Why I support the academic boycott of Israel
last changed 7 January 2010
Introduction
I belong to two academic institutions both of which issued public statements in 2007 opposing all academic boycotts:
With great respect for these two institutions, I disagree. I explain below why I believe that academic boycotts may, in some circumstances, be justifiable, and in particular why they are justifiable when applied to Israel.
Academic boycotts in general
Nobody objects to commercial and sporting boycotts, which are generally accepted as a legitimate means to a political end. They are only to be used, of course, in pathological cases where other means have failed, so they are not part of normal, healthy international relations. But apparently academic boycotts are different. Why?
- The UCL argument is that academic boycotts conflict with 'freedom of inquiry', 'freedom of speech' and 'academic freedom'.
- The British Academy claims that academic boycotts interfere with 'freedom of opinion and expression', scholars' 'ability to
exercise their bona fide academic freedoms', and 'the free
circulation of scientists and scientific ideas', and that they also 'impose unjust
punishment'.
The 'unjust punishment' argument applies to all boycotts, so it is not relevant here. The other arguments suffer from two serious weaknesses:
- Academic boycotts would not, in fact, have any of these supposed effects bar one: limiting the free circulation of scientists (but not of their ideas). Even under a complete international academic boycott, the researchers in the targeted country would still be able to research and publish as freely as before. Instead of demonstrating that academic boycotts would have these effects, and how, the statements merely imply an association; but argument by association is not worthy of serious academics. Click here for a more detailed statement of this objection.
- The statements ignore the case for academic boycotts. Like all boycotts, they are the lesser of two evils. Even warfare is generally accepted as justified in some cases as the lesser of two evils. Why are academic boycotts different?
Click here for a longer and more thorough discussion of the issues.
The case of Israel in particular
Both of these condemnations of academic boycotts were triggered by the move towards an academic boycott of Israel taken by the lecturers' union, the University and College Union. On June 8 2007 the executive committee agreed to debate the pros and cons of such a boycott, and since then this and other unions have continued the debate. According to both UCL and the British Academy, this debate is unnecessary because academic boycotts are always wrong, so there can never be any case for them. For those of us who believe they may, sometimes, be the lesser of two evils, the debate is important. After considering the arguments, no doubt different people will come to different conclusions, but a debate is important.
My view is that the behaviour of Israel does, in fact, justify an academic boycott because the evils targeted by the boycott are greater than the boycott itself. Here are my main arguments:
- The state of Israel is fundamentally objectionable as a racist state created at the expense of the region's indigenous population. As a democracy, the state shares the responsibility with all its citizens, including the academics. Here is a selection of independent statements which support this view:
- January 2010: A Bricup newsletter giving details of successes in the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.
- December 2009: Christian Palestinian leaders protest against the Israeli occupation.
- December 2009: A delegation of MEPs is refused access to Gaza hours after the EU criticises Israel.
- December 2009: The Palestine General Federation of Trades Unions officially endorses the call for international boycott, divestment and sanctions.
- November 2009: Articles by two pro-Israel commentators, Yoel Marcus and Sever Plocker , both warning Israel that its behaviour has increased opposition in Europe and America.
- October 2009: Article in Google News about an Israeli history textbook which has been recalled because it presents the Palestinian perspective on the 1948 war.
- September 2009: Article on the Antiwar website by Neve Gordon about non-violent civil disobedience by Palestinians.
- August 2009: Article in the New York Times about weekly peaceful demonstrations by West Bank villagers which have recently been joined by a group of international elder statesmen.
- August 2009: Article in Haaretz by Anat Matar, an Israeli academic, arguing that academic boycotts are both needed and justified.
- August 2009: Article in the Los Angeles Times by Neve Gordon, a distinguished Israeli academic, supporting the boycott of Israel.
- April 2009: The Scottish TUC votes to divest from Israel.
- Feb 2009: Two Jewish Americans accuse Israel of a Holocaust against Palestinians in Counterpunch.
- Jan 2009: Al Quds University in Jerusalem announces that it will cease all cooperation with Israeli academic solutions.
- Jan 2009: A letter signed by 400 UK academics and writers calling for sanctions against Israel.
- Jan 2009: An analysis of the effects of the Gaza attack in Electronic Intifada.
- Jan 2009: Article in The Guardian by Avi Shlaim on why Israel is a rogue state.
- January 2009: Article in Haaretz by Gideon Levy, 'The IAF, bullies of the clear blue skies'
- Dec 2008: Article in the London Review of Books about Israel's policy towards Gaza, by Sara Roy
- Nov 2008: The President of the UN General Assembly accuses Israel of apartheid and calls for "boycott, divestment and sanctions".
- Nov 2008: A UN report criticises Israel's ‘enormous web of unlawful practices’
- October 2008: A global BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement is launched in Bilbao
- July 2008: An article in Haaretz about a visit to the occupied territories by 21 human-rights activists from South Africa, who found the Israeli occupation 'worse than apartheid'.
- June 2008: A strong resolution passed by the UK's biggest union, Unison, calling for the union to campaign in various ways against Israel.
- May 2008: An advert in the Times protesting against Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and signed by 115 prominent UK figures.
- May 2008: A Times article about the history of Israel and the Nakba.
- May 2008: An Independent article by Johann Hari about the smearing of Israel's critics.
- May 2008: A Guardian article by Seumas Milne about Palestinian rights.
- May 2008: A BBC report on the Palestinian reaction to the 60th anniversary of their disaster when Israel was founded.
- May 2008: An article by Jonathan Power in the Jordan Times about the effect of demographics on the future of Israel.
- April 2008: A letter to the Guardian from 107 British Jews explaining why they do not plan to celebrate Israel's 60th anniversary.
- January 2008: An article in the Financial Times arguing for far more concessions by Israel, including the end of the blockade of Gaza.
- A well documented and argued report (submitted to the British Medical Journal) by a British doctor who visited the West Bank and Israel in August 2007, supported by a blog.
- Israeli textbook for Arab primary schools admits that Arabs were forced out in 1948 (Scotsman 23 July 2007)
- June 2007: Clare Short in the House of Commons (1.30 pm 26 June 2007)
- July 2006: the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem (25 July, 2006)
- July 2006: An article in The Black Commentator (for African Americans) on the strict apartheid in Israel (20 July, 2006).
- 2004: An article in Counterpunch about the methods used in 1948 to drive the Arabs out (2004)
- For a less independent but moving and informative account see the Nakba ('catastrophe') site (1998).
- Wikipedia has a balanced, detailed and well documented article about the Nakba
- More specifically, the universities in the occupied territories are barely functioning because of the appalling way in which the occupying Israeli forces treat them. They have asked foreign academics to support them by applying an academic boycott, as detailed below:
Why only Israel?
- Some defenders of Israel ask why Israel should receive this kind of attention when so many other states deserve serious criticism. My personal answer is that Israel is unique among offending states for the following reasons:
- It receives blind and unconditional moral support from the governments of the USA and the UK, and massive financial and military support from the USA.
- The unfair treatment of Palestinian Muslims by Israel (and the West in general) is an affront to Muslims world-wide which is easily used as an argument in recruiting terrorists.
- Israel's occupation of Palestinian land has taken place recently (within my lifetime) and still continues.
- Click here for a detailed analysis, by the (Israeli) Coalition of Women for Peace, of the commercial companies that support the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights.
- Click here for a much more detailed discussion of this question by a Canadian Jew.
Debate
- Ultimately the disagreement about Israel and the boycott rests on a view of history, so academic questions of truth are central to the debate about the boycott. Those of us who support the boycott do so on the basis of one version of the history of Israel, while supporters of Israel build on a different version. Both sides believe equally sincerely in their version, so the disagreement is about truth rather than about morality as such.
- The important question, of course, is which version of history is correct. Those of us who are not historians have to pick our way through the alternative views, but there are fundamental facts which speak for themselves. For example, the distribution of illegal Jewish settlements in supposedly Arab territory is not in dispute, and can be seen conveniently in one of the maps on the BBC website. Another map on the same site shows how different was the UN plan for partition in 1947.
|