How best to respond to the Israel boycott

The fine piece by Anthony Julius and Alan Dershowitz on the Israel boycott in this morning's paper is even finer online.

We've produced a 3,500 word version of their oped which includes an excellent description of the circumstances in which an academic boycott could be justified.

But at the end of 3,500 words one is left with this question - how should one respond?

The boycott motions are the work of a handful of left activists. They are totally unrepresentative of their members and even their members aren't all that representative of their profession (at least in the NUJ's case). The motions won't actually do anything. So wouldn't the best thing be to ignore them?

No.

Tempting though it is just to yawn and turn the other way, the motions have to be fought. The boycotts are an attempt to anchor Israel in the minds of the public as similar to South Africa and an illegitimate state. Once this impression is allowed to take hold, the only argument one can have is how bad Israel is compared to South Africa, and the best one can hope for is to move it a little down the scale.

In other words the debate is lost before it begins.

The other day I interviewed the Leader of the Opposition David Cameron at a Conservative Friends of Israel lunch. "Are you a Zionist?" I asked him. It is a symbol of just how far we have come in this debate that his affirmative answer was considered brave and risky.

In Israel, some are considering retaliation. A boycott of a British touring party starring in the ABBA musical Mama Mia, for instance. Or putting a label on British goods reading "These goods come from a boycotting country".

This would be very foolish.

To treat every British person as if they were responsible for the boycott is deeply wrong. And dangerous. if you lump every British person together a solidarity with the boycotters might be created.

No, the only way forward is through careful argument and efficient organisation. A long slog, but the only alternative.

Comments

[Marc Livingston]

Something that I have been discussing with my peers for a while now, is the need for a 'normalisation' of Israel.
It has become too easy to band about terms such as 'zionazi', 'illegitimate state', and 'apartheid state' in society without anyone saying anything - to such an extent that these terms are now considered acceptable discourse for the discussion of Israel.
The Jewish communities in Britain need to reinforce the correct meaning of terms such as zionist. The discussion with David Cameron, that is alluded to above is symptomatic of how the term is losing its meaning. To me, zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have to right to self determine in the land of Israel - making anyone who believes in a two-state solution a zionist.

[Jim Golightly]

Whenever Israel is critised for it's abysmal treatment of the Palestinians the strident cries of anti semitism reverberate around the media and everyone is meant to cease their critism!
Would it not be far more productive to urge Israel to moderate it's denaturing of Palestine and watch the anti semitism subside?

[adam]

"The other day I interviewed the Leader of the Opposition David Cameron at a Conservative Friends of Israel lunch. "Are you a Zionist?" I asked him. It is a symbol of just how far we have come in this debate that his affirmative answer was considered brave and risky."

Not so brave or risky at a Friends of Israel lunch!

[David Moss]

"... the only way forward is through careful argument and efficient organisation. A long slog, but the only alternative" -- agreed, and the magisterial article by Messrs Julius and Dershowitz sets the high standard to follow.

The high standard for Jeremy Bowen and the rest of the BBC, for example, to follow.

----------
They might start with a documentary about the PLO to show people who weren't alive then how Mr Arafat rose to prominence in the 1960s and 70s.

----------
Mr Cameron has declared himself to be a Zionist.

Mr Blair is not usually short of a thought or two. He intervened on behalf of the disabled in l'affair Hoddle. He spoke for many people about the sadness of Diana, Princess of Wales's death. Neither event had anything to do with him or the government but he spoke about them.

It is more urgent, as Messrs Julius and Dershowitz say, to speak about this boycott of Israel. We must hear, surely, from Messrs Blair and Brown and from the Liberal Democrats, in addition to David Cameron.
----------

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

This is actually what goes on in British universities:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/06/is_the_boycott_.html

You will be pleased to hear that the Abba show was a great success, although people I know wanted to boycott it.

Today I helped organise a charity garden party in aid of cell stem research being done in Israeli hospitals and universities which will benefit the world.

Ironic that British doctors are next in line to wish to boycott us.

[Michael Pinto-Duschinsky]

Dear Danny,

It may be boring to write this, but you are absolutely right both in your praise for the excellent article by Anthony Julius and Alan Dershowitz about the proposed boycott of Israeli academics and in your advocacy of a rational response and determined response to the boycott campaign.

The arguments of Julius and Dershowitz are all the more persuasive because, in their past writings, the two distinguished authors have - rightly - been careful to stress that criticism of Israeli is not necessarily "anti-Semitic".

Unfortunately, the tone and the lack of balance of much of the current boycott campaign supports their view that we are faced with attitudes that, at least in part, are tinged with anti-Semitism.

At the same time as supporting fundamental Israeli rights, Professor Dershowitz has also propounded fundamental Palestinian rights too. He has felt free to express disagreement with specific actions and policies of some Israeli governments.

Michael Pinto-Duschinsky

[Robin Kempster]

The article is balanced,but the headline---'This boycott is not just wrong,it's anti-Semitic'---is not.Equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is wrong,and is arguably a major obstacle to progress.

[Martin]

Be calm, my Jewish friends. Keep up the good work, if you are doing good work (and you should be), and ignore this foolishness. Don't dignify it with your attention. This boycott is not going to harm Israel one jot. It's a triumph of presentation over substance, all sound and fury, signifying nothing. It will make the usual left-wing cadres feel self-righteously important, but they always feel that way, so no change there.

The genius academics doing the boycotting no doubt will align themselves with those many centres of deep learning, innovation and liberal thinking in Islamic countries, to bring manifold, although as yet unspecified, benefits to the rest of the world. We await the results with bated breath.

Left to their own devices, witness Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine,it seems that Muslims are quite capable of discriminating against and murdering each other on a scale that neither Israel nor the West has ever conceived. I feel truly sorry for the ordinary Arab and for the children caught up in the crossfire of ideas and bullets, but it's impossible not to utterly despise the massed (male) ranks of Islamic militants from all their different factions, driving around in their pick-up trucks waving and shooting their stupid weapons in the air, suicide bombing innocents among their own people, and blowing up the hopes of millions.

They're just very nasty thick big kids with real guns and explosives. If that's the future of Islam, it hasn't got one.

[Malcolm McLean]

If the science is interesting enough,what does it mean to boycott it?
As for conferences, they are largely a waste of time. Most great thinkers prefer solitude to networking opportunities.

[Neil Murphy]

"Left to their own devices, witness Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine,it seems that Muslims are quite capable of discriminating against and murdering each other on a scale that neither Israel nor the West has ever conceived."

Umm, never heard of Nazi Germany? Stalinist Russia? PolPot? Mao?

[Jim MacDonald]

The Times when it writes on anything
in which Israel is involved appears
more and more like the Jerusalem Post.

When all is said and done Israel continues to steal Palestinian land and resources.The Palestinians have every right to resist the occupation
by every means at their disposal.

[Dr Brian Robinson]

Yes (and I'm against the boycott) but like most anti-boycott articles it didn't acknowledge the need for Israel to end the military occupation of the W Bank and to stop building Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. Until these wrongs are righted no argument against the boycott will carry the weight it should.

[James Kennett]

Suppose that an Israeli academic is prevented from publishing in a learned journal, or speaking at a conference, because of the boycott. Other academics will have a choice: do we side with the boycotter or the boycottee? If the latter, then we should not submit articles to the boycotting journal, or attend the boycotting conference. In most disciplines the result will surely be a serious loss of support for the boycotters.

In short, the boycotters wish to set theselves apart from the Israelis, but in doing so they are choosing to exclude themselves, not the Israelis, from the academic mainstream.

In any case, most serious journals or conferences have an international editorial board or programme committee. If a UK member of the board wished to be bound by the UK boycott, his only way to avoid cooperating with Israeli authors/delegates would be to resign from his position on the journal/conference. Since the supporters of any boycott tend towards self-aggrandising behaviour and an inflated sense of their own importance, such resignations are unlikely. Expect a great deal of hot air as boycotters try to explain why they support the boycott in principle, but ignore it in practice (i.e. if their own CV would suffer).

[Tony Francis]

Some years ago, I was attending a international spinal surgeons meeting. It was shortly after the conclusion of the Iran-Iraq war. There were two speakers in sequence. One was a spinal surgeon from Iran, the other from Iraq. The photos they showed were horrendous. The war produced 1,000,000 spinal cord injuries. After it was over, the two surgeons hugged each other, at the prompting of the moderator, who happened to be Jew. Everyone clapped and gave them a standing ovation. It was one of those transcending moments that one never forgets. Isn't it the role of the intellectual class to keep the lines of communication open, and let the politicians do politics? Even at the height of the cold war, I attended meetings with Russian and East European scientists.

[Terrry]

It should be pointed out that is more scientific and medical research is produced by 4 million Jewish Israelis, than from the 130 million Muslims that surround them.

The curse of the Jews is being cleverer, more hard working and more successful than those who hate them.

I look at this from a historical context.

This boycott is largely supported by Marxist/Socialist activists from the extreme Left, allied with the soft anti-semetic Left of the Guardian/BBC.

Looking at how Marxists have behaved, from Stalin and Mao persecuting millions who they thought had dared to oppose them, to Castro throwing journalists into jail, to Chavez shutting down opposition TV stations, is this surprising.

The actions of Blackwell and Marxists in the UK is entirely normal for that diseased theocracy.

Perhaps we should see this boycott, not only for what it is - an exercise in absurdity; but as an example of Socialism in action.

Islamo-fascims and Socialism share the same belief; that the individual should be ruled over (by the state or Mullahs), and that those who oppose this are to be persecuted.

Israel is a threat to Socialism, Islamism and all those who believe that the freedoms evident in America and Israel must be destroyed in order for their theories to dominate.

[Terrry]

>Umm, never heard of Nazi Germany? Stalinist Russia? PolPot? Mao?

Umm, what do these countries have in common. Let me think. I know.... National Socialist, Socialism, Socialism and Socialism.

Malcom, do you detect a pattern here?

I wonder what political affiliation the boycotters subscribe to.. hmm.. let me think.. I know.. its Socialism.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster]

Please could your correspondent explain exactly which Palestinian land Israel is stealing? Palestine doesn't exist (yet); Israel has left Gaza, and it left the West Bank a considerable number of years ago.

By the way, Katuysha rockets were aimed at northern Israel from Lebanon yet again this afternoon.

Just thought you'ld like to know.

[Nigel Blumenthal]

It seems to me that, following today's vote in favour of the boycott at the Unison conference, members of the public who are opposed to this boycott could "fight fire with fire" and indulge in a little boycotting of their own.

Unison prides itself in the services it offers to members. Among those services is a discount programme, whereby participating stores offer discounts to members, presumably on production of some form of ID. Clearly, anti-boycotters should simply boycott the stores that participate in this discount programme. Perhaps we could arrange country-wide boycott days, where one particular retailer is targeted for a boycott campaign. I look forward to some national-based activist group taking up this idea but, until then, you should check the union's website for the discount programme, which can be found at www.unisonlocal.co.uk

[David Moss]

In 'The way of the warrior', Paul Robinson* discusses the creation of warriors, rather than soldiers, in modern armies, particularly in the US:

"The US military does not have ‘soldiers’ any more; it has ‘warriors’. Air Force recruits, for instance, finish their basic training with a ‘warrior week’, and cadets at the Naval Academy in Annapolis take a course on ‘the code of the warrior’. The army’s Platoon Leader Development Course is now the ‘Warrior Leader Course’, while the military’s Walter Reed Hospital provides ‘warrior care’, not, of course, to its ‘patients’, but to its ‘wounded warriors’. And the army has issued a ‘Warrior Ethos’, which everyone is expected to memorise ..."

There is no chance, says Robinson, with this ethos, of winning the war for hearts and minds. Warriors are loyal to their fellows, no-one else counts:

"... in many Western militaries what anthropologists call the ‘honour group’, those people whose opinion really matters to you, has narrowed dramatically over the past 100 years. Read the letters of American Civil War soldiers, and you find that what counted was what the folks back home thought of them; read the letters of first world war soldiers, and you find that what they harped on about was their sense of duty towards their country. Now what soldiers are primarily concerned with is fitting in with their mates. This helps to explain the conclusion of the report above that a third of soldiers ‘believed torture was acceptable if it helped save the life of a fellow soldier’. Nonsoldiers lie outside the military honour group; as such they are felt to deserve no respect".

The values soldiers are instilled with during training need to be re-considered. Not just in the US, almost everywhere, except perhaps in Israel:

"The Israel Defense Forces is unique in including in its list of values ‘respect for human life’ and ‘respect for human dignity’. Nothing even closely resembling these appears in the lists of any European or North American country".

Unique. One. The only one. And this is the one academics and trades unions choose to boycott?

----------
* http://www.spectator.co.uk/archive/features/32090/the-way-of-the-warrior.thtml

[Boycott Watch]

The British boycott is an extension of the Arab boycott of Israel which was started in 1921, which is long before the modern state of Israel was established. The Arab boycott of Israel is a direct function of, and in fact the founding basis of the Arab League.

It is, therefore, Arab economic warfare against Israel because wars and riots have not destroyed Israel. Arabs are recruiting non-Arabs under the false presence of bringing peace via boycotts, yet the Arabs do not tell non-Arabs that economic cooperation is the key to peace – nations with peace have economic cooperation and nations at war do not have economic cooperation. It stands to reason, therefore, that economic cooperation is what is needed in the Middle East, yet the Arab League pushes its boycott and people are buying into the lies.

Fred Taub
President,
Boycott Watch
http://www.BoycottWatch.org

[David Golzahn]

Problem: "long and careful argument" against the boycott of Israel, an apartheid state with ghetto walls and razor wire around the Gaza concentration camp. How? The only argument jews seem to have is to try to slander and defame those who criticise Israel´s apartheid as "anti semites". That is defamation. Bot careful argument. Because jews have no argument to defy those 450 UN resolutions any longer - and Americans know it.