Israelis react with fury to British boycott call

[bemildred]

Israeli scientists and officials reacted angrily yesterday to calls by more than 400 British academics for the Science Museum to cancel educational workshops planned to promote Israeli science tomorrow.

The cancellation call and claims that Israeli universities are "complicit" in the occupation of Palestinian territories and this year's "disastrous" offensive in Gaza, reported in The Independent yesterday, were condemned as "absurd" by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Its spokesman, Yigal Palmor, said: "These calls cannot but be motivated by extreme blindness and silly ideology. This of course does not promote the good causes which the boycotters are presumed to promote – not peace, understanding, nor compromise."

The British academics, among them 40 professors, include many of those behind the eventually unsuccessful campaign to impose a full-scale boycott of Israeli academics. The "educational seminars" – in Manchester yesterday and at the Science Museum in London tomorrow – are being run by the UK Zionist Federation.

Yivsam Azgad, a spokesman for Israel's Weizmann Institute, said: "We don't believe that science and politics should be combined. Period." Dan Zaslavsky, professor of hydrology at the Technion-Israel Institute in Haifa and one of Israel's leading energy experts, said: "It's ugly and it is 100 per cent certain that this will hurt British science in the long run if the largest group don't stand up and reject this repulsive stance." Professor Zaslavsky said academics who thought good would come out of boycotts and protests of this kind were "distorted in their minds".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/israelis-react-with-fury-to-british-boycott-call-1636842.html

[number6]

1. I support the ...

400 British academics

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Leaving the issue of Occupation aside. Israel has bombed Palestinan Universities.

Here is a comment posted in response to The Independent's article:

Why we should boycott Israel
warey74 wrote:

Wednesday, 4 March 2009 at 01:19 am (UTC)

Leaving the issue of Occupation aside. Israel has bombed Palestinan Universities. For the last 20 years it has systematically banished Palestian academics from Palestine , as well as politicians and leaders . Palestians have had to undergo tremendous hardship in studying due to Israeli illegal blockades, preventing equipment to the Universities. Israel has bombed and fired upon schools, and has consistently for the last 30 years barred Palestian academics from travelling.
In addition israelis have used their academic freedom to develop scientific and military equipment that has been used to further the illegal occupation, advance colonization, human rights abuses and war crimes.

And add to this that Britain gives unconditional support to Israel. It must be Britain where we cut ties.

When Israel implements the 60 or so UN resolution that it openly flouts, gives up its leaders to face war crimes tribunals, Leaves all of the occupied land, which includes borders, air space, and trade for the land they currently occupy. Then their should be NO ties with Israel. Academically, Financially, Military of Socially.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/israelis-react-with-fury-to-british-boycott-call-1636842.html

[henank]

9. The Arabs bombed Israeli universities too

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/university-suicide-bomb-kills-six-749761.html

So who are we going to boycott now?

[Violet_Crumble]

21. 'The Arabs'? I take it you wouldn't have any issues if someone refers to 'the Jews' ?

Instead of saying that Israel has attacked Palestinian universities, how about we all start saying 'the Jews have attacked Palestinian universities'? Don't know about you but I'd find that every bit as bigoted sounding as you referring to whoever was responsible for that bombing as 'the Arabs'...

[shira]

4. singling out Israel as the worst and most deserving nation worthy of boycotts

will help the peace movement in Israel, how? It won't. It will only alienate them. The Israeli peace movement isn't calling for such a boycott.

In fact, a boycott singling out Israel will only help the Israeli right, who already feels Israel is alienated due to antisemitism, and shift Israeli opinion even more to the right, because this will only justify their claims. Are these British academics THAT blind and clueless?

Those who hold Israeli academics accountable for the actions of their state, in a way that it does not hold any other academics accountable for actions in their countries, can't even give one good reason WHY Israeli academics must be singled out.

This boycott will only appear as racist anti-semitism, no better than cries of "genocide", "warsaw ghetto", and "holocaust" - hysterical and irrational demonization that isn't even deserving of a response. And how does this help keep the focus on legitimate and measured criticism of Israel? It doesn't. It's a distraction. It's the start of an irrational and hysterical antisemitic movement, irregardless of the motivation behind it. It will only feed true antisemites who will eagerly join in to help demonize and alienate Israel. Who would actually be surprised to find many real antisemites join in this movement?

It's lousy racist policy and is in effect, even if not in intent antisemitic, because it singles out Israel to the exclusion of countries far worse.

[IndianaGreen]

5. The main issue is to break up the undue influence that Israel has on US foreign policy

the rest is a collateral issue. Having an ultra-right wing government in Israel that is at odds with the Obama Administration will be just peachy in accomplishing such a goal. No wonder Kadima and Labour will sit in opposition waiting for Bibi/Lieberman/Shas to self-destruct.

New elections in two years!

[Shaktimaan]

12. exactly what influence does israel have over the US in the first place?

[IndianaGreen]

20. NYT: Olmert Says He Made Rice Change Vote

I will point out that Ehud Olmert was criticized by the likes of ADL's Abe Foxman for saying aloud what a lot of people already knew, Israel is the tail that wags the American dog. This event was posted and hotly debated in DU back in January.

Olmert Says He Made Rice Change Vote

By MARK LANDLER
Published: January 12, 2009

WASHINGTON — In an unusually public rebuke, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel said Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had been forced to abstain from a United Nations resolution on Gaza that she helped draft, after Mr. Olmert placed a phone call to President Bush.

“I said, ‘Get me President Bush on the phone,’ ” Mr. Olmert said in a speech in the southern Israeli city of Ashkelon, according to The Associated Press. “They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in Philadelphia. I said I didn’t care: ‘I need to talk to him now,’ ” Mr. Olmert continued. “He got off the podium and spoke to me.”

Israel opposed the resolution, which called for a halt to the fighting in Gaza, because the government said it did not provide for Israel’s security. It passed 14 to 0, with the United States abstaining.

Mr. Olmert claimed that once he made his case to Mr. Bush, the president called Ms. Rice and told her to abstain. “She was left pretty embarrassed,” Mr. Olmert said, according to The A.P.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/washington/13olmert.html

[Shaktimaan]

28. That's all?

First of all...

The State Department disputed Mr. Olmert’s account. “Her recommendation was to abstain; that was her recommendation all along,” said an official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the matter.

Next, this is a UN vote pertaining specifically to Israel. It has exactly zero impact on anything whatsoever. It's hardly what I would call the Israeli tail wagging the dog. And it certainly doesn't indicate policy shifts of any kind on America's part.

Now I can list a whole mess of Israeli policies that were severely influenced by US influence... big issues too. Important ones that caused a lot of controversy in Israel. Ones that had large, direct effects on their country. But I'm having a lot of trouble coming up with any examples of Israel having any kind of similar influence on the US. I can think of plenty of those if you need some examples of what "influence" looks like.

Get real. America has enormous influence over Israel. Israel has pretty much none over America. If you disagree then give me an actual example of something that has even a tiny bit of substance behind it.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Firstly it doesn't (the other way round if you ask me)....

and secondly, even if it did, how would a *British academic* boycott addresss that?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. "Worst" and "most worth boycotting" are not the same thing.

Israel is unquestionably nowhere near the worst-governed nation out there.

It is, however, one of the ones most worth boycotting, because boycotts will have more effect on it than on most other nations behaving as badly or worse.

That said, academic boycotts are not a sensible form of pressure.

[iconicgnom]

6. It is YOU who introduce a strictly racist element to the action.

And this is because YOU have a strictly racist view of the country, Israel, such that criticism of Israel = criticism of a race.

[Shaktimaan]

11. first of all, Judaism is not a race...

but isn't it a fair question to ask why Israel alone has been singled out for a boycott of this nature? I mean really... England boycotting Israel on an ethical claim? That makes as much sense as America boycotting France for the same reason.

Secondly, there is a difference between legitimate criticism of a nation's policies and discrimination against its citizens.

[azurnoir]

14. Such a double standard

when when of the Pro Palestinian or do you prefer anti Israel people call Jews a race your are quick to correct yet one of your cohorts repeatedly gets a free pass, why is that?

[Shaktimaan]

29. my cohorts?

Let me make this as clear as possible. Judaism is not a race, regardless of who tries to say otherwise.

If I haven't corrected any of my "cohorts" it would be because I haven't seen any of them make this kind of mistake.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. It's been pointed out several times already, but England isn't boycotting Israel...

When things happen on an international level, they become sanctions. But saying a boycott like this is England boycotting Israel is like the current union boycott of Pacific Brands over the ethical claim that sacking local workers during an economic downturn and shifting those jobs offshore is wrong, is actually Australia doing the boycotting. And for the record, I totally support that boycott and hope with the involvement of extremely powerful unions that Pacific Brands will be brought to its knees. Yeah, thanks to reading posts from Americans opposing any form of boycott against Israel for its policies towards the Palestinians, I know I'm a hypocrite coz after all, other companies in the past have done similar things and there was no widespread boycott and we are after all discriminating against executives who have massive paypackets, so I'm trying to round up some of those *Israel Can Never Be Criticised* types to put their money where their mouths are so they can fire off outraged emails to the ACTU calling them hypocrites for singling out Pacific Brands ;)

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/actu-launches-action-to-save-jobs-20090303-8n69.html

[LeftishBrit]

10. (sigh) Britain is NOT boycotting Israel, let alone purging Jewish academics

There is a small group of activists who keep recommending a boycott of Israel, but it is not going to happen. And, at the risk of coming across as an elitist intellectual snob, most of the serious activists in the matter are not from the 'great universities' but from rather obscure ones, that do not emphasize serious research. The Russell Group of research-intensive universities came out overwhelmingly against a boycott.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Hypocritical bigots. But, as per usual, it is to be expected.

[LeftishBrit]

8. A small number of noisy but unrepresentative people

It's usually the same small group every time. And then people abroad represent it as ALL British academics. Some pro-Israel people abroad have just as inaccurate a view of Britain as the extreme anti-Zionists do of Israel.

Britain is not boycotting Israel, nor will it, nor should it (apart from all else, it would be most hypocritical, given our role in Iraq).

[azurnoir]

15. What do you suggest then?

Diplomacy does not work, as has been shown repeatedly as Israel will sign an agreement and then do whatever it pleases, violent resistance is out, nonviolent resistance is met with round ups and violence, boycotts are a means of non violent resistance and one that will not wind up with more Palestinians in the hands of Shabak

[LeftishBrit]

17. Using military aid as a carrot/stick and withdrawing it if misused

That's something that would actually probably work.

I actually do support divestment from companies involved in funding the Occupation as such. But I do not support academic/cultural boycotts.

I also support active funding of Palestinian education programmes and universities.

And as for the British academics, this may be a bit isolationist of me, but I would support them paying a bit more attention to what's going on at home and in their own domain, i.e. successive governments messing up school and university education!

[azurnoir]

19. Using military aid as a carrot /stick

and withdrawing that aid if misused sounds good on the surface but define misuse, according to the letter of international law Israel has not misused the military aid given to it, not even in Gaza

[Shaktimaan]

41. Do what Bush Sr. did.

Decide on a policy you want Israel to follow re: the settlements or occupation and threaten to withhold aid or political support if Israel deviates from it. It works. Remember when Bush insisted that Israel freeze all settlement construction in the OPT or else he'd refuse to sign off as a guarator on the loans Israel needed to finance the huge Russian immigrant influx it was dealing with?

Shamir refused but that helped lead to Likud's downfall and Rabin's ascendancy. Rabin ordered a settlement freeze and Bush signed off on the loans.

It's not rocket science.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Looks like they were just as noisy as unrepresentative when it came to South Africa...

All the same excuses were used back then by those who opposed boycotting South Africa, and now, like then, they come across as pretty weak. And, no, boycotting on an international level from the British govt would definately not be hypocritical. I'm not sure what other countries the UK has sanctions against at the moment, but using that argument, you'd have to say that all those boycotts are most hypocritical, which of course they're not...

Anyway, sorry about using Wiki, which I think is generally a load of crap, but here's some information on the British academic boycott of South Africa...

The Academic boycotts of South Africa were a series of boycotts of South African academic institutions and scholars initiated in the 1960s, at the request of the African National Congress, with the goal of using such international pressure to force the end South Africa's system of apartheid. The academic boycotts were part of a larger international campaign of "isolation" that eventually included political, economic, cultural and sports boycotts. The academic boycotts ended in 1990 when its stated goal of ending apartheid was achieved. <1>

During apartheid era, the academic boycotts were debated within anti-apartheid circles as to whether they were ethically justified and appropriate.<1> Other critics of the boycott were various conservative groups worldwide who "disliked such anti-apartheid initiatives", and campus libertarians who "perceived a loss of academic freedom".<2>

Subsequent research in the post-apartheid area has claimed that the academic boycotts were more a "symbolic gesture of support" for anti-apartheid efforts rather than a direct influencer of the situation.<1> Additionally, the academic boycott was perceived by the targets of the boycott, South Africa scholars, as unjust and discriminatory.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_boycotts_of_South_Africa

[LeftishBrit]

40. They may have been as noisy but much less unrepresentative

As a member of the British academics' union (UCU), I can see that it's generally the same small group each time.

In the 1960s, we were not engaged in an illegal war and occupation, and we were not boycotting South Africa for doing the same sort of thing that we were doing.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

13. This movement is only GAINING MOMENTUM! Woo hoo!!!

[cali]

16. except that it's not

and cheerleading doesn't make it so. there has been no widepread increase in boycotting Israel, and the intellectual boycott almost certainly won't come to pass.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

24. Really? I think you'd better check again!

[Vegasaurus]

25. Some little no name colleges don't mean a thing

Who cares what they boycott?

Let's see an influential group boycott and then we can think there is any momentum.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

26. The same "no name" college that kicked off the anti-apartheid movement that brought down that system

in South Africa.

Whatever it takes to assuage your growing alarm.

They're no longer drinking the Kool Aid Veggie... a revolutionary thought indeed!

[shira]

27. are you thinking Hampshire College?

The same college that Dershowitz and the ADL now praise?

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/02/24/1003239/dershowitz-foxman-praise-hampshire-college

Is that the momentum you're all giddy about?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

30. The tide is turning. I can *hear* the sinking feeling in your gut.

[Shaktimaan]

31. Turning in which direction though?

Israel has been the focus of an Arab League boycott for decades now, which imposed real consequences on companies that chose to do business with Israel. Despite this boycott, (which actually had some teeth to it), Israel managed to survive, and then begin to thrive. And slowly, some of the stricter facets of the boycott ceased to be enforced, some states began dropping out of it altogether, and as time goes on its effect on Israel became less and less significant.

Of course, Israel never really had the option of getting that boycott lifted. It was imposed against Israel because Israel existed... not because of any specific policy it had. Regardless, at this point in time the official boycott against Israel is at its weakest point ever. And moving forward it seems that states who insist on sticking with it will end up hurting themselves at least as much as Israel by removing themselves from participating in the global marketplace.

So now there's this new boycott concept, which like its former counterpart lacks any mechanism to allow Israel to relieve themselves of it. It isn't really organized in any way, nor does it make much sense in terms of the politics of the situation. Luckily though, so far only a few hundred people seem to be backing it. Stgill, I think it's a good trade off... the gradual loosening of the original boycott which actually had severe repercussions and the rise of this new, totally inconsequential boycott, which isn't really organized, no one seems to be participating in and has no adverse effects.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

33. LOL! Denial is a river in Egypt. Israel will go the path of White South Africa.

[Shaktimaan]

32. For some insight into the sort of people who support this boycott...

check out the comments after the OP in the independent. Here's a sample:

Whilst the Zionists feel (in their minds) that they are the rulers of the world - they can carry on with their mischief around the world - in both visible and invisible manner (to the mases). But they should not count on ruling the world forever. All rulers come and go.

I like this next one for its use of the term "Zionist science" used right alongside mention of the Nazis. I wonder if he noticed the unintentional irony there. (OK, no I don't... he obviously doesn't know the meaning of the word.)

The use of the term "Jew" by Zionists is a disgraceful distortion. This academic boycott of Zionist science is as justified as a boycott of Nazi science would be.

and my personal favorite so far, winning the virtual prize for lack of coherence goes to this mothball-sucker...

Israel keeps bringing up the subject of their true democracy in the Middle East and their unblemished human rights. Democracy for white Jews and human rights for white Jews really doesn't make you that much better than the Arab world, Iran and Afghanistan. When you put yourself on the pedestal for being whiter than white, make sure it is in front of people less than 5 years old. You are all practically as bad as each other.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

34. Plenty of racist whackos support Zionism; does it diminish the cause for you?

[Vegasaurus]

36. Most of the American congress, and the president

support Zionism.

Are they racist whackos too?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

37. Do you ever actually read the chain of posts you insert yourself in the middle of? nt

[Violet_Crumble]

38. Read post #32. It really helps to read the thread before replying to a post n/t

[Shaktimaan]

42. Good point. np

[ProgressiveMuslim]

35. Naomi Klein: Enough. It's time for a boycott

The best way to end the bloody occupation is to target Israel with the kind of movement that ended apartheid in South Africa
Comments (…)


Naomi Klein
The Guardian, Saturday 10 January 2009
Article history
It's time. Long past time. The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa. In July 2005 a huge coalition of Palestinian groups laid out plans to do just that. They called on "people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era". The campaign Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions was born.

Every day that Israel pounds Gaza brings more converts to the BDS cause - even among Israeli Jews. In the midst of the assault roughly 500 Israelis, dozens of them well-known artists and scholars, sent a letter to foreign ambassadors in Israel. It calls for "the adoption of immediate restrictive measures and sanctions" and draws a clear parallel with the anti-apartheid struggle. "The boycott on South Africa was effective, but Israel is handled with kid gloves ... This international backing must stop."

Yet even in the face of these clear calls, many of us still can't go there. The reasons are complex, emotional and understandable. But they simply aren't good enough. Economic sanctions are the most effective tool in the non-violent arsenal: surrendering them verges on active complicity. Here are the top four objections to the BDS strategy, followed by counter-arguments.

Punitive measures will alienate rather than persuade Israelis.

The world has tried what used to be called "constructive engagement". It has failed utterly. Since 2006 Israel has been steadily escalating its criminality: expanding settlements, launching an outrageous war against Lebanon, and imposing collective punishment on Gaza through the brutal blockade. Despite this escalation, Israel has not faced punitive measures - quite the opposite. The weapons and $3bn in annual aid the US sends Israel are only the beginning. Throughout this key period, Israel has enjoyed a dramatic improvement in its diplomatic, cultural and trade relations with a variety of other allies. For instance, in 2007 Israel became the first country outside Latin America to sign a free-trade deal with the Mercosur bloc. In the first nine months of 2008, Israeli exports to Canada went up 45%. A new deal with the EU is set to double Israel's exports of processed food. And in December European ministers "upgraded" the EU-Israel association agreement, a reward long sought by Jerusalem.

It is in this context that Israeli leaders started their latest war: confident they would face no meaningful costs. It is remarkable that over seven days of wartime trading, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange's flagship index actually went up 10.7%. When carrots don't work, sticks are needed.

Israel is not South Africa.

Of course it isn't. The relevance of the South African model is that it proves BDS tactics can be effective when weaker measures (protests, petitions, backroom lobbying) fail. And there are deeply distressing echoes of apartheid in the occupied territories: the colour-coded IDs and travel permits, the bulldozed homes and forced displacement, the settler-only roads. Ronnie Kasrils, a prominent South African politician, said the architecture of segregation he saw in the West Bank and Gaza was "infinitely worse than apartheid". That was in 2007, before Israel began its full-scale war against the open-air prison that is Gaza.

Read on!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/10/naomi-klein-boycott-israel