Without wanting to get into the recent decision by the British Academics’ Union to pass a motion encouraging a boycott of Israeli universities and academics (I fully support this show of solidarity which remains, after all, optional and provides a course of action for selective boycott of academics who are in bed with the Israeli security establishment), I was rather dismayed to see this critic of the boycott use a picture of Nazi persecution of Jews in the 1930s. It’s especially sad as this site, Tabsir, often has great posts on things Middle Eastern by well-known specialists in their fields. So what is that picture saying? That the majority of British academics who voted in favor of the boycott are Nazis? That they are anti-Semites? This is typical of the use of alleged anti-Semitism to deflect justified criticism of Israel, which after all has carried a brutal occupation for many decades. I expect it from Likudnik hacks like Abraham Foxman and the ADL, but not of Tabsir.
Shame about the use of that picture and the decision to bring out the big “nazi” guns, because the article itself was pretty well reasoned, I thought. Particularly the point about it being counterproductive to boycott Israeli academics en masse regardless of their political positions. It’s still ultimately difficult to disentangle those who get paid by state-funded universities from the policies of the states that fund them (and when said state’s military policies and illegal land grabs gave them the facilities they use), and boycotts are of necessity a blunt tool aimed much more widely than at those directly to blame for what is being protested (e.g. international cricket boycotts of S. Africa back in the day, and Zimbabwe now). But the writer could have made a case against boycotts without bringing in the Nazi picture and it would have been more effective.
Exactly… her argument is fairly reasonable, even if it’s wrong. But there is no question of a compulsory general boycott as many have implied, the resolution was merely an encouragement to boycott. And actually what you mention about the sports boycotts are an argument in favor of a general boycott (I think everything about the entire country of Israel should be boycotted, and yes I realize that’s not about to happen any time soon): the sports boycott against South Africa “hurt” people who were not racists or supporters of apartheid, thereby giving them an incentive to put pressure on the regime for change.
A core problem is revealed in your locution, “use,” of the alleged anti-Semitism. After being here for most of a year, it’s clear that many Israelis, and probably most of the older ones, actually believe most criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-Semitism. It’s not clear to me what the solution is, but I do fear that this means boycotts won’t have the desired effect. Instead, many Israelis will just take it as another sign of anti-Semitism, something to band together in defiance of and evidence for the continuing need for a Jewish homeland.
I don’t really see why Israeli views of a boycott (or call for it) as anti-Semitic matter. Many Israelis (and particularly the older ones you mention) have been for the most part the willing and enthusiastic partners of a state policy of ethnic cleansing, persecution and occupation. I can’t say I care that much about how they “feel”. I don’t care as much about convincing them (a pretty futile attempt most probably) as forcing them under duress to change their policies. Ending the policies is more important than making them feel all warm and mushy about it.
I guess I don’t see how boycotts are going to lead to a policy change, is my point. If I thought they would work, I’d sign on in a minute, but the bunker mentality is way too strong. As it is, the only effective force for ending the conflict I see is the Israeli left, which wouldn’t lead to the binational state you favor, but does whole-heartedly favor a two-state solution, hates the settlers, and so on. They were strong in the 1990’s, but have been drifting since Taba and the start of the Second Intifada.
If the boycott is done and it spreads to other countries what will happen? Conveniently, a terrorist act wil take place (committed by agent provocateurs) and Israel will say “We told you so.” These terrorist acts (whether it was the killing of the Isrealis at the 1972 Munich Olympics, or the hijacking of Air France Flight 139, where hostages were held at Entebbe Airport in Uganda, or the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro), benefit Israel more than it does the Palestinians
If these British teachers want things to improve for the Palestinians, why don’t they set the example by having their government stop its participation in the occupation of Iraq?
This also goes to the Americans on the radical left who want to talk about Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, but do not want to discuss the United States’ war crimes around the world.