The decision of the University and Colleges Union at its conference in May to promote a boycott of Israeli academia is a worrying development for progressives on the left.
Attempting to restrict academic freedoms is a bad idea in itself: a complete anathema to academia and all that it stands for. But anyone who knows anything about Israeli academic institutions will be struck by the particular irony and, indeed, absurdity of this motion. This boycott punishes the very section of Israeli society that is the most progressive, forward thinking, liberal and tolerant in its views on relations with the Palestinians and the Middle East Peace Process. The heart of the left wing peace camp in Israel beats from its university campuses where students and teachers alike campaign, often against their own government policies, for a two-state solution and a withdrawal to the 1967 borders.
But for those who argue that Israeli academics are not ‘peaceniks’ and seek evidence proving them complicit in government policy (and therein lies a challenge for the boycotters), the boycott is still a troubling development.
At UNSION conference last week the delegates voted for a pro boycott motion that, although stopping short of a call to action, still recommended an academic, sporting and cultural boycott against Israel. The more ferocious motion calling for a complete moratorium against Israel failed to make it onto the conference floor… this year. Although no one went so far as to question Israel’s right to exist, it was implicit in their vociferous criticism, in their rewriting of history which paints Israel as a neo-colonialist power, and in the comparison between Saddam Hussein and Ariel Sharon – both genocidal dictators, don’t you know?
Those opposed to the boycott fear, with a heavy heart, that this is a sophisticated guise for antisemitism – historically boycotts have been deployed several times as a tactic to isolate Israel and victimise Jews. This is not an accusation that should be branded about too lightly but it is the damning conclusion many reach when trying to explain the singling out of Israel as the exclusive proprietor of human rights abuses. Why wouldn’t you boycott Iran or North Korea, who incarcerate dissidents and torture those who act out against the regime; or Cuba, or the Sudan, or China, or Burma, Venezuela perhaps? The list goes on but yet the focus of our discussion is Israel and only ever Israel.
Flip the question on its head and ask why wouldn’t we actively support those elements in Israel’s democracy (and it is worth noting that this is a majority of the population) who strive for peace, who believe in two states, who push for negotiations, who make assertions to their government to improve access for Palestinians to Israeli campuses, who hate the ‘wall’ but don’t want to be blown up on a bus or café
Boycotts are no good for anyone – clearly not for Israel – but also not for Britain. They restrict our own academic and scientific innovations; undermine our academic and industrial reputation; limit our contribution to the peace process and highlight a crude misunderstanding of the nuances of the conflict. Moreover they do not help the Palestinians – academic, cultural, sporting, and industrial relations are crucial channels of communications between Israelis and Palestinians, often sustaining momentum when political developments stagnate.
In the run up to TUC conference we should all take stock and consider the consequences of TUC, which represents upwards of six million people in this country, voting for a boycott against Israel; flying in the face of efforts to move the peace process forward and finding creative and lasting solutions to the conflict. As progressives on the left we must all take some responsibility in challenging the premise on which these boycotts are based, broadening the parameters of the debate and assisting in the effort to stop the boycott.
Visit www.stoptheboycott.org to lend support to the campaign.
I agree that in this circumstance an academic boycott helps no one however, when we live in a society in which our government was unwilling to call for a ceasefire when the state of Israel took it upon itself to destroy the fledgling economy and infrastructure of a defenseless Lebanese civilian population, in a truly sickening display of malicious violence then perhaps an academic boycott is sadly all that’s left.
Rebecca writes the usual nonsense in defence of Israel and disgracefully seeks to attack anyone with who raises their voice against Israel and its continous and deliberate human rights abuses against the Palestinian people as people who are victimising Israel and being antisemitism. I am sure unlike her I have spent considerable time in Palestine and witnessed the vile occupation and abuse of Palestinian people by the state of Israel and its military forces. It is systematic, unjustified and immoral of a state that calls its self democratic to behave the way it does and as Rebecca would wish for the World to turn a blind eye. We need more than academic sanctions on Israel – I would advocate sporting, cultural and trade sanctions and on restrictions on Israeli passport holders into the EU to make Israel understand that forging peace with the Palestinians, returning to the 1967 borders, abiding by UN resolutions is in their interest. Go to Palestine and spend some time there and you will soon realise that Israel does not see peace with Palestinian as in their interest. And their constant failure to do so and make up feeble excuses as to why they have to keep expaning illegal settlements, confiscating and stealing Palestinian farmland, use check points to STOP Palestinians student from going to their place of education (especially during exam times), murdering innocent Palestinians is somehow acceptable. You can call me antisemitic if it makes you feel better but I oppose the current State of Israel and all its stands for. Why dont you come to Palestine with me and see how the occupation takes effect and systematically seeks to destroy the Palestinian people. And then lets talka about boycotts.
I whole heartedly agree with Rebecca and feel that these points needed to be made. This article points out the serious implications that this boycott will have on all parties involved in the peace process.
Many of us would love to boycott China, N Korea and other rogue states which daily inflict suffering on populations living within its borders. But at least, on the left, we call them rogue states, not democracies. We don’t pretend that they are democracies. Israel is in a different category. She is a democracy and would like to believe that it belongs to the family of western liberal democracies.What they are doing in the occupied territories is an afront to humanity.
That is the reason why there should be a debate about a boycott. Israel expects the world to treat her like a liberal democracy – the rest of the free world should expect Israel to behave like a liberal democracy
Israel’s wall is not about safety it is about a land grab with security as a by product. Its about keeping as much land whilst getting rid of the Palestinians into cantons. This is a fact – expansionist intellectuals came up with the idea in the seventies.
Boycott is a tactic, its sending out a message this is unacceptable behaviour. And no its not about boycotting individual academics but institutions which provide material support for occupation.
Its also a debate. Why is the pro-Israel lobby so scared to debate? Perhaps because it will force the pro-Israel side to confront a the fact that occupation and human rights abuse are not the acts of a free, western democracy.
Having listened to this thread on boycotts I would like to provide a balance argument commencing with identifying the underlying problems within the Middle East from its origins until the modern era. This may help identify possible solutions (with evidence)to a dual state in the Middle East, particularly focusing on CHANGE. Here goes –
The Middle East during most of the 20th Century has been widely recognised globally, as a focal point of conflict, disagreement and controversy between the doctrines and ideology of Arab nationalists, the creation and acceptance of a Jewish state and differences of opinion from select surrounding countries. Lowe, N. (1982) describes the Middle East:
‘The Arab lands stretch from North Africa through the Middle East to the shores of the Persian Gulf and northwards to the frontier with Turkey. The main Arab states are Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia. Libya, Egypt, the Sudan (about half the population are Arabs), Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The area known as the Middle East includes Egypt and all the Arab lands to the east of Egypt, as well as Turkey (non Arab) and Iran (not, strictly speaking, an Arab state, though it contains many Arabs in the area at the northern end of the Persian Gulf). The Middle East also contains the Jewish state of Israel set up in 1948.’
The British Government’s involvement in the Middle East, particularly the period around the ending of World War One, was from an Arab perspective, regarded as unwelcome interference. According to Calvocoressi, P (1996),
“Britain’s administration of the mandate over Palestine, where, in consequence of Britain’s endorsement in 1917 of the Zionist aim of a Jewish National Home (The Balfour Declaration)”.
Arguably, this laid the foundation of ill feeling and fears from both Arabs and Jews towards the British, where resentment also of each other, became increasingly inflamed. The fears that a Jewish State, non – Arab, would be created, it could be said, brought about the alienation of the British, from the majority Arab – Muslim community. From the outlook of the Jewish, Hobsbawm, E (1995) says that the British had promised ‘a national home’ for Jews, in return for their international support during the war campaign. The Balfour Declaration, November 2nd 1917 was issued in letter by the British Government to the British Zionist Federation confirming its intentions.
“Her Majesty’s Government views with Favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this subject, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing, non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by
Jews in any other country.“ Nye, J (2000)
The doctrine of Nationalisation was at the same time, promised to Arabs in exchange for allied support against the Turks. This perhaps created an unstable region, as well as a conflict of interests for the Western colonial powers, in particular Britain and
France. Britain’s ongoing quest for political dominance and economic objectives involving oil, were barriers to the independence and autonomy of Arabs, fuelling further resistance to a foreign ruler. According to Berridge, G. R, (1997) relating to sources and factors of conflicts
“ While all general theories of international conflict should thus be treated with great caution. It remains true that one or more factors to which they seek to attribute pre-eminent significance – power/security rivalry, economic competition, ideological antipathy and even racial prejudice – have indeed been predominant influences on the most important conflicts of the contemporary era”
Berridge, G.R. (1997) also states,
“the deepest conflicts are those where two or more of these factors overlap, as in the Arab- Israeli conflicts (land – the ultimate resource (oil) – and ideology)”
These factors, it could be said, epitomise the antagonisms and rivalries between all parties, within the Middle East.
In the White Paper 1939, Britain befriended the Arabs at the expense of Jewish anger, by suppressing an insurgence of Jewish settlers into Palestine. The rise of Nazism under Adolf Hitler, would have produced a large population imbalance, through rising hostility and fear caused by a wicked anti – semetic ideology, creating a scramble for exit from the European domain, hardening the resolve for a Jewish homeland. This came at a time when Britain’s thoughts would have been directed towards the preparation of war against Germany where Calvocoressi, P (1996) states,
“the imminence against a war in Germany made Britain even more sensitive to the need for Arab friendship: grand strategy, as well as oil strategy”
Political strategy, allies and unlimited oil supplies would be essential in order to confront another form of growing Nationalism in Europe, which was identified as a larger threat to global order.
The dilemma after World War Two focused upon finding a solution for a single Palestinian state. The legitimacy over land rights between Arabs and Israeli’s came to the forefront.
THE LAND
“The ongoing dispute in the Middle East between Jews and Arabs – more accurately, between Israel and Palestinians-is not a religious conflict; it is essentially a struggle over land. For Palestinians, this is their historic homeland, where they have lived for centuries. The Zionists based their claim to Palestine on the Biblical promise to Abraham and his descendants (Genisis 17:8), on the historic connection between the land of Israel and the Jewish people, and/or on the desperate need for a Jewish homeland as a haven from European anti-semitism.
Palestine is a small territory- approximately 10,000 square miles, about the size of Maryland. The competing claims to it are not reconcilable if one or the other party exercises complete sovereignty over the total territory. Partition of the land has therefore been one proposal for resolving the issue. Although few Palestinians accept the Justice of the Zionist claim in principle, many now accept the existence of Israel. But they insist that an independent Palestinian State to be created alongside Israel, in the West Bank and Gaza, in which they can exercise their right to self -determination. Israeli Jews are divided over the fate of the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinian territories which Israel occupied in 1967.”
Lockman, Z and Beinin, J (1989)
In a book by Lockman and Beinin (1989) it states
“The ongoing dispute in the Middle East between Jews and Arabs-more accurately, between Israel and the Palestinians- is not a religious conflict: it is essentially a struggle over land”
It would appear that no Arab state would accept or recognise any future Israeli state or even its right to exist, thus was causing an stalemate. Britain was unable to implement any form of administrative institution or legal system because of deep opposing differences on all sides in Palestine, unlike the outcome in other future independent colonial countries, was caught between its own imperialist agenda, weakened by the war and financially dependent on the U.S.A.
The Holocaust in the eyes of the observing world, it could be said, had caused Jews much suffering, where on a positive note it had gained international sympathy towards gaining its ancestral and biblical homeland. Lowe, N (1982) says that Ernest Bevin,
Foreign Secretary faced with many problems mentioned earlier, including terrorist attacks by Jewish settlers, invited the United Nations, to deal with the matter, in November 1947. Arabs on the other hand would have felt bitter towards its non-Arab ruler, as well as Zionist occupation, questioning its legitimacy to make decisions.
The predicament, one would argue, was that the two influential superpowers, at the helm of the United Nations, were eager to recommend a solution for the partition of Palestine, into two states. The Soviet Union in particular, as Mansfield, P (2003) describes,
“regarded the Zionist struggle in Palestine as one of liberation against imperialism”
This perhaps isolated the USSR from increasing their influence upon the Arab population, adding further to instability. Their intension to decrease the spread of colonialism, favoured Jewish demands for a U.N partition. In retrospect, Britain were
just as concerned with the potential political threat of communist ideology, taking root in this strategic and significant region.
In 1948 the mandate in Palestine was abandoned by the British and subsequently, troops were withdrawn. This caused major instability where Herzog, C (1982) claims,
“The British withdrew from successive areas in the country without being able to transfer administrative authority to anybody, leaving a vacuum, and in many areas, utterly chaotic conditions”
The legitimate rights of Palestinians were brought into question, causing great outrage, in what to become a lawless and ungoverned land. The days following the Israel’s Declaration of Independence on the 15th May 1948, violence increased dramatically which led to the uniting of Arabs where according to Milton -Edwards, B (2001),
“Arab armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria…Lebanon and Iraq attempted to win back Palestinian soil”
It appears from the above statement, that the eight month campaign by Arabs in the Arab – Israeli War was primarily aimed at reclaiming territory and once again, not specifically religion oriented, as one would associate with modern times. Arab superiority in numbers were seven times that of the Zionist Jews.
The 1948–49 War.
“Although Israel’s independence on May 14, 1948, triggered the first full-scale war, armed conflicts between Jews and Arabs had been frequent since Great Britain received the League of Nations mandate for Palestine in 1920. From 1945 to 1948 Zionists waged guerrilla war against British troops and against Palestinian Arabs supported by the Arab League, and they had made substantial gains by 1948. The 1948–49 War reflected the opposition of the Arab states to the formation of the Jewish state of Israel in what they considered to be Arab territory.
As independence was declared, Arab forces from Egypt, Syria, Trans-Jordan (later Jordan), Lebanon, and Iraq invaded Israel. The Egyptians gained some territory in the south and the Jordanians took Jerusalem’s Old City, but the other Arab forces were soon halted. In June the United Nations succeeded in establishing a four-week truce. This was followed in July by significant Israeli advances before another truce. Fighting erupted again in August and continued sporadically until the end of 1948. An Israeli advance in Jan., 1949, isolated Egyptian forces and led to a cease-fire (Jan. 7, 1949).
Protracted peace talks resulted in armistice agreements between Israel and Egypt, Syria, and Jordan by July, but no formal peace. In addition, about 400,000 Palestinian Arabs had fled from Israel and were settled in refugee camps near Israel’s border; their status became a volatile factor in Arab-Israeli relations”
In terms of population any attempt to democratically respond to the conflict in the way of a vote, would not have been in Israelis interests, as they were in the minority. Displacement of Palestinian refugees further reinforced complete control and the guarantee of a new state of Israel.
The Suez War of 1956, came to fruit largely on the back of a steady build up of ‘one nation’ Arab nationalism under the influence of Egyptian ruler, Gamel Abdal Nassar. Unquestionably the unity of all Arabs including the liberation of Palestine from the Jewish invaders, a hatred of Britain and France overstaying their welcome as colonialists and the interests of the two superpowers within the region, plunged the Middle East into an international crisis. According to Nye, J (2000) Egypt,
“received arms from the Soviet Union and manoeuvred to gain control of the Suez Canal”
This inflamed the ongoing fear of the continued threat of Soviet communist expansion, which in turn, was seen by the US to threaten their own economic development and interests within the area. Mansfield, P (2003) says that Syria, in 1956 also followed Egypt in acquiring arms from the Soviet Union and in recognising communist China. This perhaps would have been sufficient evidence in accommodating French and British fears of communist propaganda at work.
The Nationalisation of the Suez Canal by Nasser, followed in retaliation to the US withdrawal of finance to the Aswan Dam. Israel for security reasons, entered the dispute by attacking Egypt and in the process gained important territorial ground, the Sinai region. It could be said, that Israel unlike some countries came out of the crisis in better shape, where they inflicted heavy losses on Nasser’s armed forces, therefore restricting Egypt’s ability to mount further raids, giving the Jewish nation valuable breathing space. This perhaps would have increased alienation and fuelled deep Arab resentment against the Jewish. Imperialism, in comparison, suffered an
embarrassing setback.
The hot and dry climate within Arab quarters, caused much dispute and instability between the countries of Turkey, Syria and Iraq over another valuable commodity and natural resource, this being water. Berridge, G, R (1997) states,
“the limited availability of fresh water supplies has also emerged as serious source of conflict between states with all manner of political-economic system”
Similarly, large rivers like the Tigris and Euphrates could have provided much needed irrigation for farming land and drainage, as well as a route for the transportation of other goods and raw materials. Such rivers meander through many Arab states.
A pre-emptive strike launched by Israel in June 1967 against Syria, Jordan and Egypt, seizing land including the Golan Heights, West Bank and part of the Sinai Desert, respectively, increased their territorial advantage. Known as the Six Day War, as the name suggests, was very short in duration. According to Lockman and Beinin (1989)
“The war established Israel as the dominant regional power”
The element of surprise, it would seem, paid dividend, in opposition towards the constant threats of Israeli destruction, after initially observing a massing of Arab troops across its border. Its proclamation that it attacked in self-defence could be looked upon as a fight for survival, against all the odds. Many Israeli’s understood that the new territory as Calvocoressi, P (1996) says was not for the keeping but for the bargaining with, in order to force peace and recognition of its state. This humiliation of a joint – Arab defeat would have hardened Egypt and their neighbours belief on the destruction of Israel, particularly as the UN motion to return captured territory was ignored.
The October war of 1973 consisted of a joint attempt by Syria and Egypt to recover their own territory lost in 1967. This, it would appear took precedent over the Palestinian problem. The failure of allied Arabs to undermine the western influence, particularly on Israel, led to an oil embargo on Western States, which following the out break of the war, had an impact on the West’s political and economic policies. (Berridge, 1997).The only option available to Arab states, was to boycott and use oil prices as an economic weapon, specifically against the oil dependant capitalists countries, promoting instability across the globe. The two significant outcomes of this war, arguably, was as Hobsbawm, E (1995) says that by cutting oil supplies the Arabs,
“discovered their ability to multiply the world price of oil”
The other being that President Anwar Sadat was able to use his successful campaign of obtaining land as a bargaining tool for negotiation on an equal footing, gaining respect within the Middle East. According to Calvocoressi, P (1996),
“The Egyptian Army had become a match for the Israeli’s…it demonstrated Arab power against greater states”
The 1973 oil crisis had a large impact in Britain, who was dependant on Middle Eastern oil.
The final point to be discussed is the rationale behind the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The Shah of Iran was replaced by the Islamic Militant Ayatollah Khomeini as a spiritual and religious head of state. Arguably, the rise of religion was the result of continued opposition to economic and political infiltration of Capitalism from the West and Communism from the East. It is my belief, that the main cause of instability is related to an incompatibility of international cultures and ways of life, coupled with the continuation of external interference, therefore fuelling the rise of religious fundamentalism. Eccleshall, R et al (2003) states,
“The clash of civilisations…the rejection by many non-Western nations of Western values”
These values, which include liberal democracy and capitalism is a central part of conflict and instability, in the minds of Arab fundamentalists from the 1980’s to present day. In contrast, Western opinion or European sceptics of Islam, stems from pre-colonial and crusading eras. According to Said (cited in Tansey S, D.1995) states,
“there is a tendency in the West to identify Islamic ‘fundamentalism’ with intolerance, fanaticism, terrorism and the like”
It would seem that the fall of communism in Europe in 1989, enabled religious fundamentalism to take the place of opposition to the West, reducing Soviet influence but sadly for Arabs it increased American co-operation with Israel, increasing tensions further.
In conclusion, the Middle East has been an explosive and volatile area through the ages. Colonialism, particularly by the influence of Great Britain has provided the ingredients for not only a rise in Arab Nationalism but also in various other parts of the world. The quest for ideological domination by the capitalist west and the communist east has provided a springboard for divine intervention or a collective voice in the way of religion to be reinvented. It could be said, that failure to eradicate Israel, in terms of armed intervention, has allowed the Arabs to look for something else. By Britain promoting its own self interest, globally and economically, it has
provided a platform for countries steeped in thousands of years of historical tradition and culture to reclaim its own right to survive, by fighting back.
Israel, requiring a modern day identity, reflective on its own past history, has arguably, enabled them to build a future foundation, with a view of the world collectively recognising its existence.
The disagreements on Israeli land occupation, is perhaps playing second stage to religious and ideological conflict, coupled with a hatred of Western cultures and democracy, which at this time, is directed towards Israel and its ally the United States.
Since 1979 the conflict in the Middle East has taken a new direction. A collective voice in the form of religious fundamentalism has created a new vision for incorporating economic, social and political order. It could be said that religion should be an individual concept and be encouraged to be separated from
the political world. A reinvention of a modern form of socialism in the twenty first century, that was arguably lost in 1980’s Europe, would perhaps challenge any form of religious fundamentalism.
Negotiations on the sharing of occupied land and its fruits, pre 1967, would be a step in the right direction. Various traditions and cultures perhaps would benefit by being more flexible and not immovable.
Finally, it could be believed that Middle Eastern stability should not be about a ‘conflict of civilisations’ but a ‘celebration of civilisations’, a consensus of recognition and respect. This respect could perhaps be recognised and understood before introducing any form of boycotting.
If you solve the little problems it generally stops the bigger problems occuring……
I agree in general with the opposition to the boycott. While I sympathise with the frustration sometimes felt by the Left that, particularly in America, Israel is exempt from criticism, taking a hardline position against Israel will not help our cause amongst moderates. Israel is an open democratic society and we have to accept that the majority of ordinary people are concerned with their immediate security above all. While this concern is manipulated by the Israeli right to justify the occupation, settlements and the wall, attacking the entire country, with such a boycott will only harden the resolve of Israeli society to resist unilateral foreign pressure, which attempts to force and not construct. Better to target boycotts specifically at the organisations of the Israeli Right as oppose to blaming Israeli society and institutions for the Right’s political success.
If the particulars of the Palestinian situation had not given rise to such a fanatical resistance movement in Hamas, it might also be a little easier to divert attention to Israel’s atrocities. The fact that the ANC and Sinn Fein have had benign and concillitory elements to their political programmes is testimony to their respective successes in peace and resolution.
I suspect the zealotery of religious righteousness provides the justification for such alternative extreme positions and provides the greater difficulty in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian question.
All that Del Singh says may be true but I doubt if non-white South Africans or even Northern Irish Catholics didn’t suffer similar treatment, yet both remained supporters of secular movements committed to the equality of all peoples in the new orders they hoped to realise, even if those orders were to be brought about by force and insurrection.