Hector Bim—I just scrolled up-thread and noticed that your list of links on Chechnya had been approved. Thanks.

When I googled, all I came up with for 2004-05 was the HRW report – I see your other links are earlier. And no, this was the first time I asked you to provide links on anything.

BTW, on the issue of selectivity – this is the 8th post related to Israel in less than four weeks; 7 devoted to the AUT boycott, 1 on the Red Cross thing.

What about Sudan, Chechnya, Iran, Kashmir, and Tibet, damnit?!

Windows NT software was developed by Microsoft-Israel.

The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel.

Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

AOL’s instant message program was designed by an Israeli software company.

Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.

http://www.newsoftheday.com/israel/old/2004_05_02_index.html

I’m sure they’ll miss your business.

If you really were serious about boycotting all Israeli products, as an “IT professional,” I hope you enjoy doing your work on an abacus.

Thanks for that.

No – that’s why I said “start” your research there.

Go here:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/48cfr652_01.html

And click on Sections 652.225-70 and 652.225-71

I believe what you’re referring to is this:

625.7002(b)

(a) Section 8(a) of the U.S. Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. 2407(a)), prohibits compliance by U.S. persons with any boycott fostered by a foreign country against a country which is friendly to the United States and which is not itself the object of any form of boycott pursuant to United States law or regulation. The Boycott of Israel by Arab League countries is such a boycott, and therefore, the following actions, if taken with intent to comply with, further, or support the Arab League Boycott of Israel, are prohibited activities under the Export Administration Act:

(4) Furnishing information about whether any person has, has had, or proposes to have any business relationship (including a relationship by way of sale, purchase, legal or commercial representation, shipping or other transport, insurance, investment, or supply) with or in the State of Israel, with any business concern organized under the laws of the State of Israel, with any Israeli national or resident, or with any person which is known or believed to be restricted from having any business relationship with or in Israel;

You’re allowed to do all you can to find out whether a product is Israeli made, and then, not by it. The clerk cannot help someone join in the Arab League boycott, though. If you do your own research, you’re free to do whatever you want.

Again, nothing whatsoever in there about academic boycotts.

Again, I don’t know anything about this, but your link – is this the only anti-discrimination law that exists?

That would be a bit over the top for an academic union, though.

That’s why not.

You can start your research (if you’re actually interested) here:

22 U.S.C. § 2679
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/22/chapters/38/sections/section_2679c.html

Can you find me the part of the U.S. Code that makes an academic boycott by the AAUP or any other American teachers union illegal?

That’s how assassinations work, boycotts are exactly the opposite. Boycotts are supposed to motivate the whole population (or, at least, large/important sectors of the population) of the targeted country, and only indirectly affect those responsible.

Clearly this boycott by itself is not going to change much if anything. But the hope (and fear for some) is that other groups/organizations will join and it’ll grow into something significant. It would be difficult – in the US, for example, boycotting Israel is simply illegal. But, hey, who knows. A modest step is better than nothing.

Political boycotts is an idiotic instrument to effect change. They usually harden the policy one opposes rather than change it in the desired direction. The only acceptable reason for boycott is the mental inability of the boycotter to relate to the boycottee. Sometimes it is just physically difficult to deal with a Nazi, racist, murderer, etc.

For a lot of people, obviously Jews but also many non-Jews, it is physically difficult to deal with antisemites or with members of antisemitic organizations. Since AUT boycott is universally perceived as an antisemitic act, and one can also argue logically that it is, if AUT boycott stays the members of AUT and British academia in general will be effectively boycotted by a large proportion of their colleagues, especially by US scientists. This counter-boycott will not have to be approved on an institutional level, like the AUT boycott of Israel, but will be nevertheless effectively implemented on a personal level.

Repeal the boycott and save yourselves a lot of trouble.

That’s a substantive objection, not a procedural one. You are of course correct that those opposed to the boycott (as I am) would disagree with the decision even if the debate had been scrupulously fair, and would try to overturn it through political means. However, if the procedure had been valid, I wouldn’t complain about the procedure – in that event, I’d regard the vote as a bad one but a fair one.

Compare the Simpsons line to the gradual arguments that end up labeling Sue a holocaust denier.

All right, point taken. For the record, I don’t agree with that kind of rhetorical tactic; I prefer to oppose arguments on their merits rather than on an ad hominem basis.

But for academics it is not unreasonable to target academics, whether through cooperation and discussion, or through boycotts.

I’m not entirely sure I agree with this – would it be reasonable for cleaning ladies to target cleaning ladies? It seems to me that if academics or anyone else object to the policies of a government, they should direct their objection to those responsible for the policies rather than those in a parallel position within the targeted country. As you say, there’s no simple answer to the question of who is responsible, but I think there’s a burden of proof with respect to non-governmental institutions, especially if such institutions are apolitical. If universities and/or individual academics are to be considered responsible parties, the nature of their responsibility should be clearly spelled out and supported by evidence.

I also think there’s a distinction between cooperation and discussion, which are the ordinary course of business, and extraordinary measures like boycotts. Academics can cooperate and discuss whether or not they agree on political issues, but sanctions require disagreement, and that disagreement should be with the specific people being sanctioned. I’d argue that, except in truly extraordinary cases, sanctions should be targeted at public officials, which is both a more direct form of protest and one that doesn’t sacrifice the benefits of professional cooperation.