quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
Sanity finally prevails

---

Agreed. However, I failed to watch this issue closely enough. Now that the boycott is gone, could we hear about the other two points in this story that are concerning:

quote:

---

Blackwell said that while she had been accused of harming academic freedom, the discussion of such freedom had no significance while Palestinian students did not even have the freedom to get to university.

---

quote:

---

the European Union had instructed last March that there be no cooperation with organizations that have branches in the occupied territories, and Bar-Ilan University sponsors the Judea and Samaria College in Ariel.

---

Here is Haifa university's response to the AUT outrage

Haifa University

[ 27 May 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]

Beijing and Damascus universities are located in very repressive states where people of all nationalities have little opportunity to speak out. The boycott of South Africa was intended to put pressure on the spaces of democracy (especially for the white minority) existing within that very unequal society. Not to pass judgement on the boycott of Israeli universities - I don't really have a position on it - but Israel is at least on paper a democratic state with a lively press and many public debates. It is also oppressive and unequal towards its Palestinian population, and the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.

This decision to target only Israel's universities smells it really smells and for many Jews it speaks to the fact that the Jewish state is singly targeted above others. Irwin Cotler has suggested that this is a form of modern day anti_Semitism because it singles out the Jewish state and tries to deny it the same rights amongst the family of nations.

quote:

---

Irwin Cotler separated six categories of anti-Semitism and find thirteen indices of discrimination against Jews that characterizes the "new anti-Jewishness".

Denying Israel equality before the law
the singling out of Israel for differential, if not discriminatory, treatment amongst the family of nations
the disenfranchisement of Israel in the international arena

---

[ 28 May 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]

While she seemed to be agreeing with you that a boycott of American universities would be a prior question, and she said that she had not taken a position on this boycott of the two designated Israeli universities, she also made a distinction among nations that you and Irwin Cotler seem to be missing.

It was the fairly basic distinction between peoples in situations of privilege and peoples in situations of despair. American and Israeli scholars, like South African scholars before them, have considerable freedom to make choices, to write freely, and to associate freely. Scholars in Beijing or Damascus, if they are doing good work at all, are usually living under considerable threat, and to cut off their connections with the outside world would be to remove almost all hope of intellectual independence in their countries altogether.

To deny the substantial difference in the situations, privilege, and responsibilities of those two sets of scholars is something of a parallel to, eg, denying the need for affirmative action on behalf of women or formerly excluded minority groups.

My point has always been that Israel seems targeted for such action. If you believe that boycotts work then one cannot be choosy. Yes democratic nations have a higher threshold of responsibility but by making similar points to regimes such as China or Syria seems more than morally correct.

You will never hear me defend the Chinese government. I know someone who ran for his life out of Tiananmen Square that night -- never forgotten, never forgiven. For precisely that reason, though, I would never forget the brave independent thinkers of that country, some of whom died that night, and I would never advise cutting them loose.

I, in other words, am not Jean Chretien or Bob Rae, nor any minister of M. Chretien's or Mr Martin's (Irwin Cotler?), not any of those people who have happily helped to sell out the Chinese people in order to gain trade advantages for Canada -- no, Mac, that ain't me. Ask Mr Cotler what he thinks of our Liberal government's sickening behaviour on the China file. Ask him what he thinks of Team Canada. *retch*

Of course Israelis who could have some influence on their government's course of action, like Americans in the same situation, are being "singled out." They are at the centre of a catastrophe that has dehumanized millions of other human beings for three generations; and worse, that threatens to destroy all life on this planet.

I dunno about you, Mac. I have done some time on this board denouncing all kinds of things about, as you mention, U of T, eg (although God bless David Naylor, the sweetheart). I've put in my time denouncing the government of Uzbekistan (Karimov -- such good pals not only with the Chinese leadership but also with Condi and Dubya).

I have seen you do nothing -- as in zip, zero -- on the subject of injustice elsewhere except as a way of claiming that two wrongs make a right, and if other countries are bad, then Israel gets to be bad too.

Look south, Mac. There's a lake down there. Go jump in it.

[ 28 May 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

quote:

---

American and Israeli scholars bear considerable responsibility for the actions of their home governments. Good scholars in Damascus and Beijing don't.

---

Okay, I've never studied in Israel, but I have studied in the US. The thought that professors there have influence on the actions of their home governments floors me ... they're having a hard enough time convincing their government that evolution is science and creationism is religion.

quote:

---

I have seen you do nothing -- as in zip, zero -- on the subject of injustice elsewhere except as a way of claiming that two wrongs make a right, and if other countries are bad, then Israel gets to be bad too.

---

[ 28 May 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]

[ 28 May 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
If we boycott Syria and China will they get out of the Occupied Territories?

---

quote:

---

I dont believe boycotts like these accomplish much.

---

I cant post the link because the Globe requires you to pay for it or sign in or something, but it's called:

quote:

---

Do Palestinians 'get' academic freedom better than Brits?
By SHIRA HERZOG
Thursday, April 28, 2005, Page A21

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by skdadl:
American and Israeli scholars bear considerable responsibility for the actions of their home governments. Good scholars in Damascus and Beijing don't.

---

Huh? American and Israeli scholars, liberal or conservative, are culpable for their government's actions...?

Have you BEEN to an Israeli university??? You actually support choking off the strongest oasis of rationality in the country??? How long do you want the occupation to continue for?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
Al that has to be the silliest question you have ever asked me.

---

Asking you a question is silly by definition.

And since you mentioned Syria's "occupation" of Lebanon:

Hariri's son poised for win in Beirut poll

quote:

---

People in Lebanon will begin voting this weekend in the first parliamentary elections since Syria ended its 29-year troop presence...

The last Syrian soldier left in April in a withdrawal that began after weeks of public protest rallies, triggered by the bombing that killed Rafik Hariri last February.

---

I guess it's Israel's turn now, huh?

Why is this thread in the "anti-racism news and initiatives" forum, by the way?

[ 29 May 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
Because (while i know you cant stand to even read this) anti-Semitism is a vile form of discrimination. I argue and many agree including the University of Toronto School of Social work that sent a strong letter od condemnation to the AUT, that this boycott is in fact anti-Semitic.

---

Here are a couple of paragraphs from James Barber's article in the Post printed on Friday May 27th. You need to be a subscriber to access the entire op-ed:

quote:

---

The boycott sent a shudder through academic communities worldwide. Not only did the boycott smack of anti-Semitism because it singled out the policies of one country for particular retribution, but it struck at a pillar upon which all universities are built: the principle of academic freedom.

There was also irony in the AUT boycott, for in an effort to pressure the government of Israel, the AUT chose to shut down one of the most powerful forces for change -- inquiry. By actively obstructing scholarly exchange, the AUT interfered with the efforts of Israeli scholars to seek and profess truths that politicians may prefer to obfuscate.

In response, the University of Toronto's Faculty of Social Work passed a motion to develop a formal relationship with the social work faculty at Israel's Haifa University. In doing so, we reaffirmed our mission statement, which decries racism and oppression, and sought to provide our students with a living example of the university's commitment to academic freedom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cabana me banana:

Huh? American and Israeli scholars, liberal or conservative, are culpable for their government's actions...?

Have you BEEN to an Israeli university??? You actually support choking off the strongest oasis of rationality in the country??? How long do you want the occupation to continue for?

The occupation will continue until Israelis decide it will stop. So why alienate those in their midst that want it to end?

---

Um, cabana? I did not say "culpable." That is your word, implying guilt. I said that Americans and Israelis, like any other citizen of any relatively privileged democracy, bear responsibility for what their governments do. It is not my fault, eg, that Paul Martin is prime minister of Canada, but like all other Canadian citizens I bear responsibility daily for his party's continuance in office and for his government's policies. That their bad policies continue means that we have to keep trying harder. Whether we have true democracy yet is not the issue: a committed democrat lives and works as though we did, as though it meant something to be a citizen, because that is the only hope we have of ever moving nearer to the ideal.

As for your caps and multiple question marks, setting off claims that I never made, I don't know what to say. You are the one claiming that I "support" the boycott of these two Israeli universities. Either you didn't bother to read what I wrote above, or you have some interest in misrepresenting me.

Some people come to babble to think through complex problems as honestly and openly as they can. Sometimes those people admit to uncertainty about the paradoxes and contradictions that the real world often hands us, but they continue to seek a just path none the less.

quote:

---

Because (while i know you cant stand to even read this) anti-Semitism is a vile form of discrimination.

---

Why do you continue to deny that our opposition to Israeli policies is political?

Is it because if you agreee that the problem is political, then you'll also have to agree that the causes are political and that solutions can be arrived at?

I realize it's easier for you to bleat "antisemite, antisemite", but if you are genuinely interested in addressing the issues, you'd look beyond your comforting excuses.

And what exactly does "(while i know you cant stand to even read this)" mean?

Everyone (including me) agrees that the boycott is not an ideal weapon to use against the Israeli occupation, inasmuch as many in academia are voices for coexistence.

But that isn't the whole story. Imagine a woman being raped whose hand closes on a screwdriver, with which she stabs her rapist.

Now suppose the police come. Would they ask her: "Why use a deadly weapon? Why not use mace? Why not threaten him with, but not fire, a gun? Why not use a Taser?"

If they did, the answer would surely be "I didn't have any of those things."

The situation in Palestine today is critical. An economic boycott of Israel is a good idea, but we don't have one. A sporting boycott of Israel is a good idea, but we don't have one. An arms embargo on Israel is a good idea, but we don't have one. Because of the courage of the AUT, we were able to have an academic boycott. And it worked, let me tell you, it worked: it put Israel under pressure, and it made Israelis feel isolated and embarassed. It did its job.

Any time anyone speaks out against Israeli apartheid or, God forbid, actually does something about it, the useful idiots are waiting in the wings with charges of racism. It's a crock.

Firstly, no one has to prove that Israel is getting precisely its fair share of criticism based on its relative evil compared with Syria and Sudan. That's nonsense. Countries get singled out. South Africa got singled out. Thank goodness.

If do-gooders had listened to those who complained that other countries were far worse than South Africa, we'd still be waiting for democracy for South African blacks. (And, on that point, it's a good thing those racists didn't come up with "the right of South Africa to exist as an Afrikaner state.")

An act against a state or an ideology is, prima facie, an act against that state or ideology. If you can prove that a given act is done out of racist feeling, then you can call it racist.

But the burden of proof is on those who want to label the anti-racists racists because of a logic-free leap from being targeted to being persecuted and from being persecuted to being the victim of racism. Simply pointing out that you have been singled out is no proof of racism; there are many reasons one might single out an offender other than racial feeling.

[ 30 May 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

quote:

---

Not only did the boycott smack of anti-Semitism because it singled out the policies of one country for particular retribution

---

So it would be Barber's argument, and by extension yours, that the boycott of South Africa was anti-white as it too "singled out the policies of one country for particular retribution"? What intllectual nonsense and only you would not be too embarrassed to repeat it.

Let's be clear what the boycotts are about: Israeli racist policies toward Palestinians.

That is it. Racism. Israeli racism.

Israelis elect and support their racist governments. Therefore all Israelis are responsible for the brutal, apartheid type policies of their government as were South Africans.

That anyone would use the smear of anti-semitism to defend racism is shocking but not surprising.

What is the argument? "It is anti-semtic to demand equal righths and justice for Palestinians!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:

So it would be Barber's argument, and by extension yours, that the boycott of South Africa was anti-white as it too "singled out the policies of one country for particular retribution"? What intllectual nonsense and only you would not be too embarrassed to repeat it.

Let's be clear what the boycotts are about: Israeli racist policies toward Palestinians.

---

Well, during the time South Africa was being boycotted, the Chinese had similar attitudes to the Tibetians, and closer to home, the Canadian government had similar policies to the natives. South Africa was just a handy target, in the same way that Greenpeace was calling for a boycott against the Norwegians for whaling, but not against the Japanese for doing the same thing because it was "impractical".

quote:

---

In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, its a religious war, not racial (most Israelies are in fact semitic, and its possible to convert between Islam and Juda).

---

Nonsense.

It's a political struggle. Some supposed war between Islam and Judaism isn't the issue. Some of the Palestinians who have had the strongest voices for their cause have been Anglicans, for example.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Nonsense.

It's a political struggle. Some supposed war between Islam and Judaism isn't the issue. Some of the Palestinians who have had the strongest voices for their cause have been Anglicans, for example.

Anti-Islamism has been used as a convenient tool to help create the smokescreen that religion has something to do with Palestinians' fight for political and human rights in their own land.

---

But for a large organization like the one in England yes - there's no reason for them not to simultaneously call a boycott on the US and China (and probably others as well) except for a fear that it might actually require a sacrifice on the part of their members. I see selective targetting as unfair when done by governments and large institutions, and I suspect many others do as well. That's not saying they all don't do it, just that I've never liked it.

quote:

---

Fair enough, though it still doesn't explain why only Israel universities are being boycotted ... its not like there aren't other countries involved in oppressive political actions.

---

So start your own boycott.

It could be that Israel is targetted because its war on Palestinians is so visible, and it's been going on for so many decades.

quote:

---

And as a group it should at least make sure it has the unaminous support of all its members when making a decision which isn't central to the groups focus (in this case education).

---

Deflect and duck.

Since when is unanimity of thought a prerequisite for a group to take any sort of action?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
And so this same Sue Blackwell who linked to Holocaust denial sites is worthy of your support?

Yes after numerous complaints she finally removed those links but that does not save her. She is an academic and had been emailed numerous times about this...and she is the key leader of the now failed AUT boycott...makes many wonder.Blackwell link issue

---

Is she worthy of my support? Let me ask you a question. Is this strategy of smearing Israel's critics with charges of racism worthy of you? I mean, it could be; I don't know you. I would hope not.

I don't know Sue Blackwell either. Maybe she's an anti-Semite, although, come to that, I am not immediately struck by the evidence offered (it is awfully hard to monitor all the content on the sites you link to, and they link to, and so on -- that's why it's called a World Wide Web.)

But let's suppose she is. I'm still disturbed by the alacrity with which you seek to turn from the merits of the case to the character of the opposition. You've done it to me already and I've been here less than a week.

Sometimes attacks on people's character are justified in an attempt to find the truth. But it seems to me that you are using it here as a way to evade the argument rather than a way to further it. I got the same impression from the other thread where we posted together ("Palestine has a new friend: China").

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

If you'd rather not get involved that's your business. There's no fault in that. It's quite another thing to blame others because they prefer to act on their views.

---

It is if they pretend to speak for the whole group on an issue which is at best secondary to the groups purpose. What would you think if the CMA voted to officially endorse the Conservative Party, based on a vote of 51% of their members? How would you feel if you were a doctor who supported the NDP? Or if the AMA decided not to co-operate with the French medical association because they disliked the French government's actions on Iraq?

quote:

---

I'm still disturbed by the alacrity with which you seek to turn from the merits of the case to the character of the opposition.

---

quote:

---

What would you think if the CMA voted to officially endorse the Conservative Party, based on a vote of 51% of their members?

---

The reason to boycott Israel is because it is an Apartheid state which denies human rights and equality to a huge segment of the population for no other reason than the ethnicity of their birth.

Macabee claims Israel is not South Africa. He is right, of course. South Africa is miles away. Rather, Israel is an Apartheid state where one segment of society, as a result of their ethnicity, do not enjoy the same rights as the another segment of society who have a shared ethnic characteristic.

But some critics argue that for Palestinians the situation is even worse. Because while South Africa was content to push its black population into "townships" and "bantus" and retain them for cheap labour, some in Israel actually want to push the Palestinian population out altogether. They engage in the practice of creeping settlements to cut off Palestinians from Jerusalem, their lands and even each other. The end result is that Palestinians will not even have the comparable black South African luxury of a Bantu but will be herded into enclaves of worthless land surrounded by a heavily armed military and hostile populations of settlers.

But, you know, it may all be true but talking about it is anti-semitic and demonizing Israel.

[ 31 May 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by WingNut:

Simple majority has always been enough most democratic instutions. But you suggest unaminity upon which the effect would be paralysis as for most groups of any reasoneable size such a standard would be impossible.

The reason to boycott Israel is because it is an Apartheid state which denies human rights and equality to a huge segment of the population for no other reason than the ethnicity of their birth.

There are many, many injustices in the world. We can only fight one at a time to have any effectiveness.

---

I don't know, should professional organizations have the right to enforce boycotts for their members for reasons not related to the primary object of the organization? Obviously you think they should, and I disagree, but since I have no new arguments to make I guess I'll just leave it at that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GJJ:
As for only fighting one fight at a time, that's true for individuals but not for organizations, especially when the action is as passive as a boycott of universities. Adding China and the US to the boycott would have required what, another paragraph or two?

---

Creating such an omnibus bill is theoretically nice but not feasible politically. This just based on the fact that a whole set of new issues and debates would be spawned, and no progress would be made on any issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Professional organizations have every right to do whatever it is they want to do, as long as it is not illegal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
Israel (despite attempts by some here to say otherwise) is not South Africa. Indeed the more people try to make those claims the more I find that ordinary Canadians not only reject it out of hand but begin to wonder about those trying to demonize Israel.

---

There have been many articulate defenders of Israel that have posited clearly the difference between apartheid and Israel. You can find them on the net and we have discussed it here .

There seems to be some positive movement towards peace but those here who continue to villify Israel do nothing more than spew bile as opposed to accepting that there will be a two-state solution. Hasten its coming by working positively not negatively.

Edited to add, here is one site that discusses this with added references

Israel and apartheid

[ 31 May 2005: Message edited by: Macabee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
Farrel, I didnt think I could be any more clear. I reject the boycott completely. Israel (despite attempts by some here to say otherwise) is not South Africa. Indeed the more people try to make those claims the more I find that ordinary Canadians not only reject it out of hand but begin to wonder about those trying to demonize Israel.

---

See, this is what I'm talking about. Your post is only three sentences long, yet even for that short time you can't restrain yourself from attacking the character of those on the other side ("begin to wonder about those trying to demonize Israel . . . .")

quote:

---

[T]he occupation is the problem but demonizing Israelis as racists is also the problem.

---

Several interesting points in this sentence. You are suggesting that to call someone a racist without proof is to "demonize" them. Apparently the racist policies of the state of Israel, for which the Israeli electorate is ultimately responsible, are not sufficient evidence, the polls that say most Jews like Palestinians should be "encouraged to leave" are not sufficient, the polls that say most Israelis oppose selling land to non-Jews are not sufficient.

I wonder what you would consider sufficient evidence, and I wonder how this squares with your free-and-easy use of charges of racism on the part of Israel's critics.

[ 31 May 2005: Message edited by: rsfarrell ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
Of course Farrel

---

For someone so concerned about demonization, you spend a lot of time demonizing people who disagree with you.

Some people say that Macabee has a hidden agenda. I disagree, Macabee is "an agenda."

[ 31 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
No,I am saying that Israel is not an Apartheid state and the attempts by some to label it as such demonizes Israelis.

---

From the Ha'aretz article:

quote:

---

Professor Steven Rose, a delegate from the Open University, spoke in favor of the boycott at the council meeting...Rose on Thursday rejected charges of anti-Semitism, saying that he grew up in an Orthodox and Zionist family, many of whose members were killed in the Holocaust.

---

Even Holocaust victims are antisemites in Mac's world.

On another front:

quote:

---

During a press conference held at Birzeit University’s Media Institute on May 25, 2005, the Federation of Unions of Palestinian Universities’ Professors and Employees, Birzeit University Employees Union and the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI), together stated their support for the courageous decision taken by the Association of University Teachers in the United Kingdom (AUT), on 22 April 2005, to boycott Haifa and Bar Ilan Universities in Israel as institutions complicit in the illegal and violent occupation of Palestinian land.

---

The Birzeit University Union, represented by Dr. Abdelkarim Abu Khashan stated, “The Israeli military occupation, supported by Israeli academic institutions, has attempted to undermine all efforts of Palestinian academics to carry out their academic, social, and cultural mission. As such, we strongly oppose the development of relations with Israeli academic institutions as it is tantamount to maintaining the current occupation and e Birzeit University Union, represented by Dr. Abdelkarim Abu Khashan stated,

[ 01 June 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:

---

Israel's 'Mr. TV' assails occupation of West Bank

... He films a soldier who complains that the settlers keep pressing him to shoot Palestinian children. When a settler tells him that if the army can keep the peace, "Muhammad" will make the Israelis coffee, Yavin retorts: "I'm not willing to rule another people, not willing for 'Muhammad' to make me coffee ..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
No, really, I want to hear all about how South Africa was "demonic" back when they practiced apartheid. Tell us about the demons, Macabee.

---

Why are Palestinian's consuming lower amounts of water than the UN deems necessary to maintain health ?.

Why does the UN accuse Israel of not divulging important health and economic data with regard to the Palestinian population, the brothers of the book ?.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Shouldn't Palestinian's and Jews both have rights wherever they might live ?.

---

quote:

---

Was South African Apartheid evil?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:
Im puzzled as to what your problem is. Was South African Apartheid evil? Yes it was. Im surprised that you seem not to agree.

---

No, I'm not asking you about "evil". I'm asking you about "demonic". Tell us about the South African demons. Which South Africans were demons? And can you explain in detail what it was that made them demons?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Also, explain what made South Africa "demonic" during apartheid. I agree that it was really awful, but since I don't believe in demons or other supernatural creatures, I'd like to know what it is that you define as "demonic".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

No, I'm not asking you about "evil". I'm asking you about "demonic". Tell us about the South African demons. Which South Africans were demons? And can you explain in detail what it was that made them demons?

Also, explain what made South Africa "demonic" during apartheid. I agree that it was really awful, but since I don't believe in demons or other supernatural creatures, I'd like to know what it is that you define as "demonic".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Is that your final answer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Is that a question?

---

quote:

---

I received an interesting email this afternoon from an American Jewish woman. She claims that David Bukay of the Political Science department at Haifa University in Israel is using his post to advocate “racist expressions” directed against Arabs and Muslims. According to a student in the Philosophy Department at the university, Bukay supports “the killing Arabs only for being Arabs, claiming that they are criminals by their nature and recommending to humiliate Palestinians in front of cameras, spreading those pictures—and all this in a seminar, which is being classified by the University as a duty [compulsory] in their studies toward fulfillment of bachelor’s degree in the Department of Political Science.”

---

Not only is this vile, daemonic racist tolerated in Israel's institutions of higher learning, his "scholarship" is published:
MUHAMMAD'S MONSTERS: A Comprehensive Guide to Radical Islam for Western Audiences

quote:

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD

SECTION ONE: ISLAM AS A WORLD THREAT

---

Here's the "academic freedom" you espouse, Mac. Freedom to hate. It suits you.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macabee:

Is that an answer?

---