"So be it?" no regret? no admitting mistakes? no being demagogic?
WOW !!!!! Well, at least you continue your hypocricy and get the attention
you so crave.
To your "message." You portray a caricature of the tragic and horrendous
Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Among other things, in your caricaturistic
and simplistic account, the Palestinians have never made any mistakes
(have they?), their leaders never preached extreme and lethal views but
the Israelies and the Israeli leadership is the devil incarnate. Gone are
all the references to Palestinian veil actions and statements, gone are
any references to liberal & positive Israelies. And, you want me to
believe in your good intentions? My hypocritical "friend," you are so
extremelly one sided that not only is it bad science, it is bad politics.
With one thing I agree with you. The solution for this conflict can and
should be solved via negotiations, not by brute force, killing, maiming,
destruction and misery. Your one sided point of view only adds fuel to the
burning furnace of hatred. It promotes expanding the conflict to as close
as possible to a tolal war and enjoys using a stick rather than a carrot.
It is my belief that academia teaches us to solve conflicts via a
dialogue, not by killing, not by boycotting and not by preaching hatred
and violence. Organizational theory teaches us that a carrot is a much
better and effective tool to use than a stick. It teaches us that caring,
compassion, understading, negotiations, compromises are better than
brutality. We, in academia, not only can afford this appproach, we MUST
use it, or else we risk becoming as bad as those using brute force.
Eventually, this conflict can not, and should not, be resolved by going
in the way we, Israelies and Palestinians, are following. Dead bodies and
misery are irreversible and can not be rectified. It is morally wrong and
pragmatically bad.
As I wrote you before, your preaching of unbalanced hatred, caricature
description of the conflict, call to use force so as to expand the
conflict to academic circles will achieve the exact opposite of a just
and compromised solution.
It is regrettable that you practice such poor interpretative science and
even worse politics. Rather than calm the tormented spirit, offer hope,
support liberal and peace seekers, you do the exact opposite. Perhaps you
should join one of the combatting armies? I do feel sorry for you. It is
your anger and hate that bias your views and direct you to the dark side
of the force. Too bad. And, unlike you, I do not believe in this
aggressive slogan you used at the beginning of your letter: "so be it"
meaning, really, "I don't care." If you care, such a sentence should be
inappropriate for you. If there is still any compassion in you, and
perhaps some basic understanding in interpretative social science,
for the thousands who died, suffer and are threatened and humiliated here
on a dsaily basis - please, think twice. The road to piece does not go
through academic violence such as you preach. What is needed is support
for the liberal, peace seeking people and severe criticism of those
(leaderships and people) who prefer the violent path.
best
Nachman
==========================================
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004, David Seddon wrote:
> If my comments regarding 'the final solution' offended, so be it. But this
> was not abuse or anti-Semitisim. It referred to the kind of ethnic cleansing
> that has always been a component of the thinking of influential sections of
> the Jewish and subsequently Israeli leadership in Palestine/Israel. It was
> based on a scrupulous reading of the history of Palestine and Israel and the
> statements of many Jewish/Israeli leaders. It is clear from this that a
> powerful section of the Israeli leadership (and many others too) are in
> favour of effectively eliminating 'the Palestinian threat' not by
> negotiation or by any path that seeks peace with justice, but by brutal
> oppression and the effective elimination of any possibility of a viable
> Palestinian state, or of basic human rights for Palestinians (including the
> right to live without the constant threat of death and destruction). Behind
> that is the idea of an Israel 'without Arabs/Palestinians'.
>
> Even from the early days, when partition was proposed, the idea of an Israel
> without Arabs on the basis of compulsory transfer was attractive to many.
> Ben Gurion, for example, wrote in the late 1930s of the proposals of the
> Peel Commission: 'the compulsory transfer of the Arabs from the valleys of
> the proposed Jewish state could give us something which we never had, even
> when we stood on our own during the days of the First and Second Temples.
> 'We are being given an opportunity which we never dared to dream of in our
> wildest imaginings. This is more than a state, government and sovereignty -
> this is national consolidation in a free homeland'. He wrote to his son,
> Amos, 'we must expel Arabs and take their places... And if we have to use
> force - not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to
> guarantee our own right to settle in those places - then we have force at
> our disposal'. When he spoke to Mapai supporters four days after the UN
> Partition resolution, just as Arab-Jewish hostilities were getting under
> way: 'there can be no stable and strong Jewish state so long as it has a
> Jewish majority of only 60 per cent'.
>
> David Seddon
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Newsletter of the European Sociological Association
> >(ESA) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> >Of Paul Reynolds
> >Sent: 03 August 2004 07:40
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Of Boycotts and Ethics
> >
> >
> >There was a point, before the degeneration into abuse - and I take
> >inappropriate analogies and mocking opportunisms as being equally
> >offensive to different readers - when the recent discussion was getting
> >interesting, particularly for this list, and it may well be worth
> >retrieving.
> >
> >It seems to me that there are three points from which a common
> >departure
> >might be made, or clarification might be sought if not:
> >1/Israeli state policy has been "long-standing, illegal, brutal, [
> >systematic ]and wholly ill-conceived [in its] continued occupation,
> >settlement and containment of the Palestinian territories. What we
> >currently see is the latest strategic moves in a politics coherent in
> >its fundamental desire for a Palestinian state not to exist and
> >Palestinians not to have rights.
> >2/ The original article circulated as a legitimate and
> >thought-provoking
> >criticism of the idea of boycott's as counterproductive and
> >inappropriate - Alexander - also discussed associative means of
> >supporting resistance and offering no support to oppressive regimes.
> >3/ If universities are populated by those whose work makes them public
> >intellectuals - as it increasingly does through forums such as this and
> >the increasing multi-media development of research, those intellectuals
> >has a responsibility to public affairs.
> >
> >Now my last contributions to this ongoing discussion were pro-boycott,
> >and I elaborated arguments that I thought on balance supported boycott
> >as a strategic position against an inert politics. Much as I regret
> >Baruch Kimmerlings triumphalism and casual attitude given the subject
> >under discussion when he uses the Iraq war to say:
> >
> >"First of all let see your British folks organizing an
> >association devoted to boycott British academe and institutions who
> >supported he Anglo-American invasion of Iraq as test case. Than we'll
> >can talk how to extended you valuable experience on the Israeli case.
> >Cheers, Baruch." (If we are going to agree David Seddon's remarks were
> >inappropriate, which I think they were, lets remember there has been
> >bitter invective on both sides)
> >
> >Nevertheless, there is a strong point to be made here about boycotts.
> >Are they the most effective form of protest? Do they hurt those who
> >support or dissent from boycotted institutions or states? What do they
> >achieve, particularly if there is a counterproductive strengthening of
> >fascistic voices and causes? Do they make a difference, or are
> >they just
> >a convenient gesture for the boycotter - a no- or marginal cost salve?
> >
> >And the point remains, regardless of the amount of criticism generated
> >within UK and USA Academy's, why is a boycott not appropriate,
> >especially from European academics? There are questions, of course, of
> >longevity of oppressive behaviour and consistency of politics
> >that might
> >be raised, but its a fair point. In Afghanistan, Iraq and probably soon
> >in Sudan (surely just a coincidence of geo-political and oil interests
> >here!) The US and UK governments led barbaric campaigns based on lies
> >and ego to meet their aims and objectives. Both continue to be key
> >players supporting Israeli policy. I can give no answer as to why
> >French, German and other European colleagues shun UK Universities. Are
> >boycott's reasonable if they are not aimed at you?!
> >
> >What would be interesting would be to explore the coming together of
> >those groups in the Academy who represent academics and
> >dissenters (like
> >this mailing list?)what is fast becoming a normalised politics of
> >barbarism, and explore how such a networking of groups could represent
> >in a way that empowered and influenced, whilst pronouced a clear ethics
> >and politics of inclusion/exclusion on the basis of support or
> >otherwise
> >for those who oppress.
> >
> >It might include signatories agreeing not to bid for or take government
> >research funding (I hear shiffling in seats at this!) from governments
> >like the US, UK and Israel. It could include the generation by web and
> >publication, of cheap (costless) and easily accessible up to date
> >information on the abuses and barbarisms being perpetrated - a clearing
> >house publicised to all. It could include making this
> >available to media
> >voices and influencing media agendas to make this knowledge public. It
> >could be making the voices of the sufferers - still a strong
> >weopon in a
> >media age - prominent in the making and dispersal of this information.
> >
> >I'm not an idealist, quite the opposite, and I understand that what i
> >suggest is fraught with political issues for debate, problems and
> >discordances. It seems a sight more positive, however, than the
> >alternative.
> >
> >There's a ball here if someone wants to roll it
> >
> >paul
> >
> >Paul Reynolds
> >Senior Lecturer in Sociology
> >Programme Leader in Sociology and Social Psychology
> >Department of Social and Psychological Sciences
> >Edge Hill College
> >St Helens Road
> >Ormskirk
> >Lancs L39 4QP
> >Tel: 01695 584370
> >email: [log in to unmask]
> >
>
--
|