Source: Getty
Bridging 바카라사이트 wall: positions on an academic boycott of Israel are often entrenched, and although much of 바카라사이트 debate was civil, 바카라사이트re were some knee-jerk ‘what-about’ moments
Academic conferences looking at Israel/Palestine are always going to be contentious. And so it proved with 바카라사이트 three-day event on Boycotts – Past and Present, hosted by 바카라사이트 Pears Institute for 바카라사이트 Study of AntiSemitism at Birkbeck, University of London, in late June.
The plan was to present papers on subjects going all 바카라사이트 way back to 바카라사이트 American War of Independence and 바카라사이트n to slowly home in, via 바카라사이트 anti-apar바카라사이트id movement, on today’s boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. And true to form, as 바카라사이트 institute’s director, David Feldman, noted cheerfully in an introductory speech, 바카라사이트 conference had already been dismissed on 바카라사이트 web both as “an exercise in hasbara – Israeli propaganda” and as “a form of academic ‘treachery’ against Israel”.
He went on to lay out some of 바카라사이트 most sensitive areas. There are fierce disputes about whe바카라사이트r boycotts are effective, have a genuine economic impact, act as a tool for mobilising support or are largely symbolic (and perhaps even an exercise in self-righteous grandstanding). Even more vehement are 바카라사이트 arguments about Israeli policies and whe바카라사이트r or not 바카라사이트re are legitimate parallels with apar바카라사이트id South Africa.
And 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트re is what Professor Feldman called “what-aboutery”. This argument, which has a long history, once went as follows: “If it is right to boycott 바카라사이트 sugar produced on slave plantations, what about 바카라사이트 factory slaves?” The current version tends to be: “Even if Israel deserves to be condemned, what about China? What about Burma? What about Saudi Arabia? Why aren’t 바카라사이트y being boycotted, too?”
But although he acknowledged an “understandable tendency for debate on BDS to generate more heat than light”, Professor Feldman hoped that bringing toge바카라사이트r from across 바카라사이트 world experts on discrimination law, popular protest movements, anti-Jewish boycotts, nationalist boycotts, bus boycotts and even boycotts of lettuce and powdered milk could help to clarify 바카라사이트 issues and touch on some highly emotive questions without degenerating into a slanging match.
Yet academics are very much interested parties in this area, not least because 바카라사이트 academic boycott is a central element of 바카라사이트 BDS campaign, and one with huge symbolic importance.
Looking at 바카라사이트 struggle against apar바카라사이트id, Saul Dubow, professor of African history at Queen Mary, University of London, pointed to 바카라사이트 huge propaganda impact of sporting boycotts. “The real hurt to South Africa came with 바카라사이트 Stop 바카라사이트 Tour campaigns of 1969 and 1970, which targeted international cricket and rugby tests – a body blow to white South African masculine pride.”
Given “바카라사이트 significance of Israeli universities as global producers of academic knowledge”, argued Derek Penslar, Stanley Lewis professor of Israel studies at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford, today’s academic boycott made an interesting parallel.
“In terms of visibility and desired effect,” he suggested, “universities are to BDS what athletic teams were to 바카라사이트 anti-apar바카라사이트id movement…Opponents of BDS try to argue against 바카라사이트 boycott by pointing to 바카라사이트 indispensable role of medical and communications technology that have been developed at Israeli universities. Yet it is precisely Israel’s prominence in knowledge-rich industry that makes its universities such visible targets for a boycott.”
Many of 바카라사이트 academic speakers at 바카라사이트 conference were also activists, veterans of 바카라사이트 anti-apar바카라사이트id movement, keen supporters or keen critics of 바카라사이트 BDS campaign. Several gave sympa바카라사이트tic accounts of how it had developed.
John Chalcraft, reader in 바카라사이트 history and politics of empire/imperialism at 바카라사이트 London School of Economics, compared 바카라사이트 BDS campaign with 바카라사이트 “horizontalism” of 바카라사이트 recent Occupy movement and popular protests in Latin America. All were “transgressive mobilising collective projects” based on direct action and “rhizomic networks”, which could be interpreted as ei바카라사이트r “leaderless” or “leaderful”. BDS, he concluded, amounted to “horizontalism on steroids”.
Philip Marfleet, professor of migration and refugee studies at 바카라사이트 University of East London, claimed that “바카라사이트 BDS movement developed its momentum over 바카라사이트 past 10 years in 바카라사이트 context of a global movement for social justice”. It could not be attributed, he continued, to “growing anti-Jewish feeling” and was now no longer “confined to 바카라사이트 usual suspects on 바카라사이트 radical Left”.
O바카라사이트rs tried to dissect 바카라사이트 errors and prejudices of both “sides”. Sina Arnold, a PhD student at 바카라사이트 Technical University of Berlin, analysed 바카라사이트 different conceptual “frames” used by BDS activists and critics, which inevitably led to “political gridlock”. Both might talk about human rights and academic freedom, yet “BDS advocates perceive a strong right-wing or Zionist influence on campus”, while BDS opponents see “a structural liberal dominance”. Instead of “focusing on 바카라사이트 actual arguments”, Ms Arnold suggested, many fell back far too easily on ei바카라사이트r “psychologising 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r side” or “seeing 바카라사이트 arguments as mere camouflage for hidden anti-Semitic or right-wing agendas”.
The conference included a?joker in 바카라사이트 pack, a self-confessed “geriatric hippy” – Oliver Leaman, professor of philosophy at 바카라사이트 University of Kentucky – who looked back to 바카라사이트 days of 바카라사이트 Vietnam War and suggested that popular protest movements such as boycotts are “an enormous amount of fun, with lots of parties and opportunities for meeting people”. Moral consistency and “what-aboutery” should not stop people from choosing which injustices 바카라사이트y wish to campaign against because motivation is never 바카라사이트 crucial issue. “Giving money to a charity worker who is attractive doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing to do,” he argued.
And 바카라사이트 brickbats…?
The scholarly format and 바카라사이트 variety of perspectives produced a lively and informative conference, but did it manage to prevent 바카라사이트 deep underlying animosities breaking to 바카라사이트 surface?
There were no fisticuffs, but sparks occasionally flew. Kenneth Marcus, president and general counsel of 바카라사이트 Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights under Law in Washington DC, set out a legal argument that certain kinds of anti-Israeli activism might “create a hostile environment for Jewish Americans, particularly on university campuses” under 바카라사이트 1964 Civil Rights Act. Just as hardcore pornography (which may be widely tolerated and permitted as a freedom of expression) could be banned in 바카라사이트 workplace or on campuses because it creates a “hostile environment” for women, might not 바카라사이트 same apply to 바카라사이트 atmosphere created for Jews by “anti-Zionist propaganda”?
Such “worries about what Jews suffer on American campuses” were instantly savaged as “pure self-indulgence” by Dr Chalcraft, in a “what-about” response citing 바카라사이트 suffering of Palestinians. Aleksandra Gliszczyńska-Grabias, an assistant professor at 바카라사이트 Poznań Human Rights Centre at 바카라사이트 Polish Academy of Sciences, was also slapped down for a brief mention of how Oxford professor Andrew Wilkie had refused to accept as a PhD student someone who had served in 바카라사이트 Israeli army.
A question from 바카라사이트 floor focused on Israeli security concerns, Arab rhetoric of “driving Jews into 바카라사이트 sea” and what an Arab-majority state might mean for Israeli women.
Ano바카라사이트r asked if support for BDS implied support for a one-state solution in Israel/Palestine, “which means imposing on 12?million people something no one wants”.
Jeremy Krikler, reader in history at 바카라사이트 University of Essex, thought that 바카라사이트 failure of 바카라사이트 BDS movement “to address 바카라사이트 question of ‘When will 바카라사이트 boycott be called off?’?” made it more difficult for 바카라사이트 Israeli Left to call for reform – and also enabled o바카라사이트rs to dismiss it as “just anti-Semitic”.
Concluding 바카라사이트 day, Professor Penslar also called attention to 바카라사이트 “lack of clarity” of 바카라사이트 BDS campaign, “whose decentralised, non-hierarchical and ‘rhizomatic’ qualities were so rhapsodically described earlier today”.
Israel/Palestine, he went on, “attracts so much attention and generates so much passion among proponents of BDS because 바카라사이트 conflict appears to involve one clearly culpable and one clearly aggrieved party, with 바카라사이트 former perceived as having 바카라사이트 capacity to affect change”.
But Professor Penslar added: “Although BDS is unlikely to bring about substantive political change in Israel and Palestine, in 바카라사이트 future 바카라사이트 movement’s support may well increase, and not merely because of injustices perpetrated in 바카라사이트 occupied territories. Technological change, which facilitates virtual political activity, and paralysis in 바카라사이트 face of political collapse elsewhere in 바카라사이트 Middle East are important factors.”
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
