Scholars under siege

Personal note: IF they want to have an effect they shouldn't limit the boycott to academics. Israel is a society run by anti-intellectual religious zealots much like America.

Scholars under siege

By Sara Leibovich-Dar Illustration by Michal Bonano

Although they have tried to downplay it, Israeli universities and faculty members are growing increasingly concerned that the worldwide academic boycott will weaken both Israeli science and the peace camp itself.


Ten years ago, Dr. Miriam Shlesinger, the current head of the Department of Translation and Interpreting Studies at Bar-Ilan University, was chair of Amnesty Israel, an organization known for its trenchant criticism of Israeli policy and actions in the territories. Shlesinger never imagined that she herself would be condemned and boycotted because of those actions. The day came in June 2002. Prof. Mona Baker of the University of Manchester, one of the two most important publishers in the world of translation studies, asked Shlesinger to resign from the editorial board of The Translator, a semiannual journal of which Baker is editor and owner. She also asked Prof. Gideon Toury, from Tel Aviv University, to resign from the advisory board of another journal she owns, Translation Studies Abstracts. When the two refused to comply, she fired them.



Her decision was political, not personal, she informed them, via e-mail. She stated that she would continue to treat them as friends on a personal level but was unwilling to continue the official connection with Israel in the current situation. Shlesinger says she feels a great sadness at these developments.

"Baker is active in perpetuating the boycott," she notes. "Recently she announced that her publishing house will no longer sell books to universities in Israel. That is definitely distressing, because she is a large-scale publisher. There are also implications at the international level. My feeling is that an injustice has been done, that what has happened is not worthy and even not intelligent. We expect a little more objectivity from the academic world. If she wants to help the Palestinians, this is not the way. What's even more absurd is that she is also boycotting Prof. Toury, who is one of the pillars of translation research in the world, but at the.....

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=363485

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

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

.

...would be to target those academics who support Israels policies against the Palestinians. This sort of boycott will do nothing but hurt those who don't support those policies, plus it's damn stupid to think that we should support the idea that people like Ilan Pappe (though he supports the boycott) and Tanya Reinhart would be excluded from participating in the international academic community, though their books can be found in just about every bookstore. And above all, this won't do a thing to hurt the Israeli govt, which is where the effects of any boycott or sanctions should be felt. Miriam Shlesinger pretty much hit it on the head in the article when she said: 'If the universities are weakened, that will be good for the right wing. I understand the reasoning behind bringing pressure to bear on Israel, but this method is invalid. It is more logical to put pressure on the United States so it will make its aid to Israel conditional on an end to the occupation.'

Pressure on the US to make aid to Israel conditional on ending the occupation, and international trade sanctions would be much more effective and be hitting in the right place than this boycott is...

Violet...

. I don't think this is good for the right wing. Strikes often hurt innocence in the short run too, but you have to draw a line somewhere. The Montgomery Bus boycott actually caused more pain to the housemaids than the bus companies but in the long run it was worth it. The present strategies for dealing with Israel don't work. If academics have more time, they will protest more. Most of them are probably apathetic like other Israelis. We had these sorts of arguments during the antiapartied struggle.

It will likely back-fire in many ways, one of which will certainly be that those who execute it will be forced to spend a good deal of time claiming they are not Anti-Semitic, and doing so over a position that makes the charge seem damned credible to any casual observer.

Anybody who challenges Israel in anyway has to spend time debunking the idea that the are antisemitic, so whats new?

Who do make that charge reflexively, and they are wrong to do so. We would probably be able to agree that there are certainly legitimate criticisms to make against Israel, and also that some criticism of Israel is rooted in Anti-Semitic prejudice. It is usually pretty obvious to fair-minded people which is which, bigotry partaking of the nature of obscenity in that it can well be said, "I know it when I see it," however hard it may be to define in general terms.

When someone has criticized a specific policy of an Israeli government, or taken active steps against it, that person is on sound ground for refuting a charge of Anti-Semitic bigotry. When someone is undertaking an action that boils down to refusing to hire or work with Israeli Jews, the ground from which the defense against such a charge must be fought is a good deal less favorable, since a blanket refusal to hire or work with Jews is certainly a classic hall-mark of genuine bigotry. Thus it seems to me much more effort will have to be expended in defence, and that the defence will not often be successful with the audience addressed, and that therefore the damage done to the cause of the persons pressing this tack will be greater than anything it might achieve.

. So this is not being done to people on the basis of judaism. How is this different from claiming that people who don't like settlements don't like Jews simply because Jews live in settlements. I don't see the difference sorry. That sort of psychological intimidation has gone on for far to long. Also you didn't answer my question about the South African boycott being antiwhite?