http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,2180773,00.html

Ban on Israel boycott discussion

Monday October 1, 2007
The Guardian

Your description of the University and College Union decision to
cancel the UK tour by Palestinian academics (Lecturers drop Israeli
universities boycott call after legal advice, September 29) says both
too much and too little. Too much, because there was no "boycott
call" to drop. The decision at May's UCU congress was to have a year-
long debate so that members could be better informed. Too little,
because it is this debate, as well as the tour which was part of it,
that has been cancelled. Extraordinarily, the union top brass has
interpreted the legal advice as effectively banning any discussion of
an academic boycott of Israel, even in branch meetings. A quite
remarkable gag, which many autocratic regimes round the world will envy.

What is this advice which has such dire consequences for democratic
process? The members haven't been told - not even who gave the
opinion. We are told only that such a boycott would infringe anti-
discrimination legislation. If sustained, this position would not
only demolish the international policy of the UCU, aimed at
expressing solidarity with overseas trade unionists, it would do the
same to the whole UK trade union movement.
(Professor) Jonathan Rosenhead
London

The suspension of the regional meetings called to discuss the moral
implications of links with Israeli academic institutions was a
political decision and not a legal imperative. It will be misleading
and dangerous to claim or imply that it was a consequence of legal
advice because it creates a myth that it is unlawful for trade unions
to discuss a boycott.

I am familiar with the advice that the union received from Anthony
Lester QC, as well as the independent advice the trustees
commissioned from Anthony White QC. Both were at pains to emphasise
that their advice "does not mean that the union cannot in any
circumstances organise meetings or internal discussions relating to
international issues of interest to their members". According to
Lester, the regional meetings could have been held, provided they are
not "used to ascertain the level of support" for a boycott, which was
never the original intention of the resolution.
Fawzi Ibrahim
Trustee, UCU

The legal advice seems to amount to the following: that even
discussion of proven educational discrimination by the occupying
power in Palestine "runs the risk of infringing [British]
discrimination legislation", and that to discuss the oppression of
fellow academics and students could be considered ultra vires "the
aims and objects" of UCU. As absurdities mount, so too do injustices.
Professor William Roff
Fife

If the UCU leaders have suspended their members' calls to discuss a
response to Palestinian trade unionists living under Israeli
occupation, what will they allow their members to discuss? And what
pressure on Israeli institutions will they bring to bear if they
cannot even allow discussion of the issues?
George McLean
Manchester

So Israel can carry on with its segregation barrier, settlement
expansion and human rights abuses, but the UCU can't even discuss an
academic boycott.
Janet Green
London

Sami Abdel-Shafi articulates Gaza's woes profoundly, but he doesn't
attempt to understand Israel at all (Divided and voiceless, September
27). Since pulling out of Gaza in 2005, Israel has experienced
constant Qassam rocket barrages. Abdel-Shafi insists "Gazans widely
oppose" Qassam attacks, but I've seen no evidence of this. Home-made
or not, the rockets kill. Since Hamas won't stop them, what can Israel
do but try?

If there were no rockets and no kidnappings, Israel would have no
reason to intervene in Gaza. It's time for Gazans to try the option
their leaders have neglected for 60 years: peaceful negotiations.
Until then, the constant attacks and the cult of martyrdom will keep
Gaza mired in a living hell.
Adam Glantz
Herndon, Virginia, USA