Israeli Academic Boycott / international disgrace

[sebbysteiny]

How would they be stopping freedom of speach?

- QfwfQ

 

This motion proposed to boycott all Israeli academics unless they conformed to their way of thinking. Boycotting people from making a contribution to academia for not just their speech but their thoughts is almost by definition contrary to principals of free speech.

 

Albert Einstein was not a Zionist, meaning he did not subscribe to the belief that people of Jewish religion or ethnicity have a special or supernatural entitlement to residing in and ruling the territory of and around the present day state of Israel.

 

- Craig D

 

Your definition of zionism is a common misunderstanding. Although there is no clear definition of zionism, it refers to anybody who believes that the Jewish people should have a homeland in Israel. Reasoning is almost irrelivent, and there are many atheist zionists. Einstein was a very strong supporter of creating an independant state in Israel and was even offered to be presidant of Israel. As such, he was a very strong zionist.

 

Reasons for people supporting the establishment of a Jewish state are numerous including:

 

The only hope for peace between both peoples is the establishment of a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian state;

 

The belief that the Jewish claims to land in that region is superior to the Muslim claims;

 

A Jewish state is needed as a protection against antisemitism;

 

and yes, a minority believe that the Jewish people have a supernatural claim to the land.

 

But you should know that already since it was in the definition of zionism that you supplied in your link!!!!!

[Qfwfq]

Indeed Einstein was a pacifist, he certainly didn't uphold military Zionism but he did advocate the peaceful installation of Israel, to provide a place for Jewish people to live without being harassed. Einstein was an optimist. Furthermore, I get the idea that nowadays Jews have been able to live essentially unharassed in most of the so-called western world, especially in the US. The main criticism they meet is the Palestinian problem so they could avoid trouble by settling that.

 

This motion proposed to boycott all Israeli academics unless they conformed to their way of thinking. Boycotting people from making a contribution to academia for not just their speech but their thoughts is almost by definition contrary to principals of free speech.

A boycott doesn't mean prevention of someone's speech, it only means not considering it. I have every right to pay no attention to what a chap says, even without justification, although it may not be very kind. It's a delicate issue, but not a denial of free expression.

[Tormod]

Israel is a democratic nation. It is really not going to shock anybody to know that Israel's elected government will therefore be relatively popular within Israel just like labour's policies are relatively popular in UK.

 

My input is slightly off topic but I think it is relevant:

 

I think this is a misconception. The leading party (or coalition of parties) are not necessarily the most popular in the meaning "liked by most people". They have simply won a majority vote - it is something else entirely.

 

You compare to the British - but compare it to Libya instead. They had a vote over who would be President. How many candidates did they have?

 

Popular vote does not equal democracy.

 

If Israel is a democratic nation, why do they keep up their armed conflict with Palestinians? I assume the answer is "defence", which makes the question go in circles.

 

I'm not going to accuse you of racism because I don't believe your intending to be racist. However, you must remember that you will always find arguments that on the surface sound reasonable to justify anything however morally disgusting. You should be careful to make sure that the actions you take are actually positive and in the genine interests of humanity.

 

Like fighting Palestinians and putting up a huge barrier to force them to stay out of their own country? Since when was that a peaceful act in the genuine interest of humanity? :(

[sebbysteiny]

Indeed Einstein was a pacifist - QfwfQ

 

I could say that Einstein was a pacifist until WW2, and supported the establishment of Israel in 1948 after winning a war, but the main point is that scientists like Einstein would be boycotted from science simply because they have political views that differ from that of others. Were an Israeli scientist, say, to request time on a telescope to get evidence disociating between general relativity and a new theory, the boycott calls for that time to be denied. Were an Israeli economist to require books from a library to research a new economic theory, those books would be denied because of his beliefs and nationality.

 

This is a McCarthan witch hunt, pure and simple. There is no difference between this and when Americans in the 1970's expelled and / or ruined residants when they refused to distance themeselves from communism.

 

Further, there would be no difference if a group of conservitives (or republicans) got together and decided to boycott all academics that support labour (or democrats), except this latter example doesn't have the racist connitations of the actual boycott in question.

 

A boycott doesn't mean prevention of someone's speech, it only means not considering it. I have every right to pay no attention to what a chap says, even without justification, although it may not be very kind. It's a delicate issue, but not a denial of free expression.

 

Yes, you do have a right to pay no attention to WHAT A CHAP SAYS, but you would have NO RIGHT to deny a professor or student a right to LEARN because of what he says. Do you get that distinction? The universities have understood that, which is why they all support the basic tenant of academic freedom: everybody of all races, nationalities and political beliefs have the right to contribute to academia and pursue greater knolwedge for humanity.

[sebbysteiny]

My input is slightly off topic - Tormid

 

I agree. I don't want to get bogged down into the rights and wrongs of the Israeli Palestinian conflict and your belief that proportional representation is an undemocratic system is not relevant to whether you should stop talking to people who you disagree with AND THEN try to ensure that such people have no right to learn and contribute to human knowledge in all its forms.

 

 

I don't think I'll be straying by pointing out that your right: Israelis do believe that the measures you describe are necessary measures of self defence. Palestinians, and it seems you, argue that it is the Palestinians who are defending themselves. If you do want to debate these issues, start another thread. However, this debate is NOT about who is right, it is about what is a legitimate way for dealing with people with different political prospective and what is darn right wrong, racist and intollerent in effect (though not necessarily intention). If you are, as I suspect, pro-palestinian, remember, you don't have to support measures simply because other pro-palestinian supporters do if they go well too far.

 

Like fighting Palestinians and putting up a huge barrier to force them to stay out of their own country? Since when was that a peaceful act in the genuine interest of humanity?

 

Can I just ask you one simple question on this point with a yes or no answer. Did you know that every Israeli community that has been protected by the 'barrier' has had the number of attacks by Palestinians on them drop from about 50 a month to aproximately 0? If not, I suggest that there are two sides to every story.

[Qfwfq]

The whole issue is much of a conundrum SS, so allow me to repeat that I'm not convinced of the boycott being the best thing against the problems, I just see it in terms that differ from yours.

 

I would say Einstein remained a pacifist after WWII too and regretted having been a proponent of research into the A-bomb, for which he felt justified only because of the idea that the Nazis might have got there first. I myself justify defence, unlike some other pacifists, although the line can often be subtle and jubject to hijacking (Research continued after Berlin had been captured and I disagree that the nuke was necessary against Japan).

 

Yes, I do get that distinction but I also have the right to refuse people entry to my house, on whatever grounds I may please, be them even the colour of their face or their opinions, aside from whether or not it is noble on my part. I therefore consider it up to each individual entity and its ownership/management, public or private, to go along with such a boycott or not to. I'm sure that, at the very very least, the Israeli gov't wouldn't go along with it and surely it doesn't lack the capability of building telescopes, particle accelerators and even launching space probes?!!! I also doubt that Elsevier or any other publisher would refuse to supply Israeli or any other Orthodox Jewish libraries that agree with Zionism. I don't see how free speech could be denied, especially when you say that:

The universities have understood that, which is why they all support the basic tenant of academic freedom: everybody of all races, nationalities and political beliefs have the right to contribute to academia and pursue greater knolwedge for humanity.

I could personally choose to deny a professor or student any help of my own to LEARN, just because of what he says, but pray tell how I could totally prevent them from it?

 

The idea of someone succeeding in preventing the Jews, of all people, from learning :D is somewhat risible to say the least.

:)

[sebbysteiny]

The idea of someone succeeding in preventing the Jews, of all people, from learning is somewhat risible to say the least. - Qfwfq

 

It's interesting that you said 'the Jews'. I've been carefull to say Israelis, but if the link between Israelis and Jews is that strong, then so too is the link between being racist against / demonising Israel and being antisemetic.

 

You're right that in small numbers, Israeli academics will not be effected much. However, this ugly movement appears to be growing and even has got a majority in English teaching unions not once but twice (the AUT, although the latter was overturned within a week). If this cause gains further academics, then it could cause a problem for Isaeli academics. Further, the existance of any motions at all in any large teaching unions will cause significant friction and mistrust between Israeli and British academics. This is not what academia is about.

 

Yes, I do get that distinction but I also have the right to refuse people entry to my house, on whatever grounds I may please, be them even the colour of their face or their opinions, aside from whether or not it is noble on my part.

- Qfwfq

 

Whist I accept a person's right to be racist, intollerent, sexist etc in his private capacity, it stops becoming acceptable when they are acting on behalf of a politically neutral body. For example, it is wrong for people to give unequal pay net or even fire a person in a job simply because of the employer's predjudice and quite rightly there are very strict laws about that.

 

Likewise, it is racist and morally abhorent to try to deny people a right to learn and pursue knowledge in a University simply because of their political beliefs.

 

I guess this comes down to what kind of society do you want to live in? Do you want to live in one where racism and bigotry is tollerated where opportunity is defined by the colour of your skin or by the political views you hold, or do you want a society to be defined by one that has a zero tollerence of racism and tries hard to protect the victims of racism and intollerence by both passing laws and by individual action against such racism.

 

I have the latter view, as does most of the country and the government, hence the many laws in Universities and against employers for engaging in such activities. I also believe that racism by people in positions of some kind of power must be reported to the authorities. I agree, most people are not as intollerent of intollerence as me.

 

Remember, my main goal in this post is to get people to report those engaging in this boycott (silently or otherwise) to the University authorities so they can be retrained into tollerence.

[Qfwfq]

It's interesting that you said 'the Jews'. I've been carefull to say Israelis, but if the link between Israelis and Jews is that strong, then so too is the link between being racist against / demonising Israel and being antisemetic.

Now, if that's interesting then it should be equally interesting that you were using both terms 'Jewish' and 'Israeli' in this post of yours. There is no doubt that Hebrew, Jewish and Israeli are strongly akin with each other despite the many facets which I don't see the point of discussing here, the boycott issue is directed at something of which some of the strongest supporters are Orthodox Jews, although with exceptions.

 

I'm beginning to consider stepping out of this discussion, unless it can be carried on without dodging or strawmen. Aside from the above, initially the point was a motion to "boycott all Israeli academics", something which you are asking people to report as if it were practicable to determine, then it became "to deny a professor or student a right to LEARN because of what he says" and, as I find the idea of preventing them from learning somewhat impossible to contemplate, you nitpick on me saying "the Jews" despite your own previous use of terms.

 

It is also interesting that you say "most people are not as intollerent of intollerence as me" when the motion is question could itself be called "intolerent of intolerance" by its supporters, making you actually "intolerent of intolerance of intolerance" to be exact. I think it is a discussion with no escape route. There are certainly some points in the assumption that you question, that of the Apartheidish nature of Israeli politics, and those who make this assumption might see a boycott just as fit as the past ones against South Africa, that eventually helped to bring down the disgraceful situation there.

[sebbysteiny]

It is also interesting that you say "most people are not as intollerent of intollerence as me" when the motion is question could itself be called "intolerent of intolerance" by its supporters, making you actually "intolerent of intolerance of intolerance" to be exact.

 

-Qfwfq

 

Your arguments make sense but you must ask yourself, is the idea of boycotting from academia (ie the right to learn) one people because because you disagree with their views 'intollerence' or 'intollerence of intollerence'. If it is the latter, you are right, but it's not. Those that support Israels policies are doing so not because they are intollerent of a race but because they want to live without them or their children or their friends being blown appart by fanatics. We are having a similar debate in the US and UK regarding measures to take against suicide bombers and at the moment, the UK has killed 2 innocent Muslims without stopping one actual terrorist.

 

You should note, that I AM NOT ADVOCATING ANY KIND OF BOYCOTT OF PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE PALESTINIANS. They have a right to talk, and a right to learn. Nor am I advocating the boycott of those trying to boycott most Israeli academics from academia from academia. What I am advocating is that when a lecturer or teacher decides to join the boycott and discriminate against a bright potential student on the grounds of his race and nationality in breach of many laws, we, as good men, should report this to the authorities to allow them to be retrained. These guys won't even be fired (unless they are repeat offenders)

 

Surely I'm not asking that much just to ensure that supporters of one side or another stay within the law which has been put in place for a very good reason.

 

There are certainly some points in the assumption that you question, that of the Apartheidish nature of Israeli politics, and those who make this assumption might see a boycott just as fit as the past ones against South Africa, that eventually helped to bring down the disgraceful situation there.

 

I would love to know where you first heard of this idea that Israel is somehow an 'apartheid'. This is classic Palestinian demonisation with no intellectual merrit. But ignoring the allegations of one side or the other, I think it's safe to say that Palestinians try to portray Israel as an 'apartheid' whilst Israelis view Israel as a vibrant democracy that supports equal rights and opportunities for all in a way that rivals even the most moral of Western nations.

 

So what do we have? A difference of opinion. The response is dialogue not boycotts.

 

Further, people often use the so called example with South Africa, but South Africa was a unique situation. Every argument that made it 'right' in SA does not exist in Israel. In particular, the academics within the SA universities themselves called for a boycott. However, there is no such call from Israeli universities. Further, it is highly questionable whether the 'successful boycott of SA academics' actually achieved anything positive at all.

[Qfwfq]

Those that support Israels policies are doing so not because they are intollerent of a race but because they want to live without them or their children or their friends being blown appart by fanatics.

Perhaps you are putting the cart before the horse.

 

we, as good men, should report this to the authorities to allow them to be retrained.

I keep forgetting to say that I fail to understand how these people would be retrained to tolerance.

 

I would love to know where you first heard of this idea that Israel is somehow an 'apartheid'. This is classic Palestinian demonisation with no intellectual merrit.

Many people are of this opinion, not just Palestinians.

 

Further, it is highly questionable whether the 'successful boycott of SA academics' actually achieved anything positive at all.

There were many sanctions against SA, even their airlines couldn't cross the airspace of many countries. A big difference is that the South African Whites did not have a great audience outside the country for their propaganda, they had no chance of passing as "a vibrant democracy that supports equal rights and opportunities for all in a way that rivals even the most moral of Western nations". As the world began to show concern for things there, the regime began to collapse. The Israel matter is much more complex to judge and many contradicting "facts" are circulated.

[sebbysteiny]

Qfwfq. You seem to show good insight and I am not convinced you passionately believe the arguments you are putting forward but are instead playing more of a devil's advocate role, which is great.

 

I keep forgetting to say that I fail to understand how these people would be retrained to tolerance.

 

Universities take equal opportunities very seriously and where a tutor is seen to violate equal opportunities, they make the tutor go to compulsory classes

which teach exactly what discrimination is and what is discriminatory behavior and how to avoid it. Clearly, repeat offenders will get perhaps more serious sanctions.

 

Again, I will not deal with other matters that are substantially debated issues, because this is not the purpose of the post, but I will set out clearly what I believe a case for an academic boycott would be. Then I will say why this does not apply to Israel.

 

What is a boycott

 

An academic boycott is essentially a crude racially discriminating movement to boycott people from one country, race or belief from academia including both the right to learn and the right to pursue knowledge. However, most people think it can, in some particular circumstances, do some good. Thus, when considering using a boycott, you have to be very careful because unless you are 100% certain that those circumstances have arisen, you risk purpatrating a greater evil regardless of your personal motivation.

 

Conditions for an academic boycott

 

From history, most people view that the academic boycott against South Africa was just. There were reasons for this.

 

1) South Africa was undeniably an apartheid. There must be no debate. It was a basic fact agreed unanimously by almost all democratic human rights observing nations throughout the world and acknowledged across the political spectrum.

 

2) People felt that an academic boycott would do more good than harm. The main reason for this was that the students within SA universities were themselves calling for such a boycott. However, given the large (and in the end more significant) numbers of other political boycotts against SA, adding another one seemed appropriate.

 

Therefore, the extreme measure was considered to do more good than harm, and indeed the arparteid did fall, though it is extremely doubtful that the academic boycott played any significant part.

 

Conditions in which an academic boycott is racist

 

From the above, if any of two conditions not are met, then an academic boycott becomes a racist measure against the interests of peace and humanity.

 

1) If there is any genuine debate whatsoever whether a nation is an arparteid state, then an academic boycott becomes a terrible and disproportionate measure.

 

The main point about Israel, is that there is a strong and intensive debate about the rights or wrongs of Israels actions. Right at the extreme of world opinion is the opinion that Israel is an aparteid. A small number of extreme Palestinian supporters is NOT a genuine consensus. Particularly, no democratic human rights observing nation's leader has every called Israel an Apartied. Therefore, no boycott can be justified.

 

This is the only part of this thread where substantive issues may matter. There are a million reasons why Israel is not an aparteid. Personally, I have listened to every Palestinian argument about why Israel is an aparteid and all of them can be applied to Britain or any western democracy in exactly the same way. I think their best argument is that wealth is distributed unevenly between Israeli Jews and Israeli arabs. However, this is the case for every Muslim population that has settled in any Western country.

 

People can and do form legitimate opinions both supporting and opposing either side in the conflict. As long as that continues, one side trying to get the international community boycott the other academically is, although expected, entirely unjustified.

 

2) The missing ingredient for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is dialogue. Anything that prevents such dialogue is not in the interests of humanity. An academic boycott of one or other side is therefore the last thing that is needed. Further, there are no calls from any significant body of students (either Jewish or Muslim) within Israeli universities calling for a boycott. There are also no other international boycotts against Israel. Israel thus has a clean bill of health in terms of international consensus on isolation.

[Qfwfq]

I'm not playing the devil's advocate, I simply don't think it's to the point to argue based on my own personal opinions and I've been avoiding it, while you appear more and more on the side of the Likud type policies, including when you say that only Palestinians consider them apartheid and dismiss the grounds for these opinions. The Labour agenda is quite different AFAIK and I think there is hope even with the current Labour-Kadima coalition. I have known of many antizionist Jews including some ultra-orthodox ones I recently read about. Such a boycott clearly wouldn't be of racial nature but political.

[sebbysteiny]

I'm not playing the devil's advocate, I simply don't think it's to the point to argue based on my own personal opinions and I've been avoiding it, while you appear more and more on the side of the Likud type policies

 

-qfwfq

 

With respect, although it is right to test the arguments, you haven't appeared to give any reasons at all for supporting the boycott. Your right, there are many anti-zionist jews. There are also many anti-zionist Israelis. There are also many anti-Western Brits, and there many anti american americans. What does this prove? A boycott from academia against all those who refuse to renounce all American policies is still racist against americans in effect and possibly in intent, and a boycott against all those who refuse to renounce all Israeli policies is racist against Israelis in effect and possibly in intent. Surely you must agree at least partially with that.

 

I find it amazing that you have ignored everything I have said refusing to admit that any point I make is even slightly valid. You have also ducked every issue I bring up prefering to dismiss what is in effect a plea for people to enforce the law as a 'Likud type policy'.

 

What do you disagree with (or believe has not been intellectually tested properly)?

a) An academic boycott is essentially racist in effect and can only be justified in extreme conditions.

:confused: there is a genuine debate over the rights and wrongs of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The contention that Israel is an 'apartheid' is just one very one sided view out of hundreds of others.

c) That a boycott will not do any good and will only do harm.

d) in light of b and c, the conditions necessary in a are far from met.

 

On a personal point, yes I do dismiss every argument the Palestinians have made regarding Israel as an apartheid. When I have been to Hifa and seen Muslim Jewish cooperation at its very best, and been to Jerusalum and seen Muslims and Jews share the same buses and shop in the same malls, and been to tel aviv and seen Muslims and Jews sharing the same beaches and seen Israeli laws and seen Muslims and Jews sharing the same rights, it is very difficult to believe people who call Israel an aparteid who have never been to Israel. I have also talked with many people calling Israel an aparteid and I have become quite astute at decimating every lame attempt. As I have said, there is only one decent argument such people have ever made: that there is an economic inequality between Muslims and Jews. This must be resolved, but it is no different to any other western country and there are more Israeli NGOs and GOs set up to resolve that problem than in any other country.

 

But that's my personal view. Objectively, I think even you have to admit that the criteria for justifying an academic boycott has not been met based on the first half of this response. Even some passionate supporters of the Palestinians accept this. I'm not interested in having an intellectual sword fight with you or anybody, but I would very much like to work WITH you to find universal truth.

[Qfwfq]

ElsewhereI have heard so many contradicting things about the situation there, including the opinions of many Israeli Jews and other Zionists, and I really don't want to get into a discussion of it, or of the criteria that you talk about. I doubt it could lead to finding a universal truth.

[sebbysteiny]

I was a little like you once. Your absolutely right. There are too many contradictory facts. It makes any real study of this area very difficult. However, I have done some thinking and believe that where it matters, the real facts can be assertained. Eg, where Palestinians admit Israeli truths and where Israelis admit Palestinian truths. Also, I have found that with a little thinking, many contradictions turn out not to matter anyway.

 

It is a shame to ignore the debate entirely because it is happening right now and people will be joining the boycott at least silently. The question is, will you support them, be neutral to them or oppose them? The cliche, 'Evil triumphs when good men do nothing' is one of the few whose meaning is still the same today than the day it was first spoken. Surely you must have some criteria of your own about what you believe is wrong and what actions should be done to stop it!!!

 

If you don't mind me asking, if you didn't want to get into a discussion about it, why post?

[Qfwfq]

It certainly would be better if there were no denials of truth on either side. Not that this is easy to attain in a negotiation but the sorry thing is when the whole world begins to get taught biased "facts" even in academic circles. I don't see why there should be a general boycott against the current Hamas coalition gov't at the same time as strong support of the opposite side.

 

I did not say that I didn't want to get into a discussion about it, I said I'm not interested in continuing one with dodging and strawmen about the rights and wrongs of each side.

[sebbysteiny]

I did not say that I didn't want to get into a discussion about it, I said I'm not interested in continuing one with dodging and strawmen about the rights and wrongs of each side.

 

Your quite right. I don't want the rights and wrongs of each side discussed here either because it is irrelevant. The only point that I'm making is that no side is 100% right. Therefore memebers of the academic community should not be supporting exteme measures as if one side is 100% right even if they have strong sympathies with one side or the other.

 

It certainly would be better if there were no denials of truth on either side. Not that this is easy to attain in a negotiation but the sorry thing is when the whole world begins to get taught biased "facts" even in academic circles.

 

My approach to this problem is to decide for myself the important facts and investigate them. Eg, which side is more reliable, which side is more extreme, which side is more dishonest.

 

On that point, you might find the following website useful. I very much respect the (non militant) Palestinians and their suffering and people sypathetic to them. However, after I saw this, I lost all respect for those trained to advocate on their behalf (which includes most of the people who proposed the academic motion).

 

http://www.pmwatch.org/pmw/language/index.asp

 

What this website offers is a major insight into the way Palestinian advocacy works. There is certainly no deliberate tactics like this done by any pro Israel organisation (and if you can find any that are of the same scale as that used by the Palestinian advocates, let me know).

 

Note particularly

Distortion of language is a particularly insidious form of propaganda, insinuating beliefs by stealth that should be questioned and often rejected.

Ie, we have ideas that nobody will every accept unless we trick their subconcious into accepting it.

 

Also note this is not just a single website's strategy as

this lexicon was collectively developed with feedback from dozens of activists and organizations.

 

Note that although when you first read the list they do 'sound' the same, if you analyse them for anything more than 5 seconds (which of course you can't do when they are talking or when you are reading a long letter) they are very far from the same.

 

In their defence, they point out that

adopters should exercise their own judgment as to when the alternative is or is not appropriate. There are times, for instance, when "security measures" are just that: e.g., security measures when boarding an airplane.

 

However, in practice, 'own judgement' really means use the alternative language when talking about any and every measure Israel takes, but use real language when talking about every other nation and situation (especially that of the Palestinians).

 

In my belief, this goes well beyond reasonable and fair argument: it's outright manipulative demonisation that I have never seen from an Israeli spokesperson or advocate.