It is bizarre that so many 'liberal' Israeli academics seem to think that
only Israel is the target of those concerned about international justice and
peace - it is not. Many of us are also active in campaigns targeted at other
states and their governments, including those mentioned by Nachman. But just
as South Africa became a focus of international action because of its
long-standing apartheid government policies, so Israel has become a focus
for many because of its long-standing, illegal, brutal and wholly
ill-conceived policy of continued occupation, settlement and containment of
the Palestinian territories. It is hard for many of us, aware as we are of
the terrible suffering and oppression of the Jews (particularly this week as
we remember the Warsaw Uprising or Intifada), to see you Israeli 'liberal'
academics so acquiescent and even defensive in the face of a remarkably
similar effort at a 'final solution'. Shame on you.
David Seddon
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nachman ben-yehuda [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: 29 July 2004 22:23
>To: Baruch Kimmerling
>Cc: David Seddon; [log in to unmask]
>Subject: RE: "Academic Boycotts: Some Reflections on the South
>African Case"
>
>
>What about boycotting the USA? China for its treatment of
>Tibet? Sudan for
>the mass murder that goes on there while we exchange views?
>Russia for its
>war on Chechnia? I may continue. But, why Israel?
>Its a rhetoric question, of course.
>I thought your response was very good
>love
>...n
>===========
>
>
>On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Baruch Kimmerling wrote:
>
>> Dear David:
>> 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.
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, David Seddon wrote:
>>
>> > A very interesting piece - as I read it, Alexander
>eventually suggests the
>> > formation of associations of those explicitly opposed to
>their own state's
>> > policies, able to invite and oppose the invitation of
>foreign academics,
>> > according to democratically reached agreement on the part of the
>> > associations' members. These associations, one might
>suggest, could be
>> > supported by means of selective boycott and support from
>outside by those
>> > also opposed to the regime's policies. There is nothing to
>prevent groups of
>> > Israeli academics from forming such associations and
>making their position
>> > of a range of issues linked to the Israeli government's
>policies known
>> > publicly and internationally. Those of us currently
>involved in the academic
>> > boycott might well welcome such a development as it would
>allow a more
>> > selective 'smart' institutional boycott.
>> >
>> > David seddon
>> >
>> > >-----Original Message-----
>> > >From: Newsletter of the European Sociological Association
>> > >(ESA) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>> > >Of Baruch Kimmerling
>> > >Sent: 28 July 2004 22:19
>> > >To: [log in to unmask]
>> > >Subject: "Academic Boycotts: Some Reflections on the South
>> > >African Case"
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >An interesting perspective by one
>> > >of South Africa's most radical activist intellectuals (located
>> > >to the far left of
>> > >the ANC).
>> > >
>> > >Perspectives on the Professions
>> > >Vol. 15, No. 1, Fall 1995
>> > >"Academic Boycotts: Some Reflections on the South African Case"
>> > >Neville Alexander, University of Cape Town
>> > >
>> > >In the mid-eighties, the academic community in South
>Africa was rocked
>> > >by a totally unexpected debate concerning the morality and
>> > >purpose of an
>> > >academic boycott of South African universities (and other tertiary
>> > >educational institutions). The debate began with the
>"O'Brien Affair".
>> > >Connor Cruise O'Brien, the Irish academic and politician, in
>> > >South Africa
>> > >at the invitation of the University of Cape Town,
>declared that the
>> > >academic boycott, viewed in isolation, was ineffective
>("Mickey Mouse
>> > >stuff" in his words !) and that a much more comprehensive
>> > >approach to the
>> > >isolation of the "racist Pretoria regime" was called for
>> > >(without shooting
>> > >oneself in the foot, as it were).
>> > >
>> > >Even at the best of times, such a "complex" message would
>have been
>> > >difficult to communicate. Given the insurrectionist climate
>> > >among the black
>> > >youth of South Africa at the time and the defensiveness of
>> > >white students
>> > >and some academics, the messenger and the message were bound to be
>> > >misunderstood. O'Brien was interpreted as saying that the
>equivocating
>> > >university authorities who had invited him were "good guys".
>> > >The students,
>> > >convinced that the authorities were all unreconstructed
>> > >"baddies" in league
>> > >with the evil empire of the apartheid regime, responded
>with militant
>> > >rejection. The university authorities and most of the faculty
>> > >agonized in the
>> > >cross fire.
>> > >
>> > >Whatever the rights and wrongs of that particular event,
>the debate
>> > >expanded until the entire intellectual community of South
>Africa was
>> > >involved to one degree or another. We can, I believe, derive
>> > >some useful
>> > >observations from these events and their aftermath.
>> > >
>> > >The Trajectory of Boycott
>> > >
>> > >States usually justify application of economic and diplomatic
>> > >sanctions as
>> > >an alternative to settling international disputes by violence.
>> > >Inevitably, the
>> > >cultural boycott of the target state follows and the academic
>> > >boycott is,
>> > >clearly, a subset of the cultural. This was the trajectory in
>> > >the South African
>> > >case. The national liberation organizations saw the isolation
>> > >of the South
>> > >African regime as one of an ensemble of strategies which would
>> > >compel it
>> > >to move towards the negotiating table. In retrospect, I have
>> > >no doubt that
>> > >they were right.
>> > >
>> > >It is, therefore, all the more interesting that they seemed
>> > >not to notice that
>> > >differences in the terrain of struggle might require different
>> > >approaches.
>> > >For example, it was possible to make out a case if merely at
>> > >the level of
>> > >propaganda for so-called universal mandatory economic
>sanctions as a
>> > >foolproof tactic for strangling the regime into submission.
>> > >But, even at the
>> > >time, many publicists in the labor movement pointed out that,
>> > >because it
>> > >inevitably increased already severe unemployment, such a
>> > >"total boycott"
>> > >would have devastating consequences for the urban and rural
>> > >poor. A "total
>> > >boycott" assumed that human beings-working people especially-were
>> > >willing instruments in a political game played by elites that
>> > >had absolute
>> > >control over them.
>> > >
>> > >At the time, such control seemed not to exist; events since
>> > >have, I believe,
>> > >confirmed that it did not. "Total boycott," though popular as
>> > >slogan, was in
>> > >practice completely at variance with the immediate
>interests of most
>> > >people. The demand that "the people" be "willing" to accept
>> > >more suffering
>> > >for a little while longer (Bishop Tutu) is a textbook example
>> > >of middle-
>> > >class presumption and of the remoteness of the "leaders"
>from their
>> > >"flock"!
>> > >
>> > >Long-term Assessment
>> > >
>> > >This observation is important because it suggests a
>longer-term view,
>> > >planning the boycott on the assumption of victory. The fatal
>> > >malaise of the
>> > >South African economy at present is in no small measure the
>> > >result of the
>> > >cumulative distortions occasioned by, among other causes,
>sanctions
>> > >against the apartheid state, including the academic boycott.
>> > >If the purpose
>> > >of sanctions were purely destructive, any sanction could be
>> > >justified. The
>> > >boycott would then be the economic equivalent of modern warfare's
>> > >saturation bombing. But destruction is hardly ever the stated
>> > >purpose of
>> > >those who advocate sanctions. Indeed, choosing sanctions
>rather than
>> > >warfare implies a constructive, albeit punitive, approach
>to relations
>> > >between nations. The advocates of sanctions are necessarily
>> > >interested in
>> > >resuming normal relations either with a reformed, if
>> > >chastened, regime or
>> > >with a new regime (the former opposition).
>> > >
>> > >In South Africa, the debate over the academic boycott was
>> > >between broadly
>> > >liberal academics, on the one hand, and radical academics and
>> > >activists, on
>> > >the other. The liberals opposed the academic boycott
>> > >completely, arguing
>> > >both that it transgressed the principles of academic freedom
>> > >and university
>> > >autonomy and that it would shut off essential
>communication between
>> > >South African scholars and their international counterparts.
>> > >South Africa
>> > >would suffer a catastrophic drop in academic standards and an
>> > >erosion of
>> > >its economic and technological capacity. The more radical
>> > >groups insisted
>> > >that the academic boycott was correct in principle but that it
>> > >should not
>> > >punish the robber and the robbed at the same time. They
>argued for a
>> > >selective boycott rather than the simpler but impracticable
>> > >"total boycott"
>> > >(the slogan of the students in particular).
>> > >
>> > >The practical problem was obvious. Those favoring an
>academic boycott
>> > >had no way of monitoring the comings and goings of
>foreign scholars.
>> > >They could not prevent racist and even fascist scholars from
>> > >teaching or
>> > >doing research at some of the institutions concerned.
>> > >
>> > >Debate over the boycott also raised deep questions concerning
>> > >the morality
>> > >and political point of only excluding scholars coming
>from outside the
>> > >country when the majority of scholars who supported apartheid
>> > >were South
>> > >Africans employed by the very institutions that were to
>carry out the
>> > >boycott.
>> > >
>> > >Consensus
>> > >
>> > >Eventually, consensus was attained, at least in the more
>left-leaning
>> > >academic community. All anti-apartheid academics and intellectual
>> > >activists should band together in academic staff associations
>> > >explicitly
>> > >opposed to the regime and committed to the eradication of
>apartheid.
>> > >These associations would be mandated, as appropriate, to
>invite foreign
>> > >scholars to South African universities or to prevent them from
>> > >coming. The
>> > >boycott should not be a suicidal weapon cutting off all
>communication
>> > >between the progressive academic community in the rest of
>the world and
>> > >ourselves living in South Africa.
>> > >
>> > >In my view, this understanding came too late. Some of the
>scholarly
>> > >backwardness of South Africa today is, I am sure, due to the
>> > >marooning of
>> > >much of our scholarship in the 1980s. Take, for example,
>my own field,
>> > >education: we were almost completely ignorant of the work that
>> > >was being
>> > >done in the 1980s on the question of multilingual pedagogy in such
>> > >countries as Australia, Belgium, and Canada, not to mention
>> > >India, Nigeria,
>> > >Tanzania, and the like. Similar examples from all fields are
>> > >legion, the
>> > >direct result of an indiscriminate academic boycott. The
>> > >boycott was too
>> > >blunt an instrument for too long.
>> > >
>> > >The question of academic freedom was treated as an aspect of the
>> > >democratic principle of free expression. Many scholars
>argued that the
>> > >universities could not luxuriate in the illusion that
>they were somehow
>> > >different from the rest of the country's institutions. The
>> > >response that the
>> > >academic boycott was a form of self-censorship was
>countered by the
>> > >question why the universities had not taken a principled
>stand against
>> > >censorship before the O'Brien Affair spotlighted the
>issue in the mid-
>> > >1980s. In short, the self-seeking and elitist nature of the
>> > >"pure" liberal
>> > >argument for academic freedom and university autonomy was
>exposed and,
>> > >at least for a while, laid to rest.
>> > >
>> > >Final Assessment
>> > >
>> > >I have no doubt that when a state deliberately and
>> > >systematically abuses
>> > >human rights, a case can be made for academic boycott as
>part of an
>> > >ensemble of punitive strategies to compel the state to right
>> > >the situation.
>> > >But sanctions and boycotts are always two-edged weapons.
>They should
>> > >never be instituted without careful consideration of the
>> > >likely effect on
>> > >those whom they are supposed to help. Due attention should be
>> > >given to the
>> > >probable effects of a successful campaign so that the
>boycott does not
>> > >become the proverbial cure worse than the disease.
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>
|