FOREIGN POLICY OCTOBER 11, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Israeli universities have links to their military. So do most research universities with the military establishments of their respective countries. To single out Israeliuniversities for opprobrium for such links is to say, in effect, that the Israeli military as such has no reason for being—a discriminatory absurdity.
Boycotts and divestment campaigns have their uses, and not only because they express moral passion. Properly focused, they channel passion at specific targets and toward specific results. In this spirit, the two of us have thrown ourselves into such campaigns. One, Calderon, is presently involved in the Israeli boycott of cultural performances in the Ariel settlement on the occupied West Bank. The other, Gitlin, worked against American economic relations with the apartheid regime of South Africa, from 1965 (a sit-in at the Chase Manhattan Bank protesting their loans) through 1985-87 (as cofounder of divestment campaigns at Berkeley and Harvard).
Such efforts go after illegitimate targets—apartheid in the first instance, the West Bank occupation in the second. They send clear signals about indefensible institutions and policies. The apartheid regime excluded all but designated "whites" from citizen rights—therefore it had no right to exist, period. The West Bank occupation is likewise immoral and illegal, and therefore has no right to exist, second period. The boycott and divestment campaigns aimed, and aim, to deprive them of legitimacy—and rightly so. It was surely an unambiguous victory for human rights when the apartheid regime—from its political system down to its passbooks, its flag and its anthem—were definitively junked.
But the recent call for a University of Johannesburg boycott of Ben-Gurion University (BGU) is reckless. It fires a cultural scattergun and blurs necessary distinctions. Thus we take issue with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, an authentic hero of the anti-apartheid struggle against apartheid, who joined in a sweeping call to cut off ties with all Israeli universities, maintaining that they "are an intimate part of the Israeli regime, by active choice. … Israeli universities produce the research, technology, arguments and leaders for maintaining the occupation. BGU is no exception. By maintaining links to both the Israeli defence forces and the arms industry, BGU structurally supports and facilitates the Israeli occupation."
The idea of a BGU boycott is in other ways misdirected. It should go without saying that Israeli academics are far more likely to support a just two-state solution than other Israelis. A boycott directed against their academic freedoms antagonizes precisely the Israeli political force that most opposes the occupation.
Moreover, in yet another way, the BGU boycott proposal is not only naïve but counterproductive, for it implicitly erases the Green Line and undercuts the Ariel boycott. In effect, it presumes that the Green Line has no particular meaning. Its implicit demand is: Israel, out of everywhere. In effect, it maintains—contrary to the United Nations partition decision of 1947, and the recognition of Israel by most nations—that the Israeli state has no right to exist.
By the same logic, those in Europe and elsewhere who support boycotts of Israeli products, artists, or universities, mirror the arguments of the West Bank settlers who insist that Ariel and Beer-Sheva belong to the same nation-state. Here again, a precise demand is of the essence. Israelis must be convinced that they should relinquish the West Bank. In other words, they need to be assured that pulling out of Ariel does not mean pulling out of Beer-Sheva.
Accordingly, it was good news that, on September 29, the faculty of the University of Johannesburg rejected the proposal to cut ties with BGU. Surely BGU-Johannesburg cooperation on biotechnology and water purification projects is worthy and should not be held hostage. But at the same time, the Johannesburg professors asked BGU "to work with Palestinian universities on research projects, and to start the collaborations within six months if it wants to maintain ties with the University of Johannesburg." Again, the principle of such cooperation is sound. But such endeavors should be decided upon by academics themselves, not imposed from the outside. Ultimatums do not generate intellectual cooperation or found the moral life we all devoutly desire.
Nissim Calderon is a professor of Hebrew literature at an Israeli university. Todd Gitlin is a professor of journalism and sociology at Columbia University, and the co-author of The Chosen Peoples: America, Israel, and the Ordeals of Divine Election, just published in the United States by Simon & Schuster.
For more TNR, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
10 comments
Here is an article against academic boycotts that even noam sheizaf, Lisa Goldman and their pro-boycott crowd in the smug land of 972 blogs could learn from: An important view of boycotts from a Saudi Arabian physician that can teach much about its repercussions: “Collateral Damage: The Hidden Costs of the Ariel Boycott” by Qanta Ahmed, MD (Author of “Land of Invisible Women”) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/qanta-ahmed/collateral-damage-the-hid_b_742852.html
- jdyer
October 11, 2010 at 1:00pm
Here is another interesting take on boycotts: Why boycotts of Israel? Are the choices by boycotters always self evident? Take the case of Godard as an example: “Godard pulls out of Israeli film festival” “Event official says celebrated French-Swiss moviemaker 'seems to have succumbed to pressure from pro-Palestinian groups who launched a campaign for people to boycott Jewish state'” http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3550251,00.html Was Godard really “influenced” or was he following his real beliefs about Jews in 08 when he decided to boycott Israel? Here is a more revealing article from the Forward: Godard, the Holocaust and Hollywood: By Benjamin Ivry “In a 2009 article in Le Monde, “Godard and the Jewish Question” by Jean-Luc Douin, Godard is quoted as making an off-camera comment during the filming of a 2006 documentary: “Palestinians’ suicide bombings in order to bring a Palestinian State into existence ultimately resemble what the Jews did by allowing themselves to be led like sheep to be slaughtered in gas chambers, sacrificing themselves to bring into existence the State of Israel.” Godard apparently believes that Jews committed mass suicide during the Holocaust in order for Israel to be created. The same article quotes him along these lines: “Basically, there were six million kamikazes” and “Hollywood was invented by Jewish gangsters.” At least Godard cannot accuse the American film industry of being ungrateful gangsters.” Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/132013/#ixzz124JZudYS
- jdyer
October 11, 2010 at 1:02pm
“In a 2009 article in Le Monde, “Godard and the Jewish Question” by Jean-Luc Douin, Godard is quoted as making an off-camera comment during the filming of a 2006 documentary: “Palestinians’ suicide bombings in order to bring a Palestinian State into existence ultimately resemble what the Jews did by allowing themselves to be led like sheep to be slaughtered in gas chambers, sacrificing themselves to bring into existence the State of Israel.” Godard apparently believes that Jews committed mass suicide during the Holocaust in order for Israel to be created." Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/132013/#ixzz124JZudYS
- jdyer
October 11, 2010 at 1:05pm
Another example of how crazy some non Arab non Muslim anti-Israel activists are: http://mideastparalleluniverse.blogspot.com/2010/10/funny-you-dont-look-jewish_08.html "While yesterday I posted a preposterous suggestion made by Michelle J. Kinnucan that Jews were taking over spokesmen-ship of the Palestinian solidarity movement, today we have the revelation that Edith Lutz, one of the passengers of last week's Jewish boat to Gaza, is a Christian who faked her conversion to Judaism in order to proclaim her solidarity with Palestinians. Can you beat it? I wonder how many others are out there clamoring to be chosen by The Chosen in order to choose Hamas."
- jdyer
October 11, 2010 at 1:32pm
Another example of how crazy some non Arab non Muslim anti-Israel activists are: http://mideastparalleluniverse.blogspot.com/2010/10/funny-you-dont-look-jewish_08.html "While yesterday I posted a preposterous suggestion made by Michelle J. Kinnucan that Jews were taking over spokesmen-ship of the Palestinian solidarity movement, today we have the revelation that Edith Lutz, one of the passengers of last week's Jewish boat to Gaza, is a Christian who faked her conversion to Judaism in order to proclaim her solidarity with Palestinians. Can you beat it? I wonder how many others are out there clamoring to be chosen by The Chosen in order to choose Hamas."
- jdyer
October 11, 2010 at 1:33pm
All true perhaps, but after the first paragraph, no more need have been said. It is discriminatory, and it is discriminatory against Jews, which makes it antisemitic. Notwithstanding what the sewer-dwellers proclaim to the skies--that the term antisemite is applied indiscriminately--the truth is that reasonable people have been cowed into declining to use the term, even when it is evocative and appropriate, e.g., Desmond Tutu is an antisemite. Even Nadine Gordimer wouldn't go along with his proposal to boycott Israeli cultural events. Where are the high-profile China boycotts, the Russia boycotts, the Saudi boycotts; one could go on ad nauseum. They don't exist. This is not about fairness, or even political action. This is about hatred, and as such, your reasonable suggestions will have no traction with the purveyors of this trash.
- roqabs
October 11, 2010 at 10:54pm
Martha Nussbaum, here: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=811 "I am made uneasy by the single-minded focus on Israel. Surely it is unseemly for Americans to discuss boycotts of another country on the other side of the world without posing related questions about American policies and actions that are not above moral scrutiny. Nor should we fail to investigate relevantly comparable cases concerning other nations. For example, one might consider possible responses to the genocide of Muslim civilians in the Indian state of Gujarat in the year 2002, a pogrom organized by the state government, carried out by its agents, and given aid and comfort by the national government of that time (no longer in power). I am disturbed by the world’s failure to consider such relevantly similar cases. I have heard not a whisper about boycotting Indian academic institutions and individuals, and I have also, more surprisingly, heard nothing about the case in favor of an international boycott of U.S. academic institutions and individuals. I am not sure that there is anything to be said in favor of a boycott of Israeli scholars and institutions that could not be said, and possibly with stronger justification, for similar actions toward the United States and especially India and/or the state of Gujarat. "
- noga1
October 12, 2010 at 10:29am
The Godard example illustrates how Pro-Palestinianism feeds directly upon antisemitism in its basic and unadulterated state.
- noga1
October 12, 2010 at 10:32am
Gitlin and Calderon sound so mealy-mouthed. Why have they coupled Israel and South Africa? Can't they manage a more assertive defense of Israel?! Why do the Israelis have to subsidize their enemies?
- amidut
October 13, 2010 at 5:24am
"Gitlin and Calderon sound so mealy-mouthed. Why have they coupled Israel and South Africa? Can't they manage a more assertive defense of Israel?!" Indeed. Even the title of the post is pusillanimous: "A Counterproductive Call to Boycott Israel's Universities". "Counterproductive" implies that there is something productive about the rationale but the implementation is "counter-productive", is unlikely to promote the cause. The following paragraph tries to explain the choice of "counterproductive": "Moreover, in yet another way, the BGU boycott proposal is not only naïve but counterproductive, for it implicitly erases the Green Line and undercuts the Ariel boycott. In effect, it presumes that the Green Line has no particular meaning. Its implicit demand is: Israel, out of everywhere. In effect, it maintains—contrary to the United Nations partition decision of 1947, and the recognition of Israel by most nations—that the Israeli state has no right to exist." The author assumes that the goal of the boycotters is a two-state solution. Now this assumption is naive. They erase the Green Line because they simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge any legitimate Jewish presence in Israel. It's funny that he actually knows it, says it, and still goes on pretending as if this is only a glitch, a faulty, insufficiently thought out objective.
- noga1
October 13, 2010 at 5:34pm