Lecturers may boycott Israeli academics

What's everyone's views on a boycott like this? I'm torn on it, though with the added exclusion and the support of Palestinian academics, it's more palatable than before

State's policy in occupied territories fuels union debate

Polly Curtis and Will Woodward
Tuesday April 5, 2005
The Guardian

Israeli academics who refuse to condemn their government's actions in the occupied territories risk a boycott by the UK's leading lecturers' union.

The Association of University Teachers' annual council, which begins on April 20 in Eastbourne, will also debate whether to boycott three of Israel's eight universities - Haifa University, Bar Ilan University and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem - over their alleged complicity with the government's policies on the Palestinian territories.

The union voted against an academic boycott policy two years ago, but campaigners believe the motions are more likely to be passed this year.

The new boycott motion contains a clause to exclude "conscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state's colonial and racist policies".

Palestinian academics have also issued a call for an international boycott of Israel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1452239,00.html

they are also going to boycott any Palestinian lecturers/spokespeople who do not explicitly condemn suicide bombings? And who decides whether the excluded lecturers "declarations of contrition" are sincere enough? Reading the article, I should also note their allegations against Haifa University are ridiculous; it's by far the most left-wing of Israel's universities.

Personally, I think any form of academic boycott is wrong (the only exception I can think of is a boycott against a specific person who has openly and regularly made racist remarks or calls to violence or such). And if their aim is to push Israel towards peace, starting boycotts just at the times positive steps seem to be being taken will certainly be counterproductive, both from the viewpoint of the Israeli government and even more so in the public's eyes.

You questioned "And if their aim is to push Israel towards peace, starting boycotts just at the times positive steps seem to be being taken will certainly be counterproductive, both from the viewpoint of the Israeli government and even more so in the public's eyes." which would be a valid point if Ms. Blackwell and her followers were people of good will. But, is it a valid assumption to assume that Ms. Blackwell is a person of good will - or does she have a motive or agenda.

She has some "issues" which older liberals characterize as a classic case of being an OLDER "web based, media savvy underdog d'jour liberal" suffering from a serious "Peter Pan Complex."

Academic boycotts are counterproductive.

When the faculty wannabes at the two local campuses were all hot and bothered about "boycott" and "divestiture" I "Googled" the faculty wannabes who were most active in the "movement."

Practically no engineers, physicists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer scientists, physicians, nurses, dentists, pharmacists. Some economists. Most heavy in the "soft" areas (sociology, linguistics, regional studies, etc.) from which I drew one set of conclusions.

Since Blackwell (and the local faculty wannabes) did disavow obvious Aryanists and Holocaust deniers - I regard them as "web based, media savvy underdog d'jour liberals" -- as compared to "in hindsight, with some historical background and historical context liberals" who would regard any kind of academic boycott as demeaning to academia.

As an "in hindsight, with some historical background and historical context liberal" - I have nothing against YOUNG "web based, media savvy underdog d'jour liberals" - although I think OLDER "web based, media savvy underdog d'jour liberals" are suffering from a "Peter Pan Complex."

I dont get the snotty reference to "soft" areas though- I'd be very wary of drawing conclusions about a movement based on that sort of assessment. Perhaps you'd give their argument more creedence if Bill frist was on board with it. I wouldn't.

OKAY - I WILL BOYCOTT ANY AIRLINE -- INCLUDING UNITED, USAIR, AND QANTAS -- THAT USES AIRBUS INDUSTRIES AIRBUSES. IF I HAVE TO CHANGE PLANES TWO OR THREE TIMES OR DELAY A TRIP SIX HOURS --- I WILL BOYCOTT ANY AIRLINE THAT USES AIRBUS INDUSTRIES AIRBUSES - I DO NOT LIKE THE LEMMING LIKE BEHAVIOR OF THESE BRITS AND FRENCH - SO I WILL BOYCOTT THEM ALL. ALSO - NEVER EVER WILL I BUY A PEUGEOT OR CITROEN - EVER

This is as stupid as the Bush, Rapture Right "boycott" of meteorologists who "believe in" global warming, or geologists who "believe in" Peak Oil, or biochemists who "believe in" stem cell research.

Does this boycott also extend to Israeli stem cell researchers who are working on diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, or spinal cord injuries and stroke/brain injuries. Rapture rightists. (I am a diabetic --- these "humanitarian" Brits and French and European pseudo intellectuals are killing me -- they must be going for the Mengeles Prize.)

SINCE THE CALIFORNIA REGENERATIVE MEDICINE INSTITUTE'S STEM CELL RESEARCH GRANTS AND CONTRACTS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS - OPEN TO PUBLIC REVIEW -- I SHALL FILE SUIT AGAINST THE AWARD OF ANY SUCH GRANTS OR CONTRACTS TO ANY BRITISH OR FRENCH OR AUSTRALIAN PSUEDO ACADEMICIAN WHO PARTICIPATES IN THIS BOYCOTT AND WHO APPLIES FOR "GUEST RESEARCHER" STATUS WITH THE INSTITUTE (I.E., NON CITIZEN RESEARCHER WHO SEEKS A CALIFORNIA TAXPAYER FUNDED GRANT AND A GUEST SCIENTIST VISA). I SHALL ALSO OPPOSE GUEST SCHOLAR STATUS AT ANY CALIFORNIA STATE OR UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CAMPUS -- NO H1B WITH MY MONEY --- FOR ANY PSUEDO ACADEMICAN WHO PARTICIPATES IN THIS BOYCOT - EVEN (ESPECIALLY) FROM FLINDERS AND MONASH.

I am a PhD chemical engineer - and I have been the victim of boycotts. My PhD thesis adviser invited me to participate in a seminar at The University of Petroleum and Minerals (King Fahd University)in Saudi Arabia -- but I was denied a visa to so participate because of the Saudi boycott of "Zionists and Jews." So, I know boycotts.

I have to echo the question "eyl" asked: are Palestinian academics and Arab academics going to be asked to condemn the suicide bombings or risk boycott? I also have to say that now that peace process is moving along so much faster now, is this really a wise move? Is there a boycott of American universities that may support the current military occupation of Iraq?

The other thing I really dislike about this is that Israeli's are being forced to disagree with their own country. Some probably already disagree with the situations happening in Israel and the OT. However, they should not be forced to disclose their positions one way or the other. If they choose to disclose that information and its contrary to the lecture union's philosophy, then boycott INDIVIDUALS. How is this any different than if they were to boycott all Catholic universities based on the Catholic Church's positions on gays and abortion, as both positions are contrary to the EU? People's political beliefs should be private, unless they choose to make them public or are a part of their teaching (in this case).

In answer to the first question: how the hell would I know and why would eyl be asking me? Maybe he should email whoever it is who would actually know about such things? Of course, he voices opposition to boycotts, so I would be very safe in assuming that he would oppose any such boycott anyway, or else there'd be a fair dollop of hypocrisy at play, I would think...

I'm torn about the whole thing, both morally and pragmatically. Maybe it's a thing I've got about boycotts entering the academic and cultural arenas, because I've got no misgivings at all about boycotts and sanctions on a govt level. But on the other hand, the example you brought up of US academics and Iraq (the best and closest example to the Israeli one, I think), CBs one of treatment of women in some ME countries, and eyl's one about suicide bombings, have all made me think that I'd think boycotts for all those reasons would be legitimate and fair, and the same goes for boycotts protesting Israels occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip...

Keeping all the responses in one here. Regarding pelsar's comment that coming at this point in time when there's movement of a positive nature - This isn't just something that popped up over the past few days. It's been around for a few years. It's protesting the occupations and despite the small and sometimes uncertain positive movements in Israel and the OT right now, there's no light at the end of the tunnel when it comes to ending the occupation. Sharon has already stated clearly that he doesn't feel a need to enter into negotiations about Palestinian statehood, there's continued settlement expansion in the West Bank, and that garbage dump thing all pretty much hint that the occupation isn't ending in the West Bank and there's no real intention on Israel's part of doing what needs to be done to ensure the Palestinians can finally have their statehood...

Violet...

someone I can email regarding this, unsuccessfully so far. The AUT website doesn't mention this at all; the only reference I can find there to a boycott against Israel is a similiar measure, also proposed by Blackwell, which was voted down two years ago. If I find something further, I'll post it to this thread.

And yes, you're correct; I would oppose any boycott of Arab academics for failing to condemn suicide bombings and such. I specified above the conditions I think a boycott is justified; only if the acadameic is calling for violence or racism or the like, in which case he himself only should be boycotted - the university itself should not be boycotted unless it has a pattern of supporting such views.

You said the claims against it were ridiculous and it was a very left-leaning university. I remember reading an article by Ilan Pappe a few years back talking about the attempts by the uni to dismiss him because of his stance on the I/P conflict, and if unis are trying to dismiss people based on their stance on the conflict, then that would make the idea of boycotting a uni like that just a bit easier to do, imo. Mind you, I think he's still at Haifa university, so it looks like nothing came of that whole affair anway...

Anyway, I think I pretty much see things yr way on academic boycotts in that much as I'd find the causes just, I couldn't support that sort of boycott. I think they'd cause damage that would end up hitting in the wrong places, and in the case of Israel, I think there are better and more effective ways of protesting the Occupation...

Violet...

on edit: came back to add a word. I'm thinking faster than I type tonight, which is a sign that I need to stop drinking so much coffee...

Pappe's problems with the University stemmed his defense of Teddy Katz, an MA student who had handed in a thesis accusing the Alexandroni Brigade of comitting a massacre at Tantura during 1948. Following a libel suit brought against him by the veterans of the Brigade (where they apparntly managed to prove he had falsified evidence), Katz recanted (and later tried to retract his recantment). The University reviewed his work, decided it did not meet academic standards, and disqualified it. He was allowed to revise and resubmit it; the examiners failed the revised theis, and gave Katz a "second class" MA (baisically, I thin this means he can't go on to a PhD). Pappe was Katz's most vocal supporter. The University apparently placed him on "trial" contending some of the things he did in the course of that support were unethical; I don't know the particulars (all the material on this I've found on the web ultimately traces back to Pappe's statement you referred to, which is obviously his side of the story). And you're correct, he wasn't expelled; I just looked at the Haifa University site, and he's listed as giving several courses this year.

On the topic of the thread, I've emailed Blackwell; I'll post again when I have her response.

entire Middle East, not to mention large swathes of Africa, Central Asia, and Indonesia.

I base this on the treatment of women, which is a matter not only of custom but of religious belief, the codified belief that women are worth only a percentage of what a man is worth. Women are considered unclean. Their hair must be covered as it inflames masculine desires. Polygamy is legal; one may have up to four wives but a woman can be stoned to death for adultery, even if the transgression is caused by rape. Women can be killed to avenge the family honor. Women can be raped, gang raped, to atone for the sin of a male family member.

This is becoming absolutely ridiculous. And the fact that "liberals" are promoting this boycott bullshit, while conveniently ignoring - or worse, accepting as "tradition" - the widespread human rights violations I just detailed above, which probably affect in some way or another, 500 million women or thereabouts, I find appalling.

On the issue of female genital mutilation, which is widely though not exclusively practiced in Muslim nations such as the Sudan, I have actually heard sociologists explain that the removal of clitoris and labia is akin to a nose job. It is merely an attempt to beautify the female form and thus we should be sensitive to the culture and not complain about it, nor is it appropriate to attempt to eradicate the practice. Of course the fact that sexuality and childbirth are forever compromised, painful and even impossible, is to be regretted. We should be reassured, however, that better surgical instruments and even anesthetics are being provided, sometimes.

This is the good liberal, culturally sensitive approach to FMG. I suspect that they have a similar approach to terrorism, regarding it as Something They (Israel, Iraqi "collaborators" with the US) Asked For. Let me frame it this way:

It is perfectly acceptable, due to cultural and religious views of heaven and martyrdom and "freedom fighting", to blow up a child with a suicide belt, taking heaven knows how many others with him, but it is NOT acceptable for an Israeli academic to have an opinion with which we disagree.

Gimme a break already.

since this boycott is coming at a time when there appears to be some real movement between the palestenians and israelis....my gut is disgusted. It is not a call for someone who is interested in peace between palestenians and israelis. On the contrary, it seems to be someone who needs the conflict to keep going..... Its makes me realize that for some the end of the conflict will be the end of their own "reason to live" For some, this conflict makes them feel alive, gives them a reason to get excited, to believe in something, without it, their lost....or perhaps its even a simpler version, of just loving that feeling of "hating" something, or perhaps if we really go down to lower level its just a more sophisticated version of the old antisemitism....whatever.

In the end however, her cry for boycott now makes me wonder if nothing has really changed. Are we just setting up ourselves for another hit. That call now, of all times makes it clear that in someplaces in Europe somethings never seem to change....

because it is not a call that encourages peace, its a call that encourages division.

people out there who are invested in keeping this thing going.

I can almost understand the young men, loving the excitement of a call to arms. A European intellectual, I cannot understand. Except to cast her in the light of many hundreds of years of bigotry.

Will things NEVER change?

I feel disgust.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

In this case yr criticism of a boycott is that before anyone looks at Israel and dares to criticise it, they should be obligated to also boycott every other country that's doing nasty things, and only after that and not a second before, do they have any right to cast their criticism in Israel's direction, and even then they probably run the risk of being accused of being all sorts of nasty things?

See, when some people in this thread reply and tell me they oppose academic boycotts and they don't use the Look Anywhere Else But At Israel tactic but are reasonably consistant in their views on boycotts and their impacts, I tend to respect and generally agree with them. But when someone appears with stuff like: Look Over There! Here's A Long List Of Who You Have To Boycott (boycotting them would be good!)Before You Talk About Boycotting Israel (which would be bad!), then I don't respect or agree with that view. It's totally inconsistant..

btw, I wasn't aware that honour killings happened in Indonesia. In fact, in what way exactly are women discriminated against in Indonesia?

Here is a link which confirms that the practice occurs among Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia:

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchi...

The link will also confirm that this hideous practice has also spread to Europe and America.

Here's a link regarding MALE honor killing in Indonesia, due to homosexuality:

http://www.woatusa.org/domviobrief.html

I will admit, honor killing among Islamic women in Indonesia is considered to be cultural rather than religious.

There, I feel SO much better.

Maybe I should only PARTIALLY boycott Indonesia.

As far as your other question is concerned, the boycott of Israel is consistent with the focus of blame, blame for the failings of the entire Arab world, that has been laid on Israel. This is maddening, it reflects a deep-seated bigotry. Beyond that it limits what can be done to effect progress. As long as everybody is simply focusing on Israel, nobody is making progress. It's consistent with the opinions of Massad, blaming all the diseases of the Arab world on Israel and/or the West.

Any objective look at this region will reveal MANY problems, some centuries old, others of recent vintage: opportunistic politicians, the shenanigans of the oil companies, arms races, interference by great powers, religious fundamentalism, demagoguery, poor distribution of income, joblessness and lack of educational opportunities. The region lacks water. One could go on and on.

Moreover, this boycott and its implications mirror the extreme philosophy of Massad, that the very existence of Israel is evil, that Jews are evil, that Jews won't be allowed to speak unless they speak out against the government of Israel.

Is this freedom of thought? Isn't this coercion? Isn't this, carried to its end point, inviting Israeli academics to advocate the destruction of their own nation?

Israel and its politics can only be seen clearly in the context of the entire region. The wars, the problems, the inability to secure a just and lasting peace, did NOT occur in a vacuum. For supposedly intelligent people to try and pretend it DID occur is a vacuum, is intellectually unforgiveable. Meanwhile, it helps perpetuate the illusion that a lack of Israel would have, or would, magically result in a glorious, democratic, prosperous Arab society.

One may deplore the occupation of the West Bank but should NOT pretend that the occupation occurred at the whim of evil Israelis. The territories were occupied as a defense against invasion.

Supposedly, the territories would be returned when peace accords were in place. They never materialized. The brutality on the one side has been echoed by the brutality of the other. This is NOT a one-sided situation.

If Israel is to be boycotted, then so should Arab leadership, those who have perpetuated this war. There should also be boycotts in retrospect on the demagogues who stirred up hysteria way back in the 1930's and '40's, and made it impossible for Israel's birth to be anything but bloody. If there are any professors from the University of Hizbollah, they should most certainly be boycotted also.

Shall I go on?

Isn't the proposed boycott actually a form of punishment and intimidation of intellectuals, exactly akin to that practiced by Hitler and Stalin?

Should we accept Dameocrat's definition of a "good academic" or should we see it for what it is: an attempt to deny freedom of speech and intellectual exchange?

Is this not a shining example of totalitarianism? Is this consistent with liberal thought, or is it the opposite?

If you have read ANYTHING I have written you will realize that I firmly believe the answer to this is:

HELL NO.

Does this mean I believe in boycotts? I absolutely do NOT. Boycotts do no good. Only freedom of thought, movement of individuals, ideas, creativity, can bring about progress. That goes for any kind of limits whatsoever on human intercourse ESPECIALLY in an academic setting.

But then, I'm an artist. I come from a long line of people who are the first to suffer in a totalitarian environment, like that advocated here. I also believe in the US Constitution, which steadfastly protects freedom of speech.

Who the hell are these academics, and the posters here, to suggest that LIMITING freedom of speech is a good idea? What about a supine academic makes a GOOD academic?

The poster below me seems to think forcing groupthink on people is a good idea. I think that poster, and the academic who thought of this idea, are sounding like fascists.

Coercion NEVER brings progress. It merely hardens positions.

And frankly, I don't give a damn WHO questions my motives. I'm too old and too tired to worry about it.

***

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

At first you seem to be talking to me, then shift into referring to 'one' instead of 'you'. I'm a bit confused here. For a start, the bit that was clearly addressed to me makes the assumption that because I don't view the conflict in some simplified Israel=Good PureGuys, Palestinians and any Arab states=Bad Evil Guys that means that I'm looking at Israel in a vacuum. That's completely wrong. The reason I don't cling to that idiotic and simplified approach to viewing the conflict is because I do look at the conflict in relation to the parties involved, the region its in, and the involvement (or at times lack of it) of parties like the US and Britain...

Secondly, if you are asking me why I'm advocating this boycott, I'm not and didn't say I was. I'm really confused by this one if you are referring to me. I think my exact words were that I was torn on the whole thing, despite nearly being persuaded by the argument that discrimination against women should also result in boycotts. I'm still torn on a moral level, but on a pragmatic level I fall on the side of being opposed to academic and cultural boycotts because of the harm and alienation to people who aren't the intended targets of the action.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I do not believe in academic sanctions or punishing the flow of ideas, especially when the motivation is political.

MAYBE in the case of Ann Coulter, or somebody advocating extreme ideas such as terrorism, a boycott would be appropriate. Even then, if we can listen to Nazis, and people under Canadian law are protected from advocating the killing of Israeli civilians, we can listen to crazy-ass professors.

I do NOT believe in forcing intellectuals to bend over and take a political hit. To me, that smacks of a totalitarian mindset, and of coercion, and it is disturbing.

I DO believe in looking at the whole picture, when judging one corner of it. A painter, for example, who obsesses over the lower right hand corner of his piece, ignoring the rest, will likely make a bad painting. A viewer of the painting, obsessing over one corner, won't see the image. A critic, critically judging that corner, will miss entirely the meaning of that corner in the context of the painting.

I do appreciate readers and posters to this forum, respecting that I am attempting, as an individual, to learn, to become more fair in my outlook.

I do assume certain intellectual and/or philosophical positions because I believe in the rights of free speech and civil discourse, regardless of the speakers' nationalities or religions or heritage.

Thank you.

If one criticizes, one should at least be consistent about it.

I agree that, unless an individual academic is specifically espousing racism, a boycott isn't right on him/her. Academic boycotts are, in general, wrong and also pretty stupid. The point of academics (ideally) should be listening to all ideas, not just the ones you agree with. (You may then go on to trash those you don't like, but sheltering the academic world from ideas you don't like misses the point of academic exploration.)

"OK, I am a feminist. I think I will call for a boycott of the
entire Middle East.."

don't use any gas, (stop driving) don't buy any petroleum
products (like plastics) ...


"This is becoming absolutely ridiculous. And the fact that "liberals" are promoting this boycott bullshit, while conveniently ignoring - or worse, accepting as "tradition" -..widespread human rights violations I just detailed above"

I don't buy it,.. " "liberals" conveniently ignoring or accepting as "tradition" widespread human rights violations.."
>were are these "liberals" ???<

it is to stop listening and talking to people, because you don't approve of their religion or their politics.

Should we not listen to an Arab intellectual because his wife wears a burkha?

And we SHOULD be looking at these traditions. They do constitute human rights violations from a feminist POV. Hope you can figure that one out.

"Liberals". Use of quotes indicates sarcasm. I don't think this is liberal thought, proposing this boycott. And there is a long and bitter history of "liberal" betrayal of the Jewish people in Europe.

"how dumb it is to stop listening and talking to people, because you don't approve of their religion or their politics."

Ann Coulter hasn't got a thing to say that I want to hear.

other than to monitor her death threats for future prosecution

Boycott some professors for their extreme views maybe ..

Boycott some Universities probably not ...

And the gas, my car dropped dead in 1978, that was it, good riddance.

I still have feet:)

It will keep the good academics in the loop and harm the ones in favor of Israel's destructive policies and inspire the rock huggers to publically criticize the settlements.

politics? Or those who simply knuckle under to coercion?

And what are "rock huggers", pray tell? I'm almost afraid to ask.

this hoopala - the ones who pay are the serious researchers. The last time this craziness took place a key conference on pediatric leukemia was moved several times, canceled, and later re-constituted in the US - with fewer attendees. (So, who died?)

I could really give a care about non-tenured, no doctorate "Linguistics" instructors -- but I do about oncologists and cardiologists and stem cell researchers. And if the linguists don't want to go to serious medical conferences -- good.

Hypothetically, let's say a family member had an extremely serious - and usually fatal disease, but their primary care physician had caught it "early enough" that maybe, just maybe, "one of the "Names" at an academic medical center might be able to manage the disease process."

And let's go a step further - you are intelligent and web literate. So you go to a search engine like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
and http://www.sciam.com/channel.cfm?chanID=sa011 and http://jama.ama-assn.org/ and the other cutting edge journals. And you see that much of the recent research and clinical work is being done at Technion Medical School or at Hadassah Medical School.

Having made that finding of fact - would you go a "Name" at an academic medical center who boycotted conferences in Israel (on the particular disease) or to a "Name" at an academic medical center who attended conferences in Israel (on the particular disease).

And, let's make it realistic - one of the 2000 plus disease processes clinically categorized as a "leukemia" and the center for that particular "leukemia" is in Israel.

And the answer to that one is a no-brainer for me. When it comes to something like that, I'd choose whoever was the best available in their field and not give a toss about politics...

Violet...

All they do is promote insular views, not break them down. In the case of the lecturers union, they are politicizing intellectual fields which should be free of politicization and political censorship. Creating political loyalty tests for doctors and scientists is exactly what Bush is doing w/r to much of the historical, ecological and medical sciences. (Cheney's Campus Watch for one, Bush's efforts w/r to swapping out the scientists in the EPA, FDA and Interior).

Sames goes with financial ones as well. In the case of South Africa, it drove them to develop (successfully) an atomic bomb, their own arms industry (one of the world's largest), their own coal/oil conversion technologies (quite successful), and likely kept Apartheid on the books for many years longer than had open and honest discussions would have lead to. Would have had better success by investing in industries which would have encouraged economic equality.

So, if you want to fuel support for the extremists, then turning your back is the way to go. Otherwise such things are nothing more than "feel good" efforts that do nothing useful.

L-

a very well written explanation, on the political/eduacational level as was the above post (coastie) proclaiming the inherent hypocrisy of it on the practical level

my own addition being the more personal reaction that i wrote above: is there nothing that we can do in the "eyes of the liberal world" that is right?....here we are clearing out of gaza-and this pseudo "liberal" world acts as if nothing has changed, instead of encouraging the change, they are ignoring it which in fact encourages exactly the opposite (why waste time and resources, is this simply the first step of our own demise?)

actually there will always be those opposed to peace with israel....and they arent just militant extremists carrying weapons....some of them have PhDs.

I strongly suspect that the intentions of those who already boycott or would join it are good. They honestly do want peace and see what they're doing as a tangible way of doing their bit to get there. I think what they should be doing is looking at how similar boycotts affected South Africa, because I fail to see the point in doing it if it's going to backfire spectacularly or result in adding years to the Occupation. My guess is that if the vote hasn't already happened, they won't get the numbers needed to pass it...

Violet...

If there is a key medical conference on some fine point of opthalmic surgery in Israel, and a good, academic and clinical opthalmic surgeon from the US or the UK or Canada or Australia, says "Well there's a good panel on very early stage detection and intervention of macular degeneration - before the disease process becomes irreversible - but I shall boycott the conference because it is in Israel --> and some of the Israeli presenters may be Likudniks. But I will catch it in Journal of Opthalmology or JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine several weeks later."

Two key points--

1. "very early stage detection and intervention of macular degeneration"

2. "I will catch it in Journal of Opthalmology or JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine several weeks later."

And a patient presents to our good, progressive, liberal, even handed physician - with the condition described in the presentation (that our good, progressive, liberal, even handed physician made a conscious decision not to attend).

And our good, progressive, liberal, even handed physician uses the old treatment - because the presentation isn't in the printed or on-line literature yet.

And the patient goes blind.

Are those facts sufficient to take a MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE to the jury? I've only been lawyering 42 years -- and I would say a BIG YES!!! To me that is malpractice. Even under Aussie and UK law (and we study Aussie, UK, and Canadian tort law in the US).

Also - I have a choice of three medical schools and associated teaching hospitals. And I would not go to a doctor who a deliberately boycotted key conference in her specialty for political reasons. To me that is gross incompetence. If that is so important join Physicians Without Borders or join Red Crescent. But don't jeopardize your patients. That violates both the Hippocratic Oath and the Oath of Maimonides.

Have at me.

Doesn't the US government bar medical folk from travelling to particular destinations? What's the difference there? Personally, I find the 'what if' scenario in yr a bit out there, plausibility-wise, and it could apply to so many other things as well. Apart from that, it doesn't seem to be related to what I was saying to Pelsar, unless this 'what if' scenario is supposed to be some sort of argument that those academics who would join a boycott against Israel haven't got good motives and don't want peace?

Violet...

"Doesn't the US government bar medical folk from travelling to particular destinations?" - Wrong. Individual permission is granted to go to "category countries."

No. The point is that medical conferences are frequently 6 weeks to three months ahead of the journals and the web. Failure to be up to date with the latest knowledge is "malpractice" for an academic-clinical specialist who holds himself/herself out to have special expertise. That's the common law.

My sister-in-law has been kept alive, active, productive, excellent "quality of life" for six years by "state of the art" current research from the latest aplastic anemia conferences around the world. Her "consultant" is a "name" who goes to all of the conferences. And he gets permission to go to "category countries."

The boycotters may have wonderful motives -- but they may be shortchanging their patients. That is malpractice.

What happens if there's medical conferences there? And I think it's important to point out that while yr talking about medical folk, not all or even a majority of the academics talking boycott talk are medical folk...

Violet...

(Even my Sunni Muslim academic endocrinologist does not go along with it).

Yes. there is a "onesie-twosie/individual case" exemption for acdemic conferences in "category countries" (such as Cuba). And when Ashcroft tried to lift it - the academic medical community protested.

If Israel does not like the boycott there is an obvious solution
that will be readily (if not immediately) accepted. The only question
in my mind would be whether this is done in an open and democratic
manner.

And I will pick the Doc who goes to the conference.

As we said in the 1960's "It's my body! Our bodies - Ourselves."

But these people have a right to boycott anybody they choose,
so long as it is done legal and democratic, and boycott is a
very effective tactic, else we would not be reading all this
blather against it. Of course this person may not get her way.

we've been boycotted since 48 for ......er....existing. This is just another variation on it. Each time a new excuse a new reason, but it always comes down to the same:

boycott israel because............(put in latest sin here)



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r102:S11AP1-739: (just a quick link)

I didn't say it was new.

I think the Occupation and the treatment of Palestinians isn't an excuse, but a reason why if Israel doesn't end it, there needs to be high level international sanctions put in place. Of course, we all know that will never happen because of the US. For me, a claim that the occupation is an excuse for sanctions and boycotts is the same as saying apartheid in South Africa was an excuse for boycotts...

Violet...

This call for a boycott is an excuse (defined as: To serve as justification for). However, how legitimate or not an excuse is part of the question. I feel what pelsar was saying is that boycotts have been part of the history of Israel since her inception, whether the excuses were justified or not.

I was reading it as being more like the organisers wanted to boycott Israel no matter what reason, and the Occupation was just a handy and not particularly legitimate justification...

Violet...

its not a matter of perhaps this is a good reason or that...its more in line of "crying wolf".....after the first hundred times when the wolf really does come (i.e. there maybe a valid reason), its lost all its validity.

The only other one I can think of is the Arab League boycott. Have there been others apart from these two?

I'm kind of curious now to find out whether there's been times when Israelis have boycotted another country, and what if any differences made it acceptable? I've been doing a bit of googling on boycotts and when it comes to selective support of boycotting, the US government takes the gold medal for double standards. When it comes to Israel, it's introduced legislation to force US businesses not to join any boycotts against Israel, but boycotts countries like Cuba, South Africa etc...

Violet...

There were anti-Israeli movements before the Occupation. Israel wasn't just any other respected nation before '67. The reasons for boycotting may be valid, but many seem to imply that all the anti-Israel sentiment comes as a direct result of the occupation. That's not true at all.

my pancreas, my liver, my kidneys, my heart -- "Our Bodies - Ourselves"

And, because I have a choice of three very fine academic medical centers - I will pick the best qualified physicians - including those who attend conference where the latest medical knowledge (6 weeks to 3 months ahead of JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, NIH) is being released.

My choice.

Your choice.

not to "Israelis" or "Zionists" - and is eagerly enforced by the Arab League's "apparatchiks" in the mineral industry -- as part of their unenlightened human resources policies based on race (yes!), religion (obviously!), gender (yes!), sexual orientation (yes!), handicappers (yes !). And they laugh at the law suits and fight the appeals and contempt citations.

The one I've read about IS directed to Israel and has crumpled a bit in the past few years as individual states normalise their relations with Israel. Have you got a copy of the Arab League boycott where it declares a boycott of Jews (not Israel or Zionists) that I could have a look at?

Violet...

against hiring of JEWISH (not Zionist, not-Israeli, but Jewish) technical, professional, scientific, and managerial employeeds by oil companies operating in Arab lands.

It has been banned by Congress -- but the industry still adheres to it.

I am a Ph.D. Chemical Engineer - never was hired by the oil industry.

Of course, the oil industry - beyond a few "Show pieces" has always had a history of discrimination against Jews, African Americans (Texaco/Chevron's former CEO even joked about it), females, gay/lesbians (ExxonMobil's CEO even bragged about it), and Latinos (again, Texaco/Chevron's former CEO even joked about it

OR regarding Jewish people? I can provide one:)

I can provide one. I'm not asking for a digression on the
Brits, I'm just pointing out they are not the Arabs.

a long history, where the British POV not only in regard to Jewish people, but their actions in Mandate Palestine, or subsequently, have not always been straightforward, to say the least.

And that this makes the boycott issue somewhat more aggravating, it opens wounds.

Surely, you can understand what I'm saying? This is an extremely sore point!

I'm surprised, actually, that people can't see this, and understand why it's so upsetting, ESPECIALLY coming from the Brits.

I was responding to the racist Arab bashing that was dragged in
when I stated my point of view on this subject, and that had nothing
whatever to do with the merits or demerits of this Brit academic
association.

antisemitism in the M.E. to be "rascist Arab bashing". It was intended as no such thing.

For one thing, the problem we are discussing extends far beyond the Arab world. The changes in the Islamic viewpoint, the outlook on life, are not limited to the Arab world.

It is important, moreover, to root the present conflict in Israel and the surrounding neighborhood, in some kind of perspective.

It is not rascist to reflect upon either the events that occurred in the JEWISH Middle East, outside of Israel, and before the state was established, or the causes of those events, or upon the current political discourse of the times.

This unfortunately includes a discussion of the rise of antisemitism in the Middle East, which had not been present in NEARLY so virulent a form, during the centuries of the Ottoman Empire, the time of the Moors, the Mughal Empire and before.

It would be foolish to ignore the presence of this philosophy, or to try to understand its genesis and evolution. One has only to read the denials of the Iranian leader, that he shook hands with the Israeli delegate at the Pope's funeral. The picture of this historic handshake was flashed around the world. It should be a symbol of a new world, something to be celebrated.

Instead, it is being denied.

WHY?

British Petroleum and toppling Mohammed Mosadegh and replacing him with the Shah, etc. - just anti-BP, anti-Brit, anti-Aussie propaganda.

I was referring to my response in #54 to the Arab League
blather in #49. And I'm not defending the Arab League boycott
either, although I could, I just saying that it has zippety-doo-dah
to do with the Brit Academic Union's issues except in some peoples
minds. There is more to this thinking business then just slapping
some ideas together and thinking it must mean something.

"I was referring to my response in #54 to the Arab League
blather in #49. And I'm not defending the Arab League boycott
either, although I could,'

You may wish to read the official government web site at http://www.bxa.doc.gov/ComplianceAndEnforcement/oacrequirements.html which describes in some detail the anti-boycott laws in the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA).

Proscribed acts include

a) Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.

b) Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.

This is in addition to and not in place of other provisions of United States law, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal to

Under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:

* hiring and firing;
* compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
* transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
* job advertisements;
* recruitment;
* testing;
* use of company facilities;
* training and apprenticeship programs;
* fringe benefits;
* pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
* other terms and conditions of employment,

on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age. http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

Notwithstanding these laws, the mineral exploitation industries, have elected to comply with the Arab League Boycott, and to discriminate ("boycott") against Jewish (not just "Zionist" or "Israeli", but "Jewish" applicants) in direct violation of Title VII, and the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA).

They have lost every law suit and administrative appeal, they take appeals, and they hire the individual plaintiff as a "token" or "showpiece." To borrow a phrase from the African-American civil rights movement, "Last hired, first fired."

Texaco Chevron has admitted - and joked about - discrimination against African-Americans, as well as Jews (not "Zionists" or "Israelis" but "Jews").

ExxonMobil has admitted - and joked about - discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transexuals, as well as Jews (not "Zionists" or "Israelis" but "Jews").

Unocal has admitted - and joked about - discrimination against African-Americans, as well as Jews (not "Zionists" or "Israelis" but "Jews").

As to your statement "And I'm not defending the Arab League boycott
either, although I could, I just saying that it has zippety-doo-dah
to do with the Brit Academic Union's issues except in some peoples
minds. - I would say that all discrimination (that's what a boycott is) based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age is illegal in the US, and that all discrimination (boycott) based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or sexual orientation is just plain wrong and -- by my LIBERAL, LEFT WING, PROGRESSIVE STANDARDS "IMMORAL."


I find any boycott based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or sexual orientation reprehensible, and any boycott of the free flow of academic information based on color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or sexual orientation to be especially reprehensibe, and adversely reflective on the academic community.

I have been discriminated against (boycotted) based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or sexual orientation. I will not ask the obvious question.

Is an embargo not a boycott? I must say that using the
blathering of the US Congress to support non-discrimination is
very funny.

Everyone discriminates, the question is whether they do it well
or ill. It is my impression that most people react to boycotts
and embargoes largely on the basis of how close they are to the
effective end of them.

You are entitled of course, and welcome, to your opinion.

in a legitimate, legal position for which you were professionally qualified because of race, religion, creed, national origin, age, gender, gender orientation, or physical disability?

That is illegal in the US.

That is the issue.

I'm discussing the British Academic union.
What ever happened to the bullshit about the Arab League
boycott anyway?

Boycotts that result in DISCRIMINATION against individual human beings because of race, religion, creed, national origin, age, gender, gender orientation, or physical disability are WRONG - MORALLY WRONG, LEGALLY WRONG (IN THE US), ETHICALLY WRONG.

Hypothetically, have you ever been denied employment in a legitimate, legal position for which you were professionally qualified because of race, religion, creed, national origin, age, gender, gender orientation, or physical disability?

That is illegal in the US. Plain and simple -- Illegal in the US. That is the issue (the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is the defining (some would say "suicidal in the south") issue of the Democratic Party.

The British Academic union's thrust (I may be conflating the previous attempt at a boycott, and also the French attempt at a boycott - I apologize in advance) in this boycott appears to be two fold--

1. A boycott against Israeli scholars to academic conferences -- to me and my LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE, LEFT WING BIAS that is plain and simple DISCRIMINATION because of race, religion, creed, national origin, age, gender, gender orientation, or physical disability.

2. A prohibition against British scholars from attending conferences in Israel. Be my guest -- that is your choice.

That is the issue.

As to (to quote you) "the bullshit about the Arab League boycott." The oil industry is the most Judenrein industry in the US. Even more Judenrein then some of the German optical companies and some of the German car companies (source: "The Fugu Plan: The Untold Story Of The Japanese And The Jews During World War II" by Marvin Tokayer) during WW2.

The oil industry uses the cover of the Arab Boycott for this discrimination. (Source: EEOC Hearing in the Matter of Texaco Oil Company).

That is the issue. The Arab League Boycott -- which is illegal under US Law (http://www.bxa.doc.gov/ComplianceAndEnforcement/oacrequirements.html, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=88766&mesg_id=89059). The oil industry has the worst record of any major "technology" industry with respect to females, African Americans, Islamic Americans, Latinos, Gays/Lesbians/Transgenders.

And this is not, to quote your append "...the blathering of the US Congress to support non-discrimination is very funny." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=88766&mesg_id=89075)
That brave "blathering" by Lyndon Johnson was morally the right thing to do, the moral thing to do, the ethical thing to do. And it created the Republican Southern Strategy - and killed the Democratic Party in the South.

As to the "token" Jews and "token" African Americans -- last hired and first fired. Again, I refer you to the EEOC decision in Texaco.

Whatever you call them - boycotts, embargoes -- they are morally and legally wrong!!! And just because a self-identified Progressive calls them right does not change that fact. Boycotts are discrimination. And discrimination is wrong, wrong, wrong.

To boycott individual Israelis (as individual human beings) because they are citizens of Israel and you disapprove of the actions of the actions of their government is wrong.

I am a DEMOCRAT and an ACLUer because I believe as a matter of my faith as a LIBERAL, PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT that boycotts, embargoes, whatever -- are morally and legally wrong!!!

I know some self identified ersatz, pseudo neo-liberals consider boycotts and embargoes against Jews to be acceptable in some twisted ersatz, pseudo neo-liberal manner of ersatz, pseudo neo-liberal group think -- and that only boycotts and embargoes against females, African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Gays/Lesbians/Transgenders, (but not against Jews) are wrong. I don't consider them LIBERALS, or PROGRESSIVES, or DEMOCRATS.

sometimes.

On the plus side, this one has been very thought-provoking, it has inspired much research and reading on my part, and I'm glad to have had the conversations.

also about Coastie's post about the Arab League.

First, I think the post about the Arab League, and his subsequent ones, are germane to the discussion. The POV described therein has had a terrific impact, a DIRECT impact, on the I/P situation. It has contributed to the violence and remains a threat, insofar as people still believe it, and I fear that many do.

In other words, we wouldn't be DISCUSSING this boycott, in all probability, had the violence in I/P not occurred in the first place, which it might not have done, at least not to the level of full blown WARS, had people not been predisposed and also encouraged, to hate.

Moreover, since discrimination IS an underlying issue, one does not like to see a mirror in the world of academia.

***

Secondly, thinking, for right-brained people among others, creative people, frequently is inspired by throwing stuff up in the air, or responding to OTHER people, throwing stuff up in the air. One is INSPIRED. An idea is snagged out of the air. THEN, logic is applied and research follows, or vice versa, and the rigorous debate to test the idea ensues, as in the scientific process, before the statement is presented.

But first, comes THE IDEA.

This is often how a painting is made, or how some incredible breakthrough, like the philosophy of Jesus or Marx or Plato, or a scientific discovery.

The same process applies to intellectual discourse. People do not all think alike, I don't mean just in their outlook, but as to how they arrive at conclusions.


OK, end of philosophical meandering:)

:hi:

Most things are relevant to lots of other things, at some remove,
and I will stipulate that the Arab League boycott is similar and
can be relevant to this attempted boycott. But in the context of
Violet's question, it seemed to me that one must address either
boycott's in general - as Lithos did I believe it was - or this
boycott in particular. The argument that the Arab League boycott
was done by bigots and that therefore this boycott is advocated by
bigots does not follow. The bigotry of some elements of Arab society
is not a reflection on these people one way or another. They stand
or fall as bigots based on their own actions, not the Arab league's,
and it's reasonably well established here that opposition to the
occupation is not in itself bigotry.

Mr. Truth has asserted that all boycotts are discrimination and bad
things, and so far he is on unimpeachable ground, that's his opinion
and no one can refute him in holding it. I think it's not that simple
and I'm just as solid there. I think part of that problem is Mr. Truth
and I attach different connotations to the word, he sees it as automatically
a bad thing, I think is sometimes good and sometimes bad, it depends
on what you discriminate against.

---

Your comments on the creative process are insightful and well taken.

former Royal Dutch Shell CEO was allegedly acting to conform to the boycott.

He got fired for stock fraud, overstating "r4eserves" and payoff to terrorists.

and Royal Dutch Shell and British anti-semitism, but I
don't see why I should let you get away with conflating those
issues with this Brit academic union, with no explanation
at all, unless your argument is that they are Brits and that
therefore they must be anti-semites, or something.

See my append 76 for my opinion of the "Get Alomng-Go SAlong" mentality on college campuses.

For the mineral exploitation industry - be it British, Dutch, or American - it's "Business as Usual" combined withthe "Herd Mentality" and the "Arab Boycott" as a cover for what they have always done.

actively followed the Arab League Boycott against JEWISH job applicants.

I am a PhD CHEMICAL ENGINEER.

Or what?
What do they have to do with each other?
Are all Brits alike?
Or do the Arab League governments control this Brit academic
association, it's like a front for them?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just following the Lefties Academician herd mentality. Just like the oil companies follow a herd mentality (anti-Jewish, anti-Latino, anti-African American, anti-female, anti-sexual minorities, et.)

It's called lemming herd mentality.

Some of the "Liberal" Arts students and faculties here follow the same herd mentality.

It's called "Get Along- Go Along" or "Socialization To The Norm" -- and the new "Get Along- Go Along" and "Socialization To The Norm" herb mentality is what is posted by some in this forum.

It's still an ad hominem attack. Just because they are
lemmings does not mean they are wrong (or right), it just means they
are lemmings.

And they have every right to boycott in advocacy of a cause they
believe in, wrong or right, and in this case they are right, the
occupation should end; but they could still be lemmings.

Malcolm X understood perfectly that you cannot make white people like
black people, and it is a waste of time to try, that is not the issue.
Nobody has to like anybody, but equal rights and treatment before the
law and by those in power you can and should demand.

You want to make this a case of anti-semitism, and I disagree, I think
it is a case of anti-occupationism.

It is absolutely antisemitic in the worse possible way, a poison that got into the M.E. system via the Europeans, early in the 20th century, and specifically from Vichy France and the Nazis, in WWII.

It became a part of Middle Eastern politics, and a real perversion of Islam, and is a dangerous and reactionary and extremely violent threat not only to the Jews of the region, but also to progress, to people who disagree with that idea of political discourse, and whose religious viewpoint does not tolerate such bigotry, or is also threatened by it.

That's a very dangerous undercurrent to what is supposedly anti-whatever-the-bad-Israelis-did-this-week verbiage.

In these circles, which include the leaders of many states, it totally does not matter what Israel does, it still is the goal to exterminate the people of Israel. Academic boycotts are meaningless compared to this greater evil. They do harm to innocent people, while reinforcing, perhaps with good intentions - but nevertheless, they reinforce the deepseated evil that has brought about the current situation.

And I disagree with bemildred that boycotts are effective in a situation like this. They may be effective in a case like South Africa, but this is different. The boycott would be effective in chilling the free exchange of ideas, of discourse and social intercourse. It would REINFORCE the bigotry.

THAT is why some of us are in a dither.

This is no South Africa. This is a state completely beleaguered since its inception, which has absorbed hundreds of thousands of MIDDLE EASTERN refugees - not just European Jews, but the vast majority of Middle Eastern Jewry which was cast out, and which also includes both Arab and Christian citizens. And unlike S. Africa, this state is not single-handedly victimizing innocents. These people have sustained heavy casualties for decades. This is a war zone. It has been a war zone for decades. Innocents on BOTH sides are victims, which is simply forgotten in the pseudo-liberal mindset.

Unfortunately, and somewhat amazingly, that same mindset overlooks altogether the hatred for Israel - for JEWS - emanating from many leaders and many citizens, of the Muslim world.

Shall we play into that whirlpool?

Or shall we stand on the side of TRULY progressive ideals, and facilitate social and intellectual commerce, in the hope that through ideas, through human creativity, we can defeat the darkness?

Pardon? Two problems with this w/r to Vichy France.

1) The period of Vichy control in the Middle East was a VERY small time frame, a blip. Most of the "anti-Semitism" which was perpetuated in the Middle East occured in the 1930's and on thru the 1950's, a time period well before and past Vichy France.

2) Vichy France's laws, especially the Statut des Juifs were considered nothing more than dictates of the German occupiers. So much so a large number of Jews joined the resistance. One example: of 377 Resistance fighters who seized important centers in the city of Algiers in November 1942, 315 were Jews.

Also significant is that the Allies, principally the US, placed Admiral Darlan in control of the civilian government in Africa along with the orders to MAINTAIN the existing, discriminatory Vichy Laws. It was only after the assassination of Darlan by Jewish members of the former resistance and the replacement by Charles DeGaulle did the laws change.

May I ask your sources on this? They seem possibly tinged by fairly recent reactionary modern day views towards France.

As for Anti-Semitism, it has always been an issue inside of the M.E. However, one point that needs to be clarified is that this is and has NEVER been a uniform position among the Arabs or Muslims.

More importantly, it should be realized much Anti-Semitism in the M.E. is the result not of Nazism, but is the result of a slower change which in the Muslim mind associated Jews as colonizers and imperialists. This was one of the major complaints the old Jews of Sderot and Jerusalem had against the Jews of the first and second Aliyah.

Please note too that much of the diaspora of Jews from Arab countries started in countries which had already acheieved some form of Independence from the Colonial powers before the Independence of Israel in 1948. It also accompanied a similar backlash against the remaining European nationals (even those second, third or more generations) and those who were considered affiliated with them. Case in point, Algeria saw something like 650,000 people flee to France immediately following Independence in 1956.

Certainly Nazism and old-style European anti-Semtism helped frame the language against Jews, but also too is that many of the regimes which followed European colonization were autocratic and often fascist in nature and welcomed the chance to find external scapegoats.

to be long to poison the well. After all the Nazis weren't in Europe for very long either, and they managed to start a war that killed as many as 50 million people, 10 million in concentration camps, 6 million of them Jews. The Nazis didn't need to be around long to start a horrible fire, and to show by their actions, that Jews could be victimized, deported, put into camps. In short, the Holocaust found a mirror in North Africa.

It didn't NEED to take a long time. The FACT of it inspired changes. There are links to the effect on the Tunisian Jewish community in the thread on the "Apartheid" thing. If you can't find it, please let me know.

The primary source is a paper posted on the University of Arizona site, on the topic of the Tunisian Jewish community and its experiences and ultimate dissolution. There are others, a great deal actually, this is just what I pulled in a day.

BTW, I wasn't aware of anti French sentiment. I certainly don't harbor any, I am a student of the language (not a very accomplished one!)

***

Yes, antisemitism in the ME started earlier than WWII. It did have a great deal to do with the publication and dissemination of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and its transmission. Jews had always been "other" in Islam, if you need links to this let me know. And, there was suspicion about the settlers. But, there was also friendship with them. The Arab community was by no means monolithic in its response to the Jewish people. After all, they'd been living together practically forever.

Were there stresses? Of course. But there was also communication. People DID stay, after all, throughout the War of Independence, and today there are 1,000,000 or so Israeli Arabs, who are full citizens of Israel - more than 14%, I think. I'm sleepy.

***

However, contact with Europe after WWI increased contact with antisemitism, particularly via the Germans, who were trying to make friends in the ME as a way of dealing with the British; they needed inroads into the oil fields and the geopolitical advantages afforded by the location, the gateway to the Med and the Far East. You know this. Again, there are links posted in that "apartheid" thread. I dug up a lot of them if you need more. Some of the direct quotes, from Husseini's speech exhorting the Palestinians before the War of 1948, for example, are from UN sources.

A key player was Husseini, who knew Hitler, hosted Eichmann, I believe, in Palestine, and was virulently anti-Jewish. He actually served with a German unit and some say, worked with Hitler on "the Jewish problem".

This isn't revisionist history, I learned about this in the fifties, sixties, I was very young but could read. I no longer have a large library, but I'm sure books are out there, there's a lot on the 'net.

***

I disagree with you, that Nazism did not have a key role in the violent antisemitism that sprang up in the ME. I do not see how the overwhelming violence of the time could NOT have affected the M.E. The Mediterranean - North Africa, Egypt - it's Grand Central Station, for ideas, books, as well as people. People read widely and they read Mein Kampf, unfortunately.

Indeed, I believe that much of the violence and opposition to the Jewish state was not only a self-determination thing but a specifically antisemitic reaction, and could have been avoided but for that factor. It may have been the tipping point. We'll never know, in hindsight.

Moreover, AFTER WWII, Nazis found homes in the ME. I found many sources alluding to that today although I read about it many, many years ago. I'm too tired to post them now but I'll do so in the next few days. I'm surprised this isn't widely known?

Also involved, was not merely the North African theatre, but the Caucasus. The Germans were there, as well. Don't forget, too, that the German philosophy existed before the war! And it lives on, in books.

***

I am not saying there weren't refugee movements from the ME, that weren't Jewish. And I'm not talking about the people who made aliya, or went to the West voluntariliy.

I am concerned about the Jewish refugees. Those are the ones that WERE forcibly, and because of their Jewishness, violated and expelled. This changed the equation in Israel, it changed the demographics. This was not a trickle, this was upwards of one million people. Approximately 800,000 went to Israel, another 300,000, to the New World - many to Brazil. Today, Sephardic Jews, to the best of my knowledge, number at least half of the 5 million plus Jews in Israel, some say they number 3,000,000. Today, there are practically no Jews left in the Middle East, outside of Israel. There are only handfuls. I can find demographic tables if you need to see some numbers. Again, there are links in the "apartheid" thread.

More subtly, the banishment of the Jewish communities changed the MUSLIM world, as well: people who had been an integral part of the city scene, were gone. This can't but have changed the political and social dynamic as well, within those countries who had long had large Jewish communities.

These people were, for the most part, expelled because of the wars with Israel AND because of the antisemitism that was part of the new Middle East. They are inextricably related. I fear, they fuel the tension in the M.E. today.

people in the ME are biased! No - please - not at all. Indeed, I think, from the people I've known - Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis - long-standing relationships - they're very open-minded. Sure, there's an awareness there, but there's friendship too.

My husband says, he's read that in Iraq, people who used to joke and tease each other about their sect or ethnicity, are now fighting. The stress of war, or extremists elements, make small fissures into violent ones.

Is that they recognized that the government was a puppet and not the will of the people.

L-

as soon as I have them organized and have some time, soon I hope - it's just that I've found a LOT - I gather that the Jewish community in North Africa actually welcomed the French and did well during the French Colonial period. It was a window on a different world for them.

Therefore, the fall of the French government was a heartbreak. The problems were because of the Nazi Germans, who were there too, in North Africa, and not the French.

If indeed there is some anger at France today, it stems from an entirely different POV, which is a perceived bias on the part of the French, toward the Arab world, and that is a much more recent development. It is totally unrelated to Vichy.

In fact, I think the French have their hands full. They have a large Muslim population and are just across the pond, so to speak, from North Africa. Of course they have bitter memories of Algeria. And, they're determined to remain a secular state and have found themselves in the position of doing something they really didn't want to do, which was impose a ban on hijab in schools. I think that cut against the grain of French thought, which is to permit freedom of speech and expression, and protect the individual.

and balderdash...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-07,GGLD:en&q=Arab+League+Boycott

Hit #1
1995 National Trade Estimate Report-Arab League (Boycott of Israel)



The Arab League boycott of the State of Israel is a significant barrier to U.S. trade and investment in the region. While the primary aspect of the boycott prohibits the importation of Israeli-origin goods and services into boycotting countries, the "secondary" and "tertiary" aspects discriminate against U.S. and other foreign firms that wish to do business with both Israel and boycotting countries. These aspects constrain U.S. exports. The secondary aspect prohibits individuals (and private and public sector firms and organizations) in Arab League states from engaging in business with U.S. and other foreign firms that contribute to Israel's military or economic development. Such firms are placed on a blacklist maintained by the Damascus-based Central Boycott Office (CBO), a specialized bureau of the Arab League. The tertiary aspect of the boycott prohibits business dealings with U.S. and other firms that do business with blacklisted companies.

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/1995/1995_National_Trade_Estimate/1995_National_Trade_Estimate_Report-Arab_League_(Boycott_of_Israel).html

http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Reports_Publicatio... (Boycott_of_Israel).html is a bad link.

were "Newyoricans" and Latinos.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Here's a good read, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x88947#88957

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

This thread has long diverted from the original story. It also seems to have reached a settlement and thus a good stopping point.

Lithos
I/P Forum Moderator
Democratic Underground