'No' to an academic boycott of Israel

There is no evidence that most Israeli academics actively endorse via their teaching and research practices serious human rights abuses. On the contrary, many Israeli academics are active in the political Left, and vigorous critics of the occupation. For example, approximately 400 Israeli academics - about 5 per cent of all academics - signed a petition supporting conscientious draft objectors who refused to serve in the Occupied Territories. If anything, it appears that the boycott is deliberately targeted at that group in Israeli society which is most likely to support Palestinian aspirations. This is because the boycotters refuse to recognise any political difference between Left-wing and Right-wing Israelis. Rather, all Israelis are to be labelled as equally guilty.

Haifa University actually has the highest proportion of Arab staff and students (the latter about 20 per cent) in Israel. A number of leading academics including current and former heads of departments and the new Dean of Research are Arabs. The allegations regarding Ilan Pappe relate to the case of a history masters student, Teddy Katz, whose thesis claimed to document a massacre of 200 unarmed civilians by the Haganah at a village called Tantura in 1948. The student originally received a high grade, but was later failed after complaints by Haganah veterans that he had distorted oral interviews conducted with them. Pappe was not the supervisor of the thesis, but later became involved in the matter. However, there seems to be no reliable or balanced account of the affair. At best the evidence remains complex and murky. The only objectively verifiable fact is that Pappe himself remains a tenured member of staff.

Bar-Ilan is Israel’s only specifically religious university, but it offers a broad range of academic disciplines, and some of its academics are strong critics of government policies. A small number of students based in Ariel have completed degree courses validated by Bar-Ilan, so involving the university in direct collaboration with Israeli occupation policies in Ariel. However, the university has stated the agreement with the College of Judea and Samaria is due to end in September. A selective boycott of the College of Judea and Samaria could perhaps be justified, but only if such a boycott were applied consistently throughout the world to all academic institutions based on military or political occupation.

Conclusion

Proponents of the academic boycott proposal (or at least its most vocal advocates) have adopted a reductionist position on conflict resolution. They are not interested in promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace or reconciliation. Rather, they view all Jewish Israelis as oppressors, and favour the dissolution of Israel, and its replacement by a state dominated by a Palestinian Arab majority. All Jewish defenders of Israel’s existence, regardless of their diverse political positions, are likewise depicted as apologists for oppression.

In contrast, opponents of the boycott proposal appear to vary in their motives and agendas. Some are mainly concerned with protecting academic freedom, others favour two states, and some are opposed to any criticism of Israeli policies. Most appear to recognise the diversity of Israeli and Jewish views on conflict resolution, and the difference between particular Israeli government policies and the Israeli people.