More on the Potential British Academic Boycott of Israeli Scholars

Melanie Phillips has a superb piece addressing the proposed boycott of Israeli scholars. Here is an excerpt:

So here we go again. But let me repeat what I said last time round, when I predicted this thing would not go away because it had been defeated on the wrong grounds. The argument last time, which led overwhelmingly to the defeat of the boycott, was the issue of academic freedom. Of course this is important. But it’s not the point. The reason the boycott is so evil is that it is based on a series of Big Lies – the lie of Israeli ‘apartheid’, of Israeli ‘oppression’, ‘aggression’, ‘occupation’ and all the rest of the demonology of delegitimisation, ignorance and prejudice. Running through last year’s resistance movement against the boycott was the argument that academic freedom was necessary in order to continue to demonise and delegitimise Israel (I paraphrase, but that essentially was the message). That aspect of the resistance was thus guilty of the same prejudice that was behind the boycott itself. It was thus not only wrong in itself but ultimately self-defeating because it meant that the inspiration for the boycott was not only not being addressed but would surely lead to the boycott springing to life once again.

I see two issues here:

1. The first issue is academic freedom. Phillips says that was the wrong basis for defeating last year's attempted boycott, but I am not so sure I agree with her. I would also argue that the same basis can and should be used to defeat this year's attempt at a boycott. This having been said, I strongly agree with her second point.
2. No matter how it is phrased, the boycott demonizes Israel for having been created by the United Nations in the first place, and it vilifies Israel for defending itself against aggression by non-democratic terrorists. This issue should also be used to defeat the boycott attempt.
   
   
   
   As Gadi Taub said about last year's attempted boycott,

   In this instance I am hard-pressed to explain the affair without taking anti-Semitism into account. ...
   
   
   
   It is ... striking that the British Association of University Teachers (AUT) has taken no similar steps against any other violation of such rights elsewhere in the world.
   
   
   
   Academics from regimes where genuine ethnic cleansing, genocide and human rights crimes are regular occurrences remain welcome at Britain's universities. China's occupation of Tibet, to take only one obvious example, does not seem to bother the AUT. Whatever Israel's human rights failings – and I have been among those critical of government policies – the AUT's hypocrisy is too much to take.

   
   
   
   
   The same can be said about this year's attempt to launch a boycott of Israeli scholars.

Fortunately, the place where I am teaching this summer in England does not appear ready to sign on to any boycott of Israel or Israeli scholars; indeed, one of the professors here is taking his students on a field trip to the Holocaust Museum in London this weekend, a trip I hope to join.



In fact, if the administration at this institution were to join the boycott, I would resign immediately and return to Canada. Fortunately, that appears to be a needless and empty commitment because we simply are not headed in that direction here.



Update: If NATFHE is so keen on speaking out and taking a stand against human rights violations, why don't they take a stand on this?

Six nations with poor human rights records were among those elected to the new Human Rights Council on Tuesday...



China, Cuba, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Azerbaijan, countries cited by human rights groups as not deserving membership, were among the 47 nations elected to the council.