At this point, I think it's worth revisiting this seminal letter on the
topic from Tanya Reinhart, an Israeli academic in Tel Aviv, in response to
Baruch Kimmerling's defense of Israeli freedom of expression.....
Dr Jon Cloke
Geography Department,
Durham University
Durham DH1 3LE
0191 334 2850
[log in to unmask]
Indymedia Israel
http://www.indymedia.org.il
May 17, 2002
WHY ACADEMIC BOYCOTT - A reply to an Israeli comrade
Tanya Reinhart
Tel Aviv
Dear Baruch Kimmerling,
Last week, you published in Ha'aretz a moving letter defending the freedom
of expression of a group of Israeli professors, including myself, who signed
a European petition calling for a moratorium on European support to the
Israeli academia. Here is what you wrote:
"The Coordinating Council of the Faculty Associations [of the Israeli
universities] issued a public statement, which appeared in Ha'aretz on May
6, denouncing the call of scientists in Europe and North America to declare
a boycott on the Israeli academia, following... supposed war crimes that the
State of Israel committed in the occupied territories. As someone who acted
immediately and actively against this boycott, because I saw this as a
blatant violation of academic freedom, which is the essence of academic
research and teaching, I was shocked by this statement. The shock stems from
the content of the document, which not only denounces the boycott, but also
denounces that minority of the Israeli academic personnel that support the
proposed boycott. For precisely the same reason that one should oppose the
boycott, one should oppose the denouncement of academic members who think
differently. Instead of insisting on the freedom of speech and thought of
all its members, the council launched an attack on this freedom.... I demand
the immediate resignation of those responsible for this outrageous public
statement."
In the present climate in Israel, it is comforting, and far from trivial, to
hear voices still defending old fashioned ideas like freedom of speech. For
this reason, I appreciate your letter. Nevertheless, I would like to explain
here why your defense still leaves me utterly unmoved.
BACKGROUND ON THE ACADEMIC BOYCOTT
First some background on the academic boycott. An accurate description of
the events that set the Israeli academia roaring was given in an Ha'aretz
article by Tamara Traubman: "The first time that the international
scientific community imposed a boycott on a state was during the Apartheid
regime in South Africa. The second time is being considered at present, and
now the boycott is directed against Israel and its policy in the
territories. Several manifestos calling for the imposition of a boycott, on
various levels, have been published in recent days by professors from
abroad...The first...was initiated by a pair of British researchers,
Professors Hilary and Steven Rose of Britain's Open University. The
manifesto suggests that European research institutes stop treating Israel
like a European country in their scientific relations with it, until Israel
acts according to UN resolutions and opens serious peace negotiations with
the Palestinians. (Israel enjoys the status of a European country in many
European research programs). Over 270 European scientists, including about
10 Israelis, signed the manifesto. Although it is the most moderate of the
boycotts being formulated these days against Israel, the manifesto aroused a
great deal of anger in the Israeli scientific community..."(Ha'aretz, April
25, 2002, "The Intifada Reaches the Ivory Tower"
We can distinguish three forms of the academic boycott. The first is part of
a larger cultural boycott -- cultural events in Israel have been boycotted
for quite a while. In the academic sphere, the boycott is on any cooperation
with institutional events of the Israeli academia in Israel. This means that
scholars cancel participation in conferences and official academic events
(e.g. some refuse an honorary degree offer) (1).
This form of boycott is already a fact. The reason is that it is the easiest
step for individual scholars to take on their own. It is not always easy to
distinguish between those canceling participation in events of the Israeli
academia for safety reasons and those who are boycotting, but the phenomenon
is quite large, as Traubman reports: "The most obvious expression of the
isolation of the Israeli scientific community is the refusal of researchers
to come here...'Whereas in the past Israel held many international
congresses, says Gideon Rivlin, the chair of Kenes International, the
principal organizer of such congresses, today there are no longer any
international congresses in Israel.' ... 'Until 2004,' adds Rivlin, 'all the
congresses in Israel have been canceled'... Brain researcher Prof. Idan
Segev...from HU [Hebrew University, Jerusalem], says that scientists tend to
refuse to come not only to scientific congresses, but also for joint
research projects as well. 'At a conference abroad a short time ago, I met a
friend with whom I've been working for many years; every year he comes to
Israel for a few weeks to work with me,' says Segev. 'This year he told me
openly, `I can't come, the moment I arrive, I am taking a political step.'
For them it's like going to South Africa'." (Ha'aretz, ibid.).
The second, and more recent form, is economic sanctions on the Israeli
academia. This extends the other forms of economic pressure which have been
observed for a while: Consumer boycott; canceling European contracts with
Israeli computer companies (link); and the divestment movements in the US
academy, where scholars and students in Berkeley, Princeton, Harvard, and
MIT call on their universities to divest from US companies doing business in
Israel, as means of pressure on these companies not to help Israel's
economy. (See pages at Harvard and Princeton). While these actions target
various aspects of the Israeli economy (industry and agriculture,
electronics companies, etc.) the academic boycott targets the research funds
of the Israeli academia, thus applying direct economic pressure on the
academia, as a central (and collaborating) part of the state of Israel.
As Traubman reports, "Members of prestigious scientific bodies, such as the
Norwegian Academy of Sciences, have condemned Israel's actions in the
territories, and criticized their Israeli colleagues for their indifference
to the situation of Palestinian researchers, and the damage to academic
institutions in the Palestinian Authority. According to Israeli diplomatic
sources, steps to have Israel join several large European projects have been
postponed until further notice -- for example, accepting Israel as a member
of a particle acceleration project at the CERN laboratory in Geneva. The
contacts that began behind the scenes have been halted at this stage..."
(Ha'aretz, ibid.).
The specific academic petition which ignited the fury of the Israeli
academia, falls within this second type of boycott (2). This is a call for
economic sanctions on the Israeli academia in general, and not for full
boycott of ties with individual Israeli academics.
The third form of the academic boycott, however, extends it also to this
most severe stage -- practiced in the South-Africa boycott -- of complete
international isolation of individual Israeli scholars. It prohibits any
contact with them -- invitations to conferences abroad, research
collaborations, publications, editorial boards, etc (3).
Among the supporters of academic boycott, opinions are divided about the
third form of boycott. At the individual level, many Israeli academics
oppose the occupation and Israel's brutality in the territories. A large
minority of them is actively involved, like you, Baruch, in a daily struggle
against all these. Furthermore, among the goals of academic boycott is to
encourage the Israeli academics to take a more active part in struggle and
resistance. For this, it would help if we feel part of a large international
community, sharing this cause, rather than completely isolated from it.
Personally, I support the first two forms of academic boycott, but not the
third form of individual boycott.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that if the economic-institutional boycott
is successful and research funds to the Israeli academia are cut off, this
will effect individual researchers, including not only you and me, but also
students and young scholars who are supported by research grants. This is
the logic of sanctions -- they are meant to hurt the political and economic
system, and in that process, they inevitably hurt all segments of the
targeted society. In South Africa, the Blacks were among the first to suffer
from the boycott. Still they pleaded with the West to continue.
WHY BOYCOTT
The model of boycott followed here is, indeed, that which was formed in the
case of South Africa. Just a few years ago, in 1993, the whole world
celebrated when the Apartheid regime in South Africa collapsed after 50
years of brutal discrimination and oppression. This change did not come
about on its own. It was the outcome of a long and painful struggle of the
blacks in South Africa. But the anti-Apartheid movement, throughout the
world, also had an enormous impact.
The struggle was directed at governments on the one hand, and directly at
corporations doing business with SA, on the other. There were protests and
demonstrations demanding that an arms embargo be imposed. The pressure on
corporations to divest, targeted specific corporations with product boycotts
accompanied by demonstrations, stockholders speaking at meetings (churches
who owned stocks, could get a few people in), and much more.
Following this pressure, in 1977 the UN Security Council imposed limited
sanctions on South Africa. Their impact was, in fact, limited as long as the
great powers -- primarily UK and US -- found ways around them (like getting
Israel to provide arms, military training and oil to SA.). But during the
eighties, the big corporations were beginning to move out of their SA ties
anyway, due to the protest and turmoil it generated. Suddenly, there was a
heavy economic price for the continuation of Apartheid.
This was combined with another aspect of pressure -- cultural boycott and
social isolation: South Africa was kicked out of international sports;
professional and academic organizations did not cooperate with South-African
organizations; there was a ban on conferences and cultural events. All these
helped. South Africa was forced to change (4).
I have no doubt that you supported the South Africa boycott. Where we may
differ is in the question whether the Israeli case is sufficiently similar.
I believe that even much before its present atrocities, Israel has followed
faithfully the South-African Apartheid model. Since Oslo, Israel has been
pushing the Palestinians in the occupied territories into smaller and
smaller isolated enclaves, promising, in return, to consider calling these
enclaves, in some future, a Palestinian 'state' -- a direct copy of the
Bantustans model. (For a detailed description of the early Apartheid stages,
see my article in Ha'aretz Magazine, May 27, 94).
Unlike South Africa, however, Israel has managed so far to sell its policy
as a big compromise for peace. Aided by a battalion of cooperating
'peace-camp' intellectuals, they managed to convince the world that it is
possible to establish a Palestinians state without land-reserves, without
water, without a glimpse of a chance of economic independence, in isolated
ghettos surrounded by fences, settlements, bypass roads and Israeli army
posts -- a virtual state which serves one purpose: separation (Apartheid).
"We are here and they are there" -- behind the fences, as Barak put it.
But no matter what you think of the Oslo years, what Israel is doing now
exceeds the crimes of the South Africa's white regime. It has started to
take the form of systematic ethnic cleansing, which South Africa never
attempted. After thirty-five years of occupation, it is completely clear
that the only two choices the Israeli political system has generated for the
Palestinians are Apartheid or ethnic cleansing ('transfer'). Apartheid is
the 'enlightened' Labor party's program (as in their Alon or Oslo plan),
while the other pole is advocating slow suffocation of the Palestinians,
until the eventual 'transfer' (mass expulsion) can be accomplished. ("Jordan
is the Palestinian state", is how Sharon put it in the eighties.) (5). Even
those who can swallow 'made in Israel' Apartheid, cannot just watch silently
as Sharon carries this second vision out.
Given that the US backs Sharon, no UN resolution has any force. This was
made perfectly clear by the latest shocking example in which Israel managed
to defy the resolution regarding a search committee for the events of Jenin.
The only way left to exert pressure on Israel to stop is through the protest
of people around the world, including use of the most painful means of
boycott. As an Israeli, I believe that this external pressure may save not
only the Palestinians, but also the Israeli society, which is, in fact, not
being represented by the political system. In a recent poll, 59% of the
Jewish Israelis support immediate evacuation of most settlements, followed
by a unilateral withdrawal of the army from the occupied territories
(www.peace-now.org/Campaign2002/PollMay2002.rtf). But with no external
pressure, no political party will carry out this will of the majority.
WHY THE ACADEMIA
I am not sure whether your objections to the moratorium on research funds to
the Israeli academia, which we called for, is because you object to any
divestment or boycott moves, or whether you think the academia should be
exempt. Many Israeli academics hold the latter view, so I suppose it is also
yours. You say in your letter that the reason you "acted immediately and
actively against this boycott" is "because I saw this as a blatant violation
of academic freedom, which is the essence of academic research and
teaching." This is a very peculiar use of the concept of academic freedom.
What is under consideration here is your freedom to access international
research funds. You seem to view this type of freedom as an inalienable
right, untouchable by any considerations of the international community
regarding the context in which its funds are used. But it is not. The
traditional spirit of the academia, no matter how much of it is preserved in
daily practice, is that intellectual responsibility includes the
safeguarding of moral principles. The international academic community has
the full right to decide that it does not support institutions of societies
which divert blatantly from such principles. You had no problem accepting
this when South Africa was concerned.
The only question is whether there is anything about the Israeli academia
(as an institution, unlike individual resisting academics) that could exempt
it from the condemnation and pressure of the international community. Let us
turn to the broader arsenal of the arguments used to argue that. You find
yourself here in large company. The Israeli academia, which was not so
impressed with mere condemnations and the ongoing ban on official academic
events in Israel, got on its feet when its freedom to access international
funds was at stake. In a matter of days, they organized a counter petition
(to the British petition above), which has gathered thousands of signatures
(link). Dr. Ben Avot, one of the organizers of the counter petition "says
that 'the signatories come from a wide array of opinions about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ranging from members of [the right-wing]
`Professors for National Strength' to people who are usually identified with
the left, such as Prof. Baruch Kimmerling'" (Traubman, Ha'aretz, ibid.).
A basic principle that the counter-petition you signed is based on, is that
science should always be separated from politics. It is this line which
enabled the Israeli academia to live in peace with the occupation for thirty
five years. Never in its history did the senate of any Israeli university
pass a resolution protesting the frequent closure of Palestinian
universities, let alone voice protest the devastation sowed there during the
last uprising. (Such resolution would be a violation of the sacred principle
of separation -- more examples of this below.) If in extreme situations of
violations of human rights and moral principles, the academia refuses to
criticize and take a side, it collaborates with the oppressing system. But
as we saw, it is precisely this principle, and the collaboration that it
entails, which the international community is now condemning.
Interestingly, the principle of separation of science and politics never
applies when what is at stake is defending the interests of Israel. The
powerful Israeli scientific lobby managed to arrange an editorial in the
central scientific journal Nature, which repeats faithfully the arguments of
this counter petition ('Don't Boycott Israel's Scientists', Nature 417, 1,
May 2, 2002).
What are these ('non political') arguments? One is that "A unilateral
boycott of Israeli academics unfairly identifies Israel as the only party
responsible for the violent shift in Israeli-Palestinian relations and
ignores ongoing attacks against innocent Israeli citizens. Such a one-sided
perspective is contrary to academic standards of truth-seeking" (Israeli
counter-petition). "...Should we also boycott Palestinian researchers
because the Palestinian Authority has not done enough to prevent suicide
bombers?" (Nature editorial). Well, this is precisely what people of
conscience no longer buy. Basic human values and standards do not place
equal responsibility on the oppressor and the oppressed, when the oppressed
tries to rebel. Even when we strongly condemn the means used by the
oppressed, this does not exempt the oppressor. I take it for granted that
you, Baruch, place the responsibility for thirty-five years of occupation
and Apartheid on the Israeli governments, and not on the Palestinian people.
I assume that you just did not bother to read the petition you signed.
But the next set of arguments is probably the heart of the matter for many.
The Israeli academy views itself as liberal, democratic, and sensitive to
issues of human rights. Hence "to boycott Israeli academics would endanger
the democratic values and respect for human rights this community works hard
to foster" (Israeli counter-petition). Most importantly, the academy views
itself as promoting values of coexistence and peace by means of a
"meaningful dialogue" with its Palestinian colleagues: "European programs
have provided important frameworks for Middle East scholars to meet... to
discuss academic topics of mutual interest, and to build informal
interpersonal ties, thus helping to counter years of accumulated
misunderstanding and animosity." (Ibid.). Hence, boycotting the Israeli
academia will harm its devoted work of reconciliation and peace.
Nature's editorial is even more enthusiastic about this peace endeavor.
"Science is less political than other issues, and is a bridge for peace.
That is what Leah Boehm, then chief scientist at Israel's science ministry,
enthusiastically told Nature in 1995. Then, Israeli and Palestinian
researchers were optimistic that the peace process would cause funds to flow
to joint Arab-Israeli projects from the international community, reinforcing
peace by contributing to dialogue, and boosting research in the region..."
Hence, Nature concludes, "the world's scientific community" should "jump at"
the opportunity to support the Israeli academia, and thus, "encourage
Middle-East peace." Even Nature must admit that "subsequent events have left
these noble aspirations in tatters." But it calls on the scientific
community to help the Israeli academia (with research funds) to renew the
spirit of these wonderful years of dialogue. (This is emphasized further in
Nature's second editorial of May 16)
It is typical and revealing that in proving the contribution of the Israeli
academia to dialogue and peace, this editorial of Nature cites only Israeli
(and one American) scholars. The Palestinian perspective is, apparently,
irrelevant. If it were, a very different perspective on that golden era of
Oslo and 'peace' would emerge.
Here is a fragment of a report of Sari Hanafi, Associate Researcher at the
Palestinian Center for the Study of Democracy (6). It was written before the
Palestinian uprising, and describes an event of 1998/1999:
"In end of 1998, the Jerusalem Spinoza Institute called the Palestinian
University of Al-Quds (based in Jerusalem) to cooperate with it in order to
organize an international conference, in August 1999, entitled 'Moral
Philosophy in Education: The Challenge of human Difference'... The pros [for
accepting the invitation] were supported by two arguments: first, the
cooperation could help persuade the Ministry of Education to recognize
Al-Quds University, taking into account that non-recognition is purely
political; the second argument is related to the first: it consists of
trying to convince the Ministry of Interior to not expel the administration
and the main building of the university outside of Jerusalem (as announced
once by an Israeli official). In fact, these two arguments show that the
romantic view of cultural cooperation between two civil societies hide all
the power imbalance between the two societies -- between an occupied and
occupying people: 'We are here to put apart divergence and talk on science,
philosophy and education far from politics', as argued by the President of
the Spinoza Institute...
"However between May and August 1999, a serious incident happened: the
Ministry of Interior of the Barak government withdrew the Identity Document
of Musa Budeiri, a director of the Center of International Relations in
Al-Quds University and a resident of East Jerusalem. Native of Jerusalem,
his family has lived there for hundreds of years, under Ottoman, British and
Jordanian rule. He was given a tourist visa, valid for four weeks, and was
told that he would have to leave Jerusalem by August 22 -- Musa Budeiri is
one of thousands of other Palestinians in a similar situation. They all have
the same problem: they are subject to the threat of being turned into
'tourists' in their birthplace. 2,200 Jerusalem ID cards of families
(roughly 8,800 individuals) were confiscated between 1996 and May 1999
(according to the Israeli ministry of Interior)...
"In the opening session, Sari Nusseibeh, the president of Al-Quds
University, contrary to his habit, gave a very moving speech concerned
exclusively with the case of Musa Budeiri and his family. To outline the
roots of the Budeiri family in this city, he discussed a manuscript on
Jerusalem history written by Musa's father, which has never been edited.
Sari Nusseibeh, pioneer of the dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians,
finished his speech by saying that he is torn morally by these events,
adding that the Israelis should not expect to conduct further dialogue with
Palestinians, as the latter are increasingly becoming tourists [in their
land]. If almost all of the participants were moved, the organizers were
not. The president of Jerusalem Spinoza Institute commented on Nusseibeh's
speech saying that 'there is some military problems' between Israelis and
Palestinians which have not yet been resolved, while the rector of the
Hebrew University asked Nusseibeh where he can find the Budeiri manuscript,
as the Hebrew University would like to have it!!
"Finally the organizers of the conference refused to send the Minister of
Interior a petition in favor of Budeiri, signed by the majority of the
participants. The argument used was that there is a separation between the
academic sphere and the political one, and as scholars they cannot take a
position" (6).
This event took place in the days of peaceful Apartheid. As for the present
situation of Al-Quds University, Nature finally acknowledged in its May 16
issue that, "Al-Quds University claims that Israeli soldiers badly damaged
laboratories and other buildings at its campuses in El Bireh and Ramallah.
The university has asked the Israeli government and the international
community to send fact-finding missions and to help rebuild its
infrastructure" (Declan Butler, European correspondent, Nature 417, 207, 16
May 2002)
As the most decisive argument for why no moratorium on research funds should
apply, the Israeli counter petition and its echo in Nature point out that
this will harm the Palestinian academia. "Many European-funded programs have
explicitly aimed at enhancing scientific cooperation between Israelis,
Palestinians and Arab scholars...Freezing Israeli access to, and
participation in, such programs would...damage these important frameworks
and undermine the benefits to research" (Israeli counter petition). This
theme is further developed and emphasized in the more recent Nature
editorial of May 16.
Regardless of what the facts are about this "energetic scientific
collaboration," this is the standard colonialist argument. The colonialists
were always certain that they are bringing progress to the natives. Here is
what Prof. Rita Giacaman of Birzeit University told me about the matter:
"Several individually linked projects began with Israelis since the Oslo
accords were signed, mainly because Europe and the US were luring scientists
with the carrot of money in a money starved environment, in exchange for
being used as 'evidence' for peace and equity having been achieved, when the
stick never stopped hitting Palestinian infrastructure, institutions,
political processes and academic life. It thus placed us in the political
arena, using us to show peace that does not exist and equity that exists
even less. Many of us Palestinian academics chose not to get involved in
such academic cooperative relations with Israelis and continued solidarity
activities [with Israelis], aimed at changing the political reality instead
-the root cause of the problem... Anyway, the issue is not about Israeli
scientists helping out. This is like taking away the right of villagers to
till their land and then giving them some food-aid instead. The issue is
ending occupation and allowing Palestinian to develop their institutions,
including scientific ones." (Personal communication, May 2002).
If continuing support to the Israeli academia is what the Palestinian
academia considers best for its future, we should hear it from them. What I
hear from my comrades in the Palestinian academia is only a full and
unequivocal support for the boycott.
========
(1) French and Australian petitions are calling also for avoiding any other
institutional cooperation, such as serving in promotion procedures of the
Israeli universities, though the French call declares that they will
continue individual ties with Israeli scholars. (See here and here).
(2) Here is the full text of the British petition that we signed, which was
published in The Guardian (London) on April 6, 2002, with the first 120
signatures:
"Despite widespread international condemnation for its policy of violent
repression against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, the
Israeli government appears impervious to moral appeals from world leaders.
The major potential source of effective criticism, the United States, seems
reluctant to act. However there are ways of exerting pressure from within
Europe. Odd though it may appear, many national and European cultural and
research institutions, including especially those funded from the EU and the
European Science Foundation, regard Israel as a European state for the
purposes of awarding grants and contracts. (No other Middle Eastern state is
so regarded). Would it not therefore be timely if at both national and
European level a moratorium was called upon any further such support unless
and until Israel abide by UN resolutions and open serious peace negotiations
with the Palestinians, along the lines proposed in many peace plans
including most recently that sponsored by the Saudis and the Arab League."
(3) A resolution along these lines was taken by the British Teacher's union
Natfhe, reported in EducationGuardian.co.uk, April 16, 2002, and is proposed
also in a US petition - [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask]).
(4) The information regarding the anti-Apartheid movement was provided to me
by Noam Chomsky.
(5) For more details on these two poles in Israeli politics, see my
articles, "Evil Unleashed" and "The second half of 1948"
(6) Sari Hanafi, "Palestinian Israeli People to People program as a
mechanism of conflict resolution", lecture delivered at the 18th conference
of the General International Peace Research Association (IPRA), August 5-9,
2000, Finland. [log in to unmask])
|
