Boycott of Israeli scholars barely disguised anti-Semitism
By Robert Horenstein
article created on:
In late May, Britain's largest union of college instructors—the 67,000-member National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education—voted to boycott Israeli academics who refuse to publicly renounce what it called Israel's "apartheid policies." Just two weeks later, however, NATFHE merged with another union and ceased to exist. The boycott has no standing with the new organization.
A victory for pro-Israel advocates? Hardly. The boycott was overturned on a technicality, the merger of two unions—it wasn't indicative of a change in attitudes toward Israel. As Knesset Education Committee Chairman Michael Melchior warned, "The celebrations over the removal of the British academic boycott of Israel are groundless."
Though no longer official policy, some academics have already declared their intention to pursue the boycott, urging colleagues to sever ties to Israeli universities. Those organizing academic conferences will seek to exclude Israelis; those who serve as editors of academic journals will refuse publication of Israeli-authored articles.
As with the anti-Israel divestment campaigns in this country, one underlying question comes to mind: Are the boycotters merely reflecting genuine alarm at the Israeli-Palestinian situation, or are they motivated by veiled—or not so veiled—anti-Semitism?
The question here isn't about whether legitimate criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Of course it's not, and one should level the charge of anti-Semitism only cautiously and reluctantly. Yet, if the now unofficial boycott isn't motivated by anti-Semitic intent, how is one to make any sense of it?
Polls taken in Israel over the last three years have consistently shown that despite the mounting death toll to terrorism, a large majority still supports a two-state solution. Not only did the Israelis overwhelmingly back last summer's pullout from Gaza, they elected a government that plans to withdraw from most of the West Bank. By contrast, the Palestinians elected an anti-democratic Islamist group opposed to peace and unabashedly committed to Israel's destruction.
If the boycotters' goal is truly a two-state solution, why would they want to discourage Israel in the path it's taking and encourage the Palestinians in theirs? Apparently, their campaign is motivated by something beyond the mere merits of Israeli governmental policy.
Another question is why the focus on academia. As misguided as the Presbyterian Church's divestment campaign is, at least it's targeting only those companies whose products, in the church's view, "support" the Israeli occupation.
A blacklist of Israeli academics and academic institutions, on the other hand, is nothing more than collective punishment. As boycott opponent David Hirsh, a British professor at Goldsmiths College, points out, Israeli universities "are the very spaces where ideas for peace are forged, taught and practised? [The boycott] won't do anything to help the Palestinians."
This is to say nothing of the absurdity of ostracizing Israeli individuals and institutions whose efforts benefit the entire world. There's virtually no area of medicine and bio-technology, for instance, in which Israeli innovations haven't made significant contributions (the most recent example being the development of Azilect, a groundbreaking medication for Parkinson's disease, by the Technion in Haifa). In fact, you'd be hard pressed to be treated at a British hospital without an Israeli product coming to your aid.
The ostensible target of the boycott and its incongruity with events on the ground are troubling enough. To fully understand the insidious agenda that's at the heart of the boycott movement, however, simply consider the other human rights issues that have compelled the British academics to take action.
What you'll soon realize is there aren't any. Not the widespread political repression in the Arab world. Not the threat by Iran to wipe Israel off the map with nuclear weapons. Not the Chinese occupation of Tibet.
In Darfur, Sudan, 500 people are dying every day, yet the organizers of the "Save Darfur" effort tell me that this horrific genocide has barely registered any concern in Europe. Perhaps the pro-boycott British academics are too preoccupied with singling out Israel and defending the Jew-hating, woman-oppressing, pluralism-loathing Hamas to notice the atrocities in Darfur.
Clearly, there's no hiding the boycotters' true motivations. Their campaign is hypocrisy of the highest order. It's a rejection of Israeli scholars not only on the basis of their nationality, but also their Zionist convictions. In short, it's anti-Semitism scarcely masquerading as moral concern.
Robert Horenstein is the staff director of the Jewish Federation of Greater Portland Community Relations Committee.