Indymedia Israel
http://www.indymedia.org.il
WHY ACADEMIC BOYCOTT -
A reply to an Israeli comrade
Tanya
Reinhart
Tel Aviv, May 17, 2002
Dear
Baruch Kimmerling,
Last week,
you published in Ha'aretz a moving letter defending the freedom of expression
of a group of Israeli professors, including myself, who signed a European
petition calling for a moratorium on European support to the Israeli academia.
Here is what you wrote:
"The Coordinating Council of the
Faculty Associations [of the Israeli universities] issued a public statement,
which appeared in Ha'aretz on May 6, denouncing the call of scientists in
Europe and North America to declare a boycott on the Israeli academia,
following... supposed war crimes that the State of Israel committed in the
occupied territories.
As someone who acted immediately and
actively against this boycott, because I saw this as a blatant violation of
academic freedom, which is the essence of academic research and teaching, I was
shocked by this statement. The shock stems from the content of the document,
which not only denounces the boycott, but also denounces that minority of the
Israeli academic personnel that support the proposed boycott.
For precisely the same reason that
one should oppose the boycott, one should oppose the denouncement of academic
members who think differently. Instead of insisting on the freedom of speech
and thought of all its members, the council launched an attack on this
freedom.... I demand the immediate resignation of those responsible for this
outrageous public statement."
In the
present climate in Israel, it is comforting, and far from trivial, to hear
voices still defending old fashioned ideas like freedom of speech. For this
reason, I appreciate your letter. Nevertheless, I would like to explain here
why your defense still leaves me utterly unmoved.
Background on the Academic Boycott
First
some background on the academic boycott. An accurate description of the events
that set the Israeli academia roaring was given in an Ha'aretz article by
Tamara Traubman: "The first time that the international scientific
community imposed a boycott on a state was during the Apartheid regime in South
Africa. The second time is being considered at present, and now the boycott is
directed against Israel and its policy in the territories. Several manifestos
calling for the imposition of a boycott, on various levels, have been published
in recent days by professors from abroad...The first...was initiated by a pair
of British researchers, Professors Hilary and Steven Rose of Britain's Open
University. The manifesto suggests that European research institutes stop
treating Israel like a European country in their scientific relations with it,
until Israel acts according to UN resolutions and opens serious peace
negotiations with the Palestinians. (Israel enjoys the status of a European
country in many European research programs). Over 270 European scientists,
including about 10 Israelis, signed the manifesto. Although it is the most
moderate of the boycotts being formulated these days against Israel, the
manifesto aroused a great deal of anger in the Israeli scientific
community..."(Ha'aretz, April 25, 2002, "The Intifada Reaches the Ivory Tower")
We can
distinguish three forms of the academic boycott. The first is part of a larger
cultural boycott -- cultural events in Israel have been boycotted for quite a
while. In the academic sphere, the boycott is on any cooperation with
institutional events of the Israeli academia in Israel. This means that
scholars cancel participation in conferences and official academic events (e.g.
some refuse an honorary degree offer) (1).
This form
of boycott is already a fact. The reason is that it is the easiest step for
individual scholars to take on their own. It is not always easy to distinguish
between those canceling participation in events of the Israeli academia for
safety reasons and those who are boycotting, but the phenomenon is quite large,
as Traubman reports: "The most obvious expression of the isolation of the
Israeli scientific community is the refusal of researchers to come
here…'Whereas in the past Israel held many international congresses, says
Gideon Rivlin, the chair of Kenes International, the principal organizer of
such congresses, today there are no longer any international congresses in Israel.'
... 'Until 2004,' adds Rivlin, 'all the congresses in Israel have been
canceled'... Brain researcher Prof. Idan Segev...from HU [Hebrew University,
Jerusalem], says that scientists tend to refuse to come not only to scientific
congresses, but also for joint research projects as well. 'At a conference
abroad a short time ago, I met a friend with whom I've been working for many
years; every year he comes to Israel for a few weeks to work with me,' says
Segev. 'This year he told me openly, `I can't come, the moment I arrive, I am
taking a political step.' For them it's like going to South Africa'."
(Ha'aretz, ibid.).
The
second, and more recent form, is economic sanctions on the Israeli academia.
This extends the other forms of economic pressure which have been observed for
a while: Consumer boycott; canceling European contracts with Israeli computer
companies
(http://www.israelinsider.com/channels/politics/articles/pol_0138.htm); and the
divestment movements in the US academy, where scholars and students in
Berkeley, Princeton, Harvard, and MIT call on their universities to divest from
US companies doing business in Israel, as means of pressure on these companies
not to help Israel's economy. (See Harvard/MIT Petition, Princeton
Divestiture Petition). While these actions target various aspects of
the Israeli economy (industry and agriculture, electronics companies, etc.) the
academic boycott targets the research funds of the Israeli academia, thus
applying direct economic pressure on the academia, as a central (and
collaborating) part of the state of Israel.
As
Traubman reports, "Members of prestigious scientific bodies, such as the
Norwegian Academy of Sciences, have condemned Israel's actions in the
territories, and criticized their Israeli colleagues for their indifference to
the situation of Palestinian researchers, and the damage to academic
institutions in the Palestinian Authority. According to Israeli diplomatic
sources, steps to have Israel join several large European projects have been
postponed until further notice -- for example, accepting Israel as a member of
a particle acceleration project at the CERN laboratory in Geneva. The contacts
that began behind the scenes have been halted at this stage..." (Ha'aretz,
ibid.).
The
specific academic petition which ignited the fury of the Israeli academia,
falls within this second type of boycott (2). This is a call for economic
sanctions on the Israeli academia in general, and not for full boycott of ties
with individual Israeli academics.
The third
form of the academic boycott, however, extends it also to this most severe
stage -- practiced in the South-Africa boycott -- of complete international isolation
of individual Israeli scholars. It prohibits any contact with them --
invitations to conferences abroad, research collaborations, publications,
editorial boards, etc (3).
Among the
supporters of academic boycott, opinions are divided about the third form of
boycott. At the individual level, many Israeli academics oppose the occupation
and Israel's brutality in the territories. A large minority of them is actively
involved, like you, Baruch, in a daily struggle against all these. Furthermore,
among the goals of academic boycott is to encourage the Israeli academics to
take a more active part in struggle and resistance. For this, it would help if
we feel part of a large international community, sharing this cause, rather
than completely isolated from it. Personally, I support the first two forms of
academic boycott, but not the third form of individual boycott.
Nevertheless,
there is no doubt that if the economic-institutional boycott is successful and
research funds to the Israeli academia are cut off, this will effect individual
researchers, including not only you and me, but also students and young
scholars who are supported by research grants. This is the logic of sanctions
-- they are meant to hurt the political and economic system, and in that process,
they inevitably hurt all segments of the targeted society. In South Africa, the
Blacks were among the first to suffer from the boycott. Still they pleaded with
the West to continue.
Why boycott
The model
of boycott followed here is, indeed, that which was formed in the case of South
Africa. Just a few years ago, in 1993, the whole world celebrated when the
Apartheid regime in South Africa collapsed after 50 years of brutal
discrimination and oppression. This change did not come about on its own. It
was the outcome of a long and painful struggle of the blacks in South Africa.
But the anti-Apartheid movement, throughout the world, also had an enormous
impact.
The
struggle was directed at governments on the one hand, and directly at
corporations doing business with SA, on the other. There were protests and
demonstrations demanding that an arms embargo be imposed. The pressure on
corporations to divest, targeted specific corporations with product boycotts
accompanied by demonstrations, stockholders speaking at meetings (churches who
owned stocks, could get a few people in), and much more.
Following
this pressure, in 1977 the UN Security Council imposed limited sanctions on
South Africa. Their impact was, in fact, limited as long as the great powers
--primarily UK and US -- found ways around them (like getting Israel to provide
arms, military training and oil to SA.). But during the eighties, the big
corporations were beginning to move out of their SA ties anyway, due to the
protest and turmoil it generated. Suddenly, there was a heavy economic price
for the continuation of Apartheid.
This was
combined with another aspect of pressure -- cultural boycott and social
isolation: South Africa was kicked out of international sports; professional
and academic organizations did not cooperate with South-African organizations;
there was a ban on conferences and cultural events. All these helped. South
Africa was forced to change (4).
I have no
doubt that you supported the South Africa boycott. Where we may differ is in
the question whether the Israeli case is sufficiently similar. I believe that
even much before its present atrocities, Israel has followed faithfully the
South-African Apartheid model. Since Oslo, Israel has been pushing the
Palestinians in the occupied territories into smaller and smaller isolated
enclaves, promising, in return, to consider calling these enclaves, in some
future, a Palestinian 'state' -- a direct copy of the Bantustans model. (For a
detailed description of the early Apartheid stages, see my article in Ha'aretz
Magazine, May 27, 94, The Era of Yellow Territories).
Unlike
South Africa, however, Israel has managed so far to sell its policy as a big
compromise for peace. Aided by a battalion of cooperating 'peace-camp'
intellectuals, they managed to convince the world that it is possible to
establish a Palestinians state without land-reserves, without water, without a
glimpse of a chance of economic independence, in isolated ghettos surrounded by
fences, settlements, bypass roads and Israeli army posts -- a virtual state
which serves one purpose: separation (Apartheid). "We are here and they
are there" -- behind the fences, as Barak put it.
But no
matter what you think of the Oslo years, what Israel is doing now exceeds the
crimes of the South Africa's white regime. It has started to take the form of
systematic ethnic cleansing, which South Africa never attempted. After
thirty-five years of occupation, it is completely clear that the only two
choices the Israeli political system has generated for the Palestinians are
Apartheid or ethnic cleansing ('transfer'). Apartheid is the 'enlightened'
Labor party's program (as in their Alon or Oslo plan), while the other pole is
advocating slow suffocation of the Palestinians, until the eventual 'transfer'
(mass expulsion) can be accomplished. ("Jordan is the Palestinian
state", is how Sharon put it in the eighties.) (5). Even those who can
swallow 'made in Israel' Apartheid, cannot just watch silently as Sharon
carries this second vision out.
Given
that the US backs Sharon, no UN resolution has any force. This was made
perfectly clear by the latest shocking example in which Israel managed to defy
the resolution regarding a search committee for the events of Jenin. The only
way left to exert pressure on Israel to stop is through the protest of people
around the world, including use of the most painful means of boycott. As an
Israeli, I believe that this external pressure may save not only the
Palestinians, but also the Israeli society, which is, in fact, not being
represented by the political system. In a recent poll, 59% of the Jewish Israelis
support immediate evacuation of most settlements, followed by a unilateral
withdrawal of the army from the occupied territories. But with no external
pressure, no political party will carry out this will of the majority.
Why the Academia
I am not
sure whether your objections to the moratorium on research funds to the Israeli
academia, which we called for, is because you object to any divestment or
boycott moves, or whether you think the academia should be exempt. Many Israeli
academics hold the latter view, so I suppose it is also yours. You say in your
letter that the reason you "acted immediately and actively against this
boycott" is "because I saw this as a blatant violation of academic
freedom, which is the essence of academic research and teaching." This is
a very peculiar use of the concept of academic freedom. What is under
consideration here is your freedom to access international research funds. You
seem to view this type of freedom as an inalienable right, untouchable by any
considerations of the international community regarding the context in which
its funds are used. But it is not. The traditional spirit of the academia, no
matter how much of it is preserved in daily practice, is that intellectual
responsibility includes the safeguarding of moral principles. The international
academic community has the full right to decide that it does not support
institutions of societies which divert blatantly from such principles. You had
no problem accepting this when South Africa was concerned.
The only
question is whether there is anything about the Israeli academia (as an
institution, unlike individual resisting academics) that could exempt it from
the condemnation and pressure of the international community. Let us turn to
the broader arsenal of the arguments used to argue that. You find yourself here
in large company. The Israeli academia, which was not so impressed with mere
condemnations and the ongoing ban on official academic events in Israel, got on
its feet when its freedom to access international funds was at stake. In a
matter of days, they organized a counter
petition (to the British petition above), which has gathered
thousands of signatures. Dr. Ben Avot, one of the organizers of the counter
petition "says that 'the signatories come from a wide array of opinions
about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ranging from members of [the right-wing]
'Professors for National Strength' to people who are usually identified with
the left, such as Prof. Baruch Kimmerling'" (Traubman, Ha'aretz, ibid.).
A basic
principle that the counter-petition you signed is based on, is that science
should always be separated from politics. It is this line which enabled the
Israeli academia to live in peace with the occupation for thirty five years.
Never in its history did the senate of any Israeli university pass a resolution
protesting the frequent closure of Palestinian universities, let alone voice
protest the devastation sowed there during the last uprising. (Such resolution
would be a violation of the sacred principle of separation -- more examples of
this below.) If in extreme situations of violations of human rights and moral
principles, the academia refuses to criticize and take a side, it collaborates
with the oppressing system. But as we saw, it is precisely this principle, and
the collaboration that it entails, which the international community is now condemning.
Interestingly,
the principle of separation of science and politics never applies when what is
at stake is defending the interests of Israel. The powerful Israeli scientific
lobby managed to arrange an editorial in the central scientific journal Nature,
which repeats faithfully the arguments of this counter petition ('Don't Boycott Israel's Scientists',
Nature 417, 1, May 2, 2002).
What are
these ('non political') arguments? One is that "A unilateral boycott of
Israeli academics unfairly identifies Israel as the only party responsible for
the violent shift in Israeli-Palestinian relations and ignores ongoing attacks
against innocent Israeli citizens. Such a one-sided perspective is contrary to
academic standards of truth-seeking" (Israeli counter-petition).
"...Should we also boycott Palestinian researchers because the Palestinian
Authority has not done enough to prevent suicide bombers?" (Nature
editorial). Well, this is precisely what people of conscience no longer buy.
Basic human values and standards do not place equal responsibility on the
oppressor and the oppressed, when the oppressed tries to rebel. Even when we
strongly condemn the means used by the oppressed, this does not exempt the
oppressor. I take it for granted that you, Baruch, place the responsibility for
thirty-five years of occupation and Apartheid on the Israeli governments, and
not on the Palestinian people. I assume that you just did not bother to read
the petition you signed.
But the
next set of arguments is probably the heart of the matter for many. The Israeli
academy views itself as liberal, democratic, and sensitive to issues of human
rights. Hence "to boycott Israeli academics would endanger the democratic
values and respect for human rights this community works hard to foster"
(Israeli counter-petition). Most importantly, the academy views itself as
promoting values of coexistence and peace by means of a "meaningful
dialogue" with its Palestinian colleagues: "European programs have
provided important frameworks for Middle East scholars to meet... to discuss
academic topics of mutual interest, and to build informal interpersonal ties,
thus helping to counter years of accumulated misunderstanding and
animosity." (Ibid.). Hence, boycotting the Israeli academia will harm its
devoted work of reconciliation and peace.
Nature's
editorial is even more enthusiastic about this peace endeavor. "Science is
less political than other issues, and is a bridge for peace. That is what Leah
Boehm, then chief scientist at Israel's science ministry, enthusiastically told
Nature in 1995. Then, Israeli and Palestinian researchers were optimistic that
the peace process would cause funds to flow to joint Arab-Israeli projects from
the international community, reinforcing peace by contributing to dialogue, and
boosting research in the region..." Hence, Nature concludes, "the
world's scientific community" should "jump at" the opportunity
to support the Israeli academia, and thus, "encourage Middle-East
peace." Even Nature must admit that "subsequent events have left
these noble aspirations in tatters." But it calls on the scientific
community to help the Israeli academia (with research funds) to renew the
spirit of these wonderful years of dialogue. (This is emphasized further in
Nature's second editorial of May 16)
It is
typical and revealing that in proving the contribution of the Israeli academia
to dialogue and peace, this editorial of Nature cites only Israeli (and one
American) scholars. The Palestinian perspective is, apparently, irrelevant. If
it were, a very different perspective on that golden era of Oslo and 'peace'
would emerge.
Here is a
fragment of a report of Sari Hanafi, Associate Researcher at the Palestinian
Center for the Study of Democracy (6). It was written before the Palestinian
uprising, and describes an event of 1998/1999:
"In end of 1998, the Jerusalem
Spinoza Institute called the Palestinian University of Al-Quds (based in
Jerusalem) to cooperate with it in order to organize an international
conference, in August 1999, entitled 'Moral Philosophy in Education: The
Challenge of human Difference'... The pros [for accepting the invitation] were
supported by two arguments: first, the cooperation could help persuade the
Ministry of Education to recognize Al-Quds University, taking into account that
non-recognition is purely political; the second argument is related to the
first: it consists of trying to convince the Ministry of Interior to not expel
the administration and the main building of the university outside of Jerusalem
(as announced once by an Israeli official). In fact, these two arguments show
that the romantic view of cultural cooperation between two civil societies hide
all the power imbalance between the two societies -- between an occupied and
occupying people: 'We are here to put apart divergence and talk on science,
philosophy and education far from politics', as argued by the President of the
Spinoza Institute...
However between May and August 1999,
a serious incident happened: the Ministry of Interior of the Barak government
withdrew the Identity Document of Musa Budeiri, a director of the Center of
International Relations in Al-Quds University and a resident of East Jerusalem.
Native of Jerusalem, his family has lived there for hundreds of years, under
Ottoman, British and Jordanian rule. He was given a tourist visa, valid for
four weeks, and was told that he would have to leave Jerusalem by August 22 --
Musa Budeiri is one of thousands of other Palestinians in a similar situation.
They all have the same problem: they are subject to the threat of being turned
into 'tourists' in their birthplace. 2,200 Jerusalem ID cards of families
(roughly 8,800 individuals) were confiscated between 1996 and May 1999
(according to the Israeli ministry of Interior)...
In the opening session, Sari
Nusseibeh, the president of Al-Quds University, contrary to his habit, gave a
very moving speech concerned exclusively with the case of Musa Budeiri and his
family. To outline the roots of the Budeiri family in this city, he discussed a
manuscript on Jerusalem history written by Musa's father, which has never been
edited. Sari Nusseibeh, pioneer of the dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians,
finished his speech by saying that he is torn morally by these events, adding
that the Israelis should not expect to conduct further dialogue with
Palestinians, as the latter are increasingly becoming tourists [in their land].
If almost all of the participants were moved, the organizers were not. The
president of Jerusalem Spinoza Institute commented on Nusseibeh's speech saying
that 'there is some military problems' between Israelis and Palestinians which
have not yet been resolved, while the rector of the Hebrew University asked
Nusseibeh where he can find the Budeiri manuscript, as the Hebrew University
would like to have it!!
Finally the organizers of the
conference refused to send the Minister of Interior a petition in favor of
Budeiri, signed by the majority of the participants. The argument used was that
there is a separation between the academic sphere and the political one, and as
scholars they cannot take a position" (6).
This
event took place in the days of peaceful Apartheid. As for the present situation of Al-Quds University, Nature
finally acknowledged in its May 16 issue that, "Al-Quds University claims
that Israeli soldiers badly damaged laboratories and other buildings at its
campuses in El Bireh and Ramallah. The university has asked the Israeli
government and the international community to send fact-finding missions and to
help rebuild its infrastructure" (Declan Butler, European correspondent,
Nature 417, 207, 16 May 2002)
As the
most decisive argument for why no moratorium on research funds should apply,
the Israeli counter petition and its echo in Nature point out that this will
harm the Palestinian academia. "Many European-funded programs have
explicitly aimed at enhancing scientific cooperation between Israelis,
Palestinians and Arab scholars...Freezing Israeli access to, and participation
in, such programs would...damage these important frameworks and undermine the
benefits to research" (Israeli counter petition). This theme is further
developed and emphasized in the more recent Nature editorial of May 16.
Regardless
of what the facts are about this "energetic scientific
collaboration," this is the standard colonialist argument. The
colonialists were always certain that they are bringing progress to the
natives. Here is what Prof. Rita Giacaman of Birzeit University told me about
the matter: "Several individually linked projects began with Israelis
since the Oslo accords were signed, mainly because Europe and the US were
luring scientists with the carrot of money in a money starved environment, in
exchange for being used as 'evidence' for peace and equity having been
achieved, when the stick never stopped hitting Palestinian infrastructure,
institutions, political processes and academic life. It thus placed us in the
political arena, using us to show peace that does not exist and equity that
exists even less. Many of us Palestinian academics chose not to get involved in
such academic cooperative relations with Israelis and continued solidarity
activities [with Israelis], aimed at changing the political reality instead
-the root cause of the problem. .. Anyway, the issue is not about Israeli
scientists helping out. This is like taking away the right of villagers to till
their land and then giving them some food-aid instead. The issue is ending
occupation and allowing Palestinian to develop their institutions, including
scientific ones." (Personal communication, May 2002).
If
continuing support to the Israeli academia is what the Palestinian academia
considers best for its future, we should hear it from them. What I hear from my
comrades in the Palestinian academia is only a full and unequivocal support for
the boycott.
========
(1) French and Australian petitions are
calling also for avoiding any other institutional cooperation, such as serving
in promotion procedures of the Israeli universities, though the French call
declares that they will continue individual ties with Israeli scholars. ().
(2) Here is
the full text of the British petition that we signed, which was published in
The Guardian (London) on April 6, 2002, with the first 120 signatures:
"Despite widespread
international condemnation for its policy of violent repression against the
Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, the Israeli government appears
impervious to moral appeals from world leaders. The major potential source of
effective criticism, the United States, seems reluctant to act. However there
are ways of exerting pressure from within Europe. Odd though it may appear,
many national and European cultural and research institutions, including
especially those funded from the EU and the European Science Foundation, regard
Israel as a European state for the purposes of awarding grants and contracts.
(No other Middle Eastern state is so regarded). Would it not therefore be
timely if at both national and European level a moratorium was called upon any
further such support unless and until Israel abide by UN resolutions and open
serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians, along the lines proposed in
many peace plans including most recently that sponsored by the Saudis and the
Arab League."
(3) A
resolution along these lines was taken by the British Teacher's union Natfhe,
reported in EducationGuardian.co.uk, April 16, 2002, and is proposed also in a
US petition - boycotts@teacher.com, BoycottIsraeliGoods@yahoogroups.com).
(4) The
information regarding the anti-Apartheid movement was provided to me by Noam
Chomsky.
(5) For
more details on these two poles in Israeli politics, see my articles, 'Evil Unleashed' and 'The
second half of 1948'.
(6) Sari
Hanafi, "Palestinian Israeli People to People program as a mechanism of
conflict resolution", lecture delivered at the 18th conference of the
General International Peace Research Association (IPRA), August 5-9, 2000,
Finland. (hanafi@p-ol.com)
Tanya
Reinhart is a Professor of Linguistics at Tel Aviv University
(http://www.tau.ac.il/~reinhart)