Lecturers vote to boycott Israeli universities

[newyorican]

A leading union voted yesterday to boycott two Israeli universities which it accused of being complicit in the abuse of Palestinians in the occupied territories.

The Association of University Teachers voted to sever links with Haifa and Bar-Ilan universities, and said it would consider boycotting a third.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews called the vote "blinkered, irresponsible and dangerous".

Jocelyn Prudence, who heads the Universities and Colleges Employers Association, told the Guardian: "This would appear to run contrary to contractual law, race and religious discrimination law, and academic freedom obligations, which are built into the contracts of staff in pre-1992 universities."

read more...

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dogmudgeon]

2. Why is that?

It looks like they're protesting two universities' actions against Palestinians.

--p!

[Coastie for Truth]

4. According to the Unions own web site

when you cut through all of the self serving cow pattie - the legalistic hook is the establishment of branch campuses in the Occupied Territories.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. How does that make the Union Nazis?

I don't agree with boycotts such as these, but keeping in mind that opposition to Israeli policy isn't Nazism, exactly how is the boycott Nazism?

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

9. I am not the ambassador - do not conflate me with the ambassador

I am Jewish - that does not make me ipso facto an Israeli or a spokesperson for the Israeli government.

But, let's go a step further - I do not like boycotts or this type - especially when based upon race, religion, creed, national origin, gender, or gender orientation. PERIOD.

1. Because I am a Progressive Liberal.
2. Because I have been the victim of an very well documented and very well litigated insidious boycott in the chemical engineering/chemistry profession by the largest employer group of chemical engineering/chemistry employers in the world - I do not believe in boycotts either.

I am not "boycotting" Birmingham. I shall be hiring at Prairie View instead. To use the vernacular of the 1970's - I am giving a "leg up" by "affirmative action" to Prairie View graduates.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. You replied to someone who asked how the boycott is Nazism...

I assumed that in replying to them *you* agreed with Jim that the boycotters are Nazis. I've got no idea at all why yr talking about me mistaking you for an ambassador..

This boycott isn't based on race, religion, creed, national origin, gender, or gender orientation. PERIOD. Doesn't mean that I think the boycott is going to be effective or that I agree with it, but I don't feel the need to portray it as something it isn't...

If it makes you feel better, think of the "boycott" as giving a "leg up" to those who don't support the Occupation...

Violet...

[bemildred]

22. "You know the answer".

:rofl:

[Coastie for Truth]

27. I responded in great detail this AM and yesterday

Under US law - as applied to ARPA, NIH, DOE, etc. grants (which Birmingham receives) the "boycott" is probably in violation of US law and would be deemed to be based on "race, religion, creed, gender, or national origin" and the burden would then be shifted to Birmingham Univ to prove otherwise.

As to Haifa Univ - this is an intra-departmental issue that has escalated way beyond any reasonable bounds. As one who has been through the dissertation game (circle jerk?) I have tremendous sympathy for Teddy Katz. I think you should read the links I provided - to al-Jazeera and to Teddy Katz's research, and also "Google" Ms. Blackwell.

The Bar-Ilan University appears to be a battle of the Ariel campus being in a position to ultimately divert money from Bir Zeit in a free and independent Palestine. And, it reminds me of the battles that went on in our public universities over "affirmative action" in admission, grants, faculty hiring, and faculty tenure in the late 1960's and early 1970's - when I was being jerked around on my dissertation - and when my wife finally gave up on her dissertation and pursued the "Mommy Track."

According to Ms. Blackwell, and according to Omar Barghouti, a founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, the evidence is clear and convincing that the boycott is an illegal boycott under US domestic law (applicable to overseas ARPA, DOE, NIH, etc. grants) as, under US law, it is based on race, religion, creed, national origin, gender, or gender orientation. Thus it would preclude ARPA, NIH, and DOE grants to Birmingham.

Sorry, I have been the subject of the Arab League Boycott Office, and I am NOT AN ISRAELI- so from my personal experience I am totally and wholly unconvinced that this is " a "leg up" to those who don't support the Occupation."

As a Jewish, non-Israeli, chemical engineer ("chemical engineer" means petroleum refinery design and operations, ask Jonathan Seville at Birmingham ---the Chemical Engineering chair at UK's Birmingham Univ - and a fine department---) - I am one of many, many, many similarly situated victims of the Arab League Boycott Office's boycott of Israel - and have never had the opportunity to work in my chosen profession. So, I don't like boycotts - I don't care if it's called Ben and Jerry's Mocha Chip-Coffee Bean ice cream - it's a boycott - and by LIBERAL academicians.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. Not to explain why you think this is an example of Nazism...

This is a very easy thing to do. Explain why you think that this boycott is an example of Nazism. That's what the poster you replied to was asking Jimbo. If you actually don't believe it's Nazism but just decided to reply to the posters question with something completely irrelevant to what they asked Jim, that's fine....

And I'll repeat it in case it was missed the first time. This boycott has zero, zip, nada to do with race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or national origin. Who gives a flying fuck what the US govt MIGHT deem it?? I certainly don't considering the US govt considers the invasion of Iraq to be totally legal...

Violet...

[samilib]

10. How are boycotts nazism?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

3. Changing my travel plans

I had definitely planned to meet with old friend and colleague Jonathan Seville at Birmingham (the Chemical Engineering chair at UK's Birmingham Univ - and a fine department) and seek some recommendations for some young engineers. (Now, I will do my hiring in the US).

Note that Birmingham is where Sue Blackwell "teaches."

But, I shall dash off a "regrets" e-mail for some evasive reason to Jonathan, and buy him a Guinness at the AIChE Meeting in Cincinnati in October.

Having been the victim of a boycott, I do not believe in boycotts.

As usual, the append did not go beneath the headline. Going to the Association of University Teachers Web site, and trying to make some sense out of Blackwells' various and sundry speeches and the articles in the AUT website, it seems to be that the stated issue is probably the establishment Occupied Territories branch campuses-

As to "discrimination" - picking through the actual Israeli university web sites, it appears that Bar-Ilan has an Islamic staffed "Islamic Studies" program, Islamic tenured professors, and an "affirmative action program" for Palestinians. Again, foraging through the web sites, it appears that Haifa University also has an Islamic staffed "Islamic Studies" program, Islamic tenured professors, and an "affirmative action program" for Palestinians. Maybe its discrimination in admissions of the occupied terriroties branch campuses - but the Palestinians will have those facilituies to do with as they pelase soon enough.

And, as usual, the append did not go into the meat of the article - which I guess I will be accused of selectively parsing and selectively editing

"Last night the deputy Israeli ambassador in London, Zvi Ravner, told the Guardian that he was amazed and disturbed by the AUT's decision.

"Are they really intending to boycott the Palestinians and the Israeli Arabs who study and work in these institutions, or are they really calling for a boycott of Jews?" he asked.

"The last time that Jews were boycotted in universities was in 1930s Germany."

Danny Stone, of the Union of Jewish Students, urged the government to establish an inquiry into extremism on campuses - among students and staff."

I think Ambassador Ravner called it right - Ms. Blackwell and her group are boycotting the Palestinians and the Israeli Arabs who study and work in these institutions, but they are really calling for a boycott of Jews.

[newyorican]

5. Actually...

The "append" provided the first 4 paragraphs of the article in accordance with copyright regulations.

The "meat" as so described is little more than hyperbolic histrionics by the ambassador, wherein he equates "Jews" (not some mind you) with 2 Universities along with the requisite reference to Germany during the Nazi era.

The actual reasoning behind the decision is not included in its entirety in the article. I tend to ignore supposition on those reasons, but this much was in the article:

The AUT claimed Haifa University had restricted the academic freedom of staff who spoke out against government policies. Bar-Ilan was boycotted because of its links to a college in the disputed settlement of Ariel. Both institutions have contested the allegations.

Personally, I don't like the idea of even the appearance of boycotting ideas. Even if this is not the case, targeting Universities gives that impression. Lecturers should look forward to speaking to audiences that largely disagree with them. Preaching to the choir doesn't really move the ball all that much.

[Coastie for Truth]

6. Having been the victim of an insidious boycott

Having been the victim of an very well documented and very well litigated insidious boycott in the chemical engineering/chemistry profession by the largest employer group of chemical engineering/chemistry employers in the world - I do not believe in boycotts either.

The reference to "Bar-Ilan was boycotted because of its links to a college in the disputed settlement of Ariel." is a branch campus. This will be turned over to the PA with the settlement of Ariel.

Instead of Birmingham, I plan to recruit at Prairie View. (One of my best bosses early in my career was a Prairie View graduate)

[Violet_Crumble]

8. So yr boycotting Birmingham...

Oh-kay...

Violet...

[Djinn]

11. not big on boycotts

BUT don't see how this violates race and religious discrimination policies. Don't we keep getting told Israel + Jewish are NOT the same thing? there is no "jewish" race. There is no "race" at all but in the accepted use of the term, my family are not of the same "race" as middle eastern or african jews.

This is a boycott against two universities belonging to a NATION not a religion or race.

[Coastie for Truth]

13. Your comments are noted

That's how some industries that willingly and gleefully complied with the Arab League's Boycott Office justified their race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identification based hiring policies -- long after the Arab League Boycott was made a crime by Congress.

[Djinn]

17. WTF

"your comments are noted"

self important much

[Coastie for Truth]

18. I think I responded to your question - if not to you personally.

If I put you off, I am sorry, but your lead in

"BUT don't see how this violates race and religious discrimination policies. Don't we keep getting told Israel + Jewish are NOT the same thing? there is no "jewish" race. There is no "race" at all but in the accepted use of the term, my family are not of the same "race" as middle eastern or african jews.

This is a boycott against two universities belonging to a NATION not a religion or race.

came across like the lawyer like obfuscation of the lawyers for certain industruies that discriminate based on race, religion, creed, national origin, gender, and gender orientation, and I responded the way I think those industries are entitled to a response:

"Your comments are noted -- That's how some industries that willingly and gleefully complied with the Arab League's Boycott Office justified their race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identification based hiring policies -- long after the Arab League Boycott was made a crime by Congress."

I think you are entitled to a more complete answers - or links to where I have discussed these issues.

Haifa University

As to the situation at Haifa University, I responded at post #15, "Haifa University" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=90061&mesg_id=90102 and having suffered through the bull and "hazing" that is part of the dissertation process, it is easy to see how Teddy Katz (and probably his dissertation adviser, Ilan Pappe) were being jerked around.

My wife dropped out of her dissertation (and pursued the "Mommy Track") as a result of the hazing and jerking around by her dissertation committee, and I almost dropped out of my dissertation as a result of the same hazing and jerking around (and almost strangled the grant sponsor's patent attorney - a real schmuck).

Newyorican provided a link to the original Al-Jazeera story - and I did some additional research and provided a link to the core of Teddy Katz' dissertation. Here it is again.
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Haifa/al-Tantura/Story88.html

I do identify with Teddy Katz - I was forced to switch my thesis topic by the grant sponsor's schmuck patent attorney, and lost two more years out of my life after losing three years due to military service.

But, when you read the Al-Jazeera story, and Teddy Katz's paper - it is clear to me as a battle scarred veteran of the screwing that PhD candidates get where the true story most likely lies (and I understand Ms. Blackwell's identification with Teddy Katz - her CV reads like she has been on the receiving end of some bad treatment by dissertation committees, and I am much more sympathetic to her) .....

Bar-Ilan
As to the situation at Bar-Ilan (which is very surprising since they have an "affirmative action program" for Palestinians and for Israeli Muslims, and an Islamic studies program, and a medical school curriculum that is tailored for the sensibilities of Orthodox Jewish females and Muslim females), I raised the issue with a Hebrew University faculty member, who is, shall we say, left wing - a Peace Now candidate for the Knesset. As I appended in Append 16, "Ms Blackwell was conned by Bir Zeit in a jurisdictional dispute", http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=90061&mesg_id=90103

According to my telephone conversation with this Hebrew University faculty member (several of his PALESTINIAN PH.D.'S teach at Ariel), this is a jurisdiction matter over "post-Independence" funding - and he said "That crazy Brit was conned by the Bir Zeit contingent that wants all the money - we taught the Palestinians to be just like us when it comes to schnoring."

The HU faculty member reiterated that the he still has a contract to teach in the UK this summer. You do not have to take my word on this -- it might be inferable from the Bar-Ilan web site.

Conclusion

I tried to be more thorough then just the Al-Jazeera article (which had a lot of leads) and the AUT web site (which was totally self serving and really lacking in anything solid), plus a I Googled Miss Blackwell, Ilan Pappe, Teddy Katz, and spoke to the HU faculty member, and i did read Teddy Katz' paper.


Added by edit upon reflection - I would lift the boycott as soon as the entire faculty of the Political Science Department of Haifa University takes a course in "Conflict Resolution" and "Anger Management."

And, while I don't believe in boycotts - I do not expect to ever attend a seminar given by children like either Sue Blackwell or Ilan Pappe -- unless it's a mud wrestling match between the two of them - or a duel with howitzers at 20 paces.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Coastie for Truth]

20. Just read the links

I have given you the links to Teddy Katz's MA dissertation work, and even to the much more detailed Al-Jazeera article.

Having reviewed Teddy Katz's work, Pappe's Google links, and Blackwell's Google links -- this is an internal, intra-department issue that Ms Blackwell has blown all out of proportion. Having done my home work on Ms Blackwell's paper trail - I think this has the appearance of a little bit of racism on Ms Blackwell's part.

As to Bar-Ilan, I told you the results of my research.

In my opinion - and I have been through the Arab League Boycott as a PhD Chemical Engineer (i.e., Petroleum Refinery Engineering and Petroleum Refining Engineering) and having been in American Education system in the late 1960's and 1970's (when charges of "racism" were as common as fleas on an outdoor dog), I am completely mystified by your statement that "how one can claim that boycotting 2 universities from a certain NATION translates into racial or religious vilification, unless Israeli is synonymous with Jewish ..."

Having seen and tasted racism (as a victim and as a peacemaker) in the racially charged 1960's and 1970's -- in the energy industry employment market place - and in elementary education (as a parent and ACLU board member) I have the attitude -- IF IT LOOKS LIKE RACISM, IF IT SMELLS LIKE RACISM, IF IT TASTES LAKE RACISM --- IT PROBABLY IS RACISM --- AND THE BURDEN SWITCHES TO THE ACTOR TO PROVE THEIR INNOCENCE. IMHO "the monkey is on Blackwell's back" - even though the Haifa Univ Poli Sci Department acted like schmucks.

This set of monologues is going nowhere -- and I have some work to do on "bugs" for converting corn oil to bio-diesel.

[Coastie for Truth]

23. I re-read your appends - and I still don't follow your logic

You posted:

"not big on boycotts--- BUT don't see how this violates race and religious discrimination policies. Don't we keep getting told Israel + Jewish are NOT the same thing? there is no "jewish" race. There is no "race" at all but in the accepted use of the term, my family are not of the same "race" as middle eastern or african jews.

This is a boycott against two universities belonging to a NATION not a religion or race."

To which I responded:

"Your comments are noted -- That's how some industries that willingly and gleefully complied with the Arab League's Boycott Office justified their race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identification based hiring policies -- long after the Arab League Boycott was made a crime by Congress.

Your response:

"WTF - "your comments are noted" - self important much

I had previously posted links to Al-Jazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8D74AF5A-8F38-468B-BFAE-6DE9E3D872C7.htm and to the Teddy Katz's materials http://www.palestineremembered.com/Haifa/al-Tantura/Story88.html
which I analyzed and reviewed and then analyzed again.

Your last post was:

"still don't know what you're on about -the only question I asked, and it was rhetorical btw - was how one can claim that boycotting 2 universities from a certain NATION translates into racial or religious vilification, unless Israeli is synonymous with Jewish which it isn't.

Let's look at the players:

"Sue Blackwell, a lecturer at Birmingham University who co-wrote the motion, said she was overwhelmed by the result at the AUT's annual conference in Eastbourne.

"We now have a boycott against a quarter of the universities in Israel, and we intend to continue the fight," she said. "I am proud today to be a member of a union that is prepared to stand up for human rights around the world."" - http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1468513,00.html

and

"Omar Barghouti, a founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, said: "The taboo has been shattered at last. From now on, it will be acceptable to compare Israel's apartheid system to its South African predecessor."
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1468513,00.html

I take these quotes at face value.

Not withstanding your protestations to the contrary, "still don't know what you're on about --- the only question I asked, and it was rhetorical btw - was how one can claim that boycotting 2 universities from a certain NATION translates into racial or religious vilification, unless Israeli is synonymous with Jewish which it isn't." - Blackwell's statements as an officer of the AUT is evidence of proscribed and prohibited discrimination and racism under the post Brown versus Board of Education laws, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the United States.

This puts Birmingham's ARPA and DOE and NIH money at risk. Having lived off or ARPA and DOE grants (and I just checked - UK's University of Birmingham gets United States ARPA and DOE and NIH money; I also checked on your Flinders Univ. - it also gets US money too) - participating in the Boycott would preclude US grants - and even cut-off renewal of such grants.

Our definition of "racism" is a tad different from Ms. Blackwells. And, as I previously said - once a statement or an act or a result is shown, under US civil rights laws (which govern US research grants to foreign universities), the burden shifts to the accused - in civil rights matters - to show innocence (yes, this is a reversal of conventional law).

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bemildred]

14. Israeli universities reject UK boycott

Two Israeli universities targeted in a boycott by Britain's biggest teachers union have condemned the decision, calling it shameful and a blow to academic freedom.

Bar-Ilan and Haifa university officials said on Monday they did not expect the boycott call by the 40,000-member Association of University Teachers (AUT) to have any immediate effect.

---

The British union said it targeted Bar-Ilan University for its links to the College of Judea and Samaria in the illegal West Bank settlement of Ariel.

It accused Haifa University of threatening to fire an Israeli political science lecturer for supporting a student's research into allegations of killings by Israeli troops.

al Jazeera

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Ms Blackwell was conned by Bir Zeit in a jurisdictional dispute

Al Jazeera reports:

"The British union said it targeted Bar-Ilan University for its links to the College of Judea and Samaria in the illegal West Bank settlement of Ariel.

<snip - relates to Haifa>

"Kaveh said Bar-Ilan helped supervise standards of the college of Ariel, which awards a joint degree with Bar-Ilan, but that the 22-year-old West Bank college was largely autonomous and on the way to full independence.

"We were like an incubator," he said." -- http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8D74AF5A-8F38-468B-BFAE-6DE9E3D872C7.htm

According to a telephone conversation with a Hebrew University faculty member (several of his PALESTINIAN PH.D.'S teach at Ariel), this is a jurisdiction matter over "post-Independence" funding - and he said "That crazy Brit was conned by the Bir Zeit contingent that wants all the money - we taught the Palestinians to be just like us when it comes to schnoring."

The HU faculty member says that the he still has a contract to teach in the UK this summer.

[Coastie for Truth]

15. Haifa University

One appender appended:

"It accused Haifa University of threatening to fire an Israeli political science lecturer for supporting a student's research into allegations of killings by Israeli troops."- Citing Al Jazeera

The full section from Al Jazeera (describes what even Al Jazeera reported was a erroneous understanding of a dispute over a 5-year-old master's thesis.) --->

"In the thesis, the student claimed he had uncovered evidence that Israeli soldiers massacred 200 Palestinians during the 1948 war for Israel's independence. The university rejected the thesis after investigating the allegations and concluding the student had fabricated or distorted much of his evidence.

The student later apologised to an Israeli court and admitted to falsifying the story after soldiers involved in the case sued him.

However, Ilan Pappe, a Haifa University professor who helped the student, accused the school of suppressing academic freedom and called on colleagues in Britain and the US to boycott the university.

While Haifa faculty members have filed complaints against Pappe, the university said it had never taken any disciplinary action against him and he remained on the faculty.

This goes to an MA candidate's study of the Tantura affair. Katz's story of Tantura is reported in a Palestinian web site--
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Haifa/al-Tantura/Story88.html


But let's look at academic freedom.

King Fahd didn't "threaten" to fire a visiting Indian Muslim Professor (BS- Bangalore, PhD - Michigan) - they out and out fired him -- for having the gall to try to invite a professor (his PhD thesis adviser) from the University of Michigan to give a lecture on "Using Solid State Physics Models to Predict Catalytic Effects in Thin Film Catalysts." The guest was a non-practicing, highly assimilated Jew. (No - not me).

I try to be more "fair and balanced" then Ms. Sue Blackwell.

[Colorado Blue]

24. I would like to reply to Post #19, as well as to the general

question of anti-Israel/Zion vs. antisemite, as it has application to this boycott.

First, we must consider that yes, in the intellectual sense, and within the confines of this salon, Djinn is correct. Anti-Israel does not, technically, equate to antisemitic.

However, in the larger, real-world sense - and particularly in the context of gathering antisemitic sentiment world wide, which has been fueled by the War in Iraq at least as much by the Israel/Palestinian situation, these sentiments blur.

This is being fed by historical revisionism (ie, holocaust denial, the conflation of Israeli with Nazi, and the widespread dissemination of slanderous documents like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion throughout the Middle East), and the conflation on the wings of both left AND right of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment. Israel is widely blamed on the left, along with "neocon" Jews, for running Washington and getting the US into the war. On the right, the same old conspiracy theories (Zion again) apply. The Jews are running the world. This is also true in Europe, and certainly Britain and British thought, is not immune to these sentiments.

Thus, it is difficult, when considering the actual IMPACT of this boycott, if not its motive, from having an antisemitic effect and connotation.

I will post quotes illustrating these points, and further information, below.

[Darranar]

25. This boycott is directed quite clearly at Israel...

Whether or not anti-Semitism is involved in support for the boycott is irrelevant. The fact is, the boycott itself is not anti-Semitic, nor is the act of supporting it in itself.

[Coastie for Truth]

28. I would most humbly beg to disagree with you

just like saying that the Arab League Boycott Office's "Secondary Boycott" is directed only at Israel - and not at Jews generally.

Let me give you some practical, Texas Agricultural Management advice, saying that the Arab League Boycott Office's "Secondary Boycott" is directed only at Israel - and not at Jews generally is what they fertilize the cattle ranches of Texas with -- and what they make biodiesel out of -- cow pattie.

That is not the way boycott is interpreted at the hiring and promoting level.

And, I have been one of many victims of the Arab League Boycott Office's "Secondary Boycott".

I have been there - you haven't.

Please.

"Coastie"
PhD - Chemical Engineering
Tau Beta Pi, Alpha Chi Sigma
Certified Professional Chemical Engineer (Pennsylvania)
Chartered Professional Engineer (Saskatchewan)
NEVER EVEN GOT IN THE DOOR IN THE OIL INDUSTRY

[Darranar]

30. I was not talking about the Arab League's "Secondary Boycott"...

So I do not see what your post has to do with mine.

[Coastie for Truth]

31. A BOYCOTT IS A BOYCOTT IS A BOYCOTT

When you have been victimized in one -- you have been victimized by all.

[Darranar]

32. I see...

So, say, my own boycott of the Coca Cola Company is anti-Semitic, too?

[Coastie for Truth]

35. Depends who the intended and unintended and innocent

victims are.

In the Coca-Cola case this is a union organization drive on behalf of SINALTRAINAL (Colombian Food and Drinks Workers’ Union), with backing from the USWA. Additionally, Coca-Cola's columbian affiliate is in violation of a valid, appealed and affirmed United States Federal District Court order.

So, I would say that this is like refusing to cross a picket line, and not walking into an intra-department dispute over an MA dissertation - or a dispute over future college fund appropriations.

Please don't jerk me around!

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guy_Montag]

53. So what about the boycott of apartheid South Africa

or the MDC (Movement for Democratic Change) calling for a boycott of Zimbabwe?

Are you saying they are wrong too?

[Coastie for Truth]

57. Totally non-analogous

The academicians calling for this boycott use South Africa as an example of the efficacy of boycotts in bringing down undesirable regimes.

This is a non-analogy to a non-analogous situation.

IF ANYTHING I ANALOGIZE THIS TO THE SAUDI BOYCOTT AGAINST INDIVIDUAL JEWISH ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND ACADEMICIANS

1) In the case of South Africa, the world community had unanimously condemned the apartheid regime.

2) The boycott against South Africa was initiated by governments, was targeted at the entire population, and aimed at isolating and bringing down an illegitimate regime.

That is not the case with Israel.

1) Israel's regime is democratic and the object of the boycott is none other than the most active opponent within the Israeli body politic to the policies complained of.

2) Israeli policy is far from having been unanimously condemned by the community of nations. Israel's current policy is a policy, that is hotly debated, both in Israel and around the world.


3) Israeli academics are extremely active in attempting to bring about exactly what the originators of the boycott idea claim so fervently (or is it cynically in the case of Ms. Blackwell?) to desire, namely an end to the occupation.

4) Israel is a country with a genuinely free academic life, and free speech and press. Academic pressure from abroad is not needed to wake people up as to what is going on.

And Goggling and Yahooing Ms. Blackwell's paper trail - it is perfectly clear that Ms. Blackwell is NOT protesting Israeli policies, but is instead asserting that the Jewish State is ab initio illegitimate.

This short sighted boycott sets a dangerous precedent for the academic community: a process of retaliating against each other because of the policy of one government or another.

What Ms Blackwell and her supporters now conveniently forget is that academic and scientific communities have preserved their freedom of thought and their international solidarity precisely because they have been distinguished from the policies of their government.

I realize many of the current signatories of the boycott of Israeli academia are opposed to America's military intervention in Iraq (I am too), and many of them are probably outraged at what they may term the cynical imperialism of US foreign policy (I am too).

But, I don't see any members of the British -- or Australian -- scientific community boycotting the American scientific community or giving back US NIH or ARPA or DOE money because of US aggression in Iraq. I would certainly like some of those funds that are earmarked for Flinders or Birmingham to stay in the US at CS Hayward or CS San Jose. We are doing some good (but underfunded) work on enzyme catalyzed routes from sewage to motor fuels -- certainly of more value then Ms. Blackwell's pseudo linguistics.

[Colorado Blue]

60. You know what - that is a good point. America and Russia

and many other states - INCLUDING ESPECIALLY BRITAIN - have been guilty of some really horrendous, globally impacting, environmentally destructive - misdeeds. To put it mildly.

Meanwhile, I do not see any boycotts of Sudan.

Is anybody boycotting Germany? Germany was completely rehabilitated after WWII, which killed tens of millions. And, I don't see disgruntled Jews terrorizing German citizens for what happened in the '40's. But I digress.

Are we not simply pointing the fingerbone at The Usual Suspect?

I refer to the old, universal scapegoat. Coming from the Brits especially, this really, really smarts.

And, if Israel is ab initio an illegal state - THEN SO ARE PRACTICALLY ALL THE OTHERS IN THE FORMER OTTOMAN EMPIRE. Which, I might add, were created by the Brits, with the assistance of France.

And what of the states carved out of the Soviet Union? And the new states in Africa? They've all been created by decree. The Goddess did not create this planet with ready-made nation states.

FTS.

[Coastie for Truth]

63. Very True

The point about artificial states created by decree - frequently against the will of the inhabitants - and frequently to satisfy "Big Power" political (including geo-political and petro-political) needs is well documented in such works as:

1) Avi Shlaim, "War and Peace in the Middle East: A Concise History"
2) John Keay, "Sowing the Wind: The Seeds of Conflict in the Middle East"
3) William Engdahl, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order"

just to enumerate a few that I have - in each case, learned about on the DU I/P Forum, purchased, and actually read.

For book bag tottin', pointy headed, pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-academicians to now say that Israel's creation was wrong ab initio as Ms Blackwell and the AUT do is disingenuous, at best, and intellectual whoredom at worst.

History is History!

Power Politics Is Power Politics!


Petro Politics Is Petro Politics!


Power Projection Is Power Projection!


British Power Politics/Petro Politics Games and Perfidy - against all parties - in the Post-Ottoman ME are well documented.

[Violet_Crumble]

75. Not true at all...

The world community did not unanimously condemn South Africa. And only the US and a handful of tiny Pacific islands that are owned by the US support everything Israel does to the Palestinians. That's not 'hotly debated' by any means...

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

80. Since I am a gentleman I will not say Bxxx Sxxx

I will say cow pattie instead.

By the way "the world supported the kidnapping of little Edgardo Motrara by Pius IX.

The "world community" still believes the Jews personally crucified Jesus, that Gentile toddler blood is a vital ingredient in Passover Matzoh, that Jews caused the Black Death, that "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is true, and Creationism.

Blackwell, whose Yahoo-Google-Dialog paper trail shows her for what she is - has poked a stick in the eye for those who support a complete end of the occupation -- and given vital aid and support to the Likud and Haredi and paranoid elements.

This is just dumb, dumb, dumb.

[Colorado Blue]

59. You are talking, in the case of South Africa, about a state

which was entirely based on race, and upon the oppression of one race by another.

Israel is a democratic state, created by the United Nations, in which its Arab citizens are full citizens. Respect for the rights of others is an express part of Israel's charter.

The occupied territories, which should be shed ASAP IMO, were taken because of war. They were very necessary buffer zones against attack by the massed armies of Arab League states. I suggest you read some of the history of these wars so you can get an idea of the problems involved in defending Eretz Israel, which in places is only 7 miles wide.

The territories were pawns to be exchanged for peace agreements. THERE HAVE BEEN NO SUCH AGREEMENTS.

Egypt and Jordan have agreements, but the other Arab League states do not, nor have there been any such agreements with the Palestinian Authority. Hamas, Hizbollah and the like have NOT disarmed and their goal is to destroy the state of Israel. And, they continue to teach violence, to preach hoary old European style antisemitism in schools, on TV, on websites.

The situation is very dangerous. Historical revisionism in on the rise, with Holocaust denial and an attempt to actually link Israel with the Nazis a popular tactic, when in fact key players in the region were ACTUAL Nazis and the popularity of Hitler and his philosophies has been widespread. There are some links in my posts below. Some of this is being taught in American universities.

***

The territories were held by Jordan and Egypt for almost 20 years and no attempts were made to "liberate" them or create a Palestinian state. In fact, the PLO attempted to murder the Jordanian king (Black September in Jordan), effectively starting a civil war that killed perhaps tens of thousands, and they would up being evicted. Then, the PLO went to Jordan where they proceeded to shoot at Israel from Southern Lebanon, and got them into the war.

If you really want to understand the problems of today you need to study Yasser Arafat. He has haunted us for decades and I am only now really beginning to understand who he was. It is no accident that, since his death, the first real possibilities for peace are emerging.

I have an article which quotes extensively a former Eastern European security agent, a communist, about the Soviet Union and their manipulation of Arafat, the PLO, and several other client states in the region. I'll link it later. People who talk about Sharon need to see his shadow, Arafat. Nothing - NOTHING - in this situation has happened in a vacuum.

Indeed, the Palestinians could have had a state, peacefully, in 1948 and again in 1999, but they refused. Arafat was to blame in the latter case, which Clinton brokered. Subsequently, the al-Aqsa Intifada erupted. And here we are today, with the situation made seriously worse by the War on Terror.

***

Nor, as is widely assumed, has the Israeli population come completely from outside the area, and as was the case in South Africa. At least 900,000 Middle Eastern Jews were expelled from Arab lands between 1948 and approximately 1970 - the Middle East is almost entirely judenrein now. This was in revenge for the Nakba and the creation of Eretz Israel.

Over half the population of Israel is of directly Middle Eastern descent. So the idea that this is a colonial state like South Africa is totally erroneous.

Moreover, we are talking about people who are close relatives. If there is "apartheid" it is because of war.

That there is mistreatment of the people in the occupied territories, we will stipulate. BUT - it must be understood, there have been FIVE WARS, and countless acts of terrorism and murder, going back to long before the establishment of Eretz Israel. There were terrible incidents, throughout the M.E., beginning in the 20th century. So, there is a lot of rage and also fear.

***

I believe that, up until the sword actually fell in 1948, Ben Gurion had hoped for a bilateral, multi-cultural two state system. But that was not to be. The wars and attacks have only strengthened the hand of the far right wing, who opposed the principle of partition as much as the Arabs. The entire Palestine Mandate, including Jordan, was to have been the Jewish homeland under the original agreement. Their point of view is, the incredible SHRINKING Israel, is in complete opposition to those who think Israel is expanding. The Kingdom of Jordan was given to the Hashemites by the British in payment of a debt of honor. Then, the territory west of the Jordan was divided again.

They think, there already IS a Palestinian state - called JORDAN. They are the minority but I mention this in order to create understanding. It also helps explain the settlers, although there is a religious dimension to their actions as well, in some cases.

Now, realpolitik and the death of Arafat are causing most in Israel to want to withdraw and see the Palestinians have their own state - BUT COMMITTING SUICIDE WE WILL NOT DO, so the withdrawal must happen in a rational fashion. Indeed, the security fence is actually being built far to the east of where many would like it to be, due to demographic pressure - this would create a substantial Arab MAJORITY with the borders of Israel within a few years. So, exactly in opposition to your earlier comparison of the settlements with Hitler's Lebensraum, which also depended upon "ethnic cleansing", territory is being given up in order to accomodate existing populations.

If Sharon were Hitler, or Assad, or BUSH, the "Palestinian problem" would simply be gone. Provocation to this degree anywhere near Bush would result in a fully-loaded B-52 and a carpet-bombing exercise. I have no doubt, Assad or Saddam would have reacted similarly.

***

And, when I hear phrases like "genocide" in conjunction with Israel, I want to barf. Something in the neighborhood of 4,000 Palestinians have been killed during the Intifada and over 1,000 Israelis. Most of the Israelis were civilians. Now, this situation is tragic, it sucks, but if you are looking for a genocide, please go to the Sudan.

***

There's another point you should study, and that is, there are MANY minority groups in the Middle East, who were second-classniks or worse under Islamic law; and they have ALL suffered greatly since the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. The Jews are indigenous to the M.E. and have had large populations there, and there were among these groups. Zionism did not cause this problem. It exacerabated it, true, but the preconditions of prejudice were already there. When European ideas of antisemitism got to the M.E. early in the 20th century, and were fanned into flame by Hitler, it made matters infinitely worse.

Several Christian groups, Kurds, Zoroastrians, and so forth, have also been second class citizens since Islam conquered THEIR territories. The pressures of all the changes wrought after WWI, the entrance of European colonial powers and their money and their philosophies, caused minority groups to do well in many cases, but also caused backlashes. There have been terrible massacres, more than a million Armenians killed, more than 700,000 Assyrians. Coptic Christians, Berbers, other groups have suffered repression and worse. The suffering of the Maronite Christians in the Lebanese Civil War was very great. In fact, human rights groups and Christian groups accused the PLO of genocide in that war, of the deaths of as many as 100,000 Maronite Christians.

***

These are all examples of intense pressure against minorities in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire. One must look at the Israeli struggle against this backdrop.

We are all paying the price for the collapse of an Empire, two World Wars, changes that brought airplanes and bombs and machine guns to a medieval culture as well as to the "modern world". We suffer from rascism, religious bigotry, the effects of terror and war, to this day.

Israel is part of this tapestry, not the cause of it.

***

And most of us, I think, believe this Blackwell woman is trying to move, not to help the suffering of the Palestinians, but to destroy the state of Israel. At a moment in time when peace is a possibility, this is a very bad thing to do. It gives force to the powers of violence.

The lives of millions hang in the balance here. It is irresponsible and anti-intellectual.

[eyl]

66. In addition to all that, there's another fundamental difference

between the situaton in SA and in Israel.

In SA, there was no chance of resolving the problem "within the system". SA was effecively a one-party state, which employed police-state tactics of repression against anyone trying to effect change (white as well as black). The courts were also actively complicit in this. Under those circumstances, a revolutionary change was required, and in that case external pressure of this sort may have had some effect towards that; and the negative internal political effects of a boycott were mostly moot.

Israel, for better and for worse, has a dynamic political system, a wide spectrum of political views in its legislature, and highly activistic courts. Not only is internal through the system possible, it's happening; but conversely, the backlash such a boycott may effect on Israel's internal politics would both be greater and capable of doing far more damage.

[Colorado Blue]

33. What it is TECHNICALLY about, is one thing. The effect

and the climate that brought it about - the boycott - is something else entirely, and must be acknowledged.

This is a very serious thing, especially in light of antisemitic sentiment, which doesn't distinguish between Israel and Jews, worldwide.

When an academic community, which appears to give the imprimateur of respectability to completely terrible ideas, adds weight to this momentum, it is dismaying. That the cause of helping the Palestinians is the cover story doesn't change the EFFECT, which is to increase sentiment against both Israel and the Jewish community, as well as the Jewish people who are, after all, the majority of Israeli citizens.

Moreover, rather than promoting the movement for peace, it appears, when seen within the broader context I've tried to sketch, to encourage the invalidation of the entire state of Israel and encourages MORE WAR, with the destruction of Israel the goal.

There is no symmetry here. If this boycott were also clearly condemning violence by Arabs, and taking action against Arabs who promote bigotted ideas, including universities, then it might have some fairness about it. That is NOT the case, however.

Perhaps that is its ultimate purpose.

[Darranar]

34. So, essentially, being pro-Palestinian creates a climate of anti-Semitism?

If that is true then it is time for wise Jewish leaders to disassociate the Jews of the Diaspora from Israeli policy.

It does not mean that this boycott is wrong, or that sentiment against Israeli policy is wrong.

[Coastie for Truth]

36. Or, working in some industries or teaching at some universities

creates a climate of anti-Semitism (or anti-African-American, or anti-Gay/Lesbian/Transgender, or anti-female, or anti-Muslim).

Industrial psychologists call it "Socialization to the Norm."

[Colorado Blue]

37. No, of course not. That is actually a point I'm trying to make,

which is, that seeking to aid the Palestinian people, to ease their suffering, isn't antisemitic, antiZionist or antiIsraeli.

What lies behind a great deal of the rhetoric, however, is an actual attempt to dismantle the state of Israel, to discredit the entire idea of the Zionist cause, and this crosses the line and actually has the potential to incite more violence.

Is THAT proPalestinian? What is the goal here? To help the cause for peace, or to wire people up and cause more war? To open minds, or to close them?

Also, when invoking this boycott, there is the implication that the troubles between Israel and the Arabs are a one-sided proposition. Is that fair at all?

Sharon has reached out to the people, the Jews of the Diaspora, for assistance in moving forward with the withdrawal from Gaza.

Isn't THAT a proPalestinian movement? Why are pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian mutually exclusive?

Isn't that the case ONLY when being pro-Israeli means whacking all the Palestinians and being proPalestinian mean destroying the state of Israel?

Doesn't being proIsraeli mean defending the people of the state of Israel and trying to establish some peace treaties and some secure borders, for both groups of people? Does being pro-Palestinian mean allowing the trafficking of arms and the incitement and execution of terrorism? Or does it mean assisting the Palestinian people in forming a state and helping their economic, social and educational prospects?

Those are my questions.

[Darranar]

44. I think we are talking about two different things...

I am thinking of pro-Palestinian in the sense of the political position (the Palestinians should have a state, the Occupation is brutal and unnecessary, Israeli security concerns do not justify most aspects of Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories) rather than as simply wanting best for the Palestinians. Anyone with human decency wants the best for all people. That does not mean that all decent people are pro-Palestinian in that sense.

Sharon is not pro-Palestinian. I doubt he qualifies for either definition; he is a butcher and a war criminal, and quite far from a decent human being.

That said, his most recent policies are moving in that direction, which is good, something that should be supported (but in doing so, it should not be forgotten that there is far more progress that should be made.)

The point of the boycott should be taken at face value. We have no evidence of a hidden motive of anti-Semitism; the universities targeted are both Israeli universities, not simply universities where Jews are. One can disagree on the degree of the complicity these universities have with the Occupation's brutality, and whether this boycott is a just tactic (both of which I have doubts about), but that is already a separate argument. They may be ignorant, they may be taking the wrong political stances, but the reasons for what they are doing are perfectly plausible.

Trying to end a problem does notm mean one is morally obligated to simultaneously try to end every other problem. These lecturers claim to be trying to end the brutal policies of the Occupation. That is a noble aim, and it does not require also trying to stop every other atrocity across the world.

The argument could be made, however, and anyone who made it would have a good point, that it is pointless to try to solve one half of the conflict while the other half still remains, because both often end up reinforcing the other. Israeli brutality is followed by Palestinian brutality which is followed by a brutal Israeli retaliation, and so on. This is a problem that the lecturers should take into account.

[Coastie for Truth]

46. Ms. Blackwell is No Friend of Peace

You posted:"The point of the boycott should be taken at face value. We have no evidence of a hidden motive of anti-Semitism;"

I would submit that Ms Blackwell's entire public history shows bad faith, viz.,

"After the vote had been won, Blackwell, a former Christian fundamentalist turned revolutionary socialist, told the press how glad she was to be part of a union that was 'prepared to stand up for human rights'. The problem here, as she will have realised, is that if the AUT was to boycott places with bad human rights records, there'd be a whole lot of boycottin' goin' on. She has tried in the past to finesse this difficulty, at one point arguing: 'You cannot talk about academic freedom and free debate in Israel in the same way you can talk about it in the UK, or in almost any other country in the world."
<snip>
"So the object of those wanting peace and justice in the Middle East is to bring about an end to that occupation, and enable the establishment of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state. It is to persuade both sides that such a settlement is practical and to persuade both sides to make the difficult sacrifices that are necessary. It is to build confidence between Jews and Palestinians, and to strengthen, always, the hand of the peacemakers.

"Unless, of course, you don't believe that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state at all within any borders. And this, as it happens, seems to be the view of Sue Blackwell, who describes Israel as 'an illegitimate state'. Unlike the United Nations, she does not believe it should have been set up and she would rather it disappeared. As she pointed out in 2003 to a previous AUT council: 'From its very inception, the state of Israel has attracted international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinian people and making war on its neighbours.' Or, to put it even more bluntly, everything is all the fault of the Israelis."
-

Having tracked and traced Ms. Blackwell through her own paper trail on Yahoo and Google - I do not think is she really Pro-Palestinian or a person of good will.

[Colorado Blue]

61. Well, that IS key, isn't it - that boycotting Israel for the

Occupation while not boycotting all the states that have been making war upon her since 1948, and the terrorist organizations, and those among the Palestinians who would wage more terror and more war, is both pointless and discriminatory.

Therefore I think she's trying to take the whole thing apart.

[Darranar]

64. Inherently, any effective protest must be discriminatory...

If every organization working to improve the world must try to solve every problem simultaneously, little progress would be made.

[eyl]

65. That may be so, in general

But in this case they aren't even addressing the other party to the same conflict (more than that; another part of the decision was to increase links with Palestinian academics)

[Darranar]

68. In their defense...

that decision is a good one - it helps the Palestinians, which is an independent good, and by doing so they also help end the conflict.

[eyl]

73. In what way does it help the Palestinans

or to end the conflict? See my big post on this thread, especially the end on the likely effect.

[Darranar]

79. I was talking about the second aspect...

increasing links with Palestinian academics.

As for the rest, I'm skeptical it will accomplish anything, and it's collective punishment, so I oppose it.

But I don't consider it anti-Semitism.

[eyl]

83. Viewed in isolation

it isn't anti-semetic.

But when there's a trend that penalties are inflicted only on Israeli institutions - for being Israeli* - while ignoring everyone else, both elsewhere in the world and on other actors in the same conflict in particular - it starts to look rather suspicous**.

*The reasons given for the boycotts of those specific institutions are pretexts as well. As I explained in more detail elsewhere in this thread, the reasons given are threadbare and do not stand up to scrutiny, and the chief proponent of the boycott (Blackwell) openly said the goal is for a full boycott of Israeli universities.
**Especially when Blackwell is on record as describing Israel as an "illegitimate state"

[Coastie for Truth]

87. But the Arab League Boycott Office Secondary Boycott

was directed specifically at Diaspora Jews - how is that not anti-Jewish -- and what damages and "Affirmative Action" are minimally proper remedies for the victims.

[Coastie for Truth]

86. And, pray tell

if "Inherently, any effective protest must be discriminatory... If every organization working to improve the world must try to solve every problem simultaneously, little progress would be made." how is the Arab League Boycott Secondary Boycott (as applied to non-Israeli, Diaspora, Jews who have never lived in Israel or served in the IDF) fair or just -- and since I at least am in the US - what damages and "affirmative action" is properly due to the innocent victims thereof.

Respectfully,

"Coastie"
PhD (Chemical Engineering - as in Petroleum Refinery Engineering)

[Coastie for Truth]

38. Is the Israel Palestine conflict amenable to a

"win-win" resolution? Or only to a "zero-sum" resolution.

The backers of this boycott - as well intentioned as they are - are implicitly saying that only a "zero-sum" resolution is possible. They have given up on a "win-win" resolution.

Likewise, disassociation of the "Diaspora" from "Israel" is giving in to the belief that only a "zero-sum" resolution is possible.

I believe that most boycotts work on the assumption that the resolution of the subject dispute is inherently a "zero sum" resolution. (Collective bargaining and union representation strikes being the possible exception).

If one sincerely believes that a "win-win" solution is impossible - and the the only resolution is a "zero-sum" resolution -- that person should really search their conscience to see if they are, in a good faith, a progressive, leftie, liberal -- and if they really belong in a progressive web site and in progressive politics generally.

[Colorado Blue]

39. Yes - that sums it up admirably. Either we go forward

together, supporting each other, trying to forge a new future, or we go back to the patterns of darkness, hatred and mutual destruction.

I think this boycott, while well-intended, argues for the latter.

The forces arguing for darkness are very, very strong, probably underestimated unless one makes a point of studying them, as I have been doing the last few weeks.

It has been a very painful, and a very frightening, experience.

On the plus side: the light of reason, of education, of balance, and of hope.

Which shall we nurture?

[Darranar]

45. No, they are not doing that at all...

Opposing Israeli repression does not assume that a resolution of the conflict must have a winner and a loser any more than opposing Palestinian suicide bombings does.

Both should be opposed on principle.

Disassociating Jews from Israeli policy is essential, extremely important, unless one wants American Jewry to be blamed for the murders of Palestinian children (which, disgustingly, right now they are by too many).

That is not my desire. American (and European) Jews are not responsible for Israel's good policies or its bad ones. Anti-semitism should be eradicated, not made dependent on how Israel's policies are percieved.

[Colorado Blue]

47. With you, I agree. And I hope you are right. But I am

concerned about the motives of others, and fear the impact of this boycott.

I fear the subliminal message it sends as well as its impact on innocent individuals and on the principles of free speech and the exchange of ideas.

There should be a better way to protest heavy-footed Israeli policy than by boycotting universities.

Peace.

[Colorado Blue]

62. I thought of something else, vis a vis American Jews. We

are blamed for something far worse than Israeli foreign policy.

WE are blamed for AMERICAN foreign policy.

We cannot, in short, win. Either way. Truly, it doesn't really matter what we actually say or do - antisemitism is the stuff of myth. It is NOT based in reality. The upsurge in religious fundamentalism within both the Christian and the Islam world, combined with warfare and a struggle for resources, money, space and sovreignty, has Guess Who smack in the middle. BOTH groups think we run the damn planet. And both are pissed because we won't convert.

In the case of Israel, she is literally in the middle.

Oy.

[Colorado Blue]

26. Martin Luther King speaks out:

Here, some quotes and further contextual information:

“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews,” said Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in March 1968, in response to a student’s question at Harvard University. “In polite company,” according to Andrew Sullivan in the London Sunday Times, December 2001, “one uses Israel when hesitating to use the word ‘Jew.’” And in March 2003, in an EU-sponsored Brussels conference against antisemitism, European Commission President Romano Prodi deplored “the criticism of Israel inspired by what amounts to antisemitic sentiments and prejudice.” Thus, a civil-rights leader, a journalist and a politician, at different times and in different places, pinpointed the issue at the core of the 2003 antisemitic incidents: the relationship between antisemitism and ‘anti-Israelism’.

snip

A popular antisemitic motif in Europe in 2003, prior to and during the war in Iraq, was the accusation that the Jews held dual loyalty, or the allegation that the Jews, regardless of their citizenship, were loyal first and foremost to the interests of the Jewish people, currently dictated by the Sharon government. In an interview to Vanity Fair in May 2003, left-wing British Labour MP Tom Dalyell spoke of the devastating influence of the Jews, who “manipulate the world politic for Israel’s shady interests.” He claimed that Prime Minister Tony Blair was influenced by a cabal of Jewish advisers. Jews who do not join the chorus of delegitimizing the State of Israel and resist what Serge Klarsfeld has termed “the pressure to become a political Marranos” may risk being attacked verbally or even physically. Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss Muslim philosopher, accused several leading French Jewish intellectuals – among them the philosophers Bernard-Henri Levy and Alain Finkielkraut – of having betrayed their commitment to the universal ideals of the French Republic for a narrow ”sectarianism ” (New York Times, 29 February 2004). Similarly, in 2003, Gretta Duisenburg, wife of European Central Bank President Wim Duisenburg, attacked American Jews, claiming that rich American Jews keep Israel alive and enable the Israelis to oppress the Palestinians.

Although open expressions of Judeophobia are still frowned upon by most of the European media and political élite, it has become acceptable, says European Parliament member Ilka Schröder, to criticize Israeli policy with statements such as: “The Jews control the world with their money,” or by hinting at a powerful Jewish lobby in the United States.

One direct result of the demonization of Israel is the effort being made to isolate Israel’s academic community. Campaigns to boycott Israel take many forms, especially Internet petitions which are signed electronically. Responding to a boycott petition originating in France, for example, hundreds of academics around the globe declared that they would not take part in scientific conferences in Israel or review the work of Israeli scientists. When the administrative council of the University of Paris 6 called on the EU to break all ties with Israeli universities, many professors were ready to sign. Often support for academic projects is more readily obtainable if Israelis are not invited to participate. The situation has become so serious that EU Secretary General Walter Schwimmer condemned the isolation of Israeli (and Palestinian) universities, noting that “international university cooperation is one of the cornerstones of modern society.”

Snip

I suggest a complete and thorough reading of this article. It should help place the fact that Israel and Jew are in fact interchangeable words in the global lexicon.

And, in fact, the academics who are being targeted, are primarily Jewish. Their counterparts in Britain are being urged to cut them off, as it were.

I fail to see how this is going to help solve ANY of the world's problems. Rather, it will serve to promote hatred, bigotry, and probably violence, particularly as many of those academics are working for peace.

[Colorado Blue]

29. Oh, the irony of it all - British Boycott vs. New McCarthyism

From the article posted above:

"The most extreme expression of the demonization of Israel is its equation with Nazi Germany, which became, after the onset of the al-Aqsa intifada, one of the central themes of anti-Israel propaganda. Jews living in Israel are perceived as the incarnation of Nazi mentality and ideology. The key motif here is a kind of Holocaust inversion in which the Israelis are the Nazis and the Palestinians become their victims, the new Jews. Thus, those who support Israel, namely Jews, are the Nazis’ accomplices."

On another thread in this forum, Professor Juan Cole is deploring an attempt to investigate alledged antisemitic and or Israel/bashing commentary and incidents of harrassment on US campusus. Rightly, he is concerned about the freedom of speech and the free flow of ideas.

Yet, the Brits decide to boycott entire universities. Why isn't THAT McCarthyism, on a grand scale? And in view of the circumstances, and of the history behind this situation, WHY ISN'T IT ANTISEMITIC?

One of the professors involved in the Columbia situation, Joseph Massad, is in the forefront of efforts to pull an intellectual switcheroo, equating Zionism with Nazism and antisemitism with discrimination against Palestinians. Moreover, he acknowledges Holocaust deniers in the Arab world - but calls them ZIONIST!

http://www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node.php?id=1467

"Those Arabs who deny the holocaust accept the Zionist logic as correct. Since these deniers reject the right of Zionists to colonise Palestine, the only argument left to them is to deny that the holocaust ever took place, which, to their thinking, robs Zionism of its allegedly "moral" argument... If those Arab deniers refuse to accept the criminal Zionist logic that justifies the murder and oppression of the Palestinians by appealing to the holocaust, then these deniers would no longer need to make such spurious arguments. All those in the Arab world who deny the Jewish holocaust are in my opinion Zionists."

This is a very elegant and extremely confusing attempt to smear the entire Zionist cause, and even on close reading is difficult to interpret. While apparently deploring antisemitism and admitting the existence of the Holocaust, he manages also to completely conflate the Zionist cause with the mistreatment of the Palestinian people - WHICH OF COURSE WAS NOT ITS PURPOSE. Nor, of course, does he mention that the oppression of the Palestinians is directly related to their war, the greater Arab war, against the ISRAELIS.

Details, details -

And, he completely misinterprets the work of earlier historians, such as Lewis, with anti-Arabism. This sentiment is being used to revise entire histories of the Middle East, particularly those that deal with the treatment of religious minorities under Islam. This in turn, is robbing those minorities - among them Jews - of THEIR history, including preconditions of apartheid and prejudice - against Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and other groups, not to mention pagans who were entirely wiped out, and which in turn affect the M.E. today.

For more on this topic, see the McCarthyism thread.

It's an amazing bit of intellectual sophistry, all in the name of a just cause - but which is feeding into the overall climate, growing at an alarming rate, of antiJewish sentiment.

Unfortunately, far more virulent calls for outright Holocaust denial and historical revisionism are echoing Massad's carefully worded essays:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n3p-7_alloush.html

This writer is all in favor of Holocaust revisionism. I suggest once again reading the entire piece. It might put the whole question of anti-Israel vs. antisemitism into a clearer light.

[eyl]

40. My response

Note - since the previous thread on the subject (before the vote took place) was locked, part of my response here will repeat what I wrote there.
Note 2 - at the end of writing this, I suddenly found an article going over quite a bit of what I mention here, but shorter; so if you really don't want to slog through all this, at least read this instead.

First of all, I'll note that I oppose academic boycotts in general. Given that the free exchange of ideas is the lifeblood of science, and that it is essential that academics be able to express their views and ideas freely, boycotting an academic is a drastic step, and should only be employed in extreme circumstances; for example, in the case of one who makes unambiguously racist statements or calls for violence, or has been shown to be guilty of serious ethical lapses (e.g., falsifying results). A university should not be boycotted unless it has a trend of turning a blind eye or encouraging such things. There may be one or two other circumstances I can think of, but those are fairly unique and can't be evaluated under a general rule.

In the case of this specific boycott, there are several things I find disturbing about it. First, there are grounds for the boycott. The boycott was imposed on Bar Ilan University and the University of Haifa.

1) The lead article states: "The AUT claimed Haifa University had restricted the academic freedom of staff who spoke out against government policies". This is a bit misleading, as "staff" implies multiple incidents; the only one I've ever heard of - and the one this vote was about - was the incident with Ilan Pappe.
Some background, for those who are not familiar with the matter. In 1998, a UoH student named Teddy Katz handed in a Master's thesis alleging a massacre was carried out by the Alexandroni Brigade at the village of Tantura in 1948. Some of the Brigade's survivors sued Katz for libel. During the trial, Katz recanted his allegations. A 5-member panel was subsequently convened to review Katz' thesis, and found severe flaws in it. As a result, he was awarded a non-research-track MA degree (barring him from a PhD). Some more details can be found in UoH's Rector's statement.
Pappe was Katz' supervisor, and came out in his defense. In the subsequent acrimony, Pappe was called before a disciplinary committee for ethical violations in 2002. He proceeded to complain in the press about being politically persecuted. I've been unable to find many details, but the case was apparently dismissed shortly afterward (last I checked - a week ago - he was giving courses this semester). Despite his allegations of persecution, no actions were taken against him. More details can be found in the Jerusalem Post*.
Several things should be noted here. First of all, the case the AUT is outraged about took place several years ago, and was dismissed at that time. Second, AFAICT, the AUT's only reason to suspect political bias in the whole affair was Pappe's own statements (which should be seen as suspect, for obvious reasons); they certainly didn't investigate the matter themselves, nor where UoH representatives given the opportunity to defend the university to the AUT.
In short, the AUT imposed this boycott on Haifa based on a settled case, for enforcing academic standards the AUT should be supporting. Ironically enough, Haifa is by far the most left-wing of Israel's universities.

2) In the case of Bar-Ilan University, the charge is that it has "links" to the College of Judea and Samaria in Ariel. However, AFAIK, those "links" consist mainly of oversight of a very small percentage of the courses given their. Also, those links are supposed to end this year. More notably, no-one suggested a boycott of the CJS itself.

It should also be noted that the procedure was rather problematic. According to the lead article, "The Guardian understands that Jewish academics had been in contact with the AUT executive, and had received assurances that the Israeli position would be put forward and the executive would push for dialogue rather than a boycott. However, a full debate was suspended when time ran out, threatening to edge the issue off the agenda for the day." The only thing approaching detail of the mechanics of the vote I've been able to find are in the JPost; it supports the allegation that the debate was cut short, with little opportunity for a defense of the universities to be made.

Another disturbing aspect is the decision that "Israeli academics and intellectuals who oppose the colonial and racist policy of their state" will be exempted from the boycott. Requiring an affirmation of belief - political belief in particular - is an echo of regimes known for academic oppression, not freedom. And who is to decide what expression of contrition is sufficient? After all, withdrawal from the Territories is the consensus of a large part of Israel's political spectrum, from the extreme left to the moderate right. The argument is about the terms and conditions, and the limiting factor is often how much risk you're willing to take in the process. Which position sufficiently shows contrition? Who determines that? Who decides if they're sufficiently sincere? And what of those who disagree with some or all of the "colonial or racial" descriptor? Their opportunity to challenge the contentions of their accusers is shut down.

In regards to other posts on this thread that this is about Israel and has nothing to do with Jews, I'll say this. In the lead article, Blackwell states "I am proud today to be a member of a union that is prepared to stand up for human rights around the world." Well, I admit I haven't been playing close attention to the AUT prior to this, but in an admittedly brief Google search, I am unable to find any reference to an AUT boycott of any non-Israeli institution, with the exception of certain boycotts of British institutions, evidently as part of a labor dispute. So, Israeli universities** are apparently so bad, harassing a lecturer and supporting a college in the Territories (assuming the allegations are true for the sake of argument) that they must be boycotted, and their lecturers give affirmations of political purity, but universities in China, or Syria, or Iran, or Russia, are apparently havens of academics freedom. Or, for that matter, to take a closer location, apparently the proper response for the involvement of terrorism on Palestinian campuses (where terrorist organizations openly recruit, and where the platforms of the student cells in the student council elections were basically which cell's associated faction had killed more Jews) is to develop closer association with them.

Lastly, I fail to understand what the delegates think they're accomplishing. Blackwell's motive is apparently, straightforward; she wants the dismantling of Israel (I conclude this based on her description of Israel as an http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,9830,1466249,00.html">"illegitimate state"). But in Israel, as in many other places, the universities, the humanities and social sciences faculties in particular, are strongholds of the left (Haifa University especially). Such a boycott harms precisely the people whose support the delegates supposedly want. This would always be true, but coming now, it's much, much worse. What the Israeli public sees (and I include a good part of the academic community in that; even those of us on the left are unlikely to smile and thank the Brits for shafting us in this fashion) is that on the verge of our pulling out of Gaza, something the world has long demanded of us, an act we're taking at considerable risks, both internal and external, the AUT slaps us in the face, with another action singling us out as the worst nation in the whole world. Does anyone really think the public response will be increased support for the left? The Europeans have occasionally complained that Israel doesn't trust them or want them involved in any negotiations; this is an example of why that is. In fact, the backlash is likely to be greater on the left than the right. The right doesn't expect anything approaching fair treatment from Europe, and will have that belief reinforced; the left will more likely be feeling betrayed, especially since the only the members of the extreme left - and probably not all of them - will be willing to make statements with the apparently required degree of abasement to be exempted from the boycott.

*frankly, given that Pappe has been calling for boycotting UoH ever since, and pushed (and supports) this one, I think UoH would be justified in firing him; besides, it seems to me that if he is so opposed to UoH's conduct, should have resigned in protest.
**Note that this boycott was not a response to the events listed in the accusations, but it's fairly obvious those were pretexts; Blackwell openly stated her goal is to bring about a boycott of all of Israel's universities.
***Not directly related to these points, but an irony which should be pointed out. From the lead article: "Omar Barghouti, a founder of the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, said: 'The taboo has been shattered at last. From now on, it will be acceptable to compare Israel's apartheid system to its South African predecessor.'" Well, it's puzzling to consider how his descriptions of an Israeli apartheid system comparable to the SA one squares with the fact that he is a PhD student at Tel Aviv University?

[Coastie for Truth]

43. I most heartily commend this article to all persons of goodwill

Why Israel will always be vilified

It is by David Aaronovitch in the Observer - and I believe that it is a worthwhile read.

One excerpt:

"On Friday morning, the participants in the council meeting may have read an article in the Guardian by the progressive Israeli writer, Etgar Keret. He recalled how the Manchester academic, Mona Baker, sacked his translator, Miriam Schlesinger, from the board of Baker's journal, the Translator. Keret reflected on the irony. Schlesinger was the former head of Amnesty International in Israel, as well as being a peace activist. Keret added: 'Baker was not the first to call for a boycott of academic work. Israeli right wingers had been irked by her signature on some petition and had called upon students at Israeli universities to refrain from attending classes given by her and others of her ilk.'

If the AUT delegates read Keret's appeal, just over half of them ignored it. And now, if they have their way, the Schlesingers of this world will be routinely boycotted unless, according to the terms of the motion, they show sufficient individual zeal in the cause of justice of the Palestinians. Sufficient zeal as judged by whom? We have no idea.

and still further

"Meanwhile, back in Israel, you can easily imagine whose position is strengthened by the AUT boycott. And it isn't that of the academics most sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Look at the Europeans! Once again, they have singled Israel out for special treatment! Who can we trust but ourselves? In the United States, far more important to Israel than we will ever be, it will add grist to the arguments of those who want to support Israel at all hazards and under all circumstances."

and good ole Sue Blackwell chortled away:

"After the vote had been won, Blackwell, a former Christian fundamentalist turned revolutionary socialist, told the press how glad she was to be part of a union that was 'prepared to stand up for human rights'. The problem here, as she will have realised, is that if the AUT was to boycott places with bad human rights records, there'd be a whole lot of boycottin' goin' on."

and where does Ms. Blackwell stand on Israel's right to even exist:

Unless, of course, you don't believe that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state at all within any borders. And this, as it happens, seems to be the view of Sue Blackwell, who describes Israel as 'an illegitimate state'. Unlike the United Nations, she does not believe it should have been set up and she would rather it disappeared. As she pointed out in 2003 to a previous AUT council: 'From its very inception, the state of Israel has attracted international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinian people and making war on its neighbours.' Or, to put it even more bluntly, everything is all the fault of the Israelis.

Ah yes, I can see www.freerepublic.com laughing their butts off at Ms. Sue Blackwell, and, inferentially, du.

As we showed in the 1968 election of Nixon - and frequently ever since -- we Progressives are our own worst enemies --- and if we buy into Sue Blackwell's brand of liberalism and progressivism --- we can forget "Hillary versus Dean" or such silly debates -- it will be Frist-DeLay -- and we will have given the Frist-DeLay ticket the keys to the kingdom by siding with Sue Blackwell.

Mark my words.

[Colorado Blue]

49. Thank you. As always your post is informative and

thoughtfully written.

[pelsar]

51. my reaction......

here we go again......we're actually pulling out of Gaza.....and instead of support we get an "intellectual slap in the face"....another boycott

I feel like the kid who what ever i do, its going to be wrong-so why bother.....

nice write up eyl

[Violet_Crumble]

77. Why should the continued occupation of the West Bank be praised?

I get the feeling that people are expected to forget all about the West Bank and just be grateful that Israel is going to remove the settlers from Gaza. That's the end of it and everyone can live happily ever after, except for the Palestinians in the West Bank, that is...

Sharon's made it very clear over the past few weeks that he has no intention of dismantling anything but the tiniest of remote outposts in the West Bank. Why should Israel not be criticised for that?

Violet...

[Coastie for Truth]

81. Why should a person with a "paper trail" that is

anti-Israel ab initio, and anti-Jewish (not just anti-Israel, not just anti-Zionist, but anti-Jewish) by her own self written and self spoken and self admitted paper trail (her own web site, Yahoo, Google, Dialog) be praised for knee capping the most anti-occupation segment of the Israeli body politic.

At best, clearly counter productive, giving aid and comfort to the Likudniks and Haredi, and confirming all that we paranoids and personal victims of discrimination and boycotts believed but never dared say in polite company.

The Likudniks and Haredi and NeoCons and paranoids couldn't have asked for better confirmation of their fears and doubts.

[Violet_Crumble]

92. Care to answer the question I asked?

Or even to bother trying to answer the very specific question you were asked in this post? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x90061#90322

If this habit of replying to my posts with totally unrelated comments is going to continue, I'll be following bemildred's lead, I'm afraid...


Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

48. Haifa U won't fire Pappe for backing ban

The University of Haifa does not plan to take any action against faculty member Ilan Pappe for successfully encouraging Britain's Association of University Teachers (AUT) to boycott the university for its alleged implication in the repression of Palestinians.

Four days after the AUT voted at its annual meeting to boycott both the University of Haifa and Bar Ilan University, Haifa officials criticized the fabricated nature of the charges against their institution and the fact that they were not given a chance to present their position.

"In lieu of evidence to support the singling out of Israeli academia, the authors of this campaign have chosen to adopt a three-year-old urban legend," the University of Haifa said in a statement. "We are astounded by the fact that the AUT never requested our response prior to adopting their resolution, and did not allow our position to be presented by members of the AUT who are familiar with the facts.

The case against Israeli academia, in general, and the University of Haifa in particular, is devoid of empirical evidence and violates the principle of due process. Driven by a prior and prejudicial assumption of guilt, the AUT has refused to confuse itself with facts."

snip

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1114395825722&apage=1

[Coastie for Truth]

50. Me thinks Pappe regards himself as a 21st Century

Spinoza or Nahmanides.

[Colorado Blue]

52. Swell. We could, it shouldn't be too much to ask, use a

REAL Spinoza or Mahmanides.

Sigh.

[pelsar]

54. war....

actually all these "intellectual games about how Sue Blackwell got the boycott is really irrelevant...because we're all missing the point.

Ms Blackwell wants israel "dismantelled" the same way as any hamasnik wants israel gone. Each use different weapons but the goal is the same. Blackwell, is not interested in the "justice" of her boycott, whether its fair or not..she wants its because its a another point in the destruction of israel. The ends thus justifiying the means.

shes basically declared war on israel within the realm of the "intellectual plane" as her goal is clearly stated, and shes now made her first successful attack.

[Colorado Blue]

55. I think, quite of few of us do see that and we are beyond

anger. Despair, maybe?

How do we fight this? I'm utterly at a loss.

[pelsar]

56. for some in England....she went too far

The Association of University Teachers (AUT) has received a flood of protests, accompanied by an increasing number of resignations, following its decision to adopt boycotts against Israeli universities last Friday.

The backlash, which may take the form of mass resignations from the union, has seen an outpouring of protests by Jewish and non-Jewish academics across Britain.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1114395825779

[Coastie for Truth]

58. Overseas Affiliate of the IChE

I have just trashed my renewal dues statement from the British Institution of Chemical Engineers - I shall be significantly increasing my contribution to the "Friends of the Israel Instutute of Technology-Technion" and Technion's "Dan Lewin Memorial Fund". Dan was a friend of mine - killed by terrorists.

[Coastie for Truth]

82. BOYCOTT WORRIES? TAKE A NUMBER, Steinberg

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=25009

<snip>
At the same time, this effort to impose a political litmus test on academic research has created a serious backlash. Since the recent revival of the boycott campaign, we have been deluged by emails from colleagues pledging to defy the policy, and to increase their contact with Israelis. Many also reject the medieval nature of such censorship, which contradicts the core principle of the marketplace of ideas.
However, the real threat from the boycott, as its authors realize, is not from the direct academic impact, but rather from its broader political objectives. Although the official terminology refers to "occupation" and "settlements", and singled out two universities for alleged complicity, the Israel-obsessed organizers of the AUT boycott (Susan Blackwell and Steven Rose), like their counterparts elsewhere, readily admit that this is simply a tactical decision. They have declared all Israelis who serve in the defense forces and support the government to be guilty.
Indeed, the boycott is only a small part of the broader political war against Israel's legitimacy as a sovereign Jewish state, and the effort to label Israel as the next "apartheid regime" is designed to put an end to Zionism. The use of the apartheid label does a gross injustice to those who suffered under the real thing, and is a form of modern anti-Semitism, this time turning the Jewish state into the devil. The grossly exaggerated condemnation of Israel, and the systematic removal of the environment of terror in the rhetoric of "war crimes" and "ethnic cleansing", is the political counterpart of the ongoing terrorism and military assaults. Major battles of this political war have taken place in the UN (the 1975 "Zionism is racism" resolution; the infamous 2001 Durban conference, etc.), on campuses such as Columbia University in New York, in the newsrooms of the BBC and CNN, and via the non-governmental superpowers such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
After the death of Arafat and the relative calm on the ground, reflecting the exhaustion of both Israelis and Palestinians, this political war has heated up, particularly in Britain. Christian Aid, a very powerful group that uses its charitable status for promoting a blatant ideological agenda, ran its massive Christmas appeal around the theme of "Bethlehem's Child". This campaign featured the stereotypes of Israeli aggression and Palestinian victimization, in which the context of terror had been erased. Similarly, Amnesty International issued a barrage of such reports, including one purporting to focus on the status of Palestinian women, in which Israel was blamed for violent attacks by Arab men against their wives and daughters. And Human Rights Watch, another NGO that competes with Amnesty in exploiting human rights in the war against Israel, is also active in the boycott campaign. Together, they contributed to building the environment for adoption of the AUT boycott.
<snip>

Counterproductive – this attack on the strongest anti-occupation in the Israeli body politics just encourages the Likudniks, the ultra-Orthodox, and the paranoids who see anti-Semitism everywhere.

[Englander]

84. www.ngo-monitor.org

"Professor Gerald M. Steinberg directs the Program on Conflict Management and
Negotiation at Bar Ilan University and is the editor of www.ngo-monitor.org"

:rofl:

"Christian Aid, a very powerful group that uses its charitable
status for promoting a blatant ideological agenda,"

:rofl:

[Coastie for Truth]

85. Thank you for the link.

I was aware of it. Also thank you ever so much for your to a discussion of the Electronic Intifada.

Might I be so thoughtful as to suggest two interesting texts on British history relating to the "Power Politics" ("Petroleum Politics") in the Post-Ottoman eastern littoral of the Mediterranean--

1. John Keay, "Sowing the Wind: The Seeds of Conflict in the Middle East"
2. William Engdahl, "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order"

Since you are a Brit, and knowledgeable in British History, I would most humbly await your British perspective on the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Post-Ottoman arrangements for such petroleum companies as BP and Shell, and their effect on the present situation in the ME.

[Englander]

89. And what's your opinion of NGO-Monitor?

They think Christian Aid,AI,HRW,et al
are only doing what they do,because they
"hate Israel". I think that NGO-Monitor have
completely lost touch with reality.

What say you?

[Coastie for Truth]

90. It's a source with a known bias.

I happen to belong (dues payer) to AI and the ACLU, and to the Red Cross (200+ hours/year "Disaster Service Volunteer - sheltering, feeding, mass disaster sheltering/feeding, mass disaster mobile communications). I know NGO-Monitor is not happy with any of them. WTF.

I belong to the ADL - and have been in a leadership role - because of the ADL's long history for civil rights for all - Jews, African Americans, Latino Americans, females, Gays/Lesbians/Transgenders, and yes, believe it or not, even Arab-Americans (I was personally involved in that project - I know where my time went and where my effort went)

I certainly don't agree with the ICRC's stand on MDA (Mogan Dovid Adom), or certain side issues regarding tsunami volunteers in Indonesia. I do support their strong criticism of the US maltreatment of illegally held prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and Gitmo. I agree with their fair and balanced questioning of the improper use of their symbols by all side in the ME. So, on balance I am willing to donate 200+ hours a year of my time.

Similarly, I am not an adherent of the Christian Faith, and I do not subscribe to all of the tenets of the Salvation Army (I am pro-choice and pro-stem cell research), but I do work with them and participate in their Disaster Recovery Operations and have trained their communications people)

I have been around long enough to see what's good and bad. I'm in my 60's, I am semi-retired and work on engineering projects of my choice for clients of my choice - and I work for NGO's of my choice with goals and mission that I can support.

[Englander]

91. Good. I'm not a Christian,

so Christian Aid is not one of the charities/NGOs
that I'm a member of,but I know a thoroughly respectable
& (mostly) apolitical charity when I see one.

Here's a critique of NGO-Monitor,found via Wikipedia

"NGO MONITOR

With so much publicity devoted to AEI's NGO Watch, it is easy to over-look another conservative NGO watchdog group, NGO Monitor, which focuses on perceived threats to Israeli interests. Run by the Institute for Contemporary Affairs (ICA), which is based in the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), NGO Monitor is a joint venture of B'nai B'rith International, ICA, and the Wechsler Foundation. Its website states that it was founded "to promote accountability, and advance a vigorous discussion on the reports and activities of humanitarian NGOs in the frame-work of the Arab-Israeli conflict."<15> NGO Monitor cites examples of anti-Israeli "distortion" by humanitarian groups such as the UN Commission on Human Rights (which it accuses of regularly adopting 5-8 anti-Israel resolutions, and using meetings for one-sided discussions of Israeli policy), Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, the Ford Foundation, the Israel Fund, Christian Aid, and the Advocacy Project.

In an article by two researchers at JCPA, titled "Monitoring the Political Role of NGOs," the authors accuse "many NGOs" of "misquoting international law and overusing the terms 'war crimes,' 'genocide,' and 'ethnic cleansing.'" They go on to say that NGO Monitor and similar initiatives serve to challenge the moral authority of NGOs, increase the accountability demanded from them, expose them to greater scrutiny by the press and by funding organizations, and question the "halo effect" that has protected them from criticism and scrutiny.<16> The ideological slant of NGO Monitor's work is unabashedly pro-Israeli. It does not claim to be a politically neutral examination of NGO activities and practices."

http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v18n1/hardisty_ngo.html

(It's about 3/4's of the way down the page,on the left:) )

[Coastie for Truth]

94. Thanks for the link

I guess that we're both good "whatevers" - I see that NGO Monitor lists, going through my canceled checks and my pile of magazines, about a dozen organizations that I belong to.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

67. Idiots.

I would fully support boycotting Israeli oranges, or Israeli electronic components, or what's left of the Israeli tourist industry, or almost any other Israeli products.

Boycotting Israeli *ideas* is... I'm ashamed to want to become an academic, and if I do I will think twice about joining the AUT.

[newyorican]

69. Ha'aretz Editorial with over 200 replies

Thought this would be interesting...

Hypocrisy of the liberals

[bemildred]

70. Yeah, I can hardly wait.

However, Israeli academic freedom cannot exist in a bubble. Even those who regard a boycott as a foul measure cannot be surprised by such initiatives meant to apply pressure that would make clear to Israel that the continuation of the occupation is not going to be accepted by the world with understanding. When the State of Israel denies Arab students and their families freedom of movement to the universities where they are students, and the even more basic right to earn a dignified livelihood free of the occupation, when the separation fence in Jerusalem is going up on the campus of Al Quds University, it is difficult to argue that Israel adheres to the basic values that it rightfully demands the British university lecturers uphold.

[pelsar]

72. actually its quite easy.....

Israeli academic freedom cannot exist in a bubble

i wonder? does that bubble also include the environment of a war?...I actually find it quite easy to argue that the restriction of palestenian movment, the wall/fence has made its contribution to freedom of movement....mine. My kids, me, family, neighbors have now been going out to the malls, taking trips within israel without the fear of being blown up.

of course we'll have to ignore the "arabs" (as it writes) freedom of movment within israel wont we?...

The state of israel denies movement to a society that has expressed through deeds and words its objection to my freedom of movement.

Whereas in principle they arent mutally exclusive, its appears that in practice they are...at least for the time being.....we shall see in the near future if times have changed.

That "pressure" however, is not taken seriously over here, it reminds us way too much of the 1930s-thats the way we see it, so any intl pressure that it might have, is simply "shrugged off" as its morality is akin to that same decade.

I read somewhere where it was asked why the jews didnt fight back in the 1940s.....outside of the psychology involved of actually accepting the fact that your whole family, neighborhood, community, society is going to be killed because of your religion. Who would believe such a thing? and even if it came out, like the massacres happening in dfur today, nothing would have been done......so this time we do believe it can happen and though we do, it seems few others do.

back to the boycott...

...this ones not working too well. Of course I really would love to see a serious boycott of israel intellecutal property, goods and products-but the hypocrasy would be overwhelming: (those chips in your DVDs, videos, mpg players,.....israeli designed and manufactured-zoran, and of course the intel chips...and I could go on and on, couldnt I?...really ruins the idea of a real boycott as it interfers with ones comfortable life.

so much for principles...bought off by a few grams of silicon, and israeli intellect.

[bemildred]

74. I don't think you quite got what he meant.

He is saying that you can't just take the bits you like and leave
the rest. He's not saying you should let people blow you up. He
would be one of the people getting blown up in that scenario. You
can't just have the "security" without the annoyed people who's
freedoms are restricted for your benefit, the Brit professors acting
out, the UN resolutions, the lack of credibility of your complaints
about academic freedom while you deny it to others. You get the whole
package, good and bad, and it's unrealistic to expect otherwise.

You may be denying movement to "a society that has expressed through
deeds and words its objection to my freedom of movement" but you are
also denying it to individuals that have not done doodly squat to you.

--

I doubt the boycott (the British academics anyway) is intended to be
economically effective. It's intended more as a moral smack in the
chops. But not likely very effective, no.

[pelsar]

88. bemildred...no i got it..

You may be denying movement to "a society that has expressed through
deeds and words its objection to my freedom of movement" but you are
also denying it to individuals that have not done doodly squat to you.


and they were denying freedom of movement, via their suicide bombers, to individuals (my kids for instance) that did not do doodly squat to them...

so whos doodly squat has greater rights?

[bemildred]

93. No "they" didn't, other people did.

It's the "they" part that is messing up your thinking.
There is no "they", there are just certain people, who did or
did not do certain things.

[pelsar]

95. there is no they......

...so if there is no "they" is guess you sure arent blaming the IDF for anything, nor the settlers since there is no "settlers" just certain people who did or did not do certain things. Not the PA, since it too is made up of individuals who collectivly have no responsablity....so too for the rest of the aspects of the societies:

there is no IDF/jihadnikim/PA/Israeli govt that can be collectivly blamed for anything....in short....i assume that in the future you posts will refain from such generalizations? and refer to the individuals who may or may not have broken international laws?

[bemildred]

96. You are aware of the term for people who use "they" referring to Jews? nt

[pelsar]

97. bemildred....

You are aware of the term for people who use "they" referring to Jews? nt

actually no...i dont. But what i really dont understand, and i've come across this before, is a rejection of palestenian society as group being responsable for its actions.

its like saying its not the "settlers, its not the IDF, Its not the israeli govt...its individuals.

its not the Nazis...its individuals

either the palestenians are a society that takes responsabiities for its actions which can lead to statehood...or its not. And if its not, and/or if it cant...then I sure do not want a lawless body as my neighbor.

[bemildred]

98. Pelsar ....

So why is using "they" OK when it's some other group?

Statehood is a different issue, I don't know when or if "they" should
have a state, I'm not really a big fan of states. I'm just talking about
the basic human right to be judged as an individual on your own actions,
rather than being punished or rewarded as a member of a class one has
no say in being assigned to, and the right to be treated fairly.

[pelsar]

99. bemildred....

individualism is fine....and everyone has a right to be judged as individuals be they palestenains or israelis-....except that it appears that humans are a herd animal, do require group identities and cultures do have commonalities that are used to differentiate them from others.

there are whole studies that about this: sociology, anthropology, sub catagories as group thing, peer pressure etc...and they all revolve around the individual within the larger group.

if we take what you write about and apply it equally to both the palestenians and israelis and for instance my kids...you wont be able to discuss anything about the middle east, be it settlers (which ones? yossi or marc?) or palestenians (ahmed or muhaammed?)

my kids pay a price for belonging to a certain group and so do the palesetenian kids and both whether they chose it or not have some responsablity within those groups...thats the reality of life over here and anywhere for that matter.

[bemildred]

100. Pelsar ...

I'm not talking about "individualism" either.

Your argument boils down to "well, that's the way it is,
the way I say it is".

You cannot have expedient human rights, you have rights or you
don't, otherwise you have "human privileges"; and if what you
have are human rights, then every human has them; and if you
don't have human rights, then YOU don't have them.

I'm not suggesting that you not protect yourself or your kids. I'm
suggesting that a well-thought out desire to protect yourself and
your kids requires that you take an active interest in the welfare
of palestinians and their kids, and me and mine, and so on.

Edit: Referring back to posts #69 and #70, that was what I thought
Mr. Pappe was saying, too.

[pelsar]

101. bemildred.....

'm not suggesting that you not protect yourself or your kids. I'm
suggesting that a well-thought out desire to protect yourself and
your kids requires that you take an active interest in the welfare
of palestinians and their kids, and me and mine, and so on.

well, i would say in fact that I am very very interested in the palestenians kids welfare, far more than most of the world...since my kids will only have greater freedom and security when they do. And it is they which have the key to our future, far more than my kids.

But there is no such thing as "absolute rights" in anything in nature, everything has limitations. If you really want to get philisophical about true liberalism you'll find that absolute liberalism and rights doesnt work as it negates liberalism from even defending itself...but thats another argument. Absolute rights for all at all times do not exist, it may be the goal, and it my be intrinsic, but my reality on the ground dictates a very different philosophy to stay alive.

the point is, at present in this conflict is that when the palesteniains had greater freedom, we didnt. Now that we do, they dont. In past, it wasnt so extreme, and in the future I hope it wont, but reality is that those checkpoints continue to find bombs, hence my freedom is dependent upon those checkpoints and the palesteniains lack of it.

That said the environment is changing with more and more areas being given over to the palesteniains...as a group. And as a society it is up to them to keep themselves from attempting to limit my freedom...and which relates directly to theirs....as we are intertwined. (you may have to read that twice.....)

the world I live in is a very unfair world, we have no illusions about its "unfairness" over here. Black and white doesnt exist, as ones rights and freedom in one way or another affects some other group. (womens rights for instance tramples the rights of the extreme religious groups---or do they too have rights, the right to limit the freedom of "their women?. I didnt think so).

I am very aware of the intrinsic rights of every child.....life over here is just not that simple.

[bemildred]

102. Pelsar ...

I didn't say "absolute rights", I said "human rights" and I said they
cannot depend on expediency, else they are not rights at all. You have
to retain them when it's inconvenient.

You say: "since my kids will only have greater freedom and security when they do"

That is exactly correct, and the same applies to "human rights".

---

With regard to the rest of your argument, it's an old discussion and I
don't want to go over it again, the immediate threat against the long
term decay in the situation. It is not that I don't sympathize with
your situation. I would point out that things did seem better in the
Oslo years, and that seems telling to me as to which way peace and
security lies, but opinions will vary.

[pelsar]

103. Bemildred...and I shall close with:

I didn't say "absolute rights", I said "human rights" and I said they
cannot depend on expediency, else they are not rights at all. You have
to retain them when it's inconvenient.

in theory I agree with you 100%.....the reality on the ground just doesnt work that way. I can recall being sent to make an immediate check point to stop a white peugot as mil intel said they were carryin a bomb (this was 15+yrs ago)...well we stopped over 20 white palestenian peugots, not one israeli and checked each one..and in doing so we "trampled" on the rights of everyone of those drivers and passengers (no we didnt find anything, a differerent road block did). A small example but the reality. The roadblock that did find the bomb, maybe saved some lives (maybe not) at the expense of individual human rights. I not saying that its not a slippery slope..and its easy to slide further down......but alas its not a perfect world, but black and white simply doesnt exist here.

[bemildred]

104. Nice talking to you.

It's not really the police activity I'm talking about, they
do that sort of thing here too, occasionally, and I don't know that
that in itself is trampling anybodies rights. It would depend a bit
on circumstances, on the exercise of judgement.

But let's leave it there for now.

[Coastie for Truth]

78. An appender responded to you as follows

"I doubt the boycott (the British academics anyway) is intended to be economically effective. It's intended more as a moral smack in the chops. But not likely very effective, no."

which I interpret as an admission by an apparent supporter (in my opinion for which I profusely apologize if incorrect) of Ms. Sue Blackwell - that Ms. Blackwell's gesture (given Ms. Blackwell's well documented paper trail on Yahoo, Google, and Dialog) is not "anti-Zionist", or "anti Israel" but clearly, in my opinion - ANTI-JEWISH and probably ineffective - or counter effective.

Meanwhile. IMHO, as one who worked the precincts for the US Democratic Party in four states over 35+ years -- and held precinct level Democratic Party office - and writes monthly checks to the Democratic Party - and even voted for Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore - Ms Blackwell and her US (and DU) supporters and defenders are no electoral friends of Democratic candidates.

[Coastie for Truth]

71. Protest US ARPA, NIS, NIH, and DOE grants to British universities

I have just Express Mailed a Legal Protest to the ARPA Contracting Officer/Grants Administrator re: a grant to a British University.

Basis:
1. As a result of the AUT Boycott the Brit University can not make the "Non Discrimination of Contractor and All Sub Contractors" Affidavit.

2. There existed "more qualified" domestic spplicants.

A similar Legal Protest is going out to DOE on Friday on another award to another Brit Professor.