British lecturers vote to boycott Israel

[TonyGosling]

British lecturers vote to boycott Israel
http://www.newkerala.com/news5.php?action=fullnews&id=34076

LONDON, May 31: Delegates to a British university lecturers' union meeting voted to support a boycott of Israeli universities to protest the treatment of Palestinians.
Jewish organizations criticized the 158-99 vote by delegates of the University and College Union, or UCU, the Times of London reported.
"This is a full-frontal assault on academic freedom. It defies common sense and undermines the priorities and freedoms on which British academia is based," Jeremy Newmark, chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, said.
The UCU delegates, who represent more than 120,000 academics, approved a boycott motion that criticizes Israel for denying Palestinians their educational rights.
The UCU is a new union formed by the merger of the Association of University Lecturers and National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. Both unions supported and dropped boycotts in the past.
The UCU must now circulate details on the boycott to its membership. Newmark demanded that UCU leader Sally Hunt hold a referendum before implementing the boycott.

much more here
http://news.google.co.uk/?ned=uk&ncl=1116836689

[TonyGosling]

The cash-rich weasel side of the argument - with BIPAC's far right advocates of genocide, ethnic cleansing and racism named.


British Israeli Public Affairs Committee
Ref: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/05/372032.html

The BIPAC today hit back at the decision by university lecturers to
support calls for a boycott of Israeli institutions.

Yesterday the University and College Union decided by 158 votes to 99 to
circulate a motion to all its branches to discuss calls from Palestinian
trade unions for a "comprehensive and consistent international boycott of
all Israeli academic institutions".

The motion is going to branches for "their information and discussion".

In a hard-hitting statement, the BIPAC "rejected outright" the boycott
call and said, "No discussion should be allowed on this subject."

Its chairman, Prof Malcolm Grant, who is also president and provost of
University College London, said: "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 which is not allowed
in this case.

"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 by asking for discussion in this
way."

Prof Grant promised that its universities "will uphold academic freedom by
standing firm against any boycott that threatens Israel’s occupation of
Palestinian territory".

Meanwhile, another executive director of the British Israeli Public
Affairs Committee (BIPAC), Ofir Frankel, accused the union of allowing
itself "to act as a one-sided player in Middle Eastern politics and siding
with the oppressed".

He said: "The BIPAC is amazed that the extremists that led their union to
such an initiative decided not to discuss the option to pass this
initiative to a vote of all 120,000 members before they have all the
information, a decision that could have allowed the majority to vote
without discussion and rescue their union from this discriminatory action
against terrorism by reharnessing the values of academic freedom,
discourse and debate, as their own general secretary and our prominent
member suggested."

Another executive of the British Israeli Public Affairs Committee, Jeremy
Newmark, described the union's decision as "an assault on academic
freedom" that "damages the credibility of British academia with Israel".
He called for the union to organise a full membership ballot before any
proper discussion can take place.

The decision by the UCU was also condemned by an affiliate of BIPAC - the
Academic Friends of Israel, which accused the union of having "failed to
support the wishes of its pro-Israeli members".

Criticism of the UCU decision also came from student organisations bought
and paid for by the BIPAC.

The president of the National Union of Students, Gemma Tumelty,
incorrectly said it did not support the principles behind an academic
boycott of Israel because it "undermines the Israeli academics who support
Palestinian rights".

It also "hinders the building of bridges between Israelis killers and
their Palestinians victims".

She added: "Retaining dialogue on all sides will be crucial in obtaining a
lasting peace in the Middle East when the cows come home. 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
the lessening murder rate of Palestinian students by Israel."

There were also reservations about the UCU decision from another BIPAC
affiliate the World Union of Jewish Students.

Its chairwoman, Tamar Shchory, a student at Ben Gurion University in south
Israel, said: "In campuses abroad the climate of hostility towards our
killing Palestinian students is getting stronger".

"It seems like the UCU has chosen a one-sided, not constructive, position
in a very complex and sensitive matter in which we wish to steal even more
Palestinian land and block their education with as many roadblocks as
possible".

The British Israeli Public Affairs Committee issued a list of their
immediate goals and asked everyone to support them or else be listed as
anti-Semitic;

They include:

Reiterating standards for the Palestinian government by urging the Downing
Street not to provide aid or grant recognition to any Palestinian
government until it recognizes Israel’s right to exist on and occupy the
West Bank.

Strengthening British-Israel security cooperation by passing landmark
legislation creating an office within the new Department of Justice to
support joint research and development projects between Britain and key
allies such as Israel.

Securing critical foreign aid to Israel which will provide military and
economic assistance to control the Palestinians.

Prohibiting British aid and contacts with the Hamas-led PA until its
leaders recognize Israel's right to exist on the West Bank, renounce
resistance to occupation and ratify previous Israeli-Palestinian peace
agreements.

Extending British -backed loan guarantees to Israel until 2011 and
renewing the authority to transfer British military equipment to be stored
in Israel for use at any time we want.

Supporting an agreement that led to the Israeli medical service Magen
David Adom's admission to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent
Movement (IRC).

Passing Parliamentary resolutions that demonstrate overwhelming support
for Israel's right to occupy the West Bank.

Increasing military aid to Israel by working for $1 billion in government
grants that will help cover the escalating costs of the war on the
Palestinians.


Digery Cohen
e-mail: digerycohen@yahoo.co.uk

[TonyGosling]

Well, the NUJ led the way in this - and my namesake Mick Gosling was the speaker for the Israel boycott motion at our annual conference.

The British Trades Union movement has always been the first to speak out, and if ignored take action, against racism, ethnic cleansing and genocide of the disgusting type we are now seeing carried out by the Israeli Army against defenceless Palestinian civillians.

Despite the Israeli state's reliance on censorship by their media friends such as the BBC and Rupert Murder-ock the truth about far right Israeli State racism is getting out.

[TonyGosling]

PM Olmert updates British PM Blair
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2007/PM+Olmert+Update s+British+PM+Blair+6-Jun-2007.htm

7 Jun 2007
(Communicated by the Grime Minister’s Media Adviser)

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert updated British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Wednesday (6 June 2007) about the postponement of his planned meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, which was due to have taken place Thursday afternoon, and said that it was the Palestinians who asked to postpone the meeting for their own reasons. The two men discussed ways to continue promoting peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Prime Minister Olmert told his British counterpart that throughout the latter’s tenure, he has shown himself to be a true friend of the State of Israel and invited him to visit Israel again. UK Prime Minister Blair thanked Prime Minister Olmert for the warm remarks.

British Prime Minister Blair condemned calls for an academic boycott of Israel and said that such calls represent neither British public opinion nor the position of British universities.

[TonyGosling]

Guess what
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/uk/news/article_1314265.php/Blair_s ays_plans_to_boycott_Israeli_universities_must_be_abandoned
Jun 6th, 2007 - 21:13:40

Guess who is Tony Blair’s special envoy to the Mid East, Yes Lord Levey(corrupt cash for honors Zionist) Tony Blair is swamped by the most professional strong pro Israeli lobby group in UK, and Guess who set up our Tony for this war in Iraq, yes you right the Jewish pro Israel lobby groups and who is fighting the war with their blood and treasure yes you right again us stupid Brits , Decent honorable people being led by naïve gullible donkeys.

The UK is done forJun 7th, 2007 - 00:36:16

Two and a half years ago, the name “Mohammed” had just entered the top 20 most commonly chosen names for baby boys in Britain.

Today it’s number two.

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

Scholars said that the name’s rise up the league table was driven partly by the growing number of young Muslims having families,

scrabbleddieJun 7th, 2007 - 00:54:25

In the U.S. the Iraqi war planners were mostly Zionists, however this is not up for discussion in the government or main-stream media.

the usual AnonJun 7th, 2007 - 04:33:00

There seems to be a lot of kneejerk mindless hatred out there when the name Israel or zionist is mentioned.It (mindless hatred) has even climbed up to the university level. I always thought it would be restricted to the semi illiterate masses.

Guess whoJun 7th, 2007 - 09:07:55

Where do all these xenophobes come from? of course the name Mohamed is as common as jack, most Muslim people name their children Mohamed, most English people do NOT name their children jack, look at the stats for the number of English people in the UK, i think you'll find its pretty much all of them.

How can you possibly say that the war in Iraq was 'the Jews' fault? Do you not remember the the first Iraq war, is it not entirely obvious it's about oil and a vendetta on the Bush's part?

Finally, anyone who wants a boycott of Israeli academics is either misguided, naive, or anti-Semitic (in the Jewish, not Arab sense). Look at the facts, speak to the non-terrorist Arabs in the area, all anyone wants it peace, apart from the people firing the rockets into Israel and the arab states funding them. The difference between the 'terrorism' the Israeli's perpetrate on the Palestinians and the terrorism the Palestinians inflict on the Israeli's is that the Israeli's will often hit civilians when aiming for the Arab fighters (who incidentally hide behind the Palestinian civilians), the Palestinians will hit Israeli civilians because that's who they are aiming for.

Paul ArthertonJun 7th, 2007 - 09:39:14

I don't know how anyone who supports Israel can talk about victims in the Middle East crisis as if there is some degree of equivalency. Palestinian attacks on the illegal settlements and Israeli civilians is wrong but largely futile. In the recent rocket attacks from Gaza two Israelis were killed while 40 Palestinians (mostly civilians) were killed in retaliation. Trying to put some morality on it by saying that Palestinian fighters hide behind civilians is nonsense. It may help to assuage guilty pro-Israeli consciences but it has no basis in international law and is, yes, immoral. As for Tony Blair, he does what the Americans tell him who do what the Israelis say. Israel's fight is not for survival (as it once was) but for the oldest reason in the world -- conquest and land acquisition.

Mark MeytinJun 7th, 2007 - 11:19:37

Paul Atherton: Check your facts before posting onesided pro-Arab propaganda. The latest Palestinian attacks targeted the town of Sderot - undisputed Israeli territory. And in fact, the majority of killed Palestinians were armed members of Hamas and other terrorist groups, many during direct preparation or immediately after perpetrating rocket attacks.

To stay on topic for this discussion, I'm glad Tony Blair has spoken against this completely unreasonable and unhelpful boycott, that would only hurt British academic institutions in the long run. I think the idea of this boycott goes against the nature of international university culture rooted in free exchange of information and ideas between people of various groups and political persuasions.

beckyJun 7th, 2007 - 12:05:32

Can I just make one point, criticising one aspect of Israeli governmental policy, or one aspect of Israeli society DOES NOT make one anti-semitic.
Comments along the lines of 'Zionists were responsible for the Iraq war' are also deeply misguided and counter productive.

As far as I can see there is much to criticise about the way Israel handles it's occupation of Palestine, and there is equally much to criticise about the way some Palestinians handle the Israeli occupation. However criticising Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians does not make someone anti-Islamic or evan anti-Palestinian, just as criticising Israeli policy towards Palestinians is not automatically anti-semitic.
Unfortunately many people cannot criticise anything, or anyone in an objective manner and without descending into a rabid irrelevant tirade.

However, the proposed academic boycott of Israeli institutions is not in itself an anti-semitic act, any more than the world's boycott of Apartheid South Africa, was anti-white africans.

Israel is a beautiful and very special place, both the Israeli and Palestinian controlled areas are wonderful, however it is probably time that Israel learnt to accept criticism of their treatment of minorities within their country, without pulling the anti-semitism card. It would also be nice if both sides attempted not to be on the defensive all the time and learnt a lesson from a great Jew, and turned the other cheak.

[blackbear]

Boycott Movement Targets Israel
by George Bisharat
August 18, 2007

When does a citizen-led boycott of a state become morally justified?

That question is raised by an expanding academic, cultural and economic boycott of Israel. The movement joins churches, unions, professional societies and other groups based in the United States, Canada, Europe and South Africa. It has elicited dramatic reactions from Israel's supporters. U.S. labor leaders have condemned British unions, representing millions of workers, for supporting the Israel boycott. American academics have been frantically gathering signatures against the boycott, and have mounted a prominent advertising campaign in American newspapers - unwittingly elevating the controversy further in the public eye.

Israel's defenders have protested that Israel is not the worst human-rights offender in the world, and singling it out is hypocrisy, or even anti-Semitism. Rhetorically, this shifts focus from Israel's human rights record to the imagined motives of its critics.

But "the worst first" has never been the rule for whom to boycott. Had it been, the Pol Pot regime, not apartheid South Africa, would have been targeted in the past. It was not - Cambodia's ties to the West were insufficient to make any embargo effective. Boycotting North Korea today would be similarly futile. Should every other quest for justice be put on hold as a result?

In contrast, the boycott of South Africa had grip. The opprobrium suffered by white South Africans unquestionably helped persuade them to yield to the just demands of the black majority. Israel, too, assiduously guards its public image. A dense web of economic and cultural relations also ties it to the West. That - and its irrefutably documented human-rights violations - render it ripe for boycott.

What state actions should trigger a boycott? Expelling or intimidating into flight a country's majority population, then denying them internationally recognized rights to return to their homes? Israel has done that.

Seizing, without compensation, the properties of hundreds of thousands of refugees? Israel has done that.

Systematically torturing detainees, many held without trial? Israel has done that.

Assassinating its opponents, including those living in territories it occupies? Israel has done that.

Demolishing thousands of homes belonging to one national group, and settling its own people in another nation's land? Israel has done that. No country with such a record, whether first or 50th worst in the world, can credibly protest a boycott.

Apartheid South Africa provides another useful standard. How does Israel's behavior toward Palestinians compare to former South Africa's treatment of blacks? It is similar or worse, say a number of South Africans, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, U.N. special rapporteur in the occupied territories John Dugard, and African National Congress member and government minister Ronnie Kasrils. The latter observed recently that apartheid South Africa never used fighter jets to attack ANC activists, and judged Israel's violent control of Palestinians as "10 times worse." Dual laws for Jewish settlers and Palestinians, segregated roads and housing, and restrictions on Palestinians' freedom of movement strongly recall apartheid South Africa. If boycotting apartheid South Africa was appropriate, it is equally fair to boycott Israel on a similar record.

Israel has been singled out, but not as its defenders complain. Instead, Israel has been enveloped in a cocoon of impunity. Our government has vetoed 41 U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Israeli actions - half of the total U.S. vetoes since the birth of the United Nations - thus enabling Israel's continuing abuses. The Bush administration has announced an increase in military aid to Israel to $30 billion for the coming decade.

Other military occupations and human-rights abusers have faced considerably rougher treatment. Just recall Iraq's 1990 takeover of Kuwait. Perhaps the United Nations should have long ago issued Israel the ultimatum it gave Iraq - and enforced it. Israel's occupation of Arab lands has now exceeded 40 years.

Iran, Sudan and Syria have all been targeted for federal and state-level sanctions. Even the City of Beverly Hills is contemplating Iran divestment actions, following the lead of Los Angeles, which approved Iran divestment legislation in June. Yet the Islamic Republic of Iran has never attacked its neighbors nor occupied their territories. It is merely suspected of aspiring to the same nuclear weapons Israel already possesses.

Politicians worldwide, and American ones especially, have failed us. Our leaders, from the executive branch to Congress, have dithered, or cheered Israel on, as it devoured the land base for a Palestinian state. Their collective irresponsibility dooms both Palestinians and Israelis to a future of strife and insecurity, and undermines our global stature. If politicians cannot lead the way, then citizens must. That is why boycotting Israel has become both necessary and justified.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=13566

Or a different take on events.....

Engage Manchester: Meeting

Manchester Public Meeting - September 9th 2007

Engage's first Manchester public meeting is to be held at 7.00 PM on
Sunday 9th September at Manchester Maccabi, Bury Old Road , Prestwich.

THE BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL CAMPAIGN AND CONTEMPORARY ANTISEMITISM

Denis Macshane MP (Chair 2005 All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into
Anti-Semitism)
David Hirsh (Editor Engage)
Jane Ashworth (Campaigns Director Engage)
Richard Gold (North West Organiser Engage)
Philip Spencer (Advisory Editor Engage)
Panel Discussion

Meeting ends 10.00 PM

ADMISSION £5 BY TICKET ONLY (payable on the night)and light
refreshments will be provided

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/07/17/engage_mancheste r_meeting.php

Is there a jounalist in the house....

[TonyGosling]

Boycott of Israeli colleges urged
28May08 - Press Association]'

Lecturers have agreed to contemplate a possible boycott of Israeli universities over the Palestinian conflict. Members of the University and College Union (UCU) stopped short of voting on immediately severing links with their counterparts in Israel but instead "will consider the moral and political implications of education links with institutions".

Around 30 delegates among the 250 sitting at the annual congress in Manchester opposed the motion brought by Tom Hickey, a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Brighton. A similar worded motion passed by the union last year prompted Jewish leaders to condemn it as a "frightening assault" on academic freedom..............
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jVv8CZAjuiur2omVPYiAUL16kGrw

[kbo234]

[TonyGosling]

Israel: Why a Cultural Boycott is Necessary
4 June 2008, 11:09 am

By Remi Kanazi

At what point does rhetoric stop and effective action begin? For Palestinians, decades of dialogue and supposed peace overtures have proved fruitless, only serving to protect the status quo: sixty years of continual dispossession, forty years of occupation, and a systematic repudiation of international and humanitarian law. The situation for Palestinians will not improve without constructive movement forward—which rejects collusion with the Israeli government by exercising boycott, divestment and sanctions (known as BDS).

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0806/S00038.htm


During the 1980’s, BDS of South Africa included a cultural boycott whereby musicians and artists from around the world were prohibited from performing in the apartheid state.
In addition to internationally supporting the subjugated black population, this policy was instituted to express that no real dialogue—economic, academic, or cultural—could take place in concert with the atrocities of apartheid. With regard to Israel, the implementation of international BDS is but one necessary measure to shift the balance away from the oppressor and help place it in the hands of the oppressed.

It is imperative to note that a cultural boycott is not aimed at individuals, but rather institutions and a state. Frequently, Israelis travel the world and speak out against their nation’s policies, and many support a full cultural and academic boycott. A cultural boycott does not hinder the prospects for peace; rather it serves to empower conscientious Israelis and Palestinians, and provides the international community with a viable non-violent solution to the current impasse.

After traveling to the occupied Palestinian territories, a host of individuals have asserted that Israeli occupation is in fact worse than South African apartheid. Among these people are highly esteemed anti-apartheid advocate Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Jewish South African Minister of Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils. In an effort to pressure Israel to abort its destructive policies, both argue that the international community should impose a boycott on Israel, analogous to the one imposed on South Africa.

Many organizations and individuals have voiced opposition to an academic and cultural boycott. Their contention is that the arts and academic community in Israel will be denied the basic tenets of free speech. Ironically, the proposed model asserts that people of conscience, including conscious Israelis, are ostensibly encouraged to embrace “free speech” and “dialogue” over the most basic rights of an oppressed people. What remains missing from their argument is the fact that the Palestinian people have been methodically occupied, controlled, and embargoed by the Israeli government and many Israeli institutions for decades—with no effective recourse taken by the United Nations, European Union, or United States.

Just this week, the Associated Press reported that seven Palestinians from occupied Gaza were denied exit visas to “pursue their Fulbright scholarship studies” by the Israeli government. While their Fulbrights were reinstated after the AP article circulated, and the US State Department is now purportedly “trying” to get Israel to change its position, the vast majority of these incidents go unnoticed. There are countless other stories of hip hop artists, theater groups, and debke troupes not being able to travel to the West Bank from Gaza, and vice versa, never mind exiting the prison walls of the Occupied Territories. Moreover, one cannot downplay the multitude of instances where Palestinians—using means of non-violent protest—have been arrested, beaten, or shot by Israeli soldiers. Sadly, many of these detracting groups and individuals in Israel calling for “dialogue” based on “dual narratives” cannot be seen at any of the non-violent protests against the apartheid wall or part of the growing list of Israeli soldiers refusing to serve in the army. Onlookers in the so-called “left” in the US incessantly opine about the need for Palestinians to assert themselves non-violently—yet when Palestinians and their supporters embrace a fundamental tool of non-violent resistance, they are castigated.

Furthermore, those in a position to boycott must recognize the effects of Israel’s policies on the 1.3 million Palestinian citizens of Israel who have become relegated to third class status and have seen their own art and film community attacked by Israel’s discriminatory legal system. If the Israeli people and those in the international community truly want to stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people, they will embrace what more than sixty Palestinian academic, cultural and civil society organizations have endorsed: a full academic and cultural boycott of the state of Israel.

Throughout the Oslo years, the purported time of peace, endless cultural dialogue took place. But as Omar Barghouti—dance choreographer, activist, and ardent sponsor of a cultural boycott—contends, “A decade of joint Palestinian-Israeli projects mostly resulted in providing a figleaf, covering up Israel’s relentless colonization of Palestinian land and its crimes against the Palestinian people.”

It is clear that even cultural dialogue with the Israeli establishment has only proven to normalize the occupation. Tutu once declared, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” Now is not the time to be neutral, nor the time to be reticent; it is the time to act.


* A shorter version of this essay was first published as part of a collection of positions compiled by Randy Gener, titled: "12 Positions on Cultural Sanctions -- Theatre practitioners offer their views on a call to boycott Israel," in the May-June 2008 issue of American Theatre Magazine.
*************

Remi Kanazi is the editor of the forthcoming anthology of poetry, Poets For Palestine, which can be pre-ordered at www.PoetsForPalestine.com. Remi can be contacted at remroum@gmail.com.