Hi Jo, how are things?

I'd agree to an extent, but surely - from the academics' point of view - it's better to do something than nothing? Sure, there's an element of hypocrisy for them to refuse to buy, say, Israeli oranges, yet use mobile phones, but their actions still result in less money going to the Israeli economy, which I assume is the point of the boycott.

For example, I'd like to be a vegetarian for ethical reasons, but I find it very hard to fully give up meat. I do, however, only eat free-range stuff and I eat less meat than I used to. Surely that's still a good thing, despite not involving me 'going all the way'?

I accept that if you're attacking the vitriolic nature of their boycott, then you've probably got a good point, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong in trying to do some good in the absence of the ability or inclination to do total good.

Hi, Andy. I'm fine, thanks. How's you?

You make a good point, but I don't think it holds here.

If the boycott goes ahead — and it looks like it might — what it will mean is that British academics will be forbidden to work with Israeli academics. So what it basically attacks is academic freedom. Personally, I would hope that a bunch of university professors would consider academic freedom to be a pretty big deal, and mobile phones to be relatively unimportant. What the proposition shows is that they don't: they've never even considered boycotting things that might be fun or convenient but aren't actually vital, but they're happy to boycott something that people in their position are supposed to be defending as a bastion of civilisation.

Notice that they've never considered an academic boycott against China, despite the rape of Tibet, Tiananmen Square, routine torturing to death of democrats, and so on.

> their actions still result in less money going to the Israeli economy, which I assume is the point of the boycott.

Not sure you're assuming right, I'm afraid: can't find any mention of that anywhere, including in the proposition itself. They state that Israeli academia is somehow complicit in the "occupation" (which is much the same as accusing every university in the UK of actively contributing to the Iraq War) and that it is therefore immoral to fraternize with them. So what they're saying is that for some archaeology professor from Birmingham to liaise with a colleague from Tel Aviv University on a dig in Mongolia contributes to the oppression of the Palestinians to an unacceptable extent, while for the whole of Birmingham University to be fitted out with Pentium machines, giving thousands of pounds to Israeli firms, doesn't.

I see. Should have read the original document, I suppose!

I thought they were talking about a general consumer boycott. My uncle refuses to buy Israeli oranges, and I was guessing the academics were thinking of a similar plan.

Would've thought that Israeli university students are exactly the most likely to become fairly liberal and anti-occupation? Bit disingenuous then to piss off the institutions responsible for training them...but then it doesn't look like logic plays a central role in their deliberations.

I'll be sure to bring this up the next time I hear someone whinging about it!

All the best.

Andy

Kind of reminds me of a Yorkshire greengrocer's riposte to a snooty lady who commented that he shouldn't be selling South African fruit:

"Aye, just think all those nasty black hands all over it"

However, I never purchase any products that sponsor or are remotely associated with Manchester United and David Beckham.

> Would've thought that Israeli university students are exactly the most likely to become fairly liberal and anti-occupation?

Quite. Not to mention the fact that Israeli universities admit Palestinian students.


> "Aye, just think all those nasty black hands all over it"

That's brilliant.

Firstly, five minutes on the web tells me that several of your claims are pure urban myth
http://ianism.com/?p=531

Secondly, so what if a technology was developed in Israel years ago? We're talking about taking a decision in the here and now to stop supporting a country built and sustained on racism and ethnic cleansing.

Every English-speaking Zionist I've ever met, no matter how fanatical, uses Arabic numbers, developed by conservative Muslims. Double-entry book-keeping was invented by the repressive Catholic Church. The language we're speaking in was developed in a country that used to hang, draw and quarter people. It would be physically impossible to boycott anything retrospectively. I realise that most Zionist arguments are nonsense, but this is a new low.

One of the ironies here is that, if a non-Zionist made such extravagant claims about Jewish influence on the modern world, they'd be accused of anti-semitism.

"Not to mention the fact that Israeli universities admit Palestinian students."

As long as they "realize who constitutes the majority around here"
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogsp...st- pickets.html

I wonder how you'd feel if this happened to you and your family, you Zionist-appeasing scumbag?

http://desertpeace.blogspot.com/...sh-home- of.html

I doubt your response would be limited to supercillious waffle on a blog.

TMN,

“I can’t believe that it’s lawful, that this law exists. I’m from England. Do you know what I mean?” said Jessica ... For the last four decades, Israeli legislation has permitted the demolition of homes built without a construction permit

That would be the same legislation as in England, then. It's called "planning permission". Maybe you've heard of it. If I were to get caught in breach of planning permission, I doubt my response would involve calls for other countries to stop buying British goods. I also doubt I'd take to building nail-bombs.


Ian,

> five minutes on the web tells me that several of your claims are pure urban myth

Hey, they weren't my claims, but fairish point about the fact-checking. You might want to try some yourself, by the way:

> Every English-speaking Zionist I've ever met, no matter how fanatical, uses Arabic numbers, developed by conservative Muslims.

Nope. Arabic numerals are so-called because Renaissance Europeans discovered them from Arabs and assumed that it was those same Arabs who had developed them. That assumption has more recently turned out to be false: the Arabs got them from Indians.

The second debunking on your blog appears to have been quite nicely debunked itself by James, and I note that your response to that was quite light on the "Nice fact-checking, sir!" and heavy on the peevish childishness.

And I'd agree with Scott Oakley on your blog: if you want to check a fact about Motorola, email them. They'll be happy to answer your questions. Google is not God.

But that's all kind of beside the point. The point, as I outlined pretty clearly with the smoking-versus-eating-fruit-gums example, is the principle. We all know that Israel does make valuable technological contributions to the world in various ways. We all know that Israel often profits by selling those contributions. An argument about exactly which are their contributions and which aren't is quite interesting, but doesn't affect the principle unless it turns out that they provide nothing whatsoever — and, if that were the case, no boycott would ever be suggested in the first place.

> It would be physically impossible to boycott anything retrospectively.

Well, yes, but you're hardly comparing like for like here. The issue with a boycott is, obviously, qui bono? The Catholic Church don't have a patent on double-entry book-keeping and you don't have to pay them to use it. I put it to you that, if you did, quite a lot of people would find an alternative. Now let's take one of the claims that you concede: that most of Windows NT was developed in Israel. Microsoft certainly do charge money for the use of NT. Buying NT therefore contributes financially to Israel. So we're back to a bunch of academics who use NT and its derivatives on a daily basis without bothering their consciences but who think that emailing a lecturer in Tel Aviv to discuss the development of Mediaeval French contributes to the oppression of the Palestinians.

It strikes me that, in some respects, the Iranian authorities are right when they refuse help from Israel's world-leading post-earthquake rescue teams. (Though they're wrong not to consult the poor bastards stuck under the rubble before making such a decision on their behalf, of course.) Even though that help is offered free of charge, the Iranian state doesn't want even the moral debt to a country that it hates. That's putting your money where your mouth is. Compare and contrast to British academics. Imagine a bomb planted on campus somewhere. The police inform the faculty that they can defuse it, but only using technology sold to them by an Israeli firm. Anyone see the faculty asking for the bomb to be allowed to detonate and damage their precious buildings? Please.

Incidentally, I agree with you about foreign aid: scrap it all.

Jo:

Wonderful piece.

BTW: The Chinese have murdered 1.4 million Tibetans in the past 40 years, turned thousands of Tibetan Buddhist monastaries to rubbles, thrown countless Tibetans off their ancestral lands, and the Chinese Gulags are choking with Tibetan political prisoners.

So, I'm just wondering when the British acadecmics are planning to boycott the Chinese?

Oh, wait, sorry, the Tibetans are non-violent, don't use terrorrorism as a weapon to gain world attention.

So, who cares.

Let the British keep it up, the Jews who live in not so Great Britian will flee and you will be trading a loyal and productive middle class Jewish citizenry for, hostile, sharia yearning Muslims on the dole.

Just look at Eastern Europe if you want to get a glimpse of the future — what happens to states that become judenrein.

Hi, Robert. Hope everything's well with you.

The interesting thing, I think, is that, on this occasion, I wasn't even writing particularly in defense of Israel: my post was about having the courage of your convictions. If you're going to boycott something, do it properly. I didn't even suggest (though I do believe) that British academics shouldn't boycott Israel: I suggested that, if they must boycott Israel, they should do it properly, making real sacrifices to have the greatest effect possible on the state they hate so much. And for this I still get called a "Zionist-appeasing scumbag". Go figure.

Say what you like about the old-school left-wingers of yesteryear, but they did have the courage of their convictions. I oppose Arthur "Stalinist" Scargill in pretty much every way, but I have a lot more respect for the striking miners, who felt strongly enough about their issue to go without pay for over a year, than for modern strikers who take three one-day strikes a month, sacrificing very little and having a few nice little holidays.

To be fair to the academics, they do recognise what's been going on in China, and their response is that academic freedom is not only a principle that should trump all other considerations but also a force that acts for good in China itself. And I think they're probably right about that: most of the Chinese democracy movement seems to come out of their universities, after all. Ensuring that Chinese academia is exposed to unfiltered Western ideas helps to prevent the sort of isolation that could completely cripple the culture, as has happened in North Korea. What is rather odd is that the same reasoning doesn't work with respect to Israel. I have no idea why not.

Jo:

Thanks so much for the thoughtful response.

In your closing paragraph you ask: What is rather odd is that the same reasoning doesn't work with respect to Israel. I have no idea why not.

Ther answer, I'm afraid, is frighteningly simple: Jews.

The Jewish people have always singled out for special treatment by their enemies. In 19th century Europe, Jews were politely labeled "Cosmopolitans." This hinted that Jews had no land of their their own, hence Jews embedded themselves in thriving cultures and acted as parasites on the host culture.

Remember, in this Jew-hatred the emphasis is placed on the rootlessness of the Jews.

Now the Jewish people have a land of their own, Israel. No matter what she does in her existential and unending battle against the Arab world, the Jews are ruthlessly singled out precisely because they have a home land, they have finally returned to their ancient home. What is the response? Jews are now referred to as fanatic nationalists, Israel is damned as an apartheid state; litle regard is given to the fact that since the security wall was built, the number of homicide bombings has plummeted to nearly zero.

In short, Jew-hatred is the reason for the academic double standard.

I know, I know, they whine that everyone who critisizes the State of Israel is accused of Jew-hatred.

Not true.

I only use this term for people who alone single out Israel for criticism and punishment whie choosing to go soft on the world's worst tyrants and genocidiers.

RJA - you don't need to hypothesise Judenhass (something remarkably absent in Britain today - I get the impression you're probably a Yank who's never been here and relies on Melanie Phillips for updates) to understand why Israel is singled out for criticism.

It's singled out because Israel is full of "people like us" - educated, white, Europeanised and sharing our cultural heritage - so it's seen as an example of Western colonialism at worst, and people who 'ought to know better' at best.

This is obviously patronising re the Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians and so on, but it makes a lot more sense than the idea that, despite people in Britain not hating Jews, we all actually do.

There are plenty of people in Britain who really genuinely have nothing against Jews but who have this inexplicably vitriolic and disproportionate and hypocritical attitude towards Israel. But there are also plenty, in my experience, who claim not to have a problem with Jews and who really mean it, but are wrong about themselves: scratch the surface and out come the racial slurs. The popular talk of the Jewish lobby controlling American politics is an example; the eager readiness to uncritically accept any old crap the Palestinian propaganda machines come up with — the Jenin "Massacre", the poisoning of water supplies on the West Bank — is another: show these people a press release from a known terrorist organisation with a long track record of lying and a statement from a properly run army and, if that army is full of Jews, they believe the former every time. I lose track of how many times someone who, as usual, genuinely doesn't think that they have any anti-Jewish prejudice has speculated that an article sympathetic to Israel should be distrusted because of the suspiciously Jewish-looking surname of its author.

For a very small number of racists, hatred of the Jews drives opposition to Israel. For far more people, opposition to Israel is driving Jew-hatred. And what that means is that people who start out from a non-racist or even an anti-racist position don't notice as a certain amount of racism infects their thinking, because the racism is never one of their premises; it's an indirect result. But it's there.

That's why we've arrived at the interesting position of having so many people who don't cause trouble for Jews in Britain yet, under certain circumstances, hate Jews where they would not hate others. If the hatred were their starting point, they'd simply hate all Jews. Because it's not, it doesn't work that way. It reveals itself in the appalling double-standards applied to Jews in Israel. No British academic has suggested that allowing a Russian professor to visit a British campus would contribute to the war in Chechnya. It's only Jews who get this crap. And it is Jews, not Israelis: Israeli Arabs are never the object of this opprobrium.

But, you know, people do vote with their feet, John. It's all very well for you to claim that there really isn't a problem in Britain, but look at the demographics. The Jews are quietly leaving the UK, and not because of the weather.

Gawd, that's a lame posting! Not to say that Israel isn't a science and techology powerhouse (look at Nobel prize rate - twice the UK, 4 times the US), but the claims presented are laughable.

There's no such thing as "Pentium NMX Chip technology" - perhaps you meant "MMX", a now superceded set of multimedia instructions. There's no "Centrium", it's Centrino, and it was designed in Israel.

Microsoft has research sites in the UK and China. Almost all of WIndows was developed in Redmond (and if I had to use windows I _would_ throw away my computer, but that's another story), though I'm sure bits of it were done in Israel.

Cisco has a research site in the UK (and Bangalore, I think).

Nokia are not exactly unknown in mobile phone technology and are based in Finland.

Voice mail was invented by IBM and commercialised by Octel, in the US.

Mobile phone jamming? Whoopee...

I presume the piece is abbreviated, as the reference to "health " in para 7 is otherwise rather mysterious; thanks for this kindness as there's only so much bullshit one can take so early in the day.

Why did you bother making that comment when other people have already raised every point in it and I've already answered them?

Jo:

Thanks so much for the thoughtful response. I know several former UK Jews, who now reside in Los Angles, and they are very sad about leaving England. They say: "I am English to my bones, but the Jewish people are no longer welcome in Great Britain."

In fifty years, the UK will be, um, judenrein.

Why didn't you add a correction to the original posting?

These comments form part of the posting. Obviously.

John B:

Indeed, I am a Yank and a Jewish Yank who does read Melanie Phillips, but I also read the wretched Guardian, which seems to be edited by Julius Streicher when it comes to its coveraged of Israel; I watch the BBC, which is quite dopey, and ignorant in its coverage of America and Israel. I also gaze in disbelief at the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, a living, breathing Jew-hater. It's as if a KKK Grand Dragon were elected to high office in America.

The (true) points about Israel's many contributions to technology are unlikely to convince many on the Left to be more Israel-friendly. Because many on the Left are themselves anti-technology and indeed anti-civilization.

Hi, David.

If John's still bothering to read this, he might be interested in your post about just how "remarkably absent in Britain today" Jew-hatred really is.

"Last year I chaired a blue-ribbon committee of British parliamentarians, including former ministers and a party leader, that examined the problem of anti-Semitism in Britain…Our report showed a pattern of fear among a small number of British citizens — there are around 300,000 Jews in Britain, of whom about a third are observant — that is not acceptable in a modern democracy. Synagogues attacked. Jewish schoolboys jostled on public transportation. Rabbis punched and knifed. British Jews feeling compelled to raise millions to provide private security for their weddings and community events. On campuses, militant anti-Jewish students fueled by Islamist or far-left hate seeking to prevent Jewish students from expressing their opinions."
    — Denis MacShane, MP