academic dialogue tarnishes the reputation of the UK academic community and of the union itself.
Leslie Turnberg House of Lords, Prof James Barber Imperial College, Prof John Bell Oxford, Colin Blakemore Chief executive, Medical Research Council, Alec Broers House of Lords, Prof Jonathen Cohen Brighton, Prof Ara Darzi Imperial College, Prof Mark Ferguson Manchester, Aaron Klug Nobel laureate, Harry Kroto Nobel laureate, Prof Alex Markham Leeds, Naren Patel House of Lords, Keith Peters Past president, Academy of Medical Sciences, Stewart Sutherland House of Lords, (Prof) Raymond Tallis Manchester, Stephen Tomlinson Provost, University of Wales, Richard Trainor Principal, King's College, London, Mark Walport Wellcome Trust, John Walton House of Lords, (Prof) David Weatherall Oxford, Nick Wright Warden, Barts and the London Medical School

Academics have a professional responsibility to spread knowledge and promote understanding. The proposal by the UCU is an assault on academic freedom and intellectual exchange. Recently, MPs had the opportunity to meet the editor of the Jerusalem Post, David Horovitz, a journalist of great courage and integrity who argues that the sharing of information and knowledge is the best defence against extremism. Yet the UCU has been captured by a minority on the British left. We share David's disappointment that the unions representing the professions of journalism and academia should promote boycotts of Israel. We back Sally Hunt's proposal to call a full ballot of the members. This controversial decision affecting academic freedom and Britain's international reputation should be taken by every member of the UCU.
Jane Kennedy MP Chair, Labour Friends of Israel, Gillian Shephard President, Conservative Friends of Israel, Alan Beith MP President, Liberal Democat Friends of Israel, Roger Lyons Chair, Trade Union Friends of Israel


http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,2100847,00.html

[AviBaruch]

25. Well, there's no doubt there is anti-semitism involved

but the current tactic of many left wing critics of Israel is to use any claim of anti-semitism, no matter how accurate or true, and exagerate it to say "You can't criticize Israel without being called anti-semitic." Of course, that's a strawman, but it's been effective in many arenas, as it's hard to call out real anti-semites on the left without people attacking you.

And sadly, I'd say those involved are much more likely to be offended if they were compared to ditto head than a white supremacist. sad but true.

[bemildred]

22. A far better argument.

Welcome to DU.

[AviBaruch]

23. Thanks

Good to be here!

[Scurrilous]

32. Report: Jews behind campaign to boycott Israel

Jewish Chronicle investigation reveals Jewish, Israeli academics justify their activity as part of struggle for Palestinian rights, ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3413292,00.html

<snip>

"Many of the key players in the escalating British campaign to boycott Israel are Jewish or Israeli, the Jewish Chronicle revealed in an investigation published Thursday.

According to the investigation, the Jewish academics justify their stance as part of the struggle for Palestinian rights and ending Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories.

The report stated that a high proportion of the academics were deeply involved in UCU, the University and College Union, which last month sparked an international outcry by voting to facilitate a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.

Anti-boycott figures suggest that the campaign has been fuelled by a well-organized mix of far-left activists and Islamic organizations, the JC reported. In reality, the main proponents are a loosely knit collection of academics and trade unionists linked to groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Jews for the Boycotting of Israeli Goods, and Bricup, the British Committee for Universities of Palestine."

[bemildred]

33. U.K.'s boycotters of Israel support a single-state solution

Britain's University and College Union's decision to promote a boycott against Israel two weeks ago did not just materialize out of thin air. In recent years, the U.K. has seen a multitude of organizations devoted to protesting Israel's occupation of the territories, who organized a mass rally last weekend in the center of London attracted thousands of participants.

One of these groups, Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods, opened a stand at the rally, calling for protesters to disrupt Israel's soccer match against England scheduled for Wembley Stadium on September 8. Next week, pro-Palestinian activists plan to call for a boycott against Israeli produce at a conference held by UNISON, Britain's biggest trade union.

Another organization, the Islamic Council for Human Rights, handed out flyers listing international corporations with branches in Israel, such as McDonald's and Calvin Klein.

Activists from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign handed out flyers calling for the British government to cease its weapons deals with Israel, under the banner "Palestinian blood on British hands."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/871413.html

[LeftishBrit]

34. A single-state solution?

Dream on - at the moment a single *Palestinian* state would be quite an achievement, even without factoring Israeli-Palestinian coexistence into the equation!

[AviBaruch]

37. Single State Solution is a pc way of saying

"Palestine free from river to sea."

[pelsar]

35. do the live in the 'real world?"

er....gaza just split off from the westbank....seems the palestenains are ruining the "UK boycotters" plan

[LeftishBrit]

61. Just came across this statement, which strongly represents my views

From Meretz-USA (associates of a left-wing Israeli party):

Link here:


http://www.meretzusa.org/actions/statements/ucuresolution.html

[Nikki Stone1]

62. Imagine if South Africa had had an Alan Dershowitz

No one could have boycotted and they'd still have apartheid over there.

Whatever you think of the boycott--and there are arguments pro and con--threatening to "devastate and bankrupt" organizations who boycott shuts down the boycott as a vehicle of protest.

[LeftishBrit]

63. Hmmmm....

There may not have been an 'Alan Dershowitz' but there were Maggie, Ronnie and all their government members - not to mention the ruthlessly undemocratic government of South Africa itself. A little bit more powerful in preventing boycotts than Alan Dershowitz, I would say. Nevertheless, boycotts happened because many people thought they were a good idea.

The reason there isn't a boycott of Israel isn't because people are scared of the great big bogeyman Dershowitz. It's because most people don't want one!

[Phx_Dem]

72. Columbia president condemns boycott

In a sign of identification with Israeli academics, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger had told British academics carrying out a boycott against Israelis to add his institution to their blacklist, the Jewish News reported last week.
"Add Columbia to the boycott list," Bollinger was quoted by the Jewish News as saying. The report said he was "the first American college president to speak out on the issue."

"Bollinger, in an interview with The Jewish Week Tuesday, said he was at a loss to explain why he was the first to speak up against the threatened boycott," the report added.

"Maybe there is a sense that it is so shocking that it speaks for itself. It may be that people think it will dissolve into nothing because it will be ultimately voted down by other people and so it will be a marginal event," he said.

"This is so troublesome," Bollinger told The Jewish Week. "I think it is so unrepresentative of what universities do and believe — but Columbia in particular — that it really calls for a very strong denunciation," he was quoted as saying.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3413685,00.html

[AviBaruch]

73. Considering Columbia's track record on this matter

It's good to see Bollinger showing some balls for once.

[Phx_Dem]

74. my thoughts exactly

welcome to DU btw.

[AviBaruch]

75. Todah rabah!