One more small point concerning the "special treatment". Although
parallels are always problematic, in the case of the boycott against
South Africa, there never was any unclarity about those South
Africans with whom we were cooperating regardless of the boycott,
accepting their papers and inviting them to participate in meetings:
they were against the apartheid policies. The same should apply
here, with no need to any bureaucratic structures. What I don't
understand is that Baruch Kimmerling joins forces with "Professors
for National Strength" i.e. those supporting most actively the
"apartheid" regime and the occupation of territories.
Yours
JP Roos
Date sent: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:51:26 +0300
Send reply to: Baruch Kimmerling <[log in to unmask]>
From: Baruch Kimmerling <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: ACADEMIC BOYCOTT
To: [log in to unmask]
> On Wed, 29 May 2002, JP ROOS wrote:
>
> > Dear Colleagues
> >
> > Let me offer som personal comments.
> >
> > This debate has been very problematic for me. I am very much
> > inclined to support not just an academic boycott but a full boycott of
> > the state of Israel because of its concrete activities as an
> > occupation power, of state terror and the continuous creation of
> > colonies which simultaneously mean that the ability of Palestinians to
> > move has become very restricted. All the arguments relating to the
> > effects of boycott to end the apartheid seem to me to be relevant also
> > here. So when Hilary and Steven Rose presented their appeal, I was
> > happy to join it. Afterwards, when reading to reactions of Baruch
> > Kimmerling and others, I decided to withdraw my signature. Even
> > though, as Baruch has noted, the Israeli universities are very much
> > part of the state (and therefore should be part of the boycott), the
> > effects of the boycott would probably be most severe precisely to
> > those who oppose the Israeli policies and therefore are discriminated
> > against by the present government. Still, after reading carefully the
> > arguments from both sides, I have finally come to the conclusion that
> > the academic boycott is important and should be enforced. It is very
> > unfortunate that Baruch Kimmerling refuses to be treated as an
> > exemption because of his reasonable views, as the only argument
> > against the boycott would be that those people who should not be
> > subjected to the boycott will also be adversely affected. But if they
> > wish to refuse special treatment, this is their decision.
> >
> >
> >
> > J P Roos
>
> I'll strongly refuse any "special treatment". Any selection in academy
> by extra-academic criteria mean politization of the academic sphere, and
> it is a pure power-oriented action. B. Kimmerling.
************************************************
J.P.Roos Professor of Social Policy
PB18 00014 The University of Helsinki Finland
Fax +358 9 19124564 Tel +358 9 19124582
Home Page: www.valt.helsinki.fi/staff/jproos/
*************************************************
|