The Silent Boycott Begins

by Cliopatria

The British faculty union NATFHE has yet to vote on its proposed resolution for a"voluntary" boycott against all Israeli universities and academics whose views on national security issues don't meet with NATFHE's approval. But a"silent boycott" by resolution supporters already has begun.

On May 12, Professor Richard Seaford of the University of Exeter was asked to review a book for the Israeli journal Scripta Classica Israelica. Both the author of the book, D.M. Schaps, and the editor of the journal, Daniela Dueck, are professors at Bar-Ilan University. Seaford responded as follows.

Dear Daniela Dueck,
Alas I am unable to accept your kind invitation, for reasons that you may not like. I have, along with many other British academics, signed the academic boycott of Israel, in the face of the brutal and illegal expansionism, and the slow-motion ethnic cleansing, being practised by your government. There is of course nothing personal in this. I am aware of the honest arguments for and against a boycott, and that even some Israeli academics support the boycott and many do not. Whatever your views, I hope you will understand that my view is based on a widely shared moral outrage. You are welcome to report my position (if you wish) to anyone you may like to.
With best wishes,
Richard Seaford

Two days earlier, press reports revealed that the British magazine Dance Europe refused to publish an article on the Israeli choreographer Sally Ann Freeland and her dance company, because the editor"opposes Israeli occupation." A spokesperson for the magazine stated, “We are opposed to the occupation. If any company in Israel co-operates with us by adding a disclaimer saying it is opposed to the occupation, settlements and everything else, we will co-operate with them.” When asked by Palestinian dance companies were not asked to provide a similar disclaimer stating that they opposed suicide murder attacks, the spokesperson replied, “There’s a reason for people to become suicide bombers. Their land has been occupied.”

There seems to be no consensus among observers as to whether the NAFTHE resolution will pass. But it's clear that either way, attempts to exclude on the basis of nationality are unlikely to stop with Freeland or Dueck. Such actions are shameful.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Oscar Chamberlain - 5/18/2006

Ralph

Calling someone's actions "mindless" and "pointless" is well within the scope of the evidence present, though I don't think those are the only conclusions possible. I would want a slightly better glimpse into soneone's heart before I called him bigotted.

And

Robert KC Johnson - 5/18/2006

In his email, Seaford stated, "I have, along with many other British academics, signed the academic boycott of Israel." According to an article linked in the previous post, neither British faculty union has introduced a resolution to boycott academics from any country other than Israel in at least the last decade.

But, as I noted in my previous posts, those academics who feel they should boycott scholars from another country on the basis of that country's foreign policy record should at least be consistent. I would assume, therefore, that Seaford also refuses to entertain any contacts with scholars from China, Cuba, or any Middle Eastern country (undemocratric); Russia (Chechnya policy); the US (torture policy, Guantanamo) and even from his own country (invading a country under what turned out to be false pretenses). But his scruples certainly make for a lesser workload for him--a convenient excuse for avoiding the service obligations that all academics should perform.

Ralph E. Luker - 5/18/2006

I disagree with you, Oscar. Seabrook indicates that he's already signed on to a boycott of Israeli academics in general. That seems offensive to me and it _certainly_ isn't likely to have any effect in the search for justice and peace in the middle east. It's mindless, pointless, bigoted posturing, as far as I can tell.

Oscar Chamberlain - 5/18/2006

I don't think it wise to judge an individual decision quite as quickly as you do here. After all, we don't know whether Seaford has turned down or accepted invitations from other countries with similar or worse human rights records. In short, we don't know if he, as an individual, is boycotting on the basis of nationality.

A logical rejoinder to my argument would be that he is supporting such a boycott by his organization. But here again, we don't know if has, or would have supported like boycotts against other nations on the basis of their human rights records.

In short, what may be group think in collective action may be more nuanced and more worthy of respect in an individual's action.