You can read the story here and here.
And here's the AUT statement.
Here's the earlier impdec post on this topic.
And here's a longer version of a humorous anti-boycott piece I found on Harry's Place and orginally put in the comments section. It's worth reading because it goes far beyond the humorous bit quoted on Harry's Place.
Here's a report from the Palestine News Network.
And here's the reaction in Israel:
'The Foreign Ministry said Saturday that the union was guilty of hypocrisy. "The fact that AUT chose to target Israel, the only country in the Middle East that has complete academic freedom for all segments of the population and all political streams is scandalous," the ministry said in a statement.'
A quick Google search will yield plenty of other articles but I hope this is a good cross section. This whole affair does seem another example of 'human rights activists' turning all their attention on the one democracy in the Middle East. And I still think there's something borderline Stalinist about exempting those Israeli academics who publically denounce Sharon.
9 comments:
Good update on Harry's Place. Lots of interesting links particularly to a newly formed group called 'Engage' who are committed to continued dialogue.
Check it out here:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/04/27/engage.php
Yup, very good discussion there.
In the interest of balance here's a link to Sue Blackwell's site (the lecturer who began the boycott campaign.)
This is the FAQs page, but there's a good menu at the side if you want to visit other parts of her site.
http://www.sue.be/pal/
Another great follow up from harry's place:
http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/05/09/against_the_aut_boycott_of_israeli_universities.php
"I was invited to two meetings of the boycott activists in the fall of 2004. I was slightly surprised, as my opposition to a boycott position was on record. I thought, however, it might be interesting, so I went and stated my position. I spoke in favour of positive academic links with Palestine and extending academic freedom. This seemed reasonably well received and in an e-mail discussion they seemed to be moving away from the blanket boycott position. The second meeting, which discussed the AUT resolutions, contained a rather unpleasant discourse. References were made to ‘rich and powerful Zionists’ and certain well-known Palestinian leaders and academics were described as ‘collaborators.’"
John Strawson, Reader in Law, UEL.
The TODAY program this morning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/zfriday_20050520.shtml
0749 Al Quds, the only Arab University in Jerusalem has criticised the Association of University Teachers (AUT)boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
AUDIO FILE
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today3_alquds_20050520.ram
In the interview the president of the Arab Al Quds university objects to the AUT boycott.
Sue Blackwell, who proposed the Israel boycott motion, is also interviewed. Here's an idea of her views: http://www.sue.be/pal/, and here's a quote from the interview (my emphasis): "The time has come to make a stand against oppression that has gone on for centuries."
Continued by Dan in a new thread:
http://impdec.blogspot.com/2005/05/johann-says-boycott-bulldozers-not.html
Lest anyone doubt the political biases within academia...
Lecturers’ union votes to back Israel boycott
May 31, 2007
The Times
Dershowitz is such a dude. I would want him in my defence team any day. Original article spot by Dan.
This boycott is not just wrong, it’s anti-Semitic
Anthony Julius and Alan Dershowitz
The Times
June 14, 2007
...
All boycotts are problematic; academic boycotts especially so. They violate two important principles – the principle known as “the universality of science and learning” and freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is one of the principal means by which we realise ourselves. It is by speaking or writing that we discover who we are. To limit or deny self-expression is thus an attack at the root of what it is to be human. It is not sufficient for my freedom of expression for me simply to be free to speak. What matters to me is that people should also be free to hear me. Boycotts put a barrier in front of the speaker. When he addresses another, that other turns away.
Beyond formulaic denunciations of Israel, the boycotters rarely offer a rational account of why it is right to shun Israel’s academic institutions. The supporters of the UCU resolutions, for example, relied instead upon the unargued assertions that a boycott was justified because:
First, Israel’s universities are complicit in its misdeeds. Some boycotters allege active complicity; others, a complicity that arises either through failure to condemn the State’s misdeeds or because the universities are organs of the State.
Secondly, Israel’s misdeeds justify the boycott regardless of the universities’ own complicity in them. The universities are an important aspect of the prestige that Israel enjoys in the world, and this prestige is not deserved because of its treatment of the Palestinians.
Even if true, these assertions do not justify a boycott. Complicity in the State’s misdeeds, still less the mere fact of those misdeeds, violates neither of the two academic principles. Consider the “complicity” complaint. It does not stand up to a moment’s scrutiny. Any doubts on the matter would be dispelled by reading the “Open Letter from Faculty Members” in which 358 academics criticised the Israeli Government’s actions in the occupied territories.
Or consider the boycotters’ defensive position, that Israel should be held to a higher standard than, say, Iran or North Korea, because it is a democracy. The position in turn exists in two versions: first, because Israel is a democracy, the entire people are to be associated with the actions of the Government. The effect is to give a free pass to tyrannies and to disclose a basic misunderstanding of the nature of democratic accountability. Democracies make rulers accountable to the people; they do not make the people accountable to third parties. To think otherwise is to embrace a pseudo-democratic version of the belief in collective national guilt. Secondly, because Israel purports to respect law and human rights, it should be sanctioned if it fails to do so. But there is not a single country that does not purport to respect law and human rights.
...
You Tube: So You Want to Boycott Israel?
Post a Comment