Questions
The Boycott of Israeli Academic and Research Institutions: Frequently Asked Questions
Questions
1.What are the objectives of the boycott?
2. How can you justify "politicizing" academia?
3. How do Israeli academics support the Occupation?
4. Is the boycott against Israeli Institutions or Israeli individuals?
5. By boycotting Israeli academia aren't you hurting the wrong people?
6. Does the academic boycott violate the principles of academic freedom?
7. Does the boycott mean that we stop talking to Israeli academics altogether?
8 . Is the boycott motivated by anti-Semitism?
9. Is the academic boycott effective?
10. Isn't the academic boycott against Israel hypocritical unless you boycott other oppressive regimes?
11. Is the academic boycott the only boycott of Israel?
1. What are the objectives of the boycott?
o The boycott of Israeli academic institutions is a non-violent way of opposing Israel's illegal colonization of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, and its continued abuse of human rights in Palestine, including the right to education.
o The boycott seeks to alert the scholarly community worldwide to the complicity of Israel's academia with, and silence in the face of, the brutal occupation practiced by both Labor and Likud governments.
o The boycott seeks to awaken the world academic community to its own potential leadership as an upholder of the ideals of justice and equity; to show that community that it has the strength and, indeed, responsibility, to fight effectively against colonial apartheid policies such as those inflicted on the Palestinian people.
o The boycott calls for the cooperation of all college and university level scholars, teachers, and administrators worldwide, all grant making foundations, think tanks, and accreditation organizations, to demonstrate to the Israeli government and society that there is a heavy cost associated with continued occupation and abuse of human rights in Palestine.
2. How can you justify "politicizing" academia?
o Remaining silent on political issues helps to sustain the status quo.
o Powerful parties often draw upon the work of scholars and scientists to support the political stands and behavior of governments, whether or not the authors are politically engaged.
o The institutions employing academics are not apolitical nor have they ever been beyond politics. Colleges and universities, and those who work within them, are inextricably bound up in the culture, ideology, and political systems of their nation states. In Israel's case, this can be seen in the recent announcement that their universities will resume aptitude exams and personal interviews for admissions in order to limit the number of Palestinian citizens of Israel in higher education, particularly in professional schools . Thus, academic neutrality is a myth, and the boycott cannot politicize what is already inextricably political.
3. How do Israeli academics support the Occupation?
o Some Israeli scholars have served directly as part of the occupation administration; others have served in an advisory or research capacity for the government, its occupation administration, military, or security services. None of these individuals has been censured for these activities by Israel's academic community or institutions.
o Members of the legal profession have served as prosecutors and judges within a system of "military justice" that has incarcerated tens of thousands of Palestinians for resisting colonial domination. Israeli doctors have facilitated the torture and mistreatment of prisoners. None of these individuals have been condemned by their peers or professional schools for corrupting the ethics upon which the integrity of their professions rests.
o Other Israeli scholars have helped legitimize the occupation through scholarly publication and public speaking.
o Finally, the vast majority of Israeli academics and scholars have remained silent in the face of the great suffering of a people oppressed by the colonial policies pursued by their state and in their name.
4. Is the boycott against Israeli Institutions or Israeli individuals?
Initially, the call for boycott made by Hilary and Steven Rose in April 2002 simply asked the European Union to halt all grants to Israeli cultural and research institutions. No action from individual scholars was requested beyond endorsing the call. A subsequent call was issued with the following objectives for signatories to pursue: "I can no longer in good conscience continue to cooperate with official Israeli institutions, including universities. I will attend no scientific conferences in Israel, and I will not participate as referee in hiring or promotion decisions by Israeli universities, or in the decisions of Israeli funding agencies. I will continue to collaborate with, and host, Israeli scientific colleagues on an individual basis." No doubt this approach has had an adverse effect on individuals working within the institutions-in fact, it soon became clear that such adverse affects are inevitable in boycotts of institutions.
It is important to keep in mind that the present boycott is a decentralized movement with a wide range of opinion as to tactics, and thus individuals will embrace it in different ways. Most supporters will choose how they implement the boycott depending on the situation and individuals involved. Again, under these circumstances some impact on individual Israeli academics, even those who oppose the occupation, is inevitable. Israeli academics who support the boycott understand and accept this.
Finally, one can take one's lead from the words of the Palestinian Call for Boycott, which asks that a supporter "pledge not to support or participate in any conference, cooperative research, grant writing or grant evaluation, or other supportive activities, such as academic exchanges or visits, held at or involving Israeli universities or state institutions." This same Call states that "we encourage dialogue with people (internationally and in Israel) who demonstrate readiness" to work for an end to the occupation and a just peace.
5. By boycotting Israeli academia aren't you hurting the wrong people?
o Noted Israeli historian Ilan Pappe estimates that only 100 out of 9,000 Israeli academics have "raised their voice against the occupation," and very few of those 100 are in danger of losing their jobs because of their positions. The likelihood that individuals opposing the occupation will be economically or professionally hurt by the boycott is therefore small. Considering the barbaric nature of the Israeli occupation and the overwhelming support it receives from Israel's academic community, the risk that a small number of academics may be temporarily inconvenienced is worthwhile.
o It is sometimes incorrectly argued that Israeli academic institutions are the only sanctuary where freedom of expression and thought flourishes, and that the boycott may therefore limit the capacity of academics to fight for a just peace with the Palestinians. This argument is not supported by the record of Israeli academia. As the case of Ilan Pappe and others attest, Israel's academic administrators do their best to silence and intimidate scholars who speak out against the occupation. Moreover, the occupation has been going on for 37 years and during that time of freedom of expression and thought and no boycott, there was no significant level of indignation or organized collective opposition on the part of Israeli academia to the destruction of Palestinian education or other aspects of the occupation. Thus, it is not the boycott that keeps Israeli academics from fighting for justice.
6. Does the academic boycott violate the principles of academic freedom?
One consequence of Israel's occupation has been the destruction of normal educational practices and institutions for Palestinians at all levels. The right of Palestinian academics to carry on research and be part of the international community of scholars has also been severely curtailed. All of this has been achieved by the most draconian policies, involving lengthy closures of Palestinian universities and other schools, mass arrests of students and faculty, deportation, and torture. Even in those interim periods when the schools are open and classes resume, a pervasive system of checkpoints and roadblocks make getting to classes problematic for both students and teachers.
Against this background, what can be said about Zionist complaints that the boycott is an attack on academic freedom? Obviously those making this complaint privilege Israeli academia and see Palestinian academia as counting for nothing. Such double standards are unacceptable: Israeli academia cannot be allowed to carry on with business as normal while Palestinian academia is under Israeli attack. As Ur Shlonsky, an Israeli-born Professor of Linguistics, said, under the present circumstances, "participating in an international scientific conference in Israel - anywhere in Israel - is. . . tantamount at this time to enjoying a good meal in a restaurant which faces the walls of a hungry ghetto." Moreover, few Israeli academics responded when Birzeit University launched an international campaign to pressure the Israeli government to restore free access to the university in 2002. The appeal was sent to some thirty Israeli academics thought to be sympathetic to Palestinian rights: only two signed. (Click here to view the appeal and a list of international signatories).
7. Does the boycott mean that we stop talking to Israeli academics altogether?
No. Boycott supporters avidly seek to communicate and work with Israelis on ending the occupation and achieving a just peace for the Palestinian people. Many supporters of the boycott are, in fact, in regular contact with the few Israeli scholars who have taken a stand against Israel's colonial behavior.
8 . Is the boycott motivated by anti-Semitism?
Definitely not: it is not a boycott of Jews, but against Israeli policies. The two should not be conflated. In fact, it may be argued that the devastating nature of the Israeli occupation represents the antithesis of universal Jewish values. Struggling against the occupation, particularly with non-violent tactics such as a boycott, can be seen as a reaffirmation of the social justice tradition of Judaism.
9. Is the academic boycott effective?
Articles in Israeli newspapers expressing concern about the effect the academic boycott is having on Israeli science are a sign that it is having both a material and psychological impact (see Sara Leibovich-Bar's article in Haaretz, November 20, 2003). Further evidence of concern was apparent in the November 27, 2003 announcement that Israeli universities plan to set up "a new forum to fight the international academic boycott". There can be little doubt that the academic boycott has raised international consciousness and stimulated debate on the Israeli occupation. It has also revealed that most of Israel's academic community helps, actively or passively, their state's brutal activities.
10. Isn't the academic boycott against Israel hypocritical unless you boycott other oppressive regimes?
o Israel should not be let off the hook just because other nations also behave badly. After all, Israel runs one of the two longest post-World War II occupations in the world (the other is the Chinese in Tibet). As it happens, however, many supporters of the academic boycott against Israel also support protests of Russian behavior in Chechnya, Chinese behavior in Tibet, American behavior in Iraq, etc.
o In addition, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis may be judged more important for citizens of the West than other contemporary crises since Zionist influence spreads far beyond Israel's area of dominion, widely influencing the foreign policy and aid agendas of Western nations, particularly the United States.
11. Is the academic boycott the only boycott of Israel?
No. There is a general boycott of goods made in Israel, goods made in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories, and of non-Israeli companies doing business with Israel (for information on these efforts click here). There is also a growing boycott of Israeli art institutions.