Adverts/Promotions

CHL Properties When Slaves Become the Masters Journalism Diversity Fund Stop War On Iran

Disclaimer: MPACUK does not select these automated ads.


Subscribe to our newsletter:


We will not be silenced Print E-mail
Thursday, 04 October 2007

palestinian_child.jpgPalestinian academics received with dismay, although not entirely with surprise, the decision by the University and College Union (UCU) to cancel their UK speaking tour, during which they had planned to discuss the academic boycott of Israel with colleagues at British universities.

Citing legal advice, the union released a statement saying that "while UCU is at liberty to debate the pros and cons of Israeli policies, it cannot spend members' resources on seeking to test opinion on something which is in itself unlawful and cannot be implemented". Debating effective means of countering Israeli colonial policies has thus been declared illegal.

We believe that this ban on debating the Israeli academic boycott has deprived our British colleagues of an opportunity to better inform themselves about an issue that is of concern to conscientious academics and intellectuals the world over. The complicity of the British government, among others, in Israel's continued military occupation and persistent violation of international law makes it all the more relevant for British civil society, academics included, to rationally deliberate on its moral responsibility in countering injustice.

We are disappointed to see that the leadership of the UCU has failed to defend the right of its members to engage in unfettered discussions on this or any other matter of concern to academics. Open debate, after all, is one of the key foundations of academic freedom, and thus we cannot understand why the door to open consideration of controversial ideas has been so abruptly closed.

Palestinian academic unions will continue to pursue other avenues to make our case heard in the academic community in the UK, and shall not be deterred by the cancellation of the invitation extended to us by the UCU. While we do not have the resources of the Israel lobby in the UK, we do think that fair-minded British academics will be willing to listen to our case and give it thoughtful consideration. Truth is stronger than power, and we trust in the integrity of British academics to know that instinctively.

In fact, we can detect the not-so-hidden hand of that lobby in this latest episode of stifling debate on issues pertaining to Israeli policies and the complicity of the Israeli academy in perpetuating them. Given that the same suppression of academic freedom has been proliferating among US campuses for quite some time, one cannot escape the conclusion that an abhorrent wave of new McCarthyism has perhaps crossed the pond.

By resorting to bullying, censorship and intimidation, however, the Israel lobby in the US and UK, supported by the Israeli government and academic establishment, is declaring its definitive loss of confidence in its own ability to rationally refute the case for an academic boycott against Israel.

By muzzling debate and free discussion on the boycott, the lobby and its supporters within the UCU are suppressing academic freedom in the most crude manner. They are proving once again that they were never concerned about the alleged "infringement" of the boycott on academic freedom; rather, their only concern has always been how to shield Israel's unique form of apartheid from scrutiny and censure. Their aim has been to protect the Israeli academy from damning accusations of complicity in maintaining Israel's oppression of all Palestinians, academics and students included.

We think that UCU members are aware of the significant role played by the union's predecessor, the Association of University Teachers, in upholding academics' commitment to justice in a historical precedent. During the struggle against the apartheid regime in South Africa, British academics were at the forefront of boycotts of the racist state. We do not see why considering ways of fighting Israel's unique yet equally pernicious form of apartheid should be subject to different considerations.

We appreciate the sentiments expressed in the UCU statement about finding a way of opening a dialogue with the Palestinian academic community on building solidarity. The best form of solidarity with Palestinians is direct action aimed at bringing an end to the occupation and the regime of apartheid in Palestine. Isolating Israel in the international arena, through various forms of boycott, divestment and sanctions, and forcing it to obey international law and to respect Palestinian rights, are among the most effective and morally sound strategies open to international civil society. We are confident that our British colleagues will begin to realise that true solidarity with Palestinian academics requires a political commitment to bringing about an end to oppression and injustice.

Needless to say, the boycott campaign will not only continue, but is likely to gain public support among western academics in particular; the true face of the anti-boycott camp has been exposed as a McCarthyist front that unabashedly violates the most revered values of academic freedom and open debate.

· Amjad Barham is head of the council of the Palestinian Federation of Unions of University Professors and Employees

Source: Guardian Unlimited




Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Live!Facebook!Technorati!Spurl!Furl!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Readers have left 4 comments.
JWD: Quote

"By resorting to bullying, censorship and intimidation, however, the Israel lobby in the US and UK, supported by the Israeli government and academic establishment, is declaring its definitive loss of confidence in its own ability to rationally refute the case for an academic boycott against Israel."

He's lost the plot!

This has NOTHING to do with any bullying or lobbying. The boycott was not stopped in its tracks by any threats but the simple legal advice that the boycott would be racially selective and fall foul of racial discrimination law.

If party A wants to have a boycott and party B wants to counter it then, surely, if Party A are sincere and legal then nothing will stop that boycott from proceeding.
(1) 2007-10-04 08:01:01
RSD: Quote

The author seeks to persuade a British Trades Union to enact a boycott of a narrow group of academics on the basis that their possession of nationality and identification with a certain ethnic / religious group in protest against the policies of the state to which they have citizenship. The argument is that due to benefitting from the commonwealth of that state via education, by association through compulsory conscription and employment by state institutions which may to some greater or lesser extent participate indirectly in actions by the state against another national group, then they shall be excluded from participation in any academic arenas in the UK. Were the boycott to propose that all Israelis regardless of ethnicity, faith or gender were to be boycotted then it would not fall foul of UK's equalities laws. But the boycott seeks only to boycott Jews.
The situation is further complicated because the UK does not have policy of isolating Israel (unlike the sanctions against SA) and neither do British academic institutions. If UK academics refuse to cooperate with Israeli Jews when so direct to by their employers, they then may be dismissed from their posts. UK academic institutions are legally bound to uphold UK equalities laws and thus to discriminate against Jewish Israelis would contravene these. To demand that Israeli Jewish students submit written declarations against the State of Israel would also contravene UK law as it would be discriminatory. The only way around this would be to require all students from all states that allegedly breach Human Rights and international law to publicly declare their opposition to their nation's government. As we all know this would lead to a mass exodus of foreign students from UK and certainly place some students in danger.
The UCU is currently engaged in a battle with the employers for improved pay and conditions. This union is not going to allow itself to be split apart over this contentious issue.
Equally the academic institutions benefit from the joint-projects with Israeli institutions and know that if UK institutions are not prepared to work with Israelis, there are plenty of others that will and will accrue significant benefit from doing so.
In fact even Palestinian academic instituions do not support this boycott that the PFUUPE seek. Israeli and Palestinian research / academic institutions are working together on joint projects like water conservation and management which are critical for the region. They also know that Israeli academics have been at the forefront of the Peace Movement and remain there.
The PFUUPE might be slightly more credible as a group if they put as much effort as their Israeli counterparts into promoting non-violent resolution of this conflict. Instead they cannot even bring themselves to admit that the Palestinians ethnically cleansed Gaza and the West Bank in 1948, nor that the first massacres of the Mandate period were carried out by Palestinians Muslims and Christians against Palestinian non-Zionist Jews.
(2) 2007-10-04 20:16:19
JWD: Quote

The article is so damaging to the Palestinian cause by completely ignoring the reason why the UCU were advised to halt any boycott on racial grounds.

It then goes into the canard that its all due to some Zionist Lobby and not based on simple anti-discriminatory law, the same law that would protect Muslims from discrimination.

It suggest that Israeli academics simply further teh cause of "Israeli opresssion" when, in fact, Israeli academics are leaders in criticism of the Israeli Government just like academics in all countries are often critical of their governments.

The UCU are supposed to be representing their members in issues of employment - not leading them on international political crusades. The union membership has been led by SWP and its more like a political club rather than a union for its members.

The website "Engage" has masses of commentary by insiders to this boycott and is a great source for anyone wishing to follow what happened.

I've been following these boycotts for some considerable time.
(3) 2007-10-05 07:53:44
JWD: Quote

"Needless to say, the boycott campaign will not only continue, but is likely to gain public support among western academics in particular; the true face of the anti-boycott camp has been exposed as a McCarthyist front that unabashedly violates the most revered values of academic freedom and open debate."

Oh Dear! He just doesn't get it. There was no ban on academic freedom to discuss a boycott of Israel.

The issue was that the boycott would be illegal under racism law.

The UCU had to abandon its roadshow to discuss it because it was clear they couldn't implement it. So, the Roadshow would have been challenged as a waste of UCU funds.

There could be no result that the UCU could carry out a boycott, hence they decided it was a waste of time to discuss it, and risk statements that were racist.

Insiders to the e-mail discussion have already stated that some of it was Antisemitic in nature but confidentiality prevents it being publicised.

I thought MPAC UK readers should know the full story.

Its interesting that no-one has tried to defend the point. Sometimes you realise its impossible!
(4) 2007-10-06 09:42:10
The author or administrator has closed this item for comments.
 
MPACUK Media Workshops

Search MPACUK.org

Recommended Books