The American Studies Association, a group of scholars, has voted to endorse a boycott of Israeli academic institutions. As the article points out, this is merely symbolic: it has zero real meaning lacking a support from the broader university or college. As the article also mentions, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, has come out condemning boycotts of Israel (he supports the boycott of goods produced by settlers in the West Bank). So, looks like the residents of the ivory tower of academia are more radical in this sense than the Palestinian government itself.
This is another instance of the obsessions of the BDS Movement (Boycott, Divest, Sanction), an international group of anti-Israel activists, scholars, and so on. One of its most prominent supporters is Roger Waters, of Pink Floyd fame, who said recently that the Jewish Lobby is "particularly" powerful in the rock n roll industry. This feeds into the martyrdom complex of Waters and others who are similarly obsessed with Israel. He has compared Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians to Nazi Judenpolitik in the 1930s and even into the war period. His comments about the Jewish lobby (Note: not the "Zionist lobby"; he might have slipped) mark him as an outright anti-Semite, whether he thinks of himself consciously that way or not. He continued in the interview: "I would not have played for the Vichy government in occupied France in WWII, would not have played in Berlin either during this time...There were many people who pretended that the oppression of the Jews was not going on. From 1933 until 1946 [sic]. So this is not a new scenario. Except this time its the Palestinians who are being murdered."
Where to begin?
1. World War II ended in 1945, not 1946. This is obnoxious on my part, sure, but it needs to be emphasized just how historically ignorant this man is. Everyone with even a modicum of education knows this.
2. Jews were not being systematically murdered as early as 1933. Yes, the first concentration camp (Dachau) was established then, but its early prisoner population consisted of left-wingers and at this early stage was not remotely comparable to what the concentration camps later became (and what the concentration camps later became is likewise not comparable to the extermination camps, which were worlds different from concentration camps like Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen). This is another quibble, but I get annoyed when people do not know of what they speak.
3. There is, obviously, no systematic extermination of the Palestinians. Rather, their population has increased since they've lived under the Israeli occupation. Certainly, the Palestinians have suffered hardships and, at times, harsh Israeli policies, but seriously: there is absolutely zero parallel between anything the Palestinians have suffered, from 1948 to the present day, and the extermination of the European Jews. The obnoxious, and repetitious, assertions to the contrary do not change this fundamental fact. It is simply outrageous to compare systematic genocide to policies instituted in defense of a people, even if those policies are often harsh.
The BDS movement is much more popular in Europe than in the United States, but it is surely popular among many in academia. The movement is hypocritical, as it does not have anything bad to say about truly nasty governments. Occasionally, there have been token resolutions against the former junta in Myanmar and Mugabe's Zimbabwe. But the overarching purpose of the BDS movement is to delegitimize the State of Israel and to isolate it from the broader international community, including its cultural, educational, and scientific achievements. It sees Israel as morally equivalent to the apartheid regime in South Africa, and it wants the international community to shun Israel the way that it did South Africa. In the past, groups that make up this informal BDS movement have expressed their solidarity with Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution," hoisted placards of the late revolutionary Che Guevara, and shown absolute, utter indifference to the viciousness of countries in the broader Middle East, such as Syria, Qaddafi's Libya, Sudan (whose government has literally perpetrated genocide), Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq, and other brutal regimes outside of the Middle East. While some universities, such as the University of Johannesburg, have canceled ties with Israeli universities, there has been no change in the status of ties with universities in dictatorial countries such as China. (Oh, and China is also an occupying power; it has occupied Tibet since 1959). The University of Johannesburg had actually issued an ultimatum to Ben-Gurion University to conduct joint research projects with a Palestinian university within six months (which would be done in consultation with UJ); if not, relations would be cut (and they were).
This is another manifestation of the obsessive fixation on the Jewish state, which I wrote about in my last post. These movements write long tracts on Israel's misdeeds against the Palestinians; the very term "BDS" brings up a gazillion hits about Israel but nothing about any other country, because no other country has an international movement designed to "BDS" it; and has been very blunt in its desire to isolate Israel from the world. For example, Britain's University and Colleges Union made Israel the target of a whopping 41% of all international resolutions. For another example, here is a letter written by Mona Baker, an Egyptian professor of translator studies at the University of Manchester who kicked two Israeli academics off the board of her journal:
“My decision [to fire you] is political, not personal. As far as I am concerned, I will always regard and treat you both as friends, on a personal level, but I do not wish to continue an official association with any Israeli under the present circumstances."
I could go on and on. There is no need to hear anything from Israeli academics because of the occupation (even though many Israeli academics are vociferous critics of the occupation themselves). Meanwhile, many of these same BDSers proudly wear the Palestinian kaffiyah (which in its origins was worn by the commoner toiling in the fields, but has become associated with the Palestinian resistance since it was adopted by Arafat), have nothing negative to say about the Palestinian Authority (whose corruption and human rights abuses are atrocious), or even Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who have nothing in common with any of these BDSers except for their hatred for Israel. These groups do not even pretend to care about other peoples under occupation or without their own state, such as the Tibetans or the Kurds.
Cultural boycott is disgusting. It goes against the grain of what should be the focus of academia: the fostering and cultivation of knowledge through free and intellectual discourse. Alice Walker, the author of The Color Purple, has long been an anti-Israel activist and BDSer. She even said that she does not want her novel to be translated into Hebrew. She also tried (unsuccessfully) to prevent Alicia Keyes from performing in Israel. Walker's personal biography finds her peculiarly obsessed with Israel, calling Israel "the greatest terrorist in that part of the world." Certainly, she has nothing negative to say about Arafat's legacy or Hamas. She explains away the firing of rockets into Israel (and would certainly do the same for suicide bombing) because it's a "David and Goliath" situation and that is all the Palestinians have.
There is very little rational about the BDS phenomenon. One BDSer, Naomi Klein, has admitted that Israel is easy to pick on because of its small size and dependence on international trade. In other words, she has made it frank that the BDS movement is a bully. What a cowardly way of thinking.
This is yet another shameful episode for those who cherish the freedom of intellectual pursuit and the marketplace of ideas.
This is another instance of the obsessions of the BDS Movement (Boycott, Divest, Sanction), an international group of anti-Israel activists, scholars, and so on. One of its most prominent supporters is Roger Waters, of Pink Floyd fame, who said recently that the Jewish Lobby is "particularly" powerful in the rock n roll industry. This feeds into the martyrdom complex of Waters and others who are similarly obsessed with Israel. He has compared Israeli policies vis-a-vis the Palestinians to Nazi Judenpolitik in the 1930s and even into the war period. His comments about the Jewish lobby (Note: not the "Zionist lobby"; he might have slipped) mark him as an outright anti-Semite, whether he thinks of himself consciously that way or not. He continued in the interview: "I would not have played for the Vichy government in occupied France in WWII, would not have played in Berlin either during this time...There were many people who pretended that the oppression of the Jews was not going on. From 1933 until 1946 [sic]. So this is not a new scenario. Except this time its the Palestinians who are being murdered."
Where to begin?
1. World War II ended in 1945, not 1946. This is obnoxious on my part, sure, but it needs to be emphasized just how historically ignorant this man is. Everyone with even a modicum of education knows this.
2. Jews were not being systematically murdered as early as 1933. Yes, the first concentration camp (Dachau) was established then, but its early prisoner population consisted of left-wingers and at this early stage was not remotely comparable to what the concentration camps later became (and what the concentration camps later became is likewise not comparable to the extermination camps, which were worlds different from concentration camps like Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen). This is another quibble, but I get annoyed when people do not know of what they speak.
3. There is, obviously, no systematic extermination of the Palestinians. Rather, their population has increased since they've lived under the Israeli occupation. Certainly, the Palestinians have suffered hardships and, at times, harsh Israeli policies, but seriously: there is absolutely zero parallel between anything the Palestinians have suffered, from 1948 to the present day, and the extermination of the European Jews. The obnoxious, and repetitious, assertions to the contrary do not change this fundamental fact. It is simply outrageous to compare systematic genocide to policies instituted in defense of a people, even if those policies are often harsh.
The BDS movement is much more popular in Europe than in the United States, but it is surely popular among many in academia. The movement is hypocritical, as it does not have anything bad to say about truly nasty governments. Occasionally, there have been token resolutions against the former junta in Myanmar and Mugabe's Zimbabwe. But the overarching purpose of the BDS movement is to delegitimize the State of Israel and to isolate it from the broader international community, including its cultural, educational, and scientific achievements. It sees Israel as morally equivalent to the apartheid regime in South Africa, and it wants the international community to shun Israel the way that it did South Africa. In the past, groups that make up this informal BDS movement have expressed their solidarity with Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution," hoisted placards of the late revolutionary Che Guevara, and shown absolute, utter indifference to the viciousness of countries in the broader Middle East, such as Syria, Qaddafi's Libya, Sudan (whose government has literally perpetrated genocide), Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq, and other brutal regimes outside of the Middle East. While some universities, such as the University of Johannesburg, have canceled ties with Israeli universities, there has been no change in the status of ties with universities in dictatorial countries such as China. (Oh, and China is also an occupying power; it has occupied Tibet since 1959). The University of Johannesburg had actually issued an ultimatum to Ben-Gurion University to conduct joint research projects with a Palestinian university within six months (which would be done in consultation with UJ); if not, relations would be cut (and they were).
This is another manifestation of the obsessive fixation on the Jewish state, which I wrote about in my last post. These movements write long tracts on Israel's misdeeds against the Palestinians; the very term "BDS" brings up a gazillion hits about Israel but nothing about any other country, because no other country has an international movement designed to "BDS" it; and has been very blunt in its desire to isolate Israel from the world. For example, Britain's University and Colleges Union made Israel the target of a whopping 41% of all international resolutions. For another example, here is a letter written by Mona Baker, an Egyptian professor of translator studies at the University of Manchester who kicked two Israeli academics off the board of her journal:
“My decision [to fire you] is political, not personal. As far as I am concerned, I will always regard and treat you both as friends, on a personal level, but I do not wish to continue an official association with any Israeli under the present circumstances."
I could go on and on. There is no need to hear anything from Israeli academics because of the occupation (even though many Israeli academics are vociferous critics of the occupation themselves). Meanwhile, many of these same BDSers proudly wear the Palestinian kaffiyah (which in its origins was worn by the commoner toiling in the fields, but has become associated with the Palestinian resistance since it was adopted by Arafat), have nothing negative to say about the Palestinian Authority (whose corruption and human rights abuses are atrocious), or even Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who have nothing in common with any of these BDSers except for their hatred for Israel. These groups do not even pretend to care about other peoples under occupation or without their own state, such as the Tibetans or the Kurds.
Cultural boycott is disgusting. It goes against the grain of what should be the focus of academia: the fostering and cultivation of knowledge through free and intellectual discourse. Alice Walker, the author of The Color Purple, has long been an anti-Israel activist and BDSer. She even said that she does not want her novel to be translated into Hebrew. She also tried (unsuccessfully) to prevent Alicia Keyes from performing in Israel. Walker's personal biography finds her peculiarly obsessed with Israel, calling Israel "the greatest terrorist in that part of the world." Certainly, she has nothing negative to say about Arafat's legacy or Hamas. She explains away the firing of rockets into Israel (and would certainly do the same for suicide bombing) because it's a "David and Goliath" situation and that is all the Palestinians have.
There is very little rational about the BDS phenomenon. One BDSer, Naomi Klein, has admitted that Israel is easy to pick on because of its small size and dependence on international trade. In other words, she has made it frank that the BDS movement is a bully. What a cowardly way of thinking.
This is yet another shameful episode for those who cherish the freedom of intellectual pursuit and the marketplace of ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment