The New York Times letters’ page today features four writers responding to the American Studies Association’s 66 percent vote for academic boycott of Israel. And, surprise– three of the letters are highly critical, including the first and longest two, from officials at the American Jewish Committee and Anti-Defamation League.
Two letters scoff at the idea that Israel should be singled out for boycott when other international malefactors are not targeted. Two letters all but accuse the boycotters of being anti-Semitic–
The vote by the American Studies Association to boycott Israeli universities casts a long shadow on this academic community… Only Israel, which happens to be the one truly democratic state in the Middle East… Why the choice of Israel? (David Harris, AJC)
“Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.”(Michael Salberg, ADL, quoting Lawrence Summers)
The Times has still not quoted the actual boycott voters, as we did in our original post, statements from profs about why they were taking this step. If you read those statements, you will see that the voters wanted a way to engage the American and Israeli publics and show them that they are supporting apartheid and Jim Crow policies that have long been highly-objectionable in our country, but which the US government and our leading institutions vigorously support. What other tool is there but boycott when civil society is being ignored? The voters also see the Israeli situation in the context of colonialism– with the US as the imperial supporter. That makes it different from human rights violations by states with which we have no “special relationship.”
The failure by the Times to represent these views leaves readers with the impression that boycotters are an ignorant and alien mob, not thoughtful people concerned about human rights violations that our government and leading institutions support. And that’s a journalistic disservice.
“when other international malefactors are not targeted”.
Hmm, is this progress? Pro-Israel writers admit that Israel is an “international malefactor”? And did these same people make the same argument against boycott of SA way back when?
Regarding the well-worn “Why is Israel singled out?” argument, Mondoweiss contributor Joel Doerfler discussed this last year in a post entitled “Why Israel is ‘singled out’”.
Yeah, why do these Hasbara clowns only support Israel’s Apartheid and atrocities? Are they Gentile haters?
Thanks for the reminder of Doerfler’s fine argument, Bill. If someone says ‘Here is an oppressive regime; I must do something to oppose it’ the only valid reply ‘It’s not oppressive; even in the respects you mention, it acts with no serious injustice’, which is a point that none of the NYT letter writers bring themselves to make, though one says, without argument to back this up, that the ASA objection to Israeli behaviour is too simple and one-sided. This still avoids saying that there is no valid objection at all, or even that there is no objection strong enough to justify some opposing action. And if you cannot deny that something is wrong you cannot reject any suggestion of doing something about it, can you? Not in any logic. Nothing changes at this point if other things are wrong too. If someone has done something right that person deserves some praise: nothing changes at this point if other things have been done right too.
The other points made are that the ASA members lack courage, which seems obviously false given the angry reaction of some powerful people, and that the boycotters risk losing the benefit of Israeli ideas and inventions. This latter point is true – boycotts always damage the boycotters to a certain extent and always run the risk of self-righteousness, so are not to be undertaken lightly. I have always disliked taking part in boycotts but sometimes there seems to be no alternative.
Summers’ admission that intelligent and thoughtful people have brought themselves to this point is the one weighty thing he says.
That the NYT gives a look in to Anne Selden Annab, writing against their consensus, is encouraging. Once the pro-Palestinian viewpoint enters the mainstream a constructive conversation, entirely free of anti-Semitism, can begin.
There’s Larry Summers again with his phony, anti-Semitism “in effect if not in intent.” As I wrote earlier, is a journalist who uncovers Roman Catholic priest abuse guilty of anti-Catholicism, “in effect if not in intent?” The fact is there is no anti-Semitism “in effect”, it’s an incoherent idea and Summers knows it..