Britain's Trade Union Boycotts Israel

(IsraelNN.com) UNISON, Great Britain's largest trade union, has passed a resolution calling for a total boycott of Israel until it "ends the occupation" - Israel's 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and the ensuing chaos there and in Sderot notwithstanding.

The resolution apparently has no practical consequences, but Israel's National Histadrut Labor Union chief Ofer Eini says it is still a "difficult" one for Israel. Its goal is to have Israel leave all of Judea and Samaria, allow the "right of return" to millions of Arabs to these areas, and dismantle the Jewish towns in the Golan Heights.

---eoe---

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122829

begin the process of actively boycotting all British goods, services and professionals as a sign of disgust with this ongoing demonization of Israel.

Most Brits are not into boycotting anyone - we have enough problems with our own government. Just as unfair to boycott us as to boycott Israel!

and I do understand that many Brits don't agree with this, but that hasn't had any affect, has it? Just today, another Union stood up and stated that they were disavowing Israel. Well, that's fine, people have stood up to the tyranny of the crown before and there's no reason we shouldn't do it again.

I think its wrong no matter who does it. Colonists destroying Native Americans, or any native peoples of any land. Israel is a creation of Britain and America and should be fixed. The only people who "understand" the israel are people who read and believe a book called the bible or the Torah.. everyone else sees it as really bad.

How is Israel an American creation?

And if you believe in native people inheriting the land, then are you in favor of the Jewish settlement in Hebron?

Likewise, do you think that a portion of Iraq should be set aside for the Jewish inhabitants who were expelled? Those Jewish Iraqis were there before the Arabs invaded, after all. But they did come from somewhere else as well, if you go back far enough.

The only people who "understand" the israel are people who read and believe a book called the bible or the Torah.. everyone else sees it as really bad.

What's "the Israel"? And why am I getting the feeling that you have abstained from reading ANY books on the subject, let alone the Torah? Hey, why bother to "understand" something before denouncing it, right? Especially when you can just make up some stuff that sounds like it might be right.

Sooooo much easier to pass meaningless resolutions than to actually DO anything constructive.

After all, this is JUST what British public service workers need from their union activists. Of *course* the union activists have plenty of time to pass resolutions with no practical consequences attacking a country 5000 miles away that most of them have never been to. After all, it's not as though British governments of both parties had been screwing our public services and those who work for them for the last 28 years. Oh, wait....

:sarcasm:

it is of course 'only' 2000, not 5000 miles, from London to Israel. Still doesn't affect the basic point.

(I thought it would be more helpful to get that perspective, since we already have the perspective of Israel's most rightwing anti-Palestinian news source)

UNISON delegates today agreed to support a campaign of sustained pressure to end Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

The union was discussing its position after a turbulent few weeks for the Palestinians, which have involved intense fighting between factions, the sacking of the Hamas prime minister and resumption of US and EC diplomatic ties.

Proposing the motion, Tracy Morgan of Wolverhampton General branch said that Palestinians were “living on tenterhooks” and that a renewed campaign would give them “a sense of hope”.

Some delegates were concerned that the move was too extreme and would penalise Israelis.

But Ms Morgan assured them that the intention was not to discriminate against the Israeli people themselves.

“The occupation needs to end so that everyone can live together. And I believe that Israelis and Palestinians do want to live together.”

The motion urges Israel to respect the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and to establish a state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with its capital in Jerusalem.

Conference called on the NEC to:

* continue to work with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and others, as appropriate;
* continue to develop capacity building projects with the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU);
* call upon the UK government to end the arms trade with Israel;
* produce UNISON material on Palestine to build knowledge among members;
* consider inviting a PGFTU delegation to the regions.

http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=3414

of an Israeli to give them hope as well? Seriously, are all British leftists this freaking idiotic?

No.

but really, punishing Israelis is a way of sending hope to Palestinians? Seems more like a nihlistic message of "we are with you in your hate."

How about proactive steps like actually working to improve Palestinian lives?

'How about proactive steps like actually working to improve Palestinian lives?'

YES! I'm always presenting that argument to UCU. If they're so concerned about Palestinians, then why not do something that a university teachers' union is actually capable of, and might have some effect - like support educational projects in Palestine, or scholarships for Palestinian or Israeli Arab students, or some constructive links between British and Palestinian academics? I'd be the first to join in with such activities; but the boycotters on the whole don't seem to bother with actually *doing* anything.

BTW, my UCU branch has voted overwhelmingly against a boycott, and the boycott probably won't pass when all of UCU is consulted.

(Talking here about UCU, which is my union; not UNISON with which I have no direct experience.)

Here's what he said in his opinion piece this Sunday:

"If the far-left academics driving this boycott actually cared about Palestinians they would call on every British university to accept 20 Palestinian students on full scholarships to help them with what they need most — building the skills to run a modern state and economy. And they would call on every British university to dispatch visiting professors to every Palestinian university to help upgrade their academic offerings. And they would challenge every Israeli university that already offers Ph.D.’s to Israeli Arabs to do even more. And they would challenge every Arab university the same way.

That’s what people who actually care about Palestinians would do. But just singling out Israeli universities for a boycott, in the face of all the other madness in the Middle East — that’s what anti-Semites would do."

Of course, many will see Freidman and try to distract from his point by calling him a neocon (false), a pro-Israel shill (also false) or a corporate stooge (take a guess as to the validity of this).

from a Canadian university. The problem was, Israel wouldn't give him the necessary papers to travel into Israel to get to the Canadian embassy to proceed with his paperwork. And the reason they refused was that his sister was killed by the IDF. Here was a guy who chose NOT to respond to his sister's death with violence and instead sought out an education and Israel shut him down.

Your suggestion is not so simple.

these protesters protest that and try to change the policy instead ultimately shunning Israeli academics, especially since it wasn't academics causing the problem?

And seeing as this is one example, not a routine pattern of behavior, it follows that the suggestion is certainly worth investigating. You'd think people comitted to helping Palestinians would look into doing this.

"The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist-McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell-Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps." (New York Times Magazine, March 28, 1999)

what do you expect of racist warmongers?
They need heroes too. they have it in thomas friedman. smarter and more secular than bush (and richer, even), but even more clear and ruthless.

"Of course, many will see Freidman and try to distract from his point by calling him a neocon (false), a pro-Israel shill (also false) or a corporate stooge (take a guess as to the validity of this)."

Killing the messenger and ignoring the message is surefire way to prove your overwhelming ignorance and unwillingness to accept other views.

Congrats to Scurrilous and TomJoad for proving me right.

My favorite quote from scurrilous' link.

Friedman is also a racist, regularly denigrating Arabs for their qualities of emotionalism, unreason, and hostility to democracy and modernization

He's racist for being critical of those who reject democracy and modernization? I think the assertion that we should find an anonymous zmag author more credible that a NY Times staffer with three pulitzers based on their differences of opinion is retarded anyway. This article's message is pointedly, "If you disagree with us, then you are lacking in credibility as a true progressive, as evidenced by your clear failure to agree with all of our radical views and the fact that Noam Chomsky once made a negative comment about you." So, if you get a Pulitzer, that does not verify your reporting, no. It merely verifies that the Pulitzers are a conservative sham! There's a word for when people constantly use this kind of device to give their opinions merit and tear down their rival's, regardless of whose work society actually deems valuable. Delusional.

But I think he's right on this issue.

just because avi don't call him a warmonger doesn't mean he ain't one. his words betray him.

which means you betray the discussion by attempting to shift the conversation as to one about Friedman.

This is not media criticism forum. We are discussing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the relevant part of the Friedman quote is the substance, not the speaker.

are also the ones most actively involved in providing material aid.

But it just doesn't make any sense to merely provide material aid. We have to get to the root cause. and that is the illegal and idiotic and immoral occupation.

Still, when you quote a racist warmonger, expect criticism. goes with the territory.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"racism" and "collective punishment" against white South Africans? why or why not? aside as to how Israel and the former south african regime is different, why are these tactics of boycotts (a nonviolent activity) inherently "racist"?

whereas these boycotts are based on supposed sympathy with the Palestinians and a desire to end the occupation. However, the proposed boycotts target academics, which 1) disturbs academic freedom, 2) doesn't force change upon said policies, 3) targets a group who generally oppose said policies and 4) is blatantly bigotted and punitive.

But he's right about what British academics should be doing. I have been arguing for the same thing for years, and I'd never even heard of Friedman till today.

If the far-left academics driving this boycott actually cared about Palestinians they would call on every British university to accept 20 Palestinian students on full scholarships to help them with what they need most — building the skills to run a modern state and economy.

Friedman here is channeling 1920 politicians. "we must train the 'little brown babies' so they can become civilized" Wrong answer. Arrogant to boot.

And they would call on every British university to dispatch visiting professors to every Palestinian university to help upgrade their academic offerings. And they would challenge every Israeli university that already offers Ph.D.’s to Israeli Arabs to do even more. And they would challenge every Arab university the same way.

More of the same.

That’s what people who actually care about Palestinians would do. But just singling out Israeli universities for a boycott, in the face of all the other madness in the Middle East — that’s what anti-Semites would do."


Friedman Effect: Blather and lose sense.

If the far-left academics driving this boycott actually cared about Palestinians they would call on every British university to accept 20 Palestinian students on full scholarships to help them with what they need most — building the skills to run a modern state and economy.

Friedman here is channeling 1920 politicians. "we must train the 'little brown babies' so they can become civilized" Wrong answer. Arrogant to boot.

____

just trying to clarify your opinion.....All those present scholarships to the Palestinians and the use of visiting professors (something israel academics push for when it comes to their own universities) are not considered in your view good for the Palestinians?

Is it just the Palestinians its not good for or all societies? or just struggling 3rd world type ones. You didnt really explain why your against it.

The "solution" and question is based on a premise that the Palestinians need to be educated in matters of government.

Anyone who has studied the history of the mandate system is aware that this was the arrogant position taken by colonializing powers--that "the West" offered the solutions for the "uneducated" peoples they governed over.

do i really have to go back a single post to quote you (you will note that its in bold-i kind of suspected you might try to skip over it)

so the question remains....are you against friedmans idea?

(I actually dont care either of his "premise" nor of his politics, i am concerned with the idea and the idea alone...you seem to negate his idea, and you made it very clear.)

Are you against friedmans idea

I titled my response as a twofer--that should be clear.

You even answer your question in your response: and you made it very clear.)

Why this repeated questioning?

It is not helpful for discourse.

you are against friedmans idea because you know whats better for the "brown people"...and its not going to the "white persons university where they may pick up additional skills in running a country.

sounds like the "white colonialist" telling the brown people whats good for them....

That is what my point is.

Pray, continue the game, but it is clear that twisted logic doesn't last well in the light of day.

already have scholarships, grants, and funds for links with academics and students from specific countries. E.g. at my university and others, there is funding and encouragement for Chinese students to come and study and for Chinese academics to visit. This is welcomed and supported by the Chinese government, and not considered by anyone as outdated or patronizing. Why should it be any different for Palestinians?

"building the skills to run a modern state and economy."

'building the skills" 'modern'--

GIving people to the opportunity to exchange ideas, learn different ways of thinking about issues, being exposed to new areas is one thing

to "build skills to run a modern state" might appear to be benign statement, but it is based on what appears to be an ingrained attitude on Friedman's part (as well as those who are asking these questions it appears) that the Palestinians are unskilled and somehow "unmodern"

"building skills to run a modern state and economy"....it actually does require education, skills and knowledge to run a modern economy, which is why so many states fail, they dont have those skills.

perhaps you believe the universities in gaza and the westbank contain enough knowledge to teach their students to run their govt without having to go out to the rest of the world....without having visiting profs and others teach what they have learned elsewhere.

funny thing about that attitude: the palestenains seem to disagree (but what do they know, they're just the "brown people") as there are quite a few scholorships to learn abroad and they all seem to have quite a few applicants. (i guess according to you they just being "dupes?).

to try and twist my words.

That really is quite infantile.

Bye.

HEFCE, the body that funds higher education in Britain, has as more-or-less the first sentence in its latest policy document: "Higher education is critical to the development of a modern knowledge-based economy." So we Brits *also* need education to develop a modern economy, in the words of the administrators. One might argue about whether this represents an excessively utilitarian view of education, but it seems to apply to everyone!

Palestine, as an independent state, is a new state: it is not surprising that someone might refer to their 'developing a modern state', as one might of any new state.

But in any case: the original point was that British academics would be better employed trying to do something constructive, and within our capacities, with regard to Palestine than focusing on a boycott. It does *not* necessarily have to take the exact form suggested by Friedman. Perhaps we should focus more on donating funds to universities and educational projects *within* Palestine, rather than overseas scholarships. Perhaps we should do both that *and* offer scholarships here. In any case, we would need to consult and work with Palestinian academics, in deciding what should be the priorities and how they should be addressed. There are many precedents for such work, in collaborations between a variety of countries.

Consultation and supporting is one thing.

"Teaching folks to self-rule" is another entirely.

Again, my main frustration with Friedman is his overwhelming arrogance.

it appears you dont like friedman and therefore his ideas are "not acceptable", they have an "attitude"......i see that as similar to not liking an idea because it came from a hamasnik, a black person, a person with slanted eyes, a vegetarian, a career soldier, a buddhist, a communist....

its the same attitude that has plague humans for eons......ignoring the message because the messenger is not to your liking.

The palestenains in fact do need help in "self-rule"...or at least for those of us who believe in civil rights, the rule of democratic law, sound economics etc (you are aware of the present social, economic culture that has developed in the westbank and gaza over the years-and the total breakdown of a lawful society?) and their education level is limited due to a host of reasons, some internal some external.

In short for those who are aware of the situation with the PA, they do need help.

I appreciated, for a while, his From Beirut to Jerusalem. His simplistic, case-study view of the world as exemplified in his Globalization series showed a weakness to a degree, in intellectual rigor. He latched onto an idea, became enamoured of it, and didn't think his way through in many cases.

Very much like Brokaw's simplistic "The Greatest Generation"

I really don't care what you think of me, btw. I do, however, find it quite telling that one would take my not liking his message is tied to some stereotype (thinly veiled accusations and all) Nice amount of accusation on your part. Quite counterproductive to discussion, by the way.

As to your awareness of the situation with the Palestinian people, etc. I will not touch that.

I know, because i have worked with organizations that have done just that.

So they work hard, get university degrees. Let's say they get a degree in engineering. They are successful.
Then what?

Because the economy of Palestine is constrained under the military occupation, they become university-educated taxi drivers.

because in the westbank they are under an occupation, in a small closed economy, that is based on a patriarchal/corrupt govt system that now has negative growth..with an economy that has been going down hill ever since intifada I.

but that doesnt negate going to expands one education....a culture that emphasizes secular education has a chance to improve itself, a religious education does not guarantee that.

As far as the westbank goes....kind of a dilemma for those who israel to remove the occupation immediately i would think. If hamas takes over the westbank as in gaza, they'll be changing the education system to limit females and institute their gender apartheid system (as they are now talking about doing in gaza). i would think for a "progressive" this produces quite the dilemma, assuming civil rights is a universal right.

btw you never did mention your opinion of gaza: The egyptians call it occupied by hamas, Abbas has declared it a c'oup d'ete, many of the palestenains in gaza have called it "worse than when the israelis were there"..... Their national poet has expressed his opinion that now "we can no longer hide behind illusions"...

so where do you stand with hamas running gaza?

How about some perspective from chancellors, deans, and presidents of universities?

Here are some:

the UK and US with some additional help have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in Afganistand and Iraq and have made over 4 million refugees.....sent people to be interrogated and tortured to other countries.

Perhaps those in favor of such boycotts should first and foremost boycott the US institutions, isnt American the leader of the free world, that sets the example?....and of course the British are definitly a part of this, perhaps those brits should start with their own institutions?

that would be upholding the principle wouldnt it?

beyond hate of Israel.

They gotta go. The world suffers because of their existence. They and their cohorts should be tried in the hague.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And wouldn't mind if Netanyahu were included, along with a few other Israeli politicians! But not all Israeli leaders indiscriminately!

the class of "Palestinian supporters" shining through for all to see.

That's not progressive-that's being an a^^hole.

What would Jon Stewart do if he couldn't make fun of George Bush?

George Bush and Ariel Sharon are two pompous idiots cut out of the same mold. I feel so sorry for Sharon as he has been such a fine example to his people just as Bush has...... :sarcasm: Both have demonstrated they have no problem saying and doing things that stirs up others, and ends up getting their own countrymen killed. It's obvious they both act within the framework of their larger imperialistic agenda.

Sharon's bring 'em on visit to Temple Mount in 2000 did exactly what he wanted it to accomplish....years of bloodshed. Bush's bring em on in Iraq did the same. The rightwingers jumped for joy.

Peres no, IMO.

Sharon maybe long ago; but do you seriously think he could stand trial in his current state????

if he does not wake up... well, that's not up to any of us.

a terrible crime against the Iraqi people, but have done a great disservice against those of us who happen to live in the US/Britain. The cost of this war will be astronomical (beyond what it is already) for decades to come.

dont support the occupation...its about those who live in israel......so in that light your support boycotting those who are against the occupation merely because they have israeli citizenship....

perhaps you can define that kind of collective punishment for some us here?

and Thomas Friedman has exactly as it should be....you want to help the palestenains?....give them the tools to run a modern society...though it appears you are against the idea because you dont like who said it....is that ever weird. An idea can be disqualified because of where it originates. So if some PA minister or British Prof had the same idea suddenly it would have merits?

shhessh, i dont even know how to describe such convoluted thinking

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:toast:
:hug:
now, i must go, i'm getting a lump in my throat and a tear of joy in my eye.

Thanks for being you, avi, it means all the world to me.

to its most logical conclusion.

just your natural sweetness is there for all to see.
thanks again AviBaruch

me as a supporter of South African apartheid, you have little to no leg to stand on.

Don't play the game if you don't like the rules.

thought the sanctions against the too(which included academic boycotts) were different. The israeli regime of course loved the apartheid regime (and vice-versa) but many Israelis did not. Most americans did not like it either, despite reagan's heartfelt embrace.

They unfortunately dealt with them, partly because so few nations traded with Israel.

And the implication was clear.

The israeli regime of course loved the apartheid regime

I call bullshit on this. I think you are just making stuff up all by yourself and citing it as known fact.
But perhaps you can prove me wrong. (LOL!)

What have you got that supports your statement that the Israeli Government LOVED the SA Apartheid government?

I'm willing to bet that you don't have anything in the way of Israel voicing straightforward support or praise for the apartheid movement. I'm thinking you just have examples of Israel trading or collaborating with SA, probably only at times when most other states were refusing to, out of fear of OPEC's retaliation by way of curbing oil sales to countries that traded with Israel.

I think you're going to have a tough time proving your case here. Especially considering that Israel was one of the first, (if not THE first) nation to tell the United Nations Special Committee on Apartheid that it had taken steps to comply with the military boycott of apartheid South Africa, recalled their ambassador, (in 1963!), was extremely critical of Apartheid for decades, (as far back as the 50's), only trading with them later on in the 70's when it became necessary, then stopping at about the same time as other western nations finally chose to support the decades old boycott for the first time, (although reagan tried to veto it even then!)

And if they loved apartheid then why would the amount of trade between the two nations have risen so sharply after apartheid was abolished? (Even surpassing trade prior to Israel joining the boycott.)

Is it that you think Israel 'Loved Apartheid' solely because of how they finally succumbed to the Arab League's forced boycott and, (after decades of being at the forefront of criticizing apartheid), traded with SA for a little over 10 years, rejoining the boycott when America finally chose to adopt it themselves? Is that it? Or do you have something else to back it up? Something a little less ridiculous would be great.

http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/85.htm
One of the most hidden but critical of South Africa's strategic relationships during the apartheid era was that with Israel, including both the Labor and the Likud governments. Israel officially opposed the apartheid system, but it also opposed broad international sanctions against Pretoria. For strategic reasons, much of the debate in Israeli government circles stressed coordinating ties to Pretoria within the framework of the tripartite relationship among Jerusalem, the United States (Israel's primary benefactor), and South Africa. Israel was also opposed to international embargoes in general, largely as a consequence of its own vulnerability to UN and other international sanctions.

South Africa and Israel had collaborated on military training, weapons development, and weapons production for years before broad sanctions were imposed in the late 1980s. Military cooperation continued despite the arms embargo and other trade restrictions imposed by the United States and much of Western Europe. Israel and several other countries discreetly traded with, and purchased enriched uranium from, South Africa throughout the 1980s. Romania's former president Nicolae Ceausescu, for example, used Israel as the "middleman" for exports to South Africa. In a few cases, joint ventures between Israel and South Africa helped to reduce the impact of sanctions on South African businesses.

The Israeli interest in South Africa sprang in part from the presence in South Africa of about 110,000 Jews, including at least 15,000 Israeli citizens. Israeli leaders sometimes justified trade with South Africa as support for the South African Jewish community, and South Africa provided a market for some of Israel's military exports. Israel's arms trade with South Africa was estimated at between US$400 million and US$800 million annually (see Arms Trade and the Defense Industry, ch. 5). In 1986 Israel also imported approximately US$181 million in goods, mainly coal, from South Africa, and exported to South Africa nonmilitary products worth about US$58.8 million.

In 1987 Israel took steps to reduce its military ties to South Africa to bring its policies in line with those of the United States and Western Europe. Then Minister of Foreign Affairs Shimon Peres announced the Israeli plan to ban new military sales contracts with South Africa, to reduce cultural and tourism ties, to appoint a committee to study sanctions proposals, and to condemn apartheid--which Peres characterized as "a policy totally rejected by all human beings." Israel also established educational programs in Israel for black South Africans. Nevertheless, through the early 1990s, several secret treaties remained in force, continuing the military relationship between the two countries and their joint research in missile development and nuclear technology.
_____________________________

The above is from the US Department of the Army country studies. hardly an "anti-Israeli" website.

More:
Brothers in arms - Israel's secret pact with Pretoria


During the second world war the future South African prime minister John Vorster was interned as a Nazi sympathiser. Three decades later he was being feted in Jerusalem. In the second part of his remarkable special report, Chris McGreal investigates the clandestine alliance between Israel and the apartheid regime, cemented with the ultimate gift of friendship - A-bomb technology
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1704037,00.html
_______________________________________________________

“Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.”
—Former South African President Hendrick Verwoerd
Rand Daily Mail, November 23, 1961

good post - link bookmarked. thanks!

Just to recap for a sec, I presumed this:

I'm willing to bet that you don't have anything in the way of Israel voicing straightforward support or praise for the apartheid movement. I'm thinking you just have examples of Israel trading or collaborating with SA

Usually, when someone calls out a BS response that would indicate hyperbole beforehand, the person who is replying won't use that particular strategy. Not today. Tom writes:

South Africa and Israel had collaborated on military training, weapons development, and weapons production for years before broad sanctions were imposed in the late 1980s. Military cooperation continued despite the arms embargo and other trade restrictions imposed by the United States and much of Western Europe. Israel and several other countries discreetly traded with, and purchased enriched uranium from, South Africa throughout the 1980s.

So, no praise or statements of support for their mission or philosophy. Just examples of collaberation and trade. And despite your heading, nothing at all about them making the bomb together. As usual, you rely on gross exaggeration to buttress your argument. There is one tiny section about nukes. And notice they don't quote Liel on anything solid. And they only imply the connection themselves by saying... The biggest secret of all was the nuclear one. Israel provided expertise and technology that was central to South Africa's development of its nuclear bombs. So what does that mean? Israel gave them technology. Nuclear technology? Maybe. Probably not. Did they develop a bomb with them? Well, it sure doesn't say anything close to that. Did Liel say that Israel gave S.A. nuclear technology. Not in this article he didn't. In fact, he didn't say anything remotely implying that. So we are supposed to believe that this incredibly, absurdly slanted report isn't misleading us in any way? Remember, they never said that Israel worked on the bomb with SA. Just that they "provided expertise and technology that was central to South Africa's development of its nuclear bombs." And, of course, that could mean anything.

One thing is certain... if this author had information linking Israel directly to SA's development of nukes, he would not have relegated it to a single, cryptic paragraph in the middle of his piece. If he had any evidence at all, he would have come right out and said it, instead of merely implying it, as he does here.

While I freely admit the US Department of the Army country studies is not anti-Israel, it is also not particularly accurate. Here's another clip I found under "Israel." Let me know if you find it reliable or not.

Immediately after the war, East Jerusalem was occupied and reunited with the rest of Israel's capital. Its Arab inhabitants--about 67,000 after the war--became citizens of Israel with the same rights as other Israeli Arabs.

http://countrystudies.us/israel/32.htm

And your quote about Israel being an apartheid state is from '61. Several years before the six day war and the occupation. So what about Israel proper resembles an apartheid state? This is '61 after all, before civil rights in America even took hold. Do you suppose Israel could have been considered so much worse as to resemble apartheid in comparison?

Your point was made and yet the same tactics are used. Good points.

I wish you well in this discussion.

americans higher education....i believe your for boycotting israels universities...and lets face it, the US has done far more damage to the world (afganistand and iraq) than israel has done to the palestenians...

(if not...why not?)

Britain's Trade Union :thumbsup:

"calling for a total boycott of Israel until it
"ends the occupation""

The original vote was to consult the members about a boycott, not to institute one immediately.

Here's a joint statement by the Russell Group of 20 research-intensive universities (Oxford, Cambridge, University College London, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Cardiff, etc.):

http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/2007/boycott.html

Statement from The Russell Group on UCU motion on Israeli boycott
30 May 2007
The Russell Group of the UK’s research-intensive universities today strongly condemned the motion passed by the University and College Union for branches to debate the Israeli boycott.

Professor Malcolm Grant, Chairman of the Russell Group and President and Provost of UCL, said:
"We reject outright the call for an academic boycott. It is a contradiction in terms and in direct conflict with the mission of a university. It betrays a misunderstanding of the academic mission which is founded squarely on freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech. Any institution worthy of the title of university has the responsibility to protect these values, and it is particularly disturbing to find an academic union attacking academic freedom in this way.
"The Russell Group universities will uphold academic freedom by standing firm against any boycott that threatens it."

Here's the statement of the National Union of Students, Britain's big student union:


http://www.nusonline.co.uk/news/274358.aspx


NUS response to UCU boycott vote
Responding to today's University and College Union (UCU) boycott vote, NUS National President Gemma Tumelty said:
“NUS does not support the principles behind an academic boycott of Israel. Such a boycott undermines the Israeli academics who support Palestinian rights, and hinders the building of bridges between Israelis and Palestinians. Retaining dialogue on all sides will be crucial in obtaining a lasting peace in the Middle East
International academics have a lot to offer higher education students in the UK and a boycott of this specific country is extremely worrying.
We will express our concerns to UCU and we are awaiting clarification from them on the exact nature of this policy and its potential impact on students and the academic community.”
For more information call 07866695010