Iain Chalmers expresses his hope that the BMJ will actively solicit
contributions from the Israelis who support an academic boycott of Israel.
As one of six Israeli Jews supporting the boycott I will try to explain
how I came to make this very difficult decision.
Issues such as boycott require some introductory remarks that may be
on the verge of the obvious, but are nonetheless worth making. They can be
summed up as a recognition of the uneasiness which accompanies, and should
accompany, any citizen who would call upon the outside world to boycott
his or her own country. Any call for such a drastic action, should be
thought over again and again and never taken lightly off hand.
Having said this, I would like to present my own non-ambivalent
position on the question of boycott, reached after years of doubting the
wisdom of such a move. I have been involved in political activism since
the 1970s and in all these years I believed that an internal coalition of
peace would lead the country onto reconciliation, without the need to
resort to outside pressure.
A recommendation for boycott as a strategic act has first to go
through defining clearly the aim of any outside pressure on the state. The
overall objective is to change a policy not the identity of the state.
Although I dream of bringing an end to the oppressive nature of the state
of Israel and make it, together with Palestine, one democratic secular
state – I do not think this can, or should be, achieved through the means
of boycott. In a similar way I would not suggest, despite my overwhelming
support for the Palestinian right of return, using a boycott to affect a
change in Israeli policy on the question of refugees. The device of
external pressure should be employed to change a policy of destruction,
expulsion and death. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip was always oppressive and inhuman, but ever since October 2000, and
particularly since April 2002, it became a horror story of abuse and
callousness. Every passing day brings with it demolition of Palestinian
houses, confiscation of land, poverty, unemployment, malnutrition and
death. The trend is for worse to come, with a sense of an Israeli
government that feels it has ‘green light’ from the US to do whatever it
wishes in the occupied territories (including the reoccupation of the Gaza
Strip). This free license atmosphere has legitimized the discourse of
transfer in Israel and could herald the making of another Palestinian
Nakbah in the form of a partial or massive ethnic cleansing in Israel and
in Palestine. Israel is also developing genocidal tendencies as the daily
killing of Palestinians (including many children) has become a normal and
accepted facet of life for most Israeli Jews. There is an urgent need to
stop this suffering and prevent future Israeli plans of inflicting more
massive and irreversible damage on the Palestinian people and their
society.
This is the aim of any human rights and peace activists interested
in, and committed to, the Palestinian cause. There are three options of
bringing an end to such a brutal chapter. One is an armed struggle. This
has been adopted as the exclusive agenda by many Palestinians, and it has
been a subject for internal debate inside the Palestinian society with
regards to its productivity. It is not difficult to see why from a
humanist and universal point of view, suicide bombs or military operations
have not yielded an end to the occupation and are not likely to bring it
in the future. Such action led to more innocent victims to be drawn into
the conflict, hence entrenching rejectionist positions within the Israeli
society, as can be seen from the election and re-election of Sharon in
2001 and 2003. The military balance also cast doubt on the Palestinian
chances for success in the near future.
The second option is change from within the society of the occupier.
There is of course an impressive reawakening of the dormant Israeli peace
camp. But it is nonetheless still a story of few thousands activists
divided between dozens of NGOs and with very few parties in the parliament
representing their agenda. In many ways, this line of action, despite its
vitality and necessity, is even more hopeless than the military action.
This brings us to the third option, which in any case is suggested
not at the expanse of the other two, but in completion. It does not offer
death and violence as means of ending the Israeli mechanism of destruction
and is not based on the internal and local balance of power. It is a call
from the inside to the outside to exert economic and culture pressure on
the Jewish state so as to bring home the message that there is a tag price
attached to the continuation of the occupation. This means that as many
Israeli Jews as possible should realize that their state has become a
pariah, and will remain so, as long as the occupation continues, or more
concretely until Israel withdraws to the September 2000 lines.
I am not deluding myself about the formidable obstacles on the way of
such a strategy. While there is a chance of recruiting the European civil
societies and governments, there is very little hope of achieving the same
results in the US. However, this line of action was not attempted before
and I was impressed when in April 2000, Noam Chomsky told a conference in
Boston that in the 1970s despite his and others’ effort it was difficult
to convince the PLO to begin a PR campaign in the US, since Arafat thought
that having the Soviet Union on the Palestinian side was enough. It think
it was a mistake then and it is crucial to start working in the US, today.
As in the case of boycott on South Africa, there is a need to begin in the
grassroots level and NGO spheres of action with the hope of eventually
affecting the higher political echelons. But even with partial success,
there is much to be gained in generating a trend of ostracizing the
Israeli official presence abroad. This can empower the inside opposition
to the occupation, persuading hesitating voices and maybe convincing more
to join the soldiers and reservists’ refusal movement.
This brings me to the question of a more specific boycott on the
Israeli academia. I think by now it is clear from this article that such a
discrete action has value only if it is part of a call for an overall
campaign for external pressure. Within such a call, it makes no sense,
for an activist like myself, to call on sanctions or pressure on business,
factories, cultural festivals etc., while demanding immunity for my own
peers and sphere of activity – the academia. This is dishonest. It should
be recognized that activists for boycott themselves are likely to suffer
if the campaign they call for succeeds. In fact it makes more sense to try
and affect the economic, political, cultural and academic elites on the
way to a policy change. The socio-economic realities are such that if you
affect the life of the wealthy and influential, you get results, not if
you add misery to those who are already deprived and marginalized.
How exactly should academics around the world show their discontent
and dismay at both the Israeli policy and the lack of moral courage in the
Israeli academia in the face of the continued atrocities, is a question
that should be directed to those who are willing to take the move. We in
Israel should first voice our moral support for such an act. This is the
significance of adding one’s name, as I did, to a list of European
academics calling on the EC to reconsider the preferred status granted to
the Israeli academia. It is of course paradoxical for one to ask someone
to boycott him. A call from within Israel is merely an affirmation that in
our eyes as Israeli Jews this is a legitimate and ethical move, even if
it can impact us as members of the Israeli academia.
My friend Mona Baker decided to show her support for the move by
targeting two Israeli individuals in her immediate sphere of activity.
This is what she felt was the best way of passing the message quickly and
effectively. Indeed her move brought the whole issue to the attention of
the national press in Britain. It is her moral right to choose the best
way in her eyes to join a wider campaign to bring an end the worst
military occupation in the second half of the twentieth century.
I myself think that a distinction between institutional and
individual is important. I also think there is much reason in a gradual
action that examines in every stage how successful was the campaign. Its
basic purpose should not be forgotten: to bring as fast as possible to as
many Israelis as possible the message that the international community
would not tolerate the occupation ( remembering that had it not been
Israel, or another American proxy, the Jewish state could have risked
military actions against her, if all other means to force it to end the
occupation would have failed).
I conclude by coming back to the opening somewhat banal sentences.
Yes, it is difficult to call for such a move. No wonder only 6 Israeli
academics openly endorsed such an action. But for us inside Israel,
despite the charges directed against us as traitors and worse, this is the
only effective way for expressing our total rejection of the daily
cruelties imposed by our government on the Palestinians. This is a very
clear and convincing way of trying to put across the message that crimes
against humanity are been committed in our name and we would like to join
forces with anyone willing to bring an end to it, without violence or
terror, but through pressure and persuasion.
Rapid Response:
a case for boycott
The Case for Boycott
Ilan Pappe
Iain Chalmers expresses his hope that the BMJ will actively solicit
contributions from the Israelis who support an academic boycott of Israel.
As one of six Israeli Jews supporting the boycott I will try to explain
how I came to make this very difficult decision.
Issues such as boycott require some introductory remarks that may be
on the verge of the obvious, but are nonetheless worth making. They can be
summed up as a recognition of the uneasiness which accompanies, and should
accompany, any citizen who would call upon the outside world to boycott
his or her own country. Any call for such a drastic action, should be
thought over again and again and never taken lightly off hand.
Having said this, I would like to present my own non-ambivalent
position on the question of boycott, reached after years of doubting the
wisdom of such a move. I have been involved in political activism since
the 1970s and in all these years I believed that an internal coalition of
peace would lead the country onto reconciliation, without the need to
resort to outside pressure.
A recommendation for boycott as a strategic act has first to go
through defining clearly the aim of any outside pressure on the state. The
overall objective is to change a policy not the identity of the state.
Although I dream of bringing an end to the oppressive nature of the state
of Israel and make it, together with Palestine, one democratic secular
state – I do not think this can, or should be, achieved through the means
of boycott. In a similar way I would not suggest, despite my overwhelming
support for the Palestinian right of return, using a boycott to affect a
change in Israeli policy on the question of refugees. The device of
external pressure should be employed to change a policy of destruction,
expulsion and death. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip was always oppressive and inhuman, but ever since October 2000, and
particularly since April 2002, it became a horror story of abuse and
callousness. Every passing day brings with it demolition of Palestinian
houses, confiscation of land, poverty, unemployment, malnutrition and
death. The trend is for worse to come, with a sense of an Israeli
government that feels it has ‘green light’ from the US to do whatever it
wishes in the occupied territories (including the reoccupation of the Gaza
Strip). This free license atmosphere has legitimized the discourse of
transfer in Israel and could herald the making of another Palestinian
Nakbah in the form of a partial or massive ethnic cleansing in Israel and
in Palestine. Israel is also developing genocidal tendencies as the daily
killing of Palestinians (including many children) has become a normal and
accepted facet of life for most Israeli Jews. There is an urgent need to
stop this suffering and prevent future Israeli plans of inflicting more
massive and irreversible damage on the Palestinian people and their
society.
This is the aim of any human rights and peace activists interested
in, and committed to, the Palestinian cause. There are three options of
bringing an end to such a brutal chapter. One is an armed struggle. This
has been adopted as the exclusive agenda by many Palestinians, and it has
been a subject for internal debate inside the Palestinian society with
regards to its productivity. It is not difficult to see why from a
humanist and universal point of view, suicide bombs or military operations
have not yielded an end to the occupation and are not likely to bring it
in the future. Such action led to more innocent victims to be drawn into
the conflict, hence entrenching rejectionist positions within the Israeli
society, as can be seen from the election and re-election of Sharon in
2001 and 2003. The military balance also cast doubt on the Palestinian
chances for success in the near future.
The second option is change from within the society of the occupier.
There is of course an impressive reawakening of the dormant Israeli peace
camp. But it is nonetheless still a story of few thousands activists
divided between dozens of NGOs and with very few parties in the parliament
representing their agenda. In many ways, this line of action, despite its
vitality and necessity, is even more hopeless than the military action.
This brings us to the third option, which in any case is suggested
not at the expanse of the other two, but in completion. It does not offer
death and violence as means of ending the Israeli mechanism of destruction
and is not based on the internal and local balance of power. It is a call
from the inside to the outside to exert economic and culture pressure on
the Jewish state so as to bring home the message that there is a tag price
attached to the continuation of the occupation. This means that as many
Israeli Jews as possible should realize that their state has become a
pariah, and will remain so, as long as the occupation continues, or more
concretely until Israel withdraws to the September 2000 lines.
I am not deluding myself about the formidable obstacles on the way of
such a strategy. While there is a chance of recruiting the European civil
societies and governments, there is very little hope of achieving the same
results in the US. However, this line of action was not attempted before
and I was impressed when in April 2000, Noam Chomsky told a conference in
Boston that in the 1970s despite his and others’ effort it was difficult
to convince the PLO to begin a PR campaign in the US, since Arafat thought
that having the Soviet Union on the Palestinian side was enough. It think
it was a mistake then and it is crucial to start working in the US, today.
As in the case of boycott on South Africa, there is a need to begin in the
grassroots level and NGO spheres of action with the hope of eventually
affecting the higher political echelons. But even with partial success,
there is much to be gained in generating a trend of ostracizing the
Israeli official presence abroad. This can empower the inside opposition
to the occupation, persuading hesitating voices and maybe convincing more
to join the soldiers and reservists’ refusal movement.
This brings me to the question of a more specific boycott on the
Israeli academia. I think by now it is clear from this article that such a
discrete action has value only if it is part of a call for an overall
campaign for external pressure. Within such a call, it makes no sense,
for an activist like myself, to call on sanctions or pressure on business,
factories, cultural festivals etc., while demanding immunity for my own
peers and sphere of activity – the academia. This is dishonest. It should
be recognized that activists for boycott themselves are likely to suffer
if the campaign they call for succeeds. In fact it makes more sense to try
and affect the economic, political, cultural and academic elites on the
way to a policy change. The socio-economic realities are such that if you
affect the life of the wealthy and influential, you get results, not if
you add misery to those who are already deprived and marginalized.
How exactly should academics around the world show their discontent
and dismay at both the Israeli policy and the lack of moral courage in the
Israeli academia in the face of the continued atrocities, is a question
that should be directed to those who are willing to take the move. We in
Israel should first voice our moral support for such an act. This is the
significance of adding one’s name, as I did, to a list of European
academics calling on the EC to reconsider the preferred status granted to
the Israeli academia. It is of course paradoxical for one to ask someone
to boycott him. A call from within Israel is merely an affirmation that in
our eyes as Israeli Jews this is a legitimate and ethical move, even if
it can impact us as members of the Israeli academia.
My friend Mona Baker decided to show her support for the move by
targeting two Israeli individuals in her immediate sphere of activity.
This is what she felt was the best way of passing the message quickly and
effectively. Indeed her move brought the whole issue to the attention of
the national press in Britain. It is her moral right to choose the best
way in her eyes to join a wider campaign to bring an end the worst
military occupation in the second half of the twentieth century.
I myself think that a distinction between institutional and
individual is important. I also think there is much reason in a gradual
action that examines in every stage how successful was the campaign. Its
basic purpose should not be forgotten: to bring as fast as possible to as
many Israelis as possible the message that the international community
would not tolerate the occupation ( remembering that had it not been
Israel, or another American proxy, the Jewish state could have risked
military actions against her, if all other means to force it to end the
occupation would have failed).
I conclude by coming back to the opening somewhat banal sentences.
Yes, it is difficult to call for such a move. No wonder only 6 Israeli
academics openly endorsed such an action. But for us inside Israel,
despite the charges directed against us as traitors and worse, this is the
only effective way for expressing our total rejection of the daily
cruelties imposed by our government on the Palestinians. This is a very
clear and convincing way of trying to put across the message that crimes
against humanity are been committed in our name and we would like to join
forces with anyone willing to bring an end to it, without violence or
terror, but through pressure and persuasion.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests