The pair of Head to Head articles on boycotting Israeli academic
institutions sent me tossing mental coins: to vote or not to vote? If yes,
then for or against? I suppose this is the aim of such features, to make
one think, preferably twice or thrice, on issues that might otherwise slip
by unheeded.
Both contributors offer strong and probably valid arguments to
bolster their cases. The state of Israel and its actions and institutions
do seem to enjoy a unique immunity to public criticism which is usually
uttered at the risk of worldwide ostracism thanks to powerful and
vociferous lobbying. At the other end of the spectrum, the South African
apartheid regime attracted worldwide criticism for its inhuman
discriminatory practices, despite the fact that South Africa was also home
to a number of pioneering medical institutes and discoveries. Maybe their
lobbying was not good enough.
On the other hand, en masse condemnation of Israeli (or any other)
academia for state-sanctioned malfeasance or discrimination sounds heavy-
handed. If there is a proven case of a specific person or institute
involved in inhuman, unethical or dubious practices, then this person or
institute should justifiably, and on the basis of evidence, be blackballed
by the international academic community. And if Israeli (or any other)
academics were the first to condemn such incidents and distance themselves
from any suspicion of complicity or tacit agreement, there should be
little ground for anybody else to take up the cudgel against them.
Finally, once such a boycott starts it is likely to trigger an
avalanche of response in which reason, justice and common sense will play
only minor parts. Hickey hints at such a response in his second paragraph.
That would benefit no one, and it would take a major effort to stop, if
ever.
Without voting for either side of the argument, I rest my case.
Rapid Response:
Is boycott a valid academic response?
The pair of Head to Head articles on boycotting Israeli academic
institutions sent me tossing mental coins: to vote or not to vote? If yes,
then for or against? I suppose this is the aim of such features, to make
one think, preferably twice or thrice, on issues that might otherwise slip
by unheeded.
Both contributors offer strong and probably valid arguments to
bolster their cases. The state of Israel and its actions and institutions
do seem to enjoy a unique immunity to public criticism which is usually
uttered at the risk of worldwide ostracism thanks to powerful and
vociferous lobbying. At the other end of the spectrum, the South African
apartheid regime attracted worldwide criticism for its inhuman
discriminatory practices, despite the fact that South Africa was also home
to a number of pioneering medical institutes and discoveries. Maybe their
lobbying was not good enough.
On the other hand, en masse condemnation of Israeli (or any other)
academia for state-sanctioned malfeasance or discrimination sounds heavy-
handed. If there is a proven case of a specific person or institute
involved in inhuman, unethical or dubious practices, then this person or
institute should justifiably, and on the basis of evidence, be blackballed
by the international academic community. And if Israeli (or any other)
academics were the first to condemn such incidents and distance themselves
from any suspicion of complicity or tacit agreement, there should be
little ground for anybody else to take up the cudgel against them.
Finally, once such a boycott starts it is likely to trigger an
avalanche of response in which reason, justice and common sense will play
only minor parts. Hickey hints at such a response in his second paragraph.
That would benefit no one, and it would take a major effort to stop, if
ever.
Without voting for either side of the argument, I rest my case.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests