Britain's professors against peace By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ

The British Association of University Teachers has now created a blacklist against Jewish Israeli academics – really a blue-and-white list – reminiscent of the worst abuses of McCarthyism. And just as McCarthyism was a barrier to peace between the US and the Soviet Union – by contributing to a dangerous atmosphere in which each side vilified and threatened the other – so too does the British lecturers' boycott endanger the progress now being made toward peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

It is not surprising therefore that even the Palestinian Al-Quds University in Jerusalem headed by Sari Nusseibeh released a statement against the British association blacklist, saying, "We are informed by the principle that we should seek to win Israelis over to our side, not to win against them... Therefore, informed by this national duty, we believe it is in our interest to build bridges, not walls; to reach out to the Israeli academic institutions, not to impose another restriction or dialogue-block on ourselves."

But instead of heeding the moderate words of those they claim to support, British university teachers will collectively punish Israeli academics in a manner that leading Palestinian academics do not support. They've become more Palestinian than the Palestinians, and at precisely the time when Israel is taking more risks and making more sacrifices for peace than it has since Camp David in 2000.

snip

As Israel's Ambassador to the Court of St. James's Zvi Hefetz noted, "The last time that Jews were boycotted in universities was in 1930s Germany."

snip

By targeting Israeli Jews, Britain's "Professors Against Peace" – that's what they really should be called – have displayed bigotry against Jews, done violence to academic freedom and anti-discrimination laws, and are fast closing a window of opportunity for reconciliation in the Middle East.



http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull%26cid=1114568597620

...............................................................

Like I said, next up.....jew book burning.

were duplicitous in their treatment of Jews before, during and after WWII, yet will congratulate themselves on their fair-mindedness. They will be very careful to distinguish between (good) Jews, against whom it is bad to discriminate, as long as they stay in their place of course - and (bad) Jews, who don't know their place, and which include the people in Israel who finally said, enough already, and decided to make a stand and fight for their lives.

There was a thread on DU recently, about the Holocaust. People wondered, why didn't the Jews defend themselves? Well, in Israel, they're TRYING to defend themselves. So they get boycotted.

The Brits got countless people killed, maybe millions. Their policy toward Hitler was one of appeasement - the upper classes, especially, were very close to Germany.

I can't believe this. So much of the misery of the modern middle east is down to them and to their empire and to their "Great Game" and to their oil industries.

Heaven help us.

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

Blair, go directly to jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.

The Brits got countless people killed, maybe millions. Their policy toward Hitler was one of appeasement - the upper classes, especially, were very close to Germany.

The British policy of "appeasement" as you phrase it was due to the British government realizing it could not fight Germany and was trying to buy time for the inevitable conflict.

Consider the mid 1930's up thru the start of WWII. People like Neville Chamberlein (and Churchill who had been speaking out since 1934 of the rising Nazi threat) realized just how poorly equipped Britain was to fight a war. Britain prior to this time had let it's military suffer at the expense of maintaining it's colonies. This included not only the Navy which was still equipped mostly with WWI vessals, but also the Army and Air Force. Everything had been restructured to be "light" and distributed.

It was only in 1935/6 did Britain start to seriously develop modern technologies and expand it's airforce. At that point they were several years behind the Germans and the Italians who took over dominance in aircraft technology by stealing the airspeed record from the British in the mid to late 30's.

Even so, British production lagged significantly behind that of the Luftwaffe. The Hawker Hurricane did not start to be deployed until mid '37. There were only 39 operational Spitfires at the start of '39. The installation of Radar did not start until 1938 as well.

The British Army had it's largest reform since WWI in 1937 in which it finally started to mechanize and change from the territorial army structure. The first significant Armored units were not formed until 1939. And while the British soldier fought well, it was not until 1942 were they able to function effectively at large unit sizes againt the Germans (North Africa) and Japanese (India/Burma). Until that time, they suffered significant defeats, often against numerically inferior opponents, including France, Norway, Malaya, Burma.

The British Navy while magnificent, still required massive US help from 1940 thru 41 just to survive. A lot of their problems were not only due to obsolete equipment, but also to being severely over-extended. The US help not only included the transfer of 50 US destroyers, but also the eventual active support of the US Navy who took over convoy duties up to the halfway point in the Atlantic. (Anyone remember the Reuben James?)

L-

ways of helping the Jewish populations of Europe which the British could have undertaken, that wouldn't have involved the war machine.

Nevertheless, it can be argued that hindsight is 20/20 and what actually transpired - not just the Holocaust but the war itself, its scope and ferocity - couldn't, in any civilized imagination, have been foreseen.

Perhaps people really believed that the horror of The Great War, had ended all wars?

But I don't really understand that. History has proved that things are NEVER peaceful for long, especially not in Europe. Germany and Prussia had already been involved in two horrific modern wars. There had been a revolution in Russia. An empire had collapsed in the most oil-rich region of the world, leaving a power vacuum.

Was there no hint of the threat?

First, this type of argument against members for not doing more is an examination in hindsight. No one could have known, save for Hitler and the Nazi elite, the plans for the Final Solution. This included Britain, France, the US and even the Jewish Zionist conference. They all failed and to say they could have done more is simply ridiculous. At this time the issue was one of a refugee crisis, not one of being a last gasp before the doors shut literally and figuratively.

There were 30+ countries who met as late as 1938 at the Evian conference to deal with the expected increase of refugees from the German annexation of Austria. All but one chose not to raise their immigration quotas to allow more Jews to emigrate from Germany just prior to WW II. The two countries with the tightest limits at the time who were the most steadfast were Canada and the US, not Britain nor France.

While Roosevelt was able to increase the number of real immigrants, this reflected only his ability to reduce some of the red tape and not an actual increase in the allowable quota. This remained at a paltry 25K (apx.). Additional bills to raise the limits, even for children, failed in Congress.

The only country to increase their immigration quotas significantly was the Dominican Republic. Though given the lateness, it did not amount to a significant number.

As for what I'm sure is the inevitable question of why Britain didn't allow more immigration to Palestine, the single greatest pressure on the British government at the time was the strategic goal of maintaining control over their Middle East domination (Oil/Gas/Suez/India).

First point here, there were open refugee quotas which were NEVER filled in the years from 1936-39. In 1936, the Arab Revolt had started, the basis of which was a combination of Arab Nationalism as well as a reaction to the sharp rise in Jewish settlement previously seen as a result of the Havaara Transfer Accord of 1933.

It was the result of this conflict Jewish immigration to Palestine significantly dropped and the focus shifted to immigration to the Americas.

Second, starting in about 1937/38, the Germans had started a program to destabilize British control thru the very special fostering of relationship with Arab politicians including Saudi Arabia. The Germans also at a very high level made speeches/communiques and performed actions (such as arms negotiations with the Saudis, high profile receptions with Arab leaders, etc.), designed to inflame Arab Nationalistic tendencies - moves for which the British were hard pressed to counter. And while this is what lead to the 1939 White Paper that limited immigration, the limits that were set were still well above what was being seen.

However, excluding the issue of Palestine, after Kristalnacht, the British government did put significant pressure on their overseas Dominions (Canada, Australia, etc.) to accept more refugees which was the areas within the dominion that refugees were most desiring to go.

answer you thoughtfully, as your question deserves.

The answer is multilayered, dealing not just with distant past but with the more recent past, so it isn't easy to get all the thoughts in a row.

Therefore, when I've prepared my statement and tried to whittle it down to less than a short book, I will respond, hopefully soon. The computer is acting up today and also my work is neglected, but I'm working on it.

Thank you in the meantime for your comments. As always I have learned something from reading them.

maintaining it's colonies".

Reminds me of current events somehow, can't think why ...

n/t

they get peace finally, maybe there will be some pluses like fewer boycotts and the like.

Until there is a lasting peace it is foolish for the Israelis (as hard as they try) to insist they have a perfectly working democracy (even though they do live in a working Democracy.

NOBODY HAS A PERFECTLY WORKING DEMOCRACY WHILE THEY ARE AT WAR. THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED WAR!

So let's concentrate of the peace and not whine about a boycott. The sooner there is a lasting peace there the better.

I guess I let myself get carried away with the
propaganda cliches there for a moment.

about, doing all this reading, etc., is the possibility for peace.

There is a philosophy, fortunately not shared by all, that utterly rejects the idea of the Jewish state, and vows to destroy it completely.

The question is, whose voices in the Middle East will prevail - those of the moderates, or those of the radicals? The Palestinians had a successful election. Egypt and Jordan have moderated greatly, and are trying to help the peace process. Lebanon will be holding elections and choosing a new government, minus the Syrian army. There will be elections in Saudi Arabia, although most of the candidates are very conservative religious people. Iraq had an election although one can't call it perfect (understatement). The Maghreb states definitely seem to be moderating and facing Europe.

As I understand it, the radicals do not want a democracy of any kind, preferring sharia law; and they reject any kind of westernization. They still believe in the idea of pan-Arabism and the power of Islam both spiritually and militarily. There is an interpretation of history which recalls the refusal of the Jews of Arabia to submit to Mohammed, and this is used as justification for wanting to subdue Jews today.

The State of Israel will not be tolerated by them, ever. Reclaiming the whole of Palestine is necessary to this vision. This means destroying Israel. This can be a political view, or also, for certain religious sects, because its very existence afflicts the wholeness of the Islamic motherland, the "ummah".

I want to believe that this philosophy is becoming the minority view - and indeed, it is contradicted by many - but I wonder.

When I hear this idea espoused by professors who teach in American universities, backed up by incredible lies and revisionism in the M.E., I wonder, and I fear. In Israel, people worry openly, what happens if people get elections, and they vote to destroy us?

Meanwhile, why should a working democracy, while not perfect and burdened by war, be punished for being the object of war and therefore, imperfect?

You see the irony here.

kind are nutty. And many, many Muslims in the ME just want peace and to get about their lives. And Israel is terrified. And it does some things. And Palestinians don't have a sort of democracy. And we are all hoping for that.

And thank the lord the Koran accepts the State of Israel. Right there in that book Israelis are sitting right there.

And yes the Israelis are the bogyman and they will continue to be until there is peace.

I don't know what the answers are but I think if you are in control of a population that is disenfranchised (or never franchised) you gotta expect a boycott.

I'm with you that there was so much anti-semitism in Europe and North America that they couldn't tell when their own dam bias, segregation ended and the holocaust & persecution began.

Chamberlain & others, like all humans facing a mega-sociopath, put their heads in the sand again and again until they can no longer deny (and finally stop projecting their own humanity onto) the monster. It is the same thing whenever a sociopath stalks one person or 25 Million. And of course, being a sociopath, Hitler projected his own hate at himself (for having a crazy incestuous family, for being an evil freak, for being totalitarian, for being sexually inadequate, etc) onto the Jewish people & other populations. And demanded that the whole nation mirror his feelings and scapegoat & then murder all of these people.

Islamist fundies have demonstrated themselves (in some groups) to be child-killers and willing to do anything to keep their own interpretation of the Koran pure. They are quite a bit different than Hitler and much weaker (they are small in numbers). The Algerians rejected them, the Iranians will reject the milder Persian form of fundamentalism, the masses of the ME reject all the terrorism directed at them from these few Islamist fundie terrorist groups. But Oil is still oil and cabals burst open all over the place whenever a prize like Iraq opens up.

Let us hope for peace in Israel and democracies in as many places as possible in the ME. That way the people of the ME can participate in economic life and great schooling, and reconnect to their past greatness in more than just one way. And then perhaps the democratic participants will stop blaming Israel for everything and start solving their own problems.

You have to admit that Oil does complicate things. It encourages elites who in tern encourage tribalism beneath them. Liberals have always wanted democracies where possible. Just a shame it was faulty oil policy of the USA, Britain & the West to discourage democracy for such a long time.

Palestine is a horrid place. It is a big huge open sore. Either those people get some control over their lives or things will continue exactly as they have.Peace is the most important thing.

Peace now. I'm sure Sharon has the stomach for another decade of war if it means more territory (and a 100% sure peace that will last 1000 years). I don't!

factor.

Shalom. I'm pooped!

Why they are so keen on democracy. Why the Saudis may be really up to no good (they love tribalism.. or anything that keeps them in the petro-dollars).

I rue the day the elected head of Iran got removed from office and the Shaw was put in his place. The 1950s were a time when the British were sort of half partial to stooping colonialism and the USA had really never had a chance and wanted a chance in the Middle East - to deal with elites. And they undid democracy. I think Iran was one place that was ready for democracy in the 1950s.

And it just got warped from there.

Democracy will keep all those petro-dollars invested in school instead of having excesses for terrorism, destabilizing, etc.

IMHO

head again - and which is one reason democracy might have a chance now - the Soviet Union had been destabilizing to an extent people might not realize. They were supporting and arming several states and several radical groups, and were directly implicated in starting at least one war (6-Day War), not to mention practically destroying Afghanistan. That led directly to the empowerment of Taliban and the radicalization of the mujeheddin, among whom was Bin Ladin.

I never understood that war. It was so unbelievably destructive and did the Soviets no good at all, in fact people say it helped bring down their empire (not Ronnie).

This is the basis for the concept of "Pax Americana" - simply that, as long as the Soviets were funding radical groups and radical states, there couldn't BE a peace and there could be no moderation and no democracies.

I hope Condi hasn't stirred this up again, the Cold War, I mean. That really would be a disaster. Putin has just sold some missiles to Syria, supposedly they are For Defense Only, and he is selling uranium to Iran, supposedly for Peaceful Means Only. I hope so.

In any case, there has been a history of moderates in the Middle East being murdered, this is going back to the '20's and '30's. I believe, this played a role in the fate of Israel/Palestine.

In a sense, we are still seeing these attacks on moderates and forces for moderation, in Iraq. Much as we all hate this war, the fact is people are trying to form a democratic state and they are getting blown up for their pains. They got a member of parliament, a woman, just yesterday or the day before. This is MADDENING.

I, for one, do not want Bush to look bad at the expense of the Iraqi people and their future!!! So I truly hope this will stop, the Sunnis will go to Parliament instead of to the bomb store, the government can go forward and the people get a chance to rebuild their lives.

It is tempting to think this is just rage against the US, but it isn't, IMO; if you look backwards it's part of the radicalism that you mention, which has been so costly to the cause of peace and education in the M.E. Saddam was able to control these groups by being even worse than the worst, which is no endorsement at all.

Iraq had had a moderate government but it was overthrown. And the Shah - ah well. I believe, the Iranian people will moderate the mullahs by themselves. That is a very sophisticated country, very diverse. Lifting the embargo on their weaving industry is helping, it is bringing people into direct contact with each other on a daily basis. You can go on Ebay and connect directly with a dealer in Tehran.

Of course it has dragged the prices of hand-woven goods straight down but what can you do:) On the plus side, the women of the Khamseh and Quashquai and Kashkuli, for example, are weaving spectacular pieces with dyes that hadn't been made in a century.

There are those the imperial power wants to install - either collaborationist thugs who will happily kneel to the American Empire while brutalizing their people, or ineffectual leaders who may not be fond of American policy but won't have much choice in the matter - and those who oppose them.

Those who oppose the imperial power are both Shi'ite and Sunni, and largely the nationalists, while opposed to US domination of their country, are also opposed to the car-bombings and very often to the kidnappings. (This is my position as well.) Some use violence, others don't, and in that matter I can see and respect both perspectives, though my preference is strongly for the latter.

The fundamentalist terrorists, al Qaeda and its associates, are largely foreign, and like the Empire they oppose they are rotten to the core.

Naturally the Sunnis are fearful of Shi'ite domination, something the imperial power is happy to back (to minimize popular pressure from the Shi'ites), and as such this has increased tensions between the two.

The Iraqi elections were a show, meaningless for the most part, as will be the resulting government. The US still tries to run the place, and while it has been failing miserably, it still is more or less the most powerful faction, and the real power behind anything the "sovereign government" does. The result is that the "sovereign government" has its hands tied, which is of course the point.

Of course the Bush plan is not going very well, stability is still far, the "insurgents" are still causing problems, and as such profits are (to them) too low and costs are too high. It would be wonderfully ironic, and a good thing too, if popular Iraqi will gives the "sovereign government" enough power to get rid of the US, actually resulting in some kind of meaningful, truly sovereign government with democratic tendencies. I think that is the best that can be hoped for, but it is probably one of the things those in power fear most, which is one reason they have continuously used massive violence to smash resistance (Falluja, Najaf, Samarra, etc.)

their 'Vietnam'. Bin Laden worked with American operatives (or his friends did).

More reason to stay the **** out of other people's business. Hate begets hate.