Ang. boycott af Israel, så er her et par citater, først en helt ny, og så
nogle uddrag fra dengang man startede den akademiske boycott i 2002:
British teachers set to boycott Israel
By Christian Henderson
Wednesday 20 April 2005, 5:47 Makka Time, 2:47 GMT
A British university teachers union will propose a boycott of three Israeli
universities they accuse of direct involvement in the Jewish state's
occupation of Palestinian land.
Members of the Association of University Teachers (AUT) are expected to put
forward a motion to cut ties with the Israeli institutions at its annual
meeting on Wednesday.
Authors of the motion say they are responding to a call from Palestinian
academics to boycott Israel's cultural and academic institutions.
"The strategy of pursuing dialogue with Israel has failed miserably.
"We believe that nothing short of a regime of sanctions, boycotts and
divestments is needed to put effective pressure on Israel through isolating
it in the international arena," the Palestinian Federation of Unions of
Universities' Professors and Employees said in a letter to the union.
Universities under fire
AUT accuses Hebrew University in occupied East Jerusalem of trying to evict
Palestinians from their homes to expand its campus.
Bar Ilan University is charged by the union with having links to the College
of Judai and Samaria in the largest West Bank settlement of Ariel.
Settlements on occupied Palestinian land are illegal under international
law.
AUT says it selected Haifa University for the boycott because of its attacks
on historian Ilan Pappe, whose account of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war
challenges the official Israeli version and argues that there is an
organised campaign by Zionist forces to expel Palestinians.
In 2002, Pappe says, the university threatened him with dismissal for
criticising the university's disqualification of a Master's student, who
wrote a thesis on the massacre of 200 Palestinians in 1948.
Symbols of occupation
"These three specific Israeli universities, they symbolise three aspects of
the occupation," said Sue Blackwell, an English lecturer at Birmingham
University and one of the authors of the motion.
In response to the accusations, Haifa University says the threat of
dismissal against Pappe does not stem from his political and historical
views, but due to "uncollegiate behaviour".
"Dr Pappe has aroused the displeasure of his peers because of consistent
violation of certain aspects of his academic duties, none of which have
anything to do with his political views," the university said in a
statement.
"We are saddened by this attempt to erect barriers and obstruct the flow of
ideas within the academic community," it added.
Institutional boycott
Blackwell said the motion was not designed to be an individual boycott.
"We do support Jewish Israelis, who have the courage to speak out against
the occupation," she told Aljazeera.net.
She said she personally would not support the barring of Israeli students
from British universities.
(Det har forresten også været foreslået, og ER vist i effekt på visse
universiteter)
"The more Israeli staff and students who come to more civilised countries
the better. I would like to see more good academics leave the country," she
said.
Anti-Semitism charges
The motion has sparked accusations of anti-Semitism in Britain, and comes
after three Jewish members of the National Union of Students resigned,
accusing their union of tolerating bias against Jews.
"The kind of focus that this will create could lead to attacks on Jewish
students," a spokesman at the Union of Jewish Students told Aljazeera.net.
(Om det så er en rimelig frygt, ved jeg ikke, så må der forskes mere i,
hvordan indeklimaet er på de engelske skoler, - men også i England er jøder
jo blevet mangefold "outnumbered" af muslimer, hvoraf mange er meget stærkt
kritiske over for "efterkommerne efter aber og svin", som deres "pave",
lederen af det muslimske fyrtårn al Azhar, så smukt kalder jøderne). (Han
gider ikke mere have skyldfølelse over at muslimer har forfulgt jøder i
århundreder, udtalte han vistnok engang, - den fromme mand)
But Blackwell is dismissive of such accusations.
"There has been some scare-mongering in the British press," she said.
Other critics say it is hypocritical of the union to target Israel for its
occupation of Palestinian land while British forces are engaged in their own
military adventure in Iraq.
"Yes, I am sympathetic to that... That would be entirely consistent,"
Blackwell said, adding that should British Prime Minister Tony Blair remain
in government after the upcoming elections, then the issue of a boycott of
British and US universities could be addressed.
(Nu skruer lærerne bissen på, mon det er efter foreslag fra vores egen
overlærer?)
Aljazeera
---------------------------------
WHY ACADEMIC BOYCOTT -
A reply to an Israeli comrade
Tanya Reinhart
Tel Aviv, May 17, 2002
Bemærk at brevet er skrevet i Tel Aviv af en israelsk professor, og så vidt
man ved, fik han ikke halsen skåret over dagen efter, i Israel kan man sige
sin mening, også når den går fuldstændig mod den offentlige mening.
Dear Baruch Kimmerling,
Last week, you published in Ha'aretz a moving letter defending the freedom
of expression of a group of Israeli professors, including myself, who signed
a European petition calling for a moratorium on European support to the
Israeli academia. Here is what you wrote:
"The Coordinating Council of the Faculty Associations [of the Israeli
universities] issued a public statement, which appeared in Ha'aretz on May
6, denouncing the call of scientists in Europe and North America to declare
a boycott on the Israeli academia, following... supposed war crimes that the
State of Israel committed in the occupied territories.
As someone who acted immediately and actively against this boycott, because
I saw this as a blatant violation of academic freedom, which is the essence
of academic research and teaching, I was shocked by this statement. The
shock stems from the content of the document, which not only denounces the
boycott, but also denounces that minority of the Israeli academic personnel
that support the proposed boycott.
For precisely the same reason that one should oppose the boycott, one should
oppose the denouncement of academic members who think differently. Instead
of insisting on the freedom of speech and thought of all its members, the
council launched an attack on this freedom.... I demand the immediate
resignation of those responsible for this outrageous public statement."
In the present climate in Israel, it is comforting, and far from trivial, to
hear voices still defending old fashioned ideas like freedom of speech. For
this reason, I appreciate your letter. Nevertheless, I would like to explain
here why your defense still leaves me utterly unmoved.
Background on the Academic Boycott
First some background on the academic boycott. An accurate description of
the events that set the Israeli academia roaring was given in an Ha'aretz
article by Tamara Traubman: "The first time that the international
scientific community imposed a boycott on a state was during the Apartheid
regime in South Africa. The second time is being considered at present, and
now the boycott is directed against Israel and its policy in the
territories. Several manifestos calling for the imposition of a boycott, on
various levels, have been published in recent days by professors from
abroad...The first...was initiated by a pair of British researchers,
Professors Hilary and Steven Rose of Britain's Open University. The
manifesto suggests that European research institutes stop treating Israel
like a European country in their scientific relations with it, until Israel
acts according to UN resolutions and opens serious peace negotiations with
the Palestinians. (Israel enjoys the status of a European country in many
European research programs). Over 270 European scientists, including about
10 Israelis, signed the manifesto. Although it is the most moderate of the
boycotts being formulated these days against Israel, the manifesto aroused a
great deal of anger in the Israeli scientific community..."(Ha'aretz, April
25, 2002, "The Intifada Reaches the Ivory Tower")
We can distinguish three forms of the academic boycott. The first is part of
a larger cultural boycott -- cultural events in Israel have been boycotted
for quite a while. In the academic sphere, the boycott is on any cooperation
with institutional events of the Israeli academia in Israel. This means that
scholars cancel participation in conferences and official academic events
(e.g. some refuse an honorary degree offer) (1).
-------------------
The third form of the academic boycott, however, extends it also to this
most severe stage -- practiced in the South-Africa boycott -- of complete
international isolation of individual Israeli scholars. It prohibits any
contact with them -- invitations to conferences abroad, research
collaborations, publications, editorial boards, etc (3).
Among the supporters of academic boycott, opinions are divided about the
third form of boycott. At the individual level, many Israeli academics
oppose the occupation and Israel's brutality in the territories. A large
minority of them is actively involved, like you, Baruch, in a daily struggle
against all these. Furthermore, among the goals of academic boycott is to
encourage the Israeli academics to take a more active part in struggle and
resistance. For this, it would help if we feel part of a large international
community, sharing this cause, rather than completely isolated from it.
Personally, I support the first two forms of academic boycott, but not the
third form of individual boycott.
---------------------------------------
But no matter what you think of the Oslo years, what Israel is doing now
exceeds the crimes of the South Africa's white regime. It has started to
take the form of systematic ethnic cleansing, which South Africa never
attempted. After thirty-five years of occupation, it is completely clear
that the only two choices the Israeli political system has generated for the
Palestinians are Apartheid or ethnic cleansing ('transfer'). Apartheid is
the 'enlightened' Labor party's program (as in their Alon or Oslo plan),
while the other pole is advocating slow suffocation of the Palestinians,
until the eventual 'transfer' (mass expulsion) can be accomplished. ("Jordan
is the Palestinian state", is how Sharon put it in the eighties.) (5). Even
those who can swallow 'made in Israel' Apartheid, cannot just watch silently
as Sharon carries this second vision out.
-----------------------------------------
But the next set of arguments is probably the heart of the matter for many.
The Israeli academy views itself as liberal, democratic, and sensitive to
issues of human rights. Hence "to boycott Israeli academics would endanger
the democratic values and respect for human rights this community works hard
to foster" (Israeli counter-petition). Most importantly, the academy views
itself as promoting values of coexistence and peace by means of a
"meaningful dialogue" with its Palestinian colleagues: "European programs
have provided important frameworks for Middle East scholars to meet... to
discuss academic topics of mutual interest, and to build informal
interpersonal ties, thus helping to counter years of accumulated
misunderstanding and animosity." (Ibid.). Hence, boycotting the Israeli
academia will harm its devoted work of reconciliation and peace
-----------------------------------
If continuing support to the Israeli academia is what the Palestinian
academia considers best for its future, we should hear it from them. What I
hear from my comrades in the Palestinian academia is only a full and
unequivocal support for the boycott.
-----------------------------------
(1) French and Australian petitions are calling also for avoiding any other
institutional cooperation, such as serving in promotion procedures of the
Israeli universities, though the French call declares that they will
continue individual ties with Israeli scholars. ().
Så man var ikke blandt akademikere enige om, hvorvidt man skulle skride til
3. grads boycot, dvs islolere alle israelske akademikere personligt. Der var
åbenbart mange forskellige boycot i gang her og der i verden.
Som man kan se er Israel et pluralistisk samfund, man kan godt som israelsk
forsker være FÒR en boycot af Israel, og det er tilladt at have forskellige
meninger om sagen, OG om Israels politik i det hele taget, - hvilket nogle
vist ikke tror er tilfældet.
Forfatteren har jo gang i klicheerne om "kolonitiden", og mener at Israel er
på samme niveau som Sydafrika under apartheid. Hvis der er ligheder, så må
man vel nok sige, at der er flere forskelle. Hvem kan finde femten
forskelle?
|