The University and College Union’s (UCU) proposed academic boycott of Israel has attracted opposition from many people who might usually be numbered among Israel’s harshest critics. The (Palestinian) President of Jerusalem’s Al Quds University is among those opposing the boycott, in a joint statement with the (Israeli) President of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
As a Liberal Democrat, my opposition is rooted in our party’s fundamental liberal belief in free expression, particularly in situations involving conflict resolution.
To boycott Israeli academics, including liberal individuals who strongly disagree with the Israeli government, is not only illiberal, it is also perverse. Imagine a boycott of British universities and academics, based on our government’s disgraceful conduct of the war in Iraq!
Almost worse is the suggestion that Israeli academics might be exempted from a boycott if they distance themselves from their government’s policies. Presumably the proponents of the boycott are planning to summon up the shade of Joe McCarthy to supervise this exercise in thought control?
The proposed boycott is also perverse because it singles out Israel among all the countries of the world. Israel, for all its faults, is a parliamentary democracy. Its universities, like British universities, are open to all citizens, regardless of religion or ethnicity. I have been to the Hebrew University and met Arab students, including some who came from the Palestinian territories, and some who came from Israel itself. There are also many overseas students at Israel’s universities. Israel enjoys the same academic freedom as does this country and other democracies.
The tragic irony of singling out Israel is that no other Middle Eastern country has academic freedom, so why only boycott Israel? When other Middle Eastern countries are infringing human rights in ways that directly affect academic freedom, why is the UCU silent?
To randomly select an example, Amnesty International’s 2007 report on Saudi Arabia says: “Hamza al-Muzaini, an academic who allegedly criticized a cleric in an article, was fined in May by the Ministry of Information. He was physically attacked and branded an ‘infidel’ in September by a group of young men as he gave a speech on reform of the school curriculum.” Where is the UCU’s condemnation of this? Why is it only Israel that stands condemned? The UCU is naïve to focus on Israel, while ignoring the brutalities inflicted by dictatorships across the Middle East.
The motion to be debated at conference (printed in full, below) does not seek to deny that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are suffering immensely, with severe problems at their academic facilities. The way to change this is to bring about a peaceful solution that includes a Palestinian state living alongside Israel.
For this to happen, there must be maximum dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian academics, and the wider international community of academics, including in this country. Slamming doors in the face of dialogue with Israeli academics will help nobody and will actually make things worse, delaying the negotiation of a two-state solution and a Palestinian state.
* Matthew Harris is a London Liberal Democrat activist who first joined the Liberal Party in 1986. You can find further information at www.stoptheboycott.org.
This is the full text of the motion to be debated at the Liberal Democrat federal conference in Brighton on Sunday, 16th September, at 2.50 pm.
Academic Boycott of Israel
Finchley & Golders Green
Mover: Monroe Palmer
Summation: Jonathan Davies
Conference notes that, at its annual conference on 30 May 2007, the University and College Union (UCU) passed a motion effectively calling for an academic boycott of Israel.Conference believes that:
i) Academic freedom and the exchange of ideas are of paramount importance in conflict resolution.
ii) Many Israeli academics have been at the forefront of opposition to illiberal Israeli government policies, so it is entirely counter-productive to sever links with such academics.
iii) It is wrong to boycott individuals on account of their nationality, whatever policies their country’s government pursues.
iv) Israeli academics can no more be held accountable for Israeli government policy than British academics can be held accountable for British government policy.
v) It is perverse for academics to boycott only Israel, if other countries with far worse records of academic freedom are not also to be boycotted.
vi) Israeli universities are centres of free debate and discussion including Jews, Christians and Muslims, Israelis and Palestinians.
vii) A British academic boycott does nothing to bring a negotiated solution to the problems of Israel and Palestine closer, and is in fact actively counter-productive, as it discourages dialogue between the very people who should most be talking.
Conference further notes that the boycott has been condemned by the Palestinian president of Al Quds University in East Jerusalem, Sari Nusseibeh, in a joint statement with Menachem Magidor, the Israeli president of the Hebrew University in West Jerusalem.Conference therefore:
1. Condemns the UCU’s decision to call for an academic boycott of Israel.
2. Urges the UCU’s general secretary, Sally Hunt, to fulfil her manifesto pledge to put any pro-boycott resolution to a referendum of the union’s full membership.
3. Urges all UCU members to vote to reject the boycott proposal.
4. Urges academics to continue to engage in the fullest possible dialogue with their Israeli and Palestinian counterparts.
5. Condemns academic boycotts in general.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
39 Comments
I definitely agree with this.
No matter what your views on the Israel/Palestine situation this sort of boycott is wrong.
We need to encourage dialogue and discussion around the world, not hamper it.
Don’t support this (de facto non-existent) boycott myself but we are raher overstating the freedom and democracy enjoyed in all parts of the realm that is controlled by the Israeli State for the time being.
Will the dopey loon (no offence) Chris Davies MEP get a chance to take part in this important debate?
Absolutely spot on, Matthew. Great article.
The problem with this motion as Chris Paul points out is that it’s factually inaccurate. The UCU motion calls for robust internal debate with its members on a boycott. It does not (effectively or otherwise) call for a boycott.
Most of its ‘believes’ points are tendentious. Israeli academics are notoriously reluctant to get stuck into the Israel/Palestine debate (presumably for fear of intimidation). I am agnostic on the boycott itself, but have no idea why this exercise in propaganda disguised as fact has been allowed onto the Conference agenda.
Thanks for comments. Chris Paul is right that the Palestinians in the Occupied/Disputed territories most certainly do NOT enjoy the same democratic rights (including academic freedom) that all citizens enjoy in Israel proper. The situation for Palestinians in the territories is appalling (the situation for people in Israel, under regular rocket attack and with regular attempted suicide bombings, is not so great either). The way to change that is to bring about a two-state solution – and a boycott would NOT help to bring that about.
Chris and Mr Bowen are quite right that the UCU has not boycotted Israel, merely called for a discussion of a boycott. But if you read the UCU motion (http://www.ucu.org.uk/circ/html/ucu31.html) itself, it is clear that its framers are effectively calling for their union to prepare the ground for a boycott, which the framers clearly favour.
As for the suggestion that Israeli/Palestinian academics are “notoriously reluctant” to debate the issues – as if! Israel is a very noisy society, in which nobody is reluctant to debate anything! Can we have some examples of this alleged reluctance? And the suggestion that these academics would suffer “intimidation” in Israel is simply wrong. Israel’s policies in the territories are often very wrong, but the country itself is a normal democracy like Britain. Has Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch ever suggested that Israeli academics suffer from “intimidation”?
I agree with boycotting the boycott but not:
>>that no other Middle Eastern country has academic freedom,
Despite Lebanon’s recent troubles and a certain amount of office politics, its universities are areas of debate and discussion. Please don’t let Lebanon’s achievements be buried under the current avalanche of negative reporting.
Harris’s claim Israel is “a normal democracy like Britain” beggars belief. Has anyone been to Old Hebron where the yeshuvim settlers cause the local Palestinians to live in terror whilst the IDF look on doing nothing. That would not happen in a normal democracy.
Be that as it may, we should support the call for a boycott. Why?
How can the academic freedom of a sector of Israeli society be more important than the basic liberal and democratic right to a free and dignified life for all Palestinians, academics included? Is the access to international academic privilege more valuable than the freedom of an entire people struggling under school and college closures and roadblocks?
The oft-voiced claim that Israeli academics are a bastion of dissent or a force for opposition to State occupation policies is simply not true. Rather, Israeli academics have been at least quescent and at most complicit in supporting Istaeli occupation policies.
Few Israeli academics responded when Bir Zeit University launched an international campaign to pressure the Israeli Government to restore free access to the University in 2002. The appeal was sent to some 30 Israeli academics thought to be sympathetic to the Palestinian academic plight. Only two Israeli academics signed the petition.
No Israeli association of University professors, academic senate or professional body in Israel has ever mounted a protest at the nature and results of the 40-year old occupation of the West Bank.
A recent survey conducted by Israeli sociologist Yehouda Shenhav shows that between 2002 and 2004, only 8 of the 133 sociologists in the five largest Universities in israel took a moral stand against the Occupation. The same ratio was found among Israeli historians and philosophers. Only 4% of sociologists belonged to protest movements and only 5% signed two different petitions in those two years.
Several courses, including medicine, occupational therapy and health administration are only available in West Bank colleges, but Students residing in Gaza are not given permission to travel to the West Bank to study.
Blocking access to higher education for Palestinian students, random closure of schools, colleges and universities in the West Bank by Israel, casts a dark shadow over Israel’s claim to be a liberal democratic State which purports to respect and support the principle academic freedom and the right to education.
Israel’s actions of Occupation that repress and grind down any kind of academic life or hope for Palestinians, speak for themselves.
Israel is not beyond international humanitarian law. As long as the right and free access to education is denied Palestinian schoolchildren, students and academics who have no freedom of travel abroad as their Israeli counterparts take as granted, then all of us must recognise the humanitarian and liberal democratic drivers behind this boycott and through its application, shine a moral searchlight square-on into the eyes of the nature of the never-ending illegal occupation of the West Bank.
“Israeli academics are notoriously reluctant to get stuck into the Israel/Palestine debate (presumably for fear of intimidation).”
I’m not a huge fan of the Isreali government but I’m not sure how true that would be.
After all how many mathematicians, physicists etc were open critics of UK government policy in Northern Ireland
Re:- Lebanon, I apologise for getting that wrong. I do not know as much about Lebanon’s nascent democracy as I ought to, and I am happy to accept that academic freedom is burgeoning there. It is not burgeoning in any other Middle Eastern country, bar Israel. All the others are repressive dictatorships.
To Kerry, I pose five questions:
1) Do you support a boycott of all countries with bad human rights record, or ONLY of Israel? If the latter, please explain why.
2) How does Israel’s dreadful behaviour outside its borders in Hebron, etc, alter the fact that it is a democracy?
3) Does Britain’s occupation of Iraq mean that Britain is not a democracy either?
4) How would a boycott solve the problems that you mention?
5) Would you also advocate a boycott of those American academics who refuse to condemn Guantanamo Bay? Shall we boycott anyone in Russia who refuses to condemn what’s happening in Chechnya? Or is it ONLY Israel that we condemn for human rights abuses, and nobody else? Please explain.
As to why this motion was submitted and accepted – as liberals, some of us find an academic boycott abhorrent. That includes Sir Ming Campbell, who has vocally opposed a boycott.
This whole affair highlights deep seated problems in my union. Rest assured, no-one who does not boycott Israel as an individual will do so as a result of UCU policy: UCU are impotent over their own members, let alone over the public here or elsewhere.
9. I find the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine abhorrent. The problem with the motion, as Harris fails to acknowledge, is that it is factually inaccurate – propaganda thinly disguised as fact.
1) Do you support a boycott of all countries with bad human rights record, or ONLY of Israel? If the latter, please explain why.
This ‘why only us’ lacks conviction. There are regular protests at repression in Darfur, Chechnya and China for example. But none of these countries claim to be a liberal democracy. Israel does. And Israel is a signatory to the United Nations and Geneva Conventions, but via Machiavellian ‘logic’ argues the Geneva Protocols don’t apply to its methods of Occupation of the West Bank. Just because other nations behave badly does not absolve Israel’s methods of occupation nor the behavior of its ‘settlers’ in Old Hebron and other illegal outposts.
After all, Israel has been running one of the two longest-running illegal occupations in the world (othe other is the Chinese in Tibet). As it happens, Matthew, many supporters of the academic boycott against Israel also support protests at Russian behaviour in Chechnya, Chinese suppression of the Tibetans, and issues like Guantanamo.
2) How does Israel’s dreadful behaviour outside its borders in Hebron, etc, alter the fact that it is a democracy?
Israel is not yet a liberal democracy – it is too young, like Turkey. And if as you indicate, the West Bank is ‘outside its borders’ why does the Israeli Government support settler expansion to the tune of 3 billion US dollars a year?
The inequality under Israeli law is felt in almost all aspects of social, political and economic life, including a discriminatory educational system where the curriculum is routinely biased in favour of Jewish customs and norms at the expense of Arab culture. The notion of collective rights and protection of the Palestinian minority are absent from the Basic Law.
An example of an explicit discriminatory law is the “Law of Return” which grants every Jew, wherever he or she resides, automatic Israeli citizenship if desired, at the expense of refugees and stateless persons who have lived on the land for generations. Palestinians who come from the territory that now constitutes Israel have no such automatic right, even if they were evicted from their homes by Zionist militias or the Israeli army and are consequently stateless.
This inequality is also evident in the fact that only a fraction of Israeli Government budgets is allocated for the maintenance and building of infrastructure in Palestinian towns in Israel. Palestinian citizens also face severe building restrictions in the Occupied Territories.
This active policy of under-development also becomes clear in the case of the “unrecognised villages”. About 100,000 people live in these villages, mostly in the Negev and in the North, which officially do not exist. This means that even the most basic services are not made available to their inhabitants, such as running water, health services, sanitation, electricity, safe roads, adequate education facilities or postal and other communication services.
Recently the Knesset adopted the “Nationality and Entry into Israel (Temporary Order)” law that bars Palestinians married to Israelis from living with their spouses in Israel. Since the outbreak of the Intifada the issuing of residence permits for Palestinian spouses has been frozen “in light of the security situation and because of the implication(s) of the immigration and the establishment in Israel of foreigners (sic) of Palestinian decent”.
And after all, Israel has no cultural tradition of democracy – look where the Ashkenasi, the Sephardi come from – Mediterranean and former Soviet Bloc countries who have had no tradition of democracy but rather of autocracy and repression. And most if not all members of the Knesset are ex Generals or other high ranking soldiers. So the tradition of true democracy as we understand it, has yet to bed in.
3) Does Britain’s occupation of Iraq mean that Britain is not a democracy either?
Israel’s occupation of Palestine and the IFOR in Iraq are as chalk is to cheese. Britain was invited into Iraq by its peoples and by UN legal mandate under Ch VII of the UN Charter. I don’t recall any Pals inviting the IDF in , in 1967.
4) How would a boycott solve the problems that you mention?
By drawing international attention to a regime which pulls down Palestinian homes for not having planning permission yet allowing Jewish homes built illgally, to stand. See Ha’aretz online of today. By obliging the Israeli Government and COGAT (Commanding General of the Administered Territories) to abide by the countless UN, EU and Quartet resolutions to cease settlement expansion, land-grab, aquifer-grab and to make Israel deliver its side of the bargain not just Fatah.
For your question no.5 please refer to my answer to your first question.
My fervent wish would be for our Party to have the very first Friends of Israel and Palestine aof the three UK political mainstream Parties – as our Lib Dem Friends of Palestine joint flag logo shows in its website. But sadly, having spent time in the Occupied Territories (I was in Hebron only last month, I have seen and read the plans for Greater Jerusalem,the barbaric behaviour of the yeshuvim, the blind eye of the generals to the inhumane behaviour of its bored Border Guards, and the overall aim of making life so unbearable for ordinary non-violent non-terrorist Palestinian families , to show me that the Israeli Government has a long, long way to go before ordinary folk in the Party, like me, can forget that Israeli citzens enjoy freedom of movement, whereas Palestinians live largely locked down in open air prison camps.
And the latest move by the Israeli Minister of Defence is to shut off water and electricity supplies to the Gaza Strip by way of collective punishment – both illegal under international humanitarian law.
Kerry, I’ve been a close observer and occasional participator in the boycott debate for some time. I agree with your points about inequality, the disgusting behaviour of the extremist Jewish residents of Hebron, the need for Israel to uphold its side of the existing peace plans (pressure from the US as peace-broker will be crucial) – and you didn’t mention the disruption of farmers and families by the separation barrier.
That said, we do not have to agree with the boycott to support Palestinians. If it offered any tangible benefits I’d think again, but this boycott won’t help towards a negotated settlement, is neither sufficient nor necessary to draw attention to the suffering of Palestinians, and in general will be of no practical use whatsoever to Palestinians on the ground. The boycott has no objective and no endpoint, and the arguments people use to defend it have become pretty nasty, pretty low. The emphasis is far too much (obsessively?) on punishing Israel and not enough on supporting Palestinians. There is no benefit from a union messing around with its members’ academic freedom (and please remember that academic freedom is not just an abstract concept) and no benefit from excluding a country and a group with a long history of, and particular sensitivity to, exclusion. I also find your points about democracy being alien to Israelis a little weird and deterministic in the context of this discussion (btw plans for the Jewish democracy were heavily influenced by the British Mandate).
I also feel you’ve not adequately accounted for your selective focus and punishment of Israel. Some of your points about this are over-simple. Some relate to Israel’s existence as a state where Jews have self-determination (the Palestinians would understand better than anyone: no state, no rights). The right of return for diaspora Jews relates to this – many Jews have immigrated to Israel because of antisemitism in their place of origin.
But I want to particularly thank you, Kerry, for a critique of Israel which avoids exploiting anti-semitic canards. This is so rare. You make a decent case.
Could Daniel Bowen please pinpoint the “factual inaccuracies” in the motion? I do not believe that there are any.
Sludge has responded eloquently to many of Kerry’s points, so I shall not repeat what Sludge has said.
But Kerry, the logic of saying that we should only censure liberal democracies is that any country can “get out of jail free” by saying “Oh, we’re not a democracy, so the rules don’t apply to us anyway”. That cannot be what you have in mind.
Are you really saying that none of the new states created since World War II can be democracies? Not Japan, not India, not Israel? What about the new democracies of central and eastern Europe? I profoundly disagree. Plus Britain itself has only had universal adult suffrage since the 1920s! Respectfully, also, your definition of Ashkenazi Jews is wrong; Ashkenazi Jews include those coming from Western European countries that DO have a democratic tradition.
Presumably you also support a “right of return” for those hundreds of thousands of Jews forced to leave Arab countries? A two-state solution would give Jews a right of return to the Jewish homeland and Palestinians a right of return to the Palestinian homeland.
It is hilarious to suggest that “most, if not all” of the 120 members of the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament) are “ex-generals or other high-ranking soldiers.” There are Israeli Arabs among the people elected to the Knesset, who would be surprised to discover that they’d ever served in the Israeli armed forces. There are a lot of ex-soldiers at the top of Israeli politics, but to suggest that most Israeli MPs are ex-generals, etc, betrays a great ignorance of Israeli politics.
With thanks to Sludge for his kind comments, Matthew you said:
“Presumably you also support a “right of return” for those hundreds of thousands of Jews forced to leave Arab countries? A two-state solution would give Jews a right of return to the Jewish homeland and Palestinians a right of return to the Palestinian homeland.”
There is no need to call for or otherwise advocate a Jewish right of return – the Israeli State’s Basic law enshrines it and it is exercised routinely by many hundreds of returning Jews.
What I remain deeply worried about, as should all reasonable and right-thinking folk of all Party political persuasions – not just ours – is the continued refusal of the Knesset to even discuss a right of return for Palestinians forced out during the 1947/8 war.
Equally concerning is the way that successive Israeli administrations ignore the legal status of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum under international law, and who sadly pursue the demographic encirclement of East Jerusalem by expanding mega-settlements like Ma’ale Adumim, so as to exclude any possible adoption by a future Palestinian State, of Jerusalem as a shared capital.
If you are in any doubt as to the underlying policy target of this, there are many neutral analyses that factually demonstrate what is really afoot – make life so unbearable for ordinary Palestinian families that they will eventually get so fed-up they will give up and clear out of the West Bank.
However, what saddens me is your conviction that the Israeli Government really does want a territorially contiguous and viable Palestinian State. It might want the goyim to think that, bolstered by the skilled spin of Mark Regev, but its actions show that it wants nothing of the sort.
Settler-only roads, enclaves, lock-downs, blocked roads and the other measures to carve the OPT into ‘bantustans’.
The likes of Dayan and his Yesha Council might cheer such a policy, but such land-securing policies are short-sighted. For Israel needs an economically flourishing eastern neighbour and Gazan enclave in order to deny terrorists their raison d’etre.
And yet the yeshiva-driven politics seem to want to subjugate Palestinians as though land and victory will bring peace. It will not.
What will? Honesty and sincerity on behalf of Livni and Olmert in marginalising Lieberman and his hard-line ilk might be a good start. And removing those violent settlers from Old Hebron and rehousing them in nearby Kiryat Arba.
And anyway Israel can now no longer aford to pay the rising costs of the Occupation but you’ll need to read my short paper on that one another time.
Finally, Israel and democracy. What I was proposing was that in Israel’s case it is a signatory to the UN Charter and other protocols of international and humanitarian law, as well as the Law of Armed Conflict. So if it is a liberal democracy as it claims, Israel should abide by the rules of the club.
But Israel doesn’t. What it does do is ignore those rules that don’t suit Israeli or Jewish interests in its pursuit of national interests by arguing that the rules don’t apply to the ‘Administered Territories’. This cannot be in the interests of normal Israeli citizens, of all religious and ethnic persuasions, who, like so many of their Palestinian counterparts, are sick of the power games and just want peace.
But sadly those that want victory drown out such moderate voices.
Matthew there are a number of factual inaccuracies.
Firstly the motion claims the UCU conference ‘effectively called for’ an academic boycott. It did not. (Which makes the even sloppier ‘Conference therefore’ 1 at least equally inexcusable).
Most of the Conference Believes section is at best tendentious. If academic freedom was so paramount in conflict resolution, then bingo! So much would be sorted. What was human rights anyway? And academia in Israel is such a hotbed of criticism of the Israeli regime? What nonsense.
Kerry is spot on. Matthew, if you are to be seen as anything other than biased and partisan (I understand you are an officer of Lib Dem Friends of Israel), let’s have your opinion on the illegal operation, collective punishment in Palestine, etc….
Do you believe in jaw jaw rather than war war? If so, do you believe a boyccott will help acheive a solution to the problems in the Middle East, whatever you believe that solution should be.
The motion deliberately addressed the boycott, not the solution to the problems between Israel and the Palestinians, not least because there is another Conference debate on that very topic.
Jonathan, I read you. But where else is there to turn? We know from Ministerial correspondence that the FCO routinely ‘calls upon’ the Israeli Government to cease settlement expansion and implement the measures it said it would. And Israel routinely ignores all such calls.
Recall – the only option that makes Israel pause is action, such as when Bush Senior withheld the yearly stipend as a protest at continued settlement expansion. So action, not words. Then, and only then, did israel pause in the construction of Ma’ale Adumim. But AIPAC and the Jewish Lobby in the States were livid at Bush’s steppping out of line and they soon restored ‘normality’ Stateside.
So Israel responds only to actions, not strongly worded letters of protest.
Had it not been for a concerted boycott of the abhorent aphartheid regime in South Africa, would it still prevail?
And on the matter of football, Israel regularly competes in most European Cup competitions.
When was the last time you saw the Palestinian national team competing in any international competition? (Think exit and re-entry ‘permits’).
OK, I spoke too soon, Kerry. You’ve mentioned ‘bantustans’, intended to subliminally equate Israel with that universally-acknowledged beacon of evil South Africa. And you’ve mentioned the Jewish Lobby as if Jews have a universal outlook and identical interests. I retract my comment about your decent critique 🙁
Jonathan what a nonsense argument. I can’t believe Conference is even discussing the boycott. How did you know there would be two motions on the agenda?
Daniel, have you even read the UCU resolution calling for a boycott – oh sorry – calling for a campaign for a boycott? What exactly do you think the difference is? In 2002 it was a failed moratorium on individual Israeli academics. In 2003 it was a failed motion to boycott Israeli institutions. In 2005 it was a failed motion to boycott three Israeli institutions. This time round it’s all of them – again. That was my union – the former AUT. NATFHE has its own history of Israel boycott policy.
To imply that a resolution to campaign for a boycott (in the form of staging debates and circulating boycott calls) isn’t a call for boycott is at best obtuse.
What Kerry should have said is the “Organised Claiming to Speak for Jews Lobby” (OCSJL).
Lobby groups only ever represent the people who hire them, seldom the people they claim to speak for.
Sadly, though, those Jews (however defined) who dissent from the views promoted by the OCSJL are derided as “self-hating” and as traitors to their community by the OCSJL and its afficionados.
Unsurprisingly, many remain silent.
While an academic boycott of Israel will distress Israeli academics and intellectuals (who have little influence in their country), the headbanger tendency will just use it to reinforce its collective perception that the whole world is out to get them.
There is only one Gentile the Israeli government listens to, and that is “Big” Dick Cheney.
If the US military-industrial-petro-chemical complex tells Israel that the continuing subjugation and humiliation of the Palestianian people has to end, end it will.
Kerry, your comment about the Israelis attempting to fool “the goyim” speaks volumes about where you are really coming from on this.
Daniel, Jonathan knows that there are two motions because he has read the publicly available Conference Agenda, emailed to all Conf Reps some weeks ago. The two motions are: 1) this one and 2) another one (from the Foreign Affairs team) about Israel/Palestine in general (not the boycott).
In the US, it is estimated that 90% of the Jewish community typically votes Democrat. The conservative Christian Coalition, with its very strong pro-Israeli views, is a far larger group of voters than is the Jewish community, and a key part of the Republican base – much more influential than the so-called Jewish Lobby. Indeed, it’s often been said that a two-state solution that’s backed by the American Jewish community could be scuppered by opposition from American Christian fundamentalists who would not want Israel to cede any territory that is namechecked in the Bible. So don’t blame Israel’s Jewish supporters for the USA’s position.
Yes, Daniel, I am a partisan – I am a partisan for a peaceful two-state solution that gives peace, justice and security to Israelis and Palestinians alike. I am quite open about being an officer of LDFI.
And what’s a ‘goyim’?
Yes, I somehow forgot to point out the ‘goyim’ reference. Lurker, a goy (plural: goyim) is Hebrew for ‘non-Jew’. I think of it as a contemptuous, or at very least wedge-driving, word which shouldn’t be used. I’d be very surprised if anybody in the Israeli government, let alone Regev, has used it.
When Kerry says that “the Israeli government … might want the goyim to think that” she intends us to get the impression that the Israeli government seeks to pull the wool over the eyes of all non-Jews. Kerry’s unsubstantiated claim Israeli government has secretly discounted the idea viable prosperous Palestinian state is pernicious in itself – but even if it had, why would it try to hoodwink just non-Jews? This is a straighforward insinuation that Jews have universally shared interests, and that all Jews want to prevent Palestinians getting a state. A defamatory stereotype along the ‘Jewish conspiracy’ lines.
How come it’s so rare to have a conversation about supporting Palestinians which doesn’t involve defaming Jews?
Sludge wrote: “Lurker, a goy (plural: goyim) is Hebrew for ‘non-Jew’.”
It is the normal term for Gentiles used by anyone speaking Yiddish, not necessarily contemptuous. The US English word “guy” may well derive from it. If you’re a guy, you’re a goy, so to speak (joke).
Sludge wrote: “This is a straighforward insinuation that Jews have universally shared interests,”
Sludge, you are trying to have your cake and eat it.
You cannot, on the one hand, say that not all Jews think alike and should not be lumped together, yet at the same time deride Jews who do not support ideas promoted by Jewish elites as “self-hating”.
Sludge wrote: “A defamatory stereotype along the ‘Jewish conspiracy’ lines.”
You cannot defame a group of more than about 12 people. See Brown v DC Thomson.
At least Mr Harris and I have the courage to use our real names when posting.
Who are you ‘sludge’?
I am sorry but your rhetoric and vocabulary show the extent of your knowledge about the reality of Occupation and of the long-standing and utterly open and visible agenda of the civil authorities in Jerusalem. And its actions in carving up the OPT with permanent infrastructure is testimony to its real intentions of annexing the bulk of the OPT and leaving the rest as isolated townships.
As to Jews and Israelis, Zionism and Judaism, from the illuminating conversations I have had with many observant Jews, secular Israelis, sabra Israelis and others, is that most want peace. But they are drowned out by those that want victory and land, such as Dayan’s Yesha Council, Lieberman, Netenyahu and others.
And within Israel there are many rabbinical groups and Israeli men and women who work tirelessly for peace- Rabbis for Human Rights, Machsom Watch, Yesh Gvul and Beit Selem to name but a few.
As to pulling wool over the eyes of the goyim (thanks to those who, unlike ‘sludge’ (whoever he or she really is) accept that the term simply means ‘of other nations’) then I suggest you go to the OPT, witness for yourself the behaviour of the settlers in Hebron and other places, the thuggery of the Magav, the civic strategy for the encirclement of settlements, the walled prison that is now Bethelehem, and then ask the question – are the Israeli authorities (not, mark you ‘the Jews’) really acting in good faith when they speak of the need for a vialble and contiguous Pal state?
Matthew wrote:
“Kerry, your comment about the Israelis attempting to fool “the goyim” speaks volumes about where you are really coming from on this.”
On the contrary, the most eloquent and prolific spokesman on this is the Israeli Government itself, who assures the world at large the Wall is only temporary, yet builds permanent infrastructure behind it, who turn back perfectly respectable US/Palestinian joint statehood passport holders at Ben Gurion, and who expand and coalesce bloc after sttlement bloc whilst syaing externally ‘Who? Us?’, who claim they build the Wall with sensitivity and causing the least disruption to Pal farmers and villagers. Ever tried to access your olive groves at Gilo? See also the primary school at Anata, East Jerusalem, which is now split in two because the Wall separates the school building from its playground, yet the nearest settlement is a kilometre away across the valley.
I am sorry but having witnessed what I have seen, having listened to an Israeli Rabbi wring his hands asking me ‘Is this what Zionism has come to’, seen Israeli women weep in anger and frustration at the thuggish behaviour of the Magav at the checkpoints, and having been spat at and abused by settlers myself for helping an elderly US citizen escort a small Palestinian child to school, then yes, I can forgive you for discerning ‘where I am coming from’.
Belive me, if you had seen and felt what I have seen and felt, you’d be coming from the same place as I.
See my interview in the ST next month to hear from a Zionist rabbi who is in despair at the bigotry and racism of his countrymen towards Palestinians.
To clam up, it is more important than ever, that both sides acieve a peace settlement that is fair and just to both sides, not just imposed by the stronger partner on to the weaker one.
Shabat shalom.
Shabbat shalom, Kerry and everybody else!
Kerry, I see some common ground emerging. We are both keen to work with what might be called “liberal opinion” among Israelis, e.g. you mention a Zionist rabbi who agrees with many of your criticisms of Israeli government policy, and you mention those dedicated Israeli groups fighting for human rights, etc. Do you really believe that a boycott would make those groups’ work easier, rather than harder? It’s interesting also re:- the security barrier, that Israel’s own Supreme Court has just ordered a re-routing of part of it after being petitioned by some Palestinian people. Where are the Supreme Courts to protect people’s rights anywhere else in the Middle East?
Re:- ‘goyim’, we have got into the semantics. I’m not anti-semantic (sorry, old joke!), but it’s a word with a troubled history. Among English Jews, it is the height of bad taste to refer to other people as “the goyim”, as it implies a casual contempt for non-Jews. Here’s Wikipedia’s take on it, for those who care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goyim
“two-state solution”
I’m never sure what to make of people suggesting this as it seems to be from the “lets just all play together nicely” school of optimistic diplomacy.
How would such a solution practically work. Two states based on the pre-67 boundaries create a Palestine split into two bits so at the very least there would have to be a right of passage across Israel between the two. The other option is to draw some new boundaries. I don’t honestly see how either of those are even vaguely a starter for getting Israeli approval.
There is also the (huge) issue about what to do about Israel settlements in what would become part of the two state Palestine.
The idea of a single Israel/Palestine with very strong constitional protections for all would be a possibility but I think the boat has long since sailed for that to be practical!
The other possibility – which maybe how the Palestinian authority is developing – would be a three state solution (Gaza/Israel/West Bank)
Who am I? You mean am I an undercover anti-boycotter of renown? No – you’re unlikely to have ever heard of or from me before, in any shape or form, but I’ve been following this boycott since 2002. Now forget about who I am and follow my thread instead.
Kerry, thank you for highlighting the disruption and damage to the fabric of Palestinian day-to-day life as a result of the wall and an extremist fringe of religious supremacists whom the Israeli government has failed to deal with.
Aggressive acts against Palestinian non-combatants must be pointed out by those who witness them, loudly, in detail, without rhetoric, and unstintingly. They speak for themselves.
Boycotting Israel, which has been boycotted since its inception, will not help Palestinians – academic boycott least of all. It will hurt Jews.
You mention Anata. In 2007 the IDF and border police, reported to have been harassing civilians there for 2 years allegedly (I have to use ‘allegedly’ because they have not been convicted) inexpicably opened fire on a group of children and killed 10 year old Abir Aramin. Nobody was prosecuted. Rather than fomenting boycott, a Palestinian-Israeli group called Combatants for Peace was formed to bring those responsible to justice. Abir’s father, a co-founder, said “I will do all I can to protect her friends, both Palestinian and Israeli. They are all our children.” Hywel, I think that’s an example of what you (mildly, OK) disparage as “lets just all play together nicely” approach? Would you tell him to his face that he’s barking up the wrong tree? Because this is what an international boycott effectively does.
Thomas, I’ve never called anybody ‘self-hating’ in my life – don’t understand your point there.
What is one to make of the following?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6985808.stm
Answers, please.
Re:- BBC’s story about Russian neo-Nazis in Israel, I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. These people have gone to Israel on the basis of having a Jewish heritage, but have carried with them the Jew-hatred of the Russian Far Right. I suggest that they go back to Russia and see what sort of welcome they get, as Jews, from the real neo-Nazis. Actually, very sad, indeed pathetic.
I agree that a two-state solution will be hard to achieve, but what is the alternative? More bloodshed, more hatred, more fear? We all have to go on trying to bring about a two-state solution, involving painful compromises by both sides.
EDITOR’S NOTE: I’ve actively moderated some messages in this thread which breached this site’s privacy policy.
Though LDV does not encourage the use of pseudonyms by readers, they are inevitable, and can sometimes make for more honest and informal debate than would otherwise be possible, especially if the poster has a public role. Unless and until anything defamatory is posted under a pseudonym, the writer’s wishes should be respected.
If you feel something defamatory has been posted, please contact me or another member of the LDV team asap. Contact details here: https://www.libdemvoice.org/the-liberal-democrat-voice-team/
I believe an academic boycott of Isreal is counter-productive and I will support the motion at the Liberal Democrat conference.
However I do despair at what the Isreali government would appear to have in store for the Palestinian people who have been forced to be refugees in their own land. The repression is set to get worse and worse year after year.
I think the Liberal Democrats should consider a policy of applying economic sanctions against Isreal, and should certainly not sell arms to that country.
“I suggest that they go back to Russia and see what sort of welcome they get, as Jews, from the real neo-Nazis.”
I wonder, too, what kind of welcome neo-Nazis, real or otherwise, will get from Russians, considering that the real Nazis killed up to 25 million of their fellow countrymen (citizens of the former Soviet Union, that is).
Geoffrey your sentiments are in tune with those of us who would wish. however naively, to change the hearts of the hawks in Israel. However, do you not think your stance is morally contrdictory?
Economic sanctions will hurt only those who are poor anyway, and 38% of Israeli families subsist below the official povery line.
Economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein hurt not him but the poorest in Iraq.
No, moral and ethical sanctions sting most. That is why (may I classify them as pro-Zionist?) certain groups have gone to a great deal of international expense in PR terms (international because Google is international) to place ads on Google and construct web-sites and mount resource-hungry campaigns, to combat the academic boycot.
This huge effort tells most of us that this kind of boycott would really hurt and is to be smashed at all costs.
The whole idea behind the academic boycott is as a humanitarian, liberal and democratic-driven response of the methods of occupation – which you yourself Geoffrey say make you despair.
As a previous poster has said, we have tried talking and appealing and our words and our Government’s, fall on deaf Knesset ears – they are not interested.
But hint at an action that would really up the PR ante, and suddenly the metaphorical feathers are bristling. One has to ask why.
The notion of a boycott clearly rattles the opinion formers in Israel and in BICOM and EFI which tells us we have touched a nerve.
Will we now find the moral nerve and courage at Conference to stop fudging and trying to appease all sides, nail our colours to the mast and ask our Government, the EU and the Quartet, through effective PR and advocacy, to force the Knesset to honour the obligations it made at Oslo, Madrid before that, and Camp David and so on?
Or do we muddle along as before, wringing our hands whilst innocents on both sides are shot, bombed, assassinated, killed in crossfire or blown up as ‘colateral damage’?
“I wonder, too, what kind of welcome neo-Nazis, real or otherwise, will get from Russians, considering that the real Nazis killed up to 25 million of their fellow countrymen”
There is a growing neo-Nazi movement in Russia with WWII apparently now being covered as a nationalistic struggle to defend the motherland rather than opposition to Nazism
Geoff Payne has said something very important. He has strongly criticised Israel (which is his right, of course, as with criticising any other country), while still opposing the academic boycott. In other words, he has drawn a distinction between two separate issues: academic freedom, on the one hand, and Israel’s policies, on the other.
I disagree with those calling for economic sanctions, etc. Come and join the debate at this fringe meeting:
The way forward to peace
Speakers: Michael Moore MP; the Deputy Israeli Ambassador. An opportunity for an update on the quest for peace and a secure two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians. Wine and light refreshments.
18.15 – 19.30 Tuesday
Thistle Hotel, Renaissance North