Irish academics who recently called for a boycott of Israeli universities should think again, argues Guy Beiner
As Captain Boycott and other agents of Anglo-Irish landlords learned during the Land War, shunning an individual into a "moral Coventry" is an effective form of communal punishment. More recently, the Irish experience of opposing apartheid in South Africa was instructive in demonstrating how a grassroots boycott can efficiently remonstrate against injustice.
Boycotting is indeed a powerful weapon. Conscientious Irish academics have now issued a call for a "moratorium" of any support of Israeli academic institutions "until Israel abides by UN resolutions and ends the occupation of Palestinian territories".
Not long ago, in a controversial boycott resolution which was subsequently revoked, the UK Association of University Teachers singled out certain Israeli universities, while zealots in another British lecturers' union (NATFH) unsuccessfully advocated ostracising individual Israeli academics, practically demanding that they take a McCarthyite test and publicly recant their evil ways. The Irish proposal is sweeping and all-inclusive and, since its targets do not determine Israeli government policy, threatens to be indefinite.
Anyone who cares for human rights cannot remain indifferent to the ongoing suffering of Palestinians, and I have no doubt that the intentions behind this initiative are sincere and even praiseworthy. Though they speak with an authority which professes to be well informed, I wonder whether any of the concerned intellectuals who signed the petition published in The Irish Times of September 18th attempted to contact Israeli academics in order to get inside information on what is actually happening in their universities.
But then rash unilateral actions are the latest rage in addressing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Dialogue is no longer in fashion.
As a lecturer in an Israeli university, who incidentally teaches modern Irish history, I would like to raise some reservations, though I admit that my perspective is clearly biased - after all, I am to be on the receiving end of the sanctions.
Any attempt to alleviate the misery of Palestinians should be welcomed. Yet, it appears that politicians on all sides and even some ground-level activists are more concerned with circulating propaganda than truthfully searching for constructive solutions. As such, they are actually diverting attention from addressing urgent problems that demand attention.
When calling for an academic and cultural boycott, extremist Palestinian activists put forward fictitious claims that Israeli academic institutions promote "racist and colonial policies" and even listed far-fetched accusations that the institutions "sponsor research that justifies ethnic cleansing, extra-judicial killings, racial segregation and land expropriation".
I suspect that these charges are a deliberate attempt to abuse the good will of sympathisers of their cause by disseminating false information. In the absence of genuine dialogue, it would be difficult to assess the justifications and contemplate the ramifications of a boycott.
Unlike academic institutions under numerous repressive regimes (which for some reason are not being sanctioned), the universities in Israel enjoy full academic freedom. The faculties express a wide range of outlooks.
Left-wing academics openly criticise the government and frequently utilise their scholarship to expose injustice.
In fact, much of the information used by pro-Palestinian activists around the world in their condemnations of Israeli policies derives from these sources.
Universities are often the only sanctuary for critical intellectuals, who are harangued by populist agitators and branded fifth columnists. Many teachers even voice oppositional opinions in the classroom and are at liberty to do so.
For my part, I am not in favour of explicitly discussing personal politics in the lecture hall, as I believe it predisposes students' opinions and closes their minds.
Instead, our remit, as I see it, is to teach students to think critically and to dare to challenge prevalent orthodoxies and dogma. Such an approach may be far more radical than preaching from the pulpit, as it seeks out the root causes of problems and encourages a healthy suspicion towards the pernicious demagoguery of politicians, journalists and pseudo-experts.
The university in which I currently teach is located in the Negev desert, a peripheral region. The students are a multi-ethnic mix of all components of Israeli society.
In my classes there are Bedouins from the surrounding area and also Arab students who travel from as far away as the Galilee, knowing they will be treated on equal terms and given full access to all the resources they require.
Any expression of racism, sexism or any other form of bigotry is not tolerated inside or outside the classroom. In a time when it is increasingly hard to facilitate dialogue, the campus is an open forum in which both students and educators can exchange ideas.
However, the situation is far from ideal. State-funded universities in Israel are currently in a state of severe crisis resulting from relentless budget cuts. They are particularly vulnerable at present and are doing their best to resist creeping political pressures. Now, probably more than ever, they need support from academics outside of Israel so they can remain beacons of free thought and learning in a dark age of rampant ignorance and mindless aggression.
I honestly fail to see how boycotting Israeli universities could meaningfully contribute to achieving the professed goal of ending the occupation of Palestinian territories. Nonetheless, if boycotting academic institutions is to be introduced as a tactic to address international violations of human rights, then following this path to its logical conclusion should lead to a boycott of all US and UK universities and colleges until we see an end to the devastating occupation of Iraq; a boycott of all Russian universities until the cessation of the brutal repression of Chechnya; a boycott of China until the long-standing occupation and repopulation of Tibet is reversed; and the list would go on and on.
Irish academics would then soon find that they are in fact boycotting themselves into isolation.
The rebirth of a latent European anti-Semitism has been floated as a crass explanation (to which I do not subscribe) as to why once again "the Jews" are being exclusively targeted. The prejudiced decision to pick on Israeli academics needs to be questioned.
The main purpose of the boycott initiative, as I see it, is for propaganda purposes. It has mobilised a variety of Irish academics and through publicity in the press has stirred a wider public debate (to which responses, such as mine, are of course contributing).
In this sense it is already a success, though I'm not sure that the ends justify the faulty means.
Once a grassroots movement and a force to be reckoned with, the Israeli Peace Camp has dwindled to a tattered tent blowing in the wind.
Widespread disillusionment and a desperate sense of impotency, often disguised as cynicism, have left a mere handful of diehards to hold up the banner of saneness in face of the march of folly which has become the sign of our times.
In a climate of growing extremism on the one hand and indifference on the other, the safe havens of universities are among the last liberal strongholds of enlightenment. A boycott would only demoralise, weaken and perhaps even stifle the remaining voices of tolerance.
One would expect Irish intelligentsia to be particularly sensitive to the dangers of fostering a siege mentality, which would inevitably lead to recalcitrance. As in Northern Ireland, reconciliation requires dialogue.
Guy Beiner was formerly at UCD and TCD and is currently a lecturer of modern history in Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel