Dear Paul Reynolds:
Von: Paul Reynolds [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Gesendet: Montag, 08. April 2002 15:29
An: Ronald J. Pohoryles; [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: WG: Petition opposing a European moratorium on
culturalandacademic ties with Israel
You wrote:
I wonder if colleagues could help me with the following, reflecting on recent correspondence:
1. Is there any way of criticising Israeli state politics that is not instantly stained directly or indirectly with the retort of anti-semitism?
I answer:
Yes, absolutely. And I do so as well, and not just the actual government, but the former one as well. Even under Barak Israel didn't stop the settlement policy, one of the major causes for the recent turmoil. I am against the re-occupation of the Palestinian territories, I suspect Sharon to be a war criminal (re: Lebanon invasion), etc. But I condemn the suicide bombings as well and I do think that the failure of the Oslo peace process is not just the fault of the Israelis. Furthermore, I tend rather to support the Israeli civil society - and this is the big majority of the intellectuals there - and do think that a boycott policy against them, as proposed by some colleagues, is unethical.
You wrote:
2. Is it absolutely acceptable to equate the acts of suicide bombers (who, of course, must be condemned) attached to factions who seek to use terror (who should be equally condemned) with the use of helicopter gunships, tanks etc explicitly representing the will of the leadership of the Israeli state?
I answer:
This is a difficult issue. I do think it is perfectly possible to condemn both without an equation. The Israeli regularely claim that they are after terrorists and that civilians killed are "collateral damage". This is a position I certainly do not share and which I strongly oppose. It is, however, a different position from the suicide bombing aiming directly at civilians (idiotically at Israeli Arabs as well).
You wrote:
3. If a boycott is such a bad idea, particularly because it hurts those who do not support and indeed oppose Sharon, why do we use the same on Iraq etc. Are there not anti-Saddam forces who suffer from that boycott?
I answer:
I am not an expert on boycott policies. However, there are UN programmes which allow support for the civilians (humanitarian aid). The concern in the anti-Iraq boycott policies is that in an authoritarian state nobody can control what the Hussein-regime can use its income for (e.g. weapon production, etc.). No serious person can claim that money deriving from the EU 5th Framework Programme could be used from the Israeli government to take it away from say the Hebrew University Jerusalem to abuse it for shopping tanks or developing chemical weaponry.
You wrote further:
It seems to me, particularly since but not exclusive to 9/11, that there is a breathtaking double standards to how we look at the arab world and how we look at the European, which Israel is always closely associated with - and that this is reinforced by at the least euro- or enthnocentricity and at worst racism. It also seems to me that the the palestinian/israeli conflict has to be addressed in the context of considerable inequalities of power and military force, the pathologising of arab and middle eastern peoples since 9/11, and a lack of understanding of history.
My answer to this is:
I fully agree that there is a lot of anti-Islam racism around, funny enough often in parallel with the new forms of anti-semtism. Mind you that the media rather side the Palestinians than Israel. And the racism does not undermine the friendship with the Saudis. The situation is not that clear cut as one might think. But yes, in general racism and euro-centrism (if we include, for cultural purposes, the US in this category) is raising. The syndrom is pathetic: anti-semitism, often disguised as critic of Israel's ugly politics, is as much on the rise as anti-Islamism. Just in order not to be misunderstood: there is a lot of criticism of Israeli politics which has nothing to do with the disguised anti-semitism. And this includes a lot of my Iranian and Arab friends here in Vienna who are as critical towards the Israeli policy as I am myself.
Let me just add to this that the anti-Islamism was there before the 11 September; it might have become more obvious though. But fortress Europe started much earlier (think of the rise of Le Pen in France, as just one example - and Chirac's fist campaign which played heavily on the "pieds noirs" - issue).
You wrote:
Those who want peace accept there have to be two states - palestinian and israeli - and certain compromises and guarentees about historical disputes mediated - at least at first - by international forces. Not suicide bombers, military incursions, illegal settlements or any of the like. If someone can point out the last time the Israeli's formally accepted the Palestinian right to exist and what they would have to do to accommodate it, please let me know.
I answer:
I fully agree with your solution. The last time Israel explicitely recognised the Palestinian rights was in Camp David and thereafter in Tabaa (after Oslo and the process in the 90s) - the Palestinian answer at the peace attempts before was the "Second Intifada" - just to be fair.
You wrote:
No one wants to boycott Israeli colleagues, so perhaps Ronald J. Pohoryles would like to let us know what can be done to apply pressure for a cessation of violence and a move towards peace, or does he propose silence and let the clearly peaceloving regime of Sharon move its agenda forward.
I answer:
Why don't we organise a meeting somewhere in Europe among the social science communities. I am willing to organise one with serious people like you - and we could publish and disseminate the results among our colleagues and help and back our Palestinian and Israeli colleagues who badly need international support for a peaceful solution. This is what we have learned as social scientists.
I appreciate your contribution and do think that this is the way how we should discuss.
Ronald
|