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]
>
|
