Since 1967 there has been a steady increase in
the level of concern felt by growing numbers of
people worldwide about the oppressive policies
exercised by the Israeli government toward the
Palestinian people. Unfortunately, this growing
popular concern has not been translated into meaningful
action on the part of the world’s governments
and institutions. The advent of the Sharon government
in 2000 represented a turning point, and with
him and his aides proceeding to dismantle what
is left of Palestinian society by ever more ruthless
and murderous means, it has become clear that
concrete measures have to be taken to halt the
current programme of state
terrorism, ethnic
cleansing and cultural
genocide.
Our governments and official institutions, including
the European Union and the United Nations, are
clearly unable
or unwilling to intervene to stop the bloodshed
and massive dislocation. It is therefore up to
individuals and peace activists to take a stand.
The decision to boycott Israeli academic institutions
is part of a broader boycott and divestment
effort, which includes economic,
cultural,
and sport
agendas. The academic boycott specifically is
based on several premises. One is that, to date,
"the
vast majority of Israeli academics have been carrying
on their business as usual for the past 35 years
oblivious to what is happening to their Palestinian
counterparts, not to mention to the Palestinian
nation as a whole", just as Israeli society
on the whole is content to sanction the apartheid
policies of its government. A second, and related
premise, is that we recognize the important, though
often unnoted, fact that educational institutions
and their teachers are principal tools in shaping
the perceptions of whole generations as to their
country’s relations with their neighbours
and the world. If, in the midst of oppression,
these institutions do not function to analyze
and explain the world in a way that promotes justice
and reasonable compromise, but rather acquiesce
in aggressive colonialist practices, then others
may legitimately boycott them.
Israeli academics have
an important part to play not just in the process
of redefining the conflict in rational and critical
terms, but also by putting strong
pressure on their government to rapidly end
its inhumane treatment of the Palestinian people.
We urge them to play their part not only because
it is the moral and rational thing to do, but
also because their society’s own insecurity
stems from Israeli colonial oppression of the
Palestinians. They should understand that, in
the current
context of official apartheid and gross violations
of human rights, occasional expressions of sympathy
on the part of a few Israeli academics and the
odd
parcel of food or books sent to a Palestinian
family or university are simply not good enough.
Anything short of forthright public condemnation
of the crimes committed by one’s government
and society against other human beings almost
literally on one’s doorstep is nothing
short of complicity.
"The
boycott is a blunt weapon,
it does not discriminate,
and its efficacy depends
on factors well beyond
its remit. Many people,
while sympathising with
the boycott as a strategy,
are concerned that it
will alienate potential
supporters of Palestinian
self-determination. They
also have tactical quarrels
with the organisers. But
it’s a tactic, not
a strategy, and one of
its by-products is an
increased awareness of
Israeli behaviour. The
onus is not on its proponents
to defend it but on its
opponents to offer an
alternative."
Diana
Neslen, Jewish Socialist
47, Winter 2002/2003 |
|
|
|
Israeli society cannot continue to elect and
support repressive governments that are openly
motivated by a racist
ideology and expect the rest of the world
to carry on doing ‘business-as-usual’
with its citizens and institutions. The boycott
is an expression of this fact. As importantly,
it is a tactic also intended to give encouragement
to Palestinian academics (largely ignored in
the West) who continue to feel beleaguered and
abandoned. It reassures them that many of us
are not prepared to interact in any normal fashion
with a society that endorses their continued
persecution by its silence and complicity.
Above all, this campaign is meant to call public
attention to the fact that the Israeli colonial
project is unacceptable, non-negotiable, and
immoral.
-
Mona Baker and Lawrence Davidson
Some relevant quotes from Martin Luther King
(the analogy with the current situation is obvious).
The full text can be found at: http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html
"
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins,
marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better
path?" You are quite right in calling, for negotiation.
Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action.
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such
a crisis and foster such a tension that a community
which has constantly refused to negotiate is
forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to
dramatize the issue that it can no longer be
ignored. My citing the creation of tension as
part of the work of the nonviolent-resister
may sound rather shocking. But I must confess
that I am not afraid of the word "tension."
I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but
there is a type of constructive, nonviolent
tension which is necessary for growth. Just
as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create
a tension in the mind so that individuals could
rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths
to the unfettered realm of creative analysis
and objective appraisal, we must see the need
for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of
tension in society that will help men rise from
the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the
majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood."
"The purpose of our direct-action program
is to create a situation so crisis-packed that
it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.
I therefore concur with you in your call for
negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland
been bogged down in a tragic effort to live
in monologue rather than dialogue."
"I
must confess that over the past few years I
have been gravely disappointed with the white
moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable
conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling
block in his stride toward freedom is not the
White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner,
but the white moderate, who is more devoted
to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative
peace which is the absence of tension to a positive
peace which is the presence of justice; who
constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal
you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods
of direct action"; who paternalistically believes
he can set the timetable for another man's freedom;
who lives by a mythical concept of time and
who constantly advises the Negro to wait for
a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding
from people of good will is more frustrating
than absolute misunderstanding from people of
ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering
than outright rejection."
|
