Moves are afoot to get the AUT decision for a partial boycott of Israeli institutions reversed, and for local associations — including my own — to repudiate and refuse to implement the national decision. So far, I haven’t met a single British academic who will admit to supporting the decision which was passed by a very narrow majority after a rushed and unsatisfactory debate by delegates who had mostly failed to discuss the issues with their colleagues in universities across the country. Sadly, but understandably, their vote has been interpreted as being indicative of the attitudes of British university teachers. I hope that impression can be correctly quickly. Meanwhile, a blog called “Engage”:http://www.liberoblog.com/ has been started around the campaign to reverse the decision.
{ 31 comments }
rob 04.27.05 at 4:36 pm
I read a quote from somewhere yesterday (maybe someone can provide a link) about how this may have come about: under-attended AUT meetings, easy dominance by small and unrepresentative single-issue groups; and it has to be remembered that it’s not just university lecturers who are members of the AUT, there are all kinds and gradations of non-academic staff. That isn’t to say their opinions aren’t valid, just that it shouldn’t be taken as representative of “academic opinion.”
Who else are they gonna boycott, I wonder? Themselves because of the Iraq war?
Mill 04.27.05 at 4:55 pm
Don’t you think it’s a bit worrying that the “union” can pass measures that no-one you know agrees with in the first place? It’s great that there are also processes for reversing things like this, and that they’re being utilised… but surely this is exactly the kind of thing that gives unions a bad reputation and makes it harder for unions that actually ARE honest and representative to get the respect they deserve.
Louis Proyect 04.27.05 at 5:17 pm
Gush Shalom letter to Bar Ilan University
Hebrew original attached äî÷åø äòáøé îöåøó
Tel-Aviv, April 26, 2005
To Professor Moshe Kaveh
President
Bar Ilan University
Dear Sir
In various media interviews today you expressed anger at the decision of British university lecturers to declare a boycott against the Bar-Ilan University, calling it “an unacceptable mixing of politics into academic life”. When asked about the “Judea and Samaria College” which your university maintains at the settlement of Ariel, you stated that this was
“an entirely non-political issue” and that said college was nothing more than “the largest of five colleges which Bar Ilan maintains at different locations in Israel”. Indeed, you declared yourself and your colleagues to
be proud of the decision to establish the Ariel college, and you felt no contradiction between continuing to maintain that college, at the
investment of a considerable part of Bar Ilan’s total resources, and the maintenance of extensive ties with universities worldwide, including in Britain.
As an example you mentioned your own ties as a physicist with Cambridge University and your plans to spend some time at Cambridge this summer – plans which, as you stated, remain unchanged also in the wake of the British lecturers’ decision.
Surely, a person of your intelligence and experience can be expected to note the obvious contradictions in the above position. As you well know, Ariel is not “a location in Israel”. Rather, Ariel is a location in a territory under military occupation, a territory which is not and has never been part of the state of Israel. Moreover, Ariel is a special kind of location: it is an armed enclave, created by armed force and dependent for its continued existence on force, and force alone.
The creation of Ariel is a severe violation of international law, specifically of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which specifically forbids an
occupying power from transferring and settling its own citizens in the occupied territory. On the ground, the creation and maintenance of Ariel entailed and continues to entail untold hardships to the Palestinians who happen to live in the nearby town of Salfit and in numerous villages a long distance all around. Palestinian inhabitants are exposed to ongoing confiscation of their land so as to feed the land hunger of the ever-expending Ariel settlement, and their daily life are subjected to increasingly stringent travel limitations in the name of “preserving the settlers’ security”.
The government-approved plans to extend the “Separation Fence” so as to create a corridor linking Ariel to the Israeli border necessitate the confiscation of yet more vast tracts of Palestinian land, depriving
thousands of villagers of their sole source of livelihood. Moreover, should the Ariel corridor be completed, it would cut deeply through the territory which the international community earmarked for creation of a Palestinian
state, depriving that state of territorial continuity and viability. For that reason, the plan aroused widespread international opposition, not least from the United States, our main ally on the international arena.
In all of this the Bar Ilan University, of which you are president, made itself a major partner – indeed,since a violation of international law is
involved, the term “accomplice” may well be used. The “Judea and Samaria College” which you and your colleagues established and nurtured has a central role in the settlement of Ariel, increasing its population and its economic clout. The college’s faculty and students are prime users of the “Trans-Samaria Road”, the four-lane highway which was created on confiscated Palestinian land in order to provide quick transportation to Ariel. The Palestinian villagers on whose land this highway was built are excluded from using it. They are relegated to a rugged, bumpy mountain trail.
It is you and your colleagues, Professor Kaveh, who started mixing academics with politics. A very heavy mixture, such as few universities
anywhere ever engaged in. You cannot really complain when people in Britain, who have different standards for what is the proper moral behavior of academics (or for human beings in general) take action which you do not
like. In fact, if you are truly proud of establishing and maintaining the “Judea and Samaria College”, you must have the courage of your convictions and take the consequences. Much better, of course, would be for you and
your colleagues to sever your connection with the ill-conceived settlement project – and than you can quite rightly demand that the boycott be removed from your university.
Yours
Uri Avnery
Gush Shalom (The Israeli Peace Bloc)
Chris 04.27.05 at 6:20 pm
Louis,
Thanks for posting this. If a boycott of Bar Ilan had been declared on this specific issue, in isolation from a more general campaign, I would have been sympathetic (though whether this would have been politically expedient is another question). As it it, this is just one part of the AUT boycott, which also encompasses Haifa. Moreover, the boycott is advanced by its proponents as the “first step” to a more comprehensive one. I don’t want to take a “first step” without a clear idea of what the next steps are going to be.
Apart from the substantive issues, there are also procedural ones. No proper debate on this question was held, even in the AUT Council. Certainly the membership was not properly informed or consulted before this measure was taken, and yet we’re suppose to accept and implement it! Well not me.
Mill 04.27.05 at 6:45 pm
So, again, Chris, I’m genuinly curious about how the AUT can claim to have any legitimacy if it doesn’t accurately represent the views or priorities of its members. Or, put more positively, what are the members planning to do to fix the AUT so that the people at the top can’t pull stunts like this any more?
I’m not trolling, I’m not an anti-unionist. I belong to one myself. If anything, it’s my pro-union stance that makes me cranky when unions do stupid things that are against their members’ wishes and interests.
Mill 04.27.05 at 6:49 pm
P.S. the Engage campaign to reverse that one specific decision is a great example of how unions SHOULD work, but it seems rather narrowly focused on one specific issue rather than fixing the fundamental problems that allowed that issue to arise. Is what I mean.
Michael Otsuka 04.27.05 at 7:11 pm
After the boycott vote, I received an email from my local AUT representative which I reproduce in part:
_WHY WAS THE CALL FOR A SPECIFIC BOYCOTT SUPPORTED?_
_Initial reports back from Council representatives indicate that the reasons why the two calls for specific boycotts were supported were as follows:_
_i) because in both cases [Haifa and Bar Ilan] the evidence was believed to be compelling and a boycott was considered to be a measured response …_
_…the Haifa boycott is justified by the systematic attack on the academic freedom of Professor Ilan Pappe and colleagues who have associated with him. Pappe has been a target of systematic victimisation for many years because he specialises in a rather contested area of Israeli history, namely the creation of the Israeli state. See http://www.zmag.org/content/Mideast/pappecase.cfm_
I replied to this email as follows:
_Will you please post, on your UCLAUT web site, the “compelling” evidence presented to the Council with respect to the case against Haifa? I am absolutely astonished that the only evidence you present [in your email] is a link to Ilan Pappe’s own assertion that his academic freedom has been systematically violated. It is my understanding that a large number of academics who are highly familiar with the facts of the Pappe case would vigorously deny that the University of Haifa has violated his academic freedom. These include people who have an impeccable record of defending academic freedom and who are strongly opposed to Sharon’s policies with respect to Palestinians. So would you please also post the independent verification of Pappe’s claims which must have informed the Council’s vote?_
Needless to say, I have not received a reply to this email. Last I checked, they haven’t posted any “compelling evidence” on their web page. Pathetic and disgusting.
vivian 04.27.05 at 7:23 pm
The last time there was a call in UK universities for boycotting Israeli colleagues, there were some pretty high-profile senior names attached to the boycott. I gather that this AUT action is unrelated, but if you could add some context for your underinformed cross-puddle colleagues, I’d be pleased. What (if anything) linked the two calls, what other unions are out there, what is the mood like in universities there, what input from Palestinian colleagues, etc. etc.
Yuval Rubinstein 04.27.05 at 8:14 pm
Chris Brooke has been dutifully covering the latest developments throughout the past few days. Although I completely disagree with the AUT decision, Chris’s posting of a letter from Avraham Oz of Haifa University is absolutely fascinating. Oz offers a disturbing account of the pressure within Israeli academia to be “patriotic” at all costs. Here’s an excerpt:
Instead of boycotting these Israeli universities, perhaps the AUT would be better advised to redirect its energies toward speaking up on behalf of embattled Israeli academics who have seen both their professional and personal lives turned upside down for their perceived disloyalty.
Cryptic Ned 04.27.05 at 8:14 pm
If they don’t represent UK professors, who do they represent? Is there an organization that actually does represent UK professors?
Sorry, but I still don’t understand how this action could have taken place in a situation where nearly all UK professors are opposed to it. Did they vote in the middle of the night on New Year’s Eve or something?
wbb 04.27.05 at 10:03 pm
Forgetting the arcana of union voting procedures, what is worth discussing is whether a boycott or something more finely tuned is the best method to let the Israeli ultra-nationalists know that they cannot expect to have it all their own way when it comes to crushing internal dissent.
An open and liberal Israel is an international issue of very high order.
Chris 04.28.05 at 1:10 am
Did they vote in the middle of the night on New Year’s Eve or something?
Not exactly, but not far off either. The debate was curtailed, ostensibly on grounds of time, and only one side was allowed to put its case. From the Engage site:
Dave Fried 04.28.05 at 2:27 am
I don’t find the rather long arguments in favor of the boycott very fair.
First, the legitimacy of the Ariel settlement is a separate issue from the existence of Judea and Samaria College. While establishing a branch of a university on foreign soil is certainly unusual, I can’t see how it is inherently wrong. To me, educators are like doctors – they should go where they are in demand, regardless of the political situation.
Second, the climate WRT teaching particular political viewpoints in Israeli universities is completely irrelevant to many (if not most) of the academic professionals at those universities. Among these are faculty in the sciences, math, art, music, engineering, architecture, etc. The fact is that the boycott will directly affect many people whose only crime is happening to be an Israeli citizen teaching in Israel.
Andrew Boucher 04.28.05 at 6:00 am
Not knowing much about the facts in this case, but if indeed there is a branch of an Israeli universtity located in part of the Occupied Territories, it does seem to be legitimate to institute a boycott of those professors who have physically taught in that branch.
abb1 04.28.05 at 6:21 am
The fact is that the boycott will directly affect many people whose only crime is happening to be an Israeli citizen teaching in Israel.
If this were the criterion, then no boycott would be justified. You boycott Coca-Cola – people whose only crime is happening to be employees of Coca-Cola company will (if you succeed) lose their jobs and suffer. So, if you’re against all boycotts – it’s one thing, but this is not a good argument against some boycotts.
sharon 04.28.05 at 9:43 am
Or, put more positively, what are the members planning to do to fix the AUT so that the people at the top can’t pull stunts like this any more?
To put the record straight here, it wasn’t the “people at the top” who pulled the stunt. The AUT executive did not propose or support the motions proposing calls for boycotts (its recommendations, though you can no longer see them , were that they should be referred for consideration of further evidence. Wishy-washy, but not support). The members present voted against the executive’s recommendations. The executive is certainly at fault for not ensuring a proper debate at the meeting, and it could have taken a much clearer lead, but it’s not to blame for the proposals themselves. In fact its own proposal for more communication with Israeli institutions, not less, was rejected by the members.
sharon 04.28.05 at 10:08 am
Actually, when I said ‘members’, I should have said ‘council members’. Not exactly rank-and-file, of course. Sorry about the confusion there.
Dave 04.28.05 at 10:57 am
If this were the criterion, then no boycott would be justified. You boycott Coca-Cola – people whose only crime is happening to be employees of Coca-Cola company will (if you succeed) lose their jobs and suffer.
Except that when you boycott Coca-Cola, you’re not saying that you will never do business with anyone who happens to be an employee of Coca-Cola. You’re saying that you won’t buy the product of the Coca-Cola company. The analogue here would be simply not attending the university in question.
If AUT people don’t want to go to these universities for conferences, or want to recommend their students against studying there, that’s perfectly fine. But banning Israeli professors from speaking or working with people in England is unfair and rather silly.
J. Mark English 04.28.05 at 11:13 am
What are you hoping to hear from President Bush this evening?
abb1 04.28.05 at 11:53 am
They are not banning professors, they are banning institutions; individuals are not black-listed. Same as with Coca-Cola – you don’t (normally) boycott supermarkets that sell Coca-Cola, even though they may indeed suffer.
Professors get an incentive to get a job with other universities and supermarkets get an incentive to put other drinks on the shelves, that’s the whole point.
What they are trying to say is that decent people shouldn’t deal with these institutions; all decent people, including decent people who work there.
Now, for the decent people who work there it certainly is more difficult than for others, but that’s just how it is, that’s one of the imperfection of a boycott; much bigger problem being, of course, that boycotts usually don’t work well anyway.
Jayanne 04.28.05 at 1:35 pm
>>>>
If they don’t represent UK professors, who do they represent? Is there an organization that actually does represent UK professors?
>>>>
The Aut represents teachers and “academic-related” staff in “pre 1992” universities, NATFHE represents teachers (and others?) in the “post-1992” ones. There’s no faculty-only union (or other organization), to my knowledge, anyway.
>>>>
Sorry, but I still don’t understand how this action could have taken place in a situation where nearly all UK professors are opposed to it
>>>>
I, as an AUT member, understand your surprise. I am a member of a thing called Central Branch, which doesn’t hold meetings, but even I got some kind of notice of these motions; people in campus-based branches should have been told about the motions and about local meetings where they would be discussed.
I thought the AUT Executive would succeed in, in effect, blocking these motions (Sharon’s account of their view is correct), I was really surprised to hear what happened. But, are “nearly all UK professors” opposed to this action? It’s impossible to tell.
JR 04.28.05 at 2:10 pm
The comments in this thread are beside the point, which has nothing to do with Israel or its policies. The point is that these academics are abusing their privileged position in society, provided to them under the doctrine of academic freedom, to implement their own personal views. In so doing they destroy the only rationale for independence among scholars.
Somehow the members of the AUT seem to believe that their personal political beliefs are privileged- to the point that they are permitted direct the funds of their institutions to effectuate those beliefs.
What they do not understand is that academics are privileged in what they say – unlike all other members of society, academic freedom protects them. But this freedom does not permit them to make decisions counter to the mission of their institution in order to further their own political beliefs. Once they do that, they surrender their claim to academic freedom.
A journal editor who refuses to publish an author of a disfavored nationality, even though the article would be a genuine contribution to scholarship, is no better than a purchasing agent who buys only from companies owned by his friends. Both should be fired.
If a university department head refuses to hire a historian because she is an Israeli, who could complain if the government orders that state-run institutions may not hire historians who are members of certain political parties? After all, the scholars themselves have now set the precedent that personal politics take precedence over academic worth. Don’t the AUT members understand that they are jeopardizing themselves and their universities?
SoCalJustice 04.28.05 at 2:28 pm
Even al-Quds University is against the boycott:
Al-Quds Statement sent by email to various academics:
Al-Quds University Vision on Israeli-Palestinian Scientific Research Cooperation
COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS,
ACADEMICS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF WORLD ORGANIZATIONS,
From time to time we find few groups of Palestinian people Calling for a boycott of Israeli academics and institutions, as a suggested means of generating pressure against Israel with a view to ending the injustice suffered by the Palestinian people.
As a University, we would like to put before you our own thoughts on this controversial subject, so that the point of view of “the other side†to this debate may be heard.
Our vision for the ending of injustice is predicated on a final settlement which will ensure the end of occupation which began in 1967, the creation of an independent Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital, and a real and immediate solution to the refugee tragedy. We are as cognizant of and affected by the injustices suffered by the Palestinian people as any other Palestinian group or movement.
However, being also cognizant of the political and social dynamics of our “enemyâ€, and the win-win nature of the solution we propose, we believe that it is our national duty to wage a conscious campaign which seeks to “win over†as many Israelis to our point of view as we can.
WE ARE INFORMED BY THE PRINCIPLE THAT WE SHOULD SEEK TO WIN ISRAELIS OVER TO OUR SIDE, NOT TO WIN AGAINST THEM.
Therefore, informed by this national duty, we believe it is in our interest to BUILD BRIDGES, NOT WALLS; TO REACH OUT TO THE ISRAELI ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS, NOT TO IMPOSE ANOTHER RESTRICTION OR “DIALOGUE-BLOCK†ON OURSELVES.
Our point of departure is that WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR, and RIGHT IS ON OUR SIDE. By engaging the Israeli academic community, we manage to make Israeli academics side with us against the restrictions imposed by their army on our own academic lives. We seek to win friends because Israel’s posture towards us can only be transformed from the inside.
WE PUT OUR POINT ACROSS AS WE ENGAGE: WE DO NOT REINFORCE THE BLINDNESS AND DEAFNESS THAT EXISTS BY REFUSING TO ENGAGE. We win by co-option, not by further alienation.
Furthermore, we believe that Palestinian Institutions of Higher Learning should indeed play a leading role in society. Such a role, especially in the midst of understandable Palestinian rage and anger, should be to help guide national policy and public attitudes towards employing those means which might facilitate the end of injustice, and to avoid the employment of those means which can only be of further devastating effect. We should address the moral and leadership role of our Academic Institutions in our respective civil societies, should perhaps have underpinned the claimed moral voice of Academia by addressing squarely and courageously the immorality of actions taken by either side, and condemned all actions indifferently, as a means of highlighting human values which do not know national or religious borders, and which Academics and Academic institutions should surely uphold. In sum, we do not wish Europe or the world to become an extension of the Israeli-Palestinian battle-ground: we wish that our (pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian) friends there help us end this battle by instituting peace amongst themselves, and together work towards an equitable political solution for us here as the one we propose.
The day may yet come when peace will have to be imposed, but a rational peace based on mutual interests is clearly more stable and lasting. Our aim should therefore be to rally more people behind a consensual peace. Potential costs to continued occupation and the rule of force should by all means be made clear; but the genuine desire for a just peace as well as the rule of reason should be what primarily define our approach.
Finally, we wish to thank all of you who are seeking to help end the Palestinian plight. Being committed to free speech, we welcome and appreciate all points of view. We believe ours expresses the Voice of Reason, and that of many Palestinian academics and free thinkers. A real Palestinian voice for peace, for a future of hope exists. We must CREATE that peace on every front, including that of Academia.
Al-Quds University 18th,march 2005
russkie 04.28.05 at 4:20 pm
Not knowing much about the facts in this case, but if indeed there is a branch of an Israeli universtity located in part of the Occupied Territories, it does seem to be legitimate to institute a boycott of those professors who have physically taught in that branch.
Bar-Ilan “supervises some degrees” that are offered at the “College of Judea and Samaria”. But it’s not a “branch”.
Obviously if the AUT found this disturbing they could say so to Bar-Ilan in a more conventional fashion. Blackwell and associates are just using the issue as an excuse to get a boycott going.
russkie 04.28.05 at 4:27 pm
what is worth discussing is whether a boycott or something more finely tuned is the best method to let the Israeli ultra-nationalists know that they cannot expect to have it all their own way when it comes to crushing internal dissent.
What’s worth discussing first is whether you have any clue what you are talking about.
An open and liberal Israel is an international issue of very high order.
We don’t need arrogant and uninformed people telling us what to do. Why don’t you devote yourself to reforming the UN?
Noah 04.28.05 at 6:12 pm
“We don’t need arrogant and uninformed people telling us what to do.”
I guess you’re right. Everyone STOP telling the Palestinians what they should do.
David All 04.28.05 at 6:59 pm
For all those in favor of the boycott I ask:
Are you going to boycott Chinese institutions because of the Chinese occupation of Tibet?
Are you going to boycott Turkish colleges because of the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus? (Understand that five Turkish colleges have branches in the Turkish zone of Cyprus)
Are you going to boycott Indian universities over India’s continued occupation of part of Kashmir?
Are you even going to boycott Sudan over the on-going genocide in Darfur?
Finally, do you plan to boycott yoursevles over the continued 400 hundred your old occupation of Northern Ireland by Great Britain?! Not to mention the even older occupations of Wales and Cornwall!
David Sucher 04.28.05 at 7:43 pm
Oh geez. More BS from Christians. Sorry to put it that way and be so dismissive but I view this AUT stuff is simply a hold-over of 19th century etc etc anti-Semitism. Does Israel deserve criticism? Absolutely. Should it be treated like every other nation? Of course; or you tell me why not.
When you step back and look at the big picture this whole thing is about Christian fear of Jews-with-guns.
That doesn’t give the Israelis a sign-off but gimme a braek folks, the sub-text is obvious if you just put it in perspective.
Noah 04.28.05 at 9:43 pm
“When you step back and look at the big picture this whole thing is about Christian fear of Jews-with-guns.”
No, I think it’s more a fear of Muslims-with-WMDS.
Hektor Bim 04.29.05 at 8:53 am
Actually, to the extent that Kashmir is an occupation, India, Pakistan, and China all occupy it. So one should boycott all three countries if one is upset over the occupation of Kashmir.
Eyal 05.01.05 at 5:47 am
It should also be noted that the association of Bar-Ilan with the CSJ is already slated to end at the end of the year.
Comments on this entry are closed.