I think there is something of a misapprehension about the call for a boycott that needs to be clarified. The call for a boycott does not diminish the efforts of Israeli academics against the war crimes being committed, or constitute turning our backs on Israeli colleagues in most contexts. It represents for me a recognition that whilst those in leadership and on the right in the State of Israel insist on seeking conquest and genocide rather than accommodation and respect for human rights, we should not give official recognition to Israel and its representatives. This does mean a boycott of collaboration, funding and institutional contacts, but not interpersonal contacts and informal/collaborative support in individual bases.
It is asking Israeli academics to endure and perhaps lose, but hopefully it will contribute to pressures that will result in state policy more to their liking. Official forms of contact collaboration can be used as 'normalising' and 'legitimising' the Israeli state, and that, in the current context, seems the target of a boycott.
These are not equivalent examples, but many who would have gained from playing Sun City, including entrepreneurs and entertainers of the locale didn't play Sun City because of an opposition to apartheid. If individual universities ignored equal opportunities and imposed draconian conditions on staff one of the first weopons by the wider community is an academic boycott.
No one wants to isolate Israeli academics, and no one wants to suggest this is purely a conflict of one sided arguments, or that suicide bombing or such activity can be condoned. What is wanted is an end to the massacring of civilians by military engagements and the end to the systematic pursuit of the interests of the right in Israel to wipe out Palestine.
Or, to hear the words of Sharon himself - Sharon gave a revealing interview to Amos Oz, a leading Israeli author, in which he bluntly explained his military doctrine and railed against pacifist Jews who thought he was being too tough.
It was published in the daily Davar on Dec. 17, 1982. Excerpts:
"You can call me anything you like. Call me a monster or a murderer...
Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint... Even if you prove to me
that the present war in Lebanon is a dirty immoral war, I don't care...
We shall start another war, kill and destroy more and more, until they
will have had enough... Let them tremble, let them call us a mad state.
Let them understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our
surroundings, not normal, that we might go crazy if one of our children
is murdered, just one! If anyone even raises his hand against us we'll
take away half his land and burn the other half, including the oil.
We might use nuclear arms... Even today I am willing to volunteer to
do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to
deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us....
And I don't mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a
Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as
a war criminal... What you don't understand is that the dirty work
of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it."
Ariel Sharon, December 1982
"Sharon was a killer obsessed with hatred of Palestinians. I had promised Arafat that his people would not get any harm. Sharon, however, ignored this commitment entirely. Sharon's word is worth nil.
Ambassador Philip Habib
President Ronald Reagan's Special Middle East Envoy in 1982
Paul
Paul Reynolds
Senior Lecturer in Politics and Sociology
Centre for Studies in nthe Social Sciences
Edge Hill College
St Helens Road
Ormskirk
Lancs L394QP
Tel: 01695 584370
email: [log in to unmask]
>>> David Seddon <[log in to unmask]> 04/25 11:21 am >>>
I would like to hear from Israeli academics like David Newman who speaks out
clearly and cogently against the current Israeli policies - I suspect that
the majority of those who oppose the boycott do so, not because it will
inhibit them from also speaking out and acting but because fundamentally
they support Israel's government policies. The time for 'healthy debate' is
over - it is time to stand up and be counted. How many of Israel's many
social scientists have the courage to look into their own deepest motives
and those of the government that currently represents them and say publicly
and repeatedly that these differ fundamentally?
david seddon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: kd17 [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 25 April 2002 10:51
> To: David Seddon
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Against the Academic Boycott
>
>
>
> Dear David Seddon,
>
> Regarding your e mail i could only say we hear noting but
> plenty of messages opposing the proposed boycott of Israeli
> institutions. It seems we have been hearing from
> those who oppose it but so far very little of those
> who think it might be a good idea to let the Israeli
> government to know that its policies in West Bank are
> unacceptable by any standards. I do sympathies with some of
> our Israeli colleagues who opposes the boycott with right
> intentions and reasons but most of callers seems easily
> equates any kind of criticism with so called 'new
> anti-Semitism. I think a healthy debate where both side
> are equally represented would be good idea.
> Best regards
>
> Kayhan Delibas
>
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:37:47 +0100 David Seddon
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > It would be good to hear from those who oppose the boycott of Israeli
> > academic institutions and who argue that this would harm
> existing linkages
> > between Israeli and Palestinian academics as to 1) why it is that such a
> > boycott has been proposed and strongly supported by Palestinian
> academics
> > and 2) what evidence they have that the implied actions and
> activities of
> > Israeli academics have had any impact whatsoever on repressive Israeli
> > government policies towards the people (including the academics and
> > students) of the illegally occupied West Bank and Gaza in
> recent years, let
> > alone months.
> >
> > david seddon
> >
>
>
>
|