Newman also generously
suggests that "not everyone associated with the pro-boycott campaign was
anti-semitic". This could be interpreted as a dangerous slur implying that
many of them are. Newman proceeds to explicitly link the boycott debate with
anti-semitism. While there is a clear need to be mindful of the implications
of actions and utterances giving succour to racists, there is also a need to
ensure that political debate is not stifled
It's a tricky one. Newman is well over the top, but
I'm afraid that some of the most prominent original instigators of the boycott
have said and written anti-semitic things, or repeated false claims
that implied the same. This doesn't mean that everyone else supports
those statements (continued p.94...)
It is of course very easy, especially for
an academic, to argue the simple political philosophical truism that
criticising the actions of a state is not to attack the religious beliefs
or the individuals that that state contains. Yet, despite our supposedly
critical orientation, and our ability to take apart and discover the 'reality'
behind so much other supposedly non-racist of non-prejudicial discourse to
find the deeply nasty sentiments hidden deeper down, we so easily take
such glib superficial statements from our friends and colleagues as if they
were simply and self-evidently true, in a ways that we would not allow
for say, an unemployed guy living on a council estate in London who says
'I'm not a racist.' As critical scholars, we can't allow
special pleading for any individual or group including our own that should
exempt them from the same scrutiny and critique. I don't know whether people
are 'really' motivated by prejudice on any side of any conflict, but I suspect
it's more people than we think, and certainly more people than are prepared to
admit it - particularly in this case when we are dealing with educated people
who know the 'right things to say' and can provide the references to back them
up.
That's one of the reasons why I can't be part of any
organised campaign (for or against) this boycott now, and I'll stick to
support for humanitarian and peace-building activities, because neither camp
has any sense of their flaws and limitations and seem to be becoming
mirrors of the wider political situtation in which two racist, prejudiced,
heavily armed and violent sets of protaganists seek to justify any action they
take in terms designed to appeal already and in advance to set ways of
thinking.
On a more general point it seems
logical that an academic boycott might have limited, if any impact. However,
as others have noted, it might be seen as simply one element in a broader
campaign opposing the policies of the Israeli state.
Yes, but every aspect a
campaign needs to be discussed according to its ethics and effectiveness. Just
defining something as part of campaign does not automatically make it better
or remove then need for discussion.
I'm very tired of this discussion. I think it's a
dead-end and we have to explore other ways of 'doing the right thing' here and
supporting those who being crushed by racist US-backed Israeli state
terrorism and racist Arab-backed Palestinian parastate terrorism, and enabling
the people involved and affected (and mostly that's not the self-indulgent and
cossetted likes of us) to find a
solution.