Double standards and the AUT
Over the past few weeks I have been vaguely aware of the furore surrounding the AUT’s decision to boycott Israeli universities, but with exams looming it’s taken a while to register. Today I finally got round to reading an article from the Washington Post that really made me sit up and pay attention.
The article was “Is This Any Way for Scholars to Behave?” by Hasdai Westbrook, published Sunday, May 15, 2005. You can read the whole thing here (free registration on the Washington Post website is required first).
I freely admit to being pro-Israel. I have visited Israel and loved it, and I consider its existence to be vitally important in a world where the universal attitude towards Jews continues to be at best ambivalent, and at worst downright hostile. But that is not to say that I consider Israel to be infallible – to a certain extent, I can see both sides of the story, so to speak.
I think the British made a serious mess of their last few years of occupation, and an even bigger mess when it came to their withdrawal and the creation of Israel. I think that the Palestinians were and are justifiably angry that a land they have occupied for millennia was taken from them and given to a people most of whom had not lived there for around 2000 years. I would agree that today, no matter what the official policies may be, in practice Palestinians are often treated as second-class citizens. I find the actions of the IDF soldiers guarding the Occupied Territories disturbingly reminiscent of a very different army 60 or 70 years ago that I would imagine no Jew would want to be identified with. I disagree with the government’s way of dealing with conscientious objectors who refuse to do National Service as a protest against Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank (one of several websites related to this is at http://www.refuz.org.il/) I do not believe that the Israeli government is doing anywhere near as much as it could to try to achieve peace with the Palestinians.
On the other hand, the clock cannot be turned back. Several generations of native-born Israelis cannot and should not be suddenly displaced – two wrongs, as they say, don’t make a right. 50 years of history cannot be erased. I maintain that the existence of a Jewish state is essential, and I defend the right of Jews and Muslims alike to have access to and control over their holiest sites. While I don’t think such stringent security measures are a good idea in the long term, I can entirely understand the need for them in the light of constant deadly terror attacks – much as I hate to admit it, I felt safer when having my bag checked for the fifth time in a day, even if I did also find it slightly unnerving. Hamas continues to carry out attacks because the perception is that Israel will not listen to words. This may be true, but it is a vicious circle – every attack makes Israel less inclined to stop and listen.
Neither ‘side’ in the Israel/Palestine conflict is completely to blame, and neither is completely blameless. The situation provokes the deepest emotions of many millions of people, and so there is no easy solution. If a resolution is to be found it will take far more work and many more compromises from both sides than either is currently prepared to give, and it is unlikely that some wounds will ever heal completely. The ball is in Israel’s court at the moment, but there is plenty that the Palestinians can do to encourage them to throw it back and get the game moving again towards the ultimate goal of peace.
In this complicated and emotionally fraught socio-political mess, the AUT’s action is misguided and unhelpful. Aside from the question of academic freedom, there is no black and white in the Middle Eastern conflict; the new trend towards comparing Israel to apartheid-era South Africa is simply wrong. Apartheid was born of pure racism – the belief of one race that it was superior to another, and the translation of that belief into political oppression. In Israel, two nations with opposing ideals are fighting for their right to exist on the same small piece of land, each using the weapons available to them to retain a precarious foothold until they are ready and able to find a way to peacefully co-exist. Many pro-Palestinian groups would dearly like to see Israel and its citizens erased from the face of the Earth, and will happily proclaim that wish to the world; few, if any, pro-Israelis advocate such a drastic ‘solution’.
The world’s academics have a duty to be politically aware and to use their influence to encourage changes where it is objectively considered to be useful and appropriate; to see them taking sides in this situation is deeply disappointing. The AUT should choose its battles more carefully.
With plenty of US and European interest in the Middle East, Israel is a fashionable issue to adopt. But what of the conflicts and human rights breaches that are less well-publicised? Clearly the AUT’s influence could be put to better use by highlighting problems previously ignored.
One country increasingly hitting the headlines is Uzbekistan, where the deaths being publicised over the last few days are simply the latest in a series of alarm bells that have been ringing for several years. The UN has reported the “systematic” use of torture in the country, and a 2003 World Bank report found economic growth and living standards to be among the lowest in the former Soviet Union (BBC Country Profile: Uzbekistan), yet the US continued to give massive levels of financial aid to Uzbekistan, to the tune of some $220 million in 2002 alone.
In 2002/03, Craig Murray, then British Ambassador in Tashkent, blew the whistle on Uzbekistan’s torture regime. He was recalled to London, subjected to intense pressure and several disciplinary proceedings, and finally resigned in 2004 after suffering a breakdown and various other serious health problems – for a fuller account, see Nick Paton Walsh’s article ‘The envoy who said too much’ (The Guardian, Thursday July 15, 2004).
And what is it that has made Uzbekistan seemingly immune to anything but the most gentle of rebukes from the international community? Quite simply this: The Uzbek government agreed to let the US army set up a base in the south of the country, thereby granting them easy access to Afghanistan.
A country where the concept of freedom of speech and press is completely foreign would surely be worthy of attention from our latest self-appointed arbiters of political justice. It is a shame that their attention is otherwise engaged as they jump onto the anti-Zionist bandwagon.
Sign the petition to rescind the AUT boycott of Israeli universities.
The article was “Is This Any Way for Scholars to Behave?” by Hasdai Westbrook, published Sunday, May 15, 2005. You can read the whole thing here (free registration on the Washington Post website is required first).
I freely admit to being pro-Israel. I have visited Israel and loved it, and I consider its existence to be vitally important in a world where the universal attitude towards Jews continues to be at best ambivalent, and at worst downright hostile. But that is not to say that I consider Israel to be infallible – to a certain extent, I can see both sides of the story, so to speak.
I think the British made a serious mess of their last few years of occupation, and an even bigger mess when it came to their withdrawal and the creation of Israel. I think that the Palestinians were and are justifiably angry that a land they have occupied for millennia was taken from them and given to a people most of whom had not lived there for around 2000 years. I would agree that today, no matter what the official policies may be, in practice Palestinians are often treated as second-class citizens. I find the actions of the IDF soldiers guarding the Occupied Territories disturbingly reminiscent of a very different army 60 or 70 years ago that I would imagine no Jew would want to be identified with. I disagree with the government’s way of dealing with conscientious objectors who refuse to do National Service as a protest against Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the West Bank (one of several websites related to this is at http://www.refuz.org.il/) I do not believe that the Israeli government is doing anywhere near as much as it could to try to achieve peace with the Palestinians.
On the other hand, the clock cannot be turned back. Several generations of native-born Israelis cannot and should not be suddenly displaced – two wrongs, as they say, don’t make a right. 50 years of history cannot be erased. I maintain that the existence of a Jewish state is essential, and I defend the right of Jews and Muslims alike to have access to and control over their holiest sites. While I don’t think such stringent security measures are a good idea in the long term, I can entirely understand the need for them in the light of constant deadly terror attacks – much as I hate to admit it, I felt safer when having my bag checked for the fifth time in a day, even if I did also find it slightly unnerving. Hamas continues to carry out attacks because the perception is that Israel will not listen to words. This may be true, but it is a vicious circle – every attack makes Israel less inclined to stop and listen.
Neither ‘side’ in the Israel/Palestine conflict is completely to blame, and neither is completely blameless. The situation provokes the deepest emotions of many millions of people, and so there is no easy solution. If a resolution is to be found it will take far more work and many more compromises from both sides than either is currently prepared to give, and it is unlikely that some wounds will ever heal completely. The ball is in Israel’s court at the moment, but there is plenty that the Palestinians can do to encourage them to throw it back and get the game moving again towards the ultimate goal of peace.
In this complicated and emotionally fraught socio-political mess, the AUT’s action is misguided and unhelpful. Aside from the question of academic freedom, there is no black and white in the Middle Eastern conflict; the new trend towards comparing Israel to apartheid-era South Africa is simply wrong. Apartheid was born of pure racism – the belief of one race that it was superior to another, and the translation of that belief into political oppression. In Israel, two nations with opposing ideals are fighting for their right to exist on the same small piece of land, each using the weapons available to them to retain a precarious foothold until they are ready and able to find a way to peacefully co-exist. Many pro-Palestinian groups would dearly like to see Israel and its citizens erased from the face of the Earth, and will happily proclaim that wish to the world; few, if any, pro-Israelis advocate such a drastic ‘solution’.
The world’s academics have a duty to be politically aware and to use their influence to encourage changes where it is objectively considered to be useful and appropriate; to see them taking sides in this situation is deeply disappointing. The AUT should choose its battles more carefully.
With plenty of US and European interest in the Middle East, Israel is a fashionable issue to adopt. But what of the conflicts and human rights breaches that are less well-publicised? Clearly the AUT’s influence could be put to better use by highlighting problems previously ignored.
One country increasingly hitting the headlines is Uzbekistan, where the deaths being publicised over the last few days are simply the latest in a series of alarm bells that have been ringing for several years. The UN has reported the “systematic” use of torture in the country, and a 2003 World Bank report found economic growth and living standards to be among the lowest in the former Soviet Union (BBC Country Profile: Uzbekistan), yet the US continued to give massive levels of financial aid to Uzbekistan, to the tune of some $220 million in 2002 alone.
In 2002/03, Craig Murray, then British Ambassador in Tashkent, blew the whistle on Uzbekistan’s torture regime. He was recalled to London, subjected to intense pressure and several disciplinary proceedings, and finally resigned in 2004 after suffering a breakdown and various other serious health problems – for a fuller account, see Nick Paton Walsh’s article ‘The envoy who said too much’ (The Guardian, Thursday July 15, 2004).
And what is it that has made Uzbekistan seemingly immune to anything but the most gentle of rebukes from the international community? Quite simply this: The Uzbek government agreed to let the US army set up a base in the south of the country, thereby granting them easy access to Afghanistan.
A country where the concept of freedom of speech and press is completely foreign would surely be worthy of attention from our latest self-appointed arbiters of political justice. It is a shame that their attention is otherwise engaged as they jump onto the anti-Zionist bandwagon.
Sign the petition to rescind the AUT boycott of Israeli universities.
posted by Gonetomars at 5:27 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home