Tag: BDS

Yedioth Ahronoth, 31st May 2006.

Professor Rachel Giora of the University of Tel Aviv backs boycott on her colleagues with different views; ‘I support every form of open criticism against the current policies of the Israeli government,’ she says

In a special interview with Yedioth Ahronoth, Professor Rachel Giora of Tel Aviv University gives her reasons for supporting the British boycott on Israeli academic institutions.

You support the campaign of the British lecturers’ organization for an academic boycott on Israel. Why?

“A boycott of this type is a civil, non-violent act. It is a straight and clear expression of reservation by the boycotters.”

But why an academic boycott?

“I support every form of open criticism against the current policies of the Israeli government in the occupied territories, whether it is an economic boycott other forms of resistance. A lack of such stances allows Israelis to assume that the world is not against them. But the world, or large parts of it, are against them. And rightly so.”

Isn’t it better to act through academic cooperation?

“It’s hard to express revulsion and shake off criminal acts through cooperation with those who we oppose. Cooperation in the case is mistaken and blurs all of the evil.”

What is your response to the claim that the struggle against the occupation should be limited to Israel, and ‘the dirty laundry shouldn’t be taken outside?’

“How many other sacred stances will we draw here to silence resisting voices? Women who are beaten and raped were also demanded to keep silent ‘for the peace of the home.'”

There are those that claim that calls to boycott Israel are an expression of a known and ancient European anti-Semitism.

“Israel is not the victim here, but the aggressor, and the criticism against it are not a form of anti-Semitism. Those who criticize it assume that it is possible to demand that it be moral – to take real responsibility for peace in the region, to stop the killing and the starvation, and to get out of the territories. On the part of Israelis criticizing their country, they are doing it out of deep worry for the society in which they live.”

There are many countries that are thought of as imperfect in terms of human rights – China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, even the United States, and they do not face sanctions.

“I have expectations that Israel will not be catalogued together with Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, and even the United States. It’s difficult for me to think that a ‘democratic’ state is not different from military dictatorships. Unfortunately, in its essence Israel is not different, but it is appropriate that it should be.”

by Benjamin Joffe-Walt. Tuesday May 30 2006. The Guardian

• Critics of state policies exempt from sanction
• Narrow vote welcomed by Palestinian groups

Britain’s largest lecturers’ union yesterday voted in favour of a boycott of Israeli lecturers and academic institutions who do not publicly dissociate themselves from Israel’s “apartheid policies”.

Delegates at the annual conference of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (Natfhe) in Blackpool narrowly backed the proposal, despite mounting international pressure from those opposed to a boycott, including a petition from more than 5,000 academics and a plea from the Israeli government. The decision was greeted with disappointment and anger by anti-boycott campaigners last night, but Palestinian groups issued declarations of support.

Presented on the final day of the Natfhe conference, the motion criticised “Israeli apartheid policies, including construction of the exclusion wall, and discriminatory educational practices” and invited members to “consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those that do not publicly dissociate themselves from such policies”.

After failed efforts to prevent the debate, speakers outlined the litany of difficulties experienced by Palestinian students and lecturers living under occupation, including the number of Palestinian schools shelled by the Israeli army.

“The majority of Israeli academics are either complicit or acquiescent in their government’s policies in the occupied territories,” said Tom Hickey, a philosophy lecturer from the University of Brighton, member of the union’s national executive committee and proposer of the motion. “Turning a blind eye to what an Israeli colleague thinks about the actions of their government is a culpable blindness.”

Delegate John Morgan, who seconded the motion, said there was no academic freedom for Palestinians.

But the union’s general secretary, Paul Mackney, spoke against the motion: “Most of us are very angry about the occupation of Palestine,” he said, “but this isn’t the motion and this isn’t the way. Any motion to boycott requires the highest level of legitimacy. As far as I can see no more than a couple of branches have discussed this motion. You cannot build a boycott on conference rhetoric.”

Natfhe delegate Ronnie Fraser, chair of Academic Friends of Israel, the primary opponents of the motion on the conference floor, said he was “not happy at all”, adding that the vote brought “dishonour and sheer ridicule” upon the union.

Last year the Association of University Teachers (AUT) elected to impose an academic boycott on two Israeli universities. But after an international outcry and a revolt by members it reversed the decision.

Yesterday’s boycott resolution will have an official shelf life of less than three days, as on Thursday the two unions will merge, forming the world’s largest higher education union with more than 110,000 members. The resolution will only be advisory to the new union. But proponents say the Natfhe decision is important and represents a step change in the wider boycott campaign against Israel.

Aharon Ben-Ze’ev of Haifa university told the Guardian he was “very disappointed”, adding: “This … will only serve to impede the peace process and strengthen extremism on both sides. I never say to British colleagues if you don’t subscribe to my beliefs I will boycott you.”

David Hirsh, an AUT member, added: “It may not have anti-semitic motivations, but if you organise an academic boycott of Israeli Jewish academics but no one else in the world, that is an anti-semitic policy. What’s Natfhe going to do? Set up a committee before which Israeli academics will be hauled?”

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel sent its support, saying British academics had “proved once again that they are up to the challenge of meeting injustice”.

Stephen Rose of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, who began the boycott campaign with a letter to the Guardian in 2002, said he was delighted, adding: “We recognise that this has not been an easy decision faced with the extreme pressure put upon the union by outside forces.” He said the vote was “a historic step forward” in “helping persuade our Israeli academic colleagues that it is time to cease silent complicity with the illegal acts of the Israeli state”.

But he warned that this was likely to be the start rather than the end of the debate. “I expect those people who oppose it to mobilise on UK campuses and around the world in the weeks ahead.”

Backstory

The first rumblings of an academic boycott surfaced in 2002 when Stephen Rose, professor of biology at the Open University, wrote to the Guardian arguing for a moratorium on European funding of Israeli research. The campaign gathered pace at last year’s AUT conference in Eastbourne where delegates voted to boycott Bar-Ilan and Haifa universities because of their alleged complicity in the Israeli government’s policies. The move provoked a storm of international protest and a month later the boycott was overturned at a special conference.

See this blog entry for a list of Israeli press coverage of the boycott resolution.

from the Globe and Mail, 27th of May 2006

OTTAWA — [The CUPE,] Ontario’s largest public sector union has voted to support an international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.

Delegates to the Canadian Union of Public Employees convention in voted overwhelmingly Saturday to support the campaign until Israel recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination.

The global campaign started last July and has been supported by many North American churches, 20 Quebec organizations, and others.

The Israeli “apartheid wall” has been condemned and determined illegal under international law, CUPE said in a release.

Under the resolution approved by delegates, CUPE Ontario will develop an education campaign about the issue, including Canada’s political and economic support for Israeli policies, similar to the campaign developed by CUPE British Columbia.

Canada has a free trade agreement with Israel, the only such agreement this country has outside of the western hemisphere, the union noted.

In Ontario, the liquor control board carried more than 30 Israeli wines, many produced in the occupied Golan Heights, CUPE said.

“Boycott, divestment and sanction worked to end apartheid in South Africa,” said Katherine Nastovski, chairwoman of the CUPE Ontario international solidarity committee. “We believe the same strategy will work to enforce the rights of Palestinian people, including the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties.”

The full text of the CUPE resolution:

CUPE ONTARIO WILL:

AP article from Jerusalem Post, 24th May 2006.

The Church of Scotland has called on European authorities and the World Council of Churches to clearly identify products from illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, a church official said Wednesday.

The decision by the church’s General Assembly, meeting in Edinburgh, came after delegates were informed that the church had no investments related to what it regards as oppression of the Palestinians.

The General Assembly last year asked the Church and Society Council to see whether concerns about Israel and the Palestinians had any implications for the church’s investment portfolio.

“The Church of Scotland doesn’t hold any relevant investment.” Morag Mylne, the council’s convener (chair), said in a telephone interview.

Mylne, who reported to the General Assembly on Tuesday, said the church advocated clear identification of products from illegal settlements to enable consumers to make informed choices.

The Church of Scotland, formerly the official church in Scotland, is a Presbyterian body.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) last year identified five companies in which it had investments in companies which it said contributed to “ongoing violence that plagues Israel and Palestine.”

The Church of England has also reviewed its investments in US-based Caterpillar Inc., but affirmed this year that it would discuss its concerns with Caterpillar rather than divest its shares.