ONLINE ONLY: Academic Boycotts Teach Us Nothing

May 2013

As the international boycott movement subscribes to a strategy first adopted by the Arab League to prevent the establishment of a Jewish homeland in 1945, three years before Israel's foundation, it is hardly surprising Israelis feel besieged. Having watched the United Nations General Assembly equate Zionism with racism forty years ago, and then witnessed the constant, continuing attempts by a series of international institutions to delegitimise Israel, many Israelis have concluded that the world is hostile to Jewish self-determination in any guise, rather than simply any specific government's policies. Casting Israel out as a pariah among the nations may satisfy those who wish to dismantle the Jewish state. But it is counter productive if your goal is a two state solution.

By indiscriminately discriminating against the people of an entire nation, a boycott shuts down engagement with those individuals, on both sides of the Green Line, who are working most tirelessly and innovatively to alter the status quo and bring about peace. The daily sacrifices and struggles of these brave Israelis and Palestinians are undermined by the simplistic, self righteousness of those who seek to impose a lazy, Manichean interpretation of good and evil on such an intractable, complex conflict. The morally repugnant and historically specious comparison of Israel with Apartheid South Africa peddled by the boycotters is a gross injustice to all who strive for democracy, peace and human rights. By excommunicating Israel from the global community, the boycott would segregate those in the Middle East from the international support they require as they seek to improve life for themselves and their fellow citizens. It would deprive the world of the life giving medicines, technological innovations and internationally renowned scholars produced by Israel's world-class universities, which have done so much to uplift humanity.

Ultimately, what is at stake for the international community, and particularly for us in Britain, is not the fate of Israel but the fundamental principles of academic freedom, free thought and the free exchange of ideas. By foreclosing every avenue for interaction with one nation, and a pluralistic one at that, by preventing discussion with those who differ with you on an issue, or merely want to discuss it with you, and by professing to know everything about a subject, such that your mind is closed to any further inquiry, a society does far greater intellectual damage to itself than that it seeks to silence.

Tags:

Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:

Liberty

June 3rd, 2013
8:06 AM

liberty Anonymous Frank: Israel was created for the local Palestinian JEWS. Jews, Christians and Muslims were the indigenous Palestinians. Palestine was divided into Jordan and Israel but Jews were not allowed to settle in Jordan but the Arabs were already in where Israel was created and had a majority of ARABS. Most Arabs left to escape the fighting egged on by the would be invaders. It is absurd to suppose that 100,000 Jewish fighters could drive out 750,000 Arabs in three months AND fight off five Arab armies at the same time; it would be like Iraq's Sunnis driving out the Shia whilst fighting off an invasion by Iran, Syria, Saudi, Jordan and Kuwait. Pre-Israel immigration of Jews was LESS than pre-Israel Arabs. Post Israel, 850,000 JEWS FROM ARAB LANDS were expelled with nothing doubling Israel's population. whilst the 750,000 Arabs that left had houses, food, schools, hospitals, etc. consuming 95% of the UN refugee budget, a proportion that persists to this day. Today, half of all Israelis either are refugees from Arab lands or their descendants; the Jews got their people and the Arabs got theirs, an exchange of population occurred, we should leave it at that.

Libberty

June 2nd, 2013
11:06 PM

Molina is still perpetuating the myth of 'occupation'. First, if he is referring to the creation of Israel he should know that Israel was created for Palestinian Jews and Arabs by the UN, that Arabs were a majority in Israel at its creation and only left to escape the attempted invasion by five Arab armies. The notion that 100,000 Israeli fighters could expel 750,000 Arab men women and children in three months whilst fighting off five Arab armies bent on Israel's extermination is absurd. There was Jewish immigration prior to Israel but they were outnumbered by Arab immigration. Second, if he is referring to Israeli settlements in the West Bank he should know that the West Bank belongs to noone, it is unclaimed land. Prior to Israel it was run by the Brits, before them the Ottomans [deceased]. It was offered as a second Arab state ]the first being Jordan] but was refused. Jordan occupied it illegally in 1948 and gave up all claims in 1988. The PLO is not a government in waiting and meets none of the criteria for a state set out by the UN. It is legal to hold land in lieu of peace [see the Potsdam conference 1945 and the Helsinki final act 1975] but there is no-one to make peace with and hand it too, the Palestinian terms for peace is for all the Palestinians that fled in 1948 to return - plus all their descendants numbering 8 million for Israel's 8 million, absurd. Finally, the land settled by Israel was either unoccupied, uncultivated or bought from its owners. Only land for military use was bought compulsorily which is normal in every other country.

Simon

May 31st, 2013
11:05 PM

From what I can see, the main difference between 'bad' Apartheid South Africa and 'good' Israel is that the Israelis are smart enough to keep Israel as a Jewish ethno-state, whereas the Afrikaners weren't smart enough to make SA a Boer ethno-state and let us Anglos keep full citizenship. This puts Israel on a much firmer foundation.

mightymnark

May 28th, 2013
12:05 PM

"Israel has people who have only recently settled there, just like the USA, NZ, Australia, Canada and other places" Actually there have always been Jews in what is now Israel - bar I think, a brief period of expulsion during the crusades, but insofar as your point is correct, why then is only Israel boycotted and why is she alone called to account?

Johnathan

May 23rd, 2013
12:05 PM

Boycotting Jews is nothing new. The Germans and the Austrians all did it just over half a century ago. But then they also practiced euthanasia. Perhaps some of the boycotting professors will reflect on this.

Charlie in NY

May 20th, 2013
2:05 PM

To John Gregory: Your comment reveals some extraordinary (and bizarre) sensitivity. Marking the bombing of the King David Hotel was not a celebration of killing British soldiers. If you really believe that, then I suppose, by your lights our Independence Day in the US a celebration of killing British soldiers (and the occasional Hessian mercenary too). To Jeannie Mehta: perhaps you should emulate Molina and actually see for yourself what the state of affairs in Israel is, rather than spout propaganda. The Arab Israelis do have equal rights under the law, the Palestinians in the territories do not because the land is not part of Israel proper. Considering that, like the British, the Ottoman land law was preserved as the real property law in the area, land was not "stolen away" if by that you mean private property without due process of law. If you mean the territories themselves, then you might wish to re-read the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine to remember that it provide, under international law, the right to Jews to closely settle in the land that, at the time, included Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Jordan. If you mean the lands conquered as a result of failed Arab attempts to destroy Israel, well, that is the penalty generally assessed on losing belligerent powers. To AnonymouFrank: Of course, China is a more authoritarian country than Israel. Which country better is described by the following: free press, open elections, independent court system. And that is the short list. There are many things worth discussing about Israel and the attempts to single it out, among all the nations, for a boycott. Those discussions are only helpful if they are based on facts and not simple minded and ill-informed commentary. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to show that you know the underlying history and information. What you then choose to do with it all would make for interesting reading, but please don't think you are scoring points by being so selective your bias is blindingly obvious.

AnonymouFrank

May 14th, 2013
7:05 AM

So just because Hawking chose to exercise his choice, you Charlie Laderman chooses to denigrate China. Is China authoritarian? Or is Israel more authorian. China does not have walls running all across the landscape apart from the Great Wall whereas Israel does. While China has people who have lived there for thousands of years, Israel has people who have only recently settled there, just like the USA, NZ, Australia, Canada and other places. Before China was authoritarian, just 60 years ago, China was invaded and imposed upon by democratic and non authoritarian people. Why did you not write then? Furthermore, the only place Jews could go to was China during and after WW2. If you have to make a point about Jews, please leave China out of it.

Jeannie Mehta

May 13th, 2013
9:05 PM

How can the State of Israel call itself pluralistic when Palestnians do not have equal rights, and their land is stolen away, their water is taken by illegal settlements and children are arrested. Palestinians cannot even get to their own olive farms for harvest without going through many difficult checkpoints with disrespectful IDF soldiers making life very difficult for them? Shameful treatment of a people whose homes were stolen, land was taken and birthright snatched away! Why can't we see pluralism in action there? Why are new olive trees dug up and old established one bulldozed? Pluralism? shmuralism!

john Gregory

May 13th, 2013
6:05 PM

July 22 2006 Israel celebrated the success of its citizens in killing British soldiers during and after WWII. The occasion was the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel. The man involved in that attack was also responsible for killing our soldiers. The grateful citizens of Israel made him their Prime Minister. OK. things happen in war that are best forgotten, not Israel Killing British soldiers is a cause for celebrations. What a despicable country you represent. In his piece in the 'Times'Daniel Johnson forgot to mention those celebrations. He mentioned China and Iran, as far as I know they have yet to officially celebrate the deaths of our soldiers. Israel does.

Post your comment

More Features