![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe always readable Normblog has a post up by Eve Garrard criticizing the proposal before Britain's Association of University Teachers to launch a boycott of Israeli academics in response to the ongoing occupation. While I'm sympathetic to her sentiment, I fear that her tripartite argument is flawed in each of its parts.
Regarding Garrard's first argument, consider French policies in Algeria from 1945 to 1962--the colonialism, the military occupation, the violence directed at independence-minded Algerians and others who happened to be in the way--and the very loud criticism it received from within and from without. At the same time, the Soviet Union remained a colonial power of comparable extent in Central Asia, the facade of the five Central Asian Soviet Socialist Republics doing little to hide the fact that the region's Russophone minority enjoyed a position at a top of a much more repressive structure than than run by the pieds noirs. Were the criticisms of thsoe who condemned French actions in Algeria rendered null and void by their failure to condemn comparable Soviet policies? Must one, in criticizing a particular atrocity, also acknowledge and condemn every comparable atrocity, in a footnote written in a six-point font at a bottom of the page,? I tend to go by the assumption that if one's criticizing a particular situation, one's also criticizing by implicit analogy all comparable situations unless, of course, there is proof that one's singling out a particular situation for nefarious reasons. (And by the arguments above, criticizing Israeli policies isn't analogous to punishing "punishing the lesser offences of, say, black criminals in this country more than the greater offences of white criminals." This is particularly true since Israel, unlike Sudan, Zimbabwe, China, or North Korea, is a democratic state that acknowledges the primacy of human rights.)
Garrard's second argument--that being subjected to sanctions won't make Israeli academics speak out against their government, but will rather encourage the reverse--may be accurate, but I'm not sure how relevant this argument is to the point of the boycott. As described in The Guardian, the point of the proposed boycott is to make it clear that British academics reject dialogue with the Israeli academy on the grounds that the academy is deeply implicated in an immoral and illegal Israeli occupation, and that Britons will resume dialogue only when either the complicity or (better still) the occupation ends. Going by analogy with comparable boycotts against Serbia or South Africa, I'm not sure whether the opinions of the affected Israelis would be taken as signifying much about the utility of the boycott.
The third and final argument--that a boycott of Israel would alienate Jewish members of the academy within and without the United Kingdom--is a strong one. I'm reminded of the arguments of many Serbs in the 1990s that the heavy concentration upon and criticism of Serbs was not only unfair but served to alienate them, making them Orientalized Others seen (in bigoted fashion) as inherently barbaric and primitive. In retrospect, many of these criticisms were founded in fact: Serbs did seem to have been stigmatized as an anti-civilized Other having no connection to the West. This should be compare to Serbia's image before the First World War as an egalitarian and democratic-minded polity, and the representation of Serbs during the second Yugoslavia as the main nationality in a relatively pluralistic and prosperous Yugoslav population, and ignores the fact that Serbia was by world (if not western European) standards a modern state. That said, it's still quite true that an exclusivistic strain of Serb nationalism gained sway and inspired numerous atrocities. Despite the bigoted comments aimed against Serbs in general, the thrust of Western criticisms--that Serb society was run according to the principles of a violently bigoted nationalism unacceptable in post-Cold War Europe--was accurate. If hurt feelings result from fair criticisms, the critics shouldn't be held responsible. Unless, of course, you allow me to respond to criticism of Canada's First Nations policies by calling you a bigot who chooses to focus on Canadian sins to the exclusion of Brazilian, Australian, and Russians sins.
Do my criticisms of Garrard's argument mean that I support the proposed boycott? No, they do not. For the record, I oppose the proposed boycott.
Can arguments be made against the proposed boycott? Yes, certainly. One could try a pessimistic argument and say that since neither Israelis nor Palestinians are structurally capable of favouring a peace that doesn't involve the subjugation of the other side, one might as well deal with both peoples until they attain their final mutual annihilation. I'd much prefer to try an optimistic argument to the effect that since Israelis and Palestinians are in the process of coming to a just and equitable peace one shouldn't do anything to disrupt the equilibrium. Taking an altogether different tack, one could say that Israel (unlike Milosevic-era Serbia or apartheid-era South Africa) is a liberal polity and that liberal polities need to be treated differently, or that Israel (unlike mafiocratic Milosevic-era Serbia or a self-sufficient South Africa) would suffer disproportionate harm if it was cut off. Even if one supported sanctions against Israel, one could argue that sanctions against Israeli academics are the wrong sorts of sanctions to impose, and that proper sanctions should rather target specific individuals involved with the implementation of Israeli policies. I could go on, but I won't since I've not enough time.
I'm disappointed to find out that the early 21st century has turned out to be rather busier and nastier than we'd hoped for in those halcyon days of November 1989. The fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues is sad; the fact that anti-Semitism remains is cause for some bitterness among Jews and non-Jews alike. It's important to try to resolve the situation as best as one can with as little bigotry as possible. It's this very importance that requires us to use arguments which are as strong as possible among as many people as possible, for slip-ups make bad things happen.
Regarding Garrard's first argument, consider French policies in Algeria from 1945 to 1962--the colonialism, the military occupation, the violence directed at independence-minded Algerians and others who happened to be in the way--and the very loud criticism it received from within and from without. At the same time, the Soviet Union remained a colonial power of comparable extent in Central Asia, the facade of the five Central Asian Soviet Socialist Republics doing little to hide the fact that the region's Russophone minority enjoyed a position at a top of a much more repressive structure than than run by the pieds noirs. Were the criticisms of thsoe who condemned French actions in Algeria rendered null and void by their failure to condemn comparable Soviet policies? Must one, in criticizing a particular atrocity, also acknowledge and condemn every comparable atrocity, in a footnote written in a six-point font at a bottom of the page,? I tend to go by the assumption that if one's criticizing a particular situation, one's also criticizing by implicit analogy all comparable situations unless, of course, there is proof that one's singling out a particular situation for nefarious reasons. (And by the arguments above, criticizing Israeli policies isn't analogous to punishing "punishing the lesser offences of, say, black criminals in this country more than the greater offences of white criminals." This is particularly true since Israel, unlike Sudan, Zimbabwe, China, or North Korea, is a democratic state that acknowledges the primacy of human rights.)
Garrard's second argument--that being subjected to sanctions won't make Israeli academics speak out against their government, but will rather encourage the reverse--may be accurate, but I'm not sure how relevant this argument is to the point of the boycott. As described in The Guardian, the point of the proposed boycott is to make it clear that British academics reject dialogue with the Israeli academy on the grounds that the academy is deeply implicated in an immoral and illegal Israeli occupation, and that Britons will resume dialogue only when either the complicity or (better still) the occupation ends. Going by analogy with comparable boycotts against Serbia or South Africa, I'm not sure whether the opinions of the affected Israelis would be taken as signifying much about the utility of the boycott.
The third and final argument--that a boycott of Israel would alienate Jewish members of the academy within and without the United Kingdom--is a strong one. I'm reminded of the arguments of many Serbs in the 1990s that the heavy concentration upon and criticism of Serbs was not only unfair but served to alienate them, making them Orientalized Others seen (in bigoted fashion) as inherently barbaric and primitive. In retrospect, many of these criticisms were founded in fact: Serbs did seem to have been stigmatized as an anti-civilized Other having no connection to the West. This should be compare to Serbia's image before the First World War as an egalitarian and democratic-minded polity, and the representation of Serbs during the second Yugoslavia as the main nationality in a relatively pluralistic and prosperous Yugoslav population, and ignores the fact that Serbia was by world (if not western European) standards a modern state. That said, it's still quite true that an exclusivistic strain of Serb nationalism gained sway and inspired numerous atrocities. Despite the bigoted comments aimed against Serbs in general, the thrust of Western criticisms--that Serb society was run according to the principles of a violently bigoted nationalism unacceptable in post-Cold War Europe--was accurate. If hurt feelings result from fair criticisms, the critics shouldn't be held responsible. Unless, of course, you allow me to respond to criticism of Canada's First Nations policies by calling you a bigot who chooses to focus on Canadian sins to the exclusion of Brazilian, Australian, and Russians sins.
Do my criticisms of Garrard's argument mean that I support the proposed boycott? No, they do not. For the record, I oppose the proposed boycott.
Can arguments be made against the proposed boycott? Yes, certainly. One could try a pessimistic argument and say that since neither Israelis nor Palestinians are structurally capable of favouring a peace that doesn't involve the subjugation of the other side, one might as well deal with both peoples until they attain their final mutual annihilation. I'd much prefer to try an optimistic argument to the effect that since Israelis and Palestinians are in the process of coming to a just and equitable peace one shouldn't do anything to disrupt the equilibrium. Taking an altogether different tack, one could say that Israel (unlike Milosevic-era Serbia or apartheid-era South Africa) is a liberal polity and that liberal polities need to be treated differently, or that Israel (unlike mafiocratic Milosevic-era Serbia or a self-sufficient South Africa) would suffer disproportionate harm if it was cut off. Even if one supported sanctions against Israel, one could argue that sanctions against Israeli academics are the wrong sorts of sanctions to impose, and that proper sanctions should rather target specific individuals involved with the implementation of Israeli policies. I could go on, but I won't since I've not enough time.
I'm disappointed to find out that the early 21st century has turned out to be rather busier and nastier than we'd hoped for in those halcyon days of November 1989. The fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues is sad; the fact that anti-Semitism remains is cause for some bitterness among Jews and non-Jews alike. It's important to try to resolve the situation as best as one can with as little bigotry as possible. It's this very importance that requires us to use arguments which are as strong as possible among as many people as possible, for slip-ups make bad things happen.
