Wow-those are some pretty damning indictments. No surprise, I guess, given the Brits' shameful history.

But surely your heading is misleading. What in the world does the entirely reasonable, politically astute, non-violent and long overdue academic boycott have to do with the execrable expressions of proto-fascism you listed?

You forgot to mention that England leads Europe in the rate of hospital acquired infection. Superbugs and filth are abundant in hospitals all over the UK. At least the Brits are being consistent-they are boycotting Jewish medical advances. British doctors are now learning how to make car bombs. Whenever a British patient dies an unnecessary death, the family is told "Its because of the Israeli occupation"

"Its because of the Israeli occupation"-- that seems to be the answer for everything in Britain. I'm surprised people haven't been using it to explain this year's crap summer. 

You didn't mention that the US has the highest rate of hospital acquired infections in the Western world. Since the US has the highest number of contacts with Israeli academia, what does that tell you? Jewish medical advances, my ass!

In other news, Jewish occupied France had Jewish minister Kouchner going to Iraq and blaming the Iraqis for their own misery. And Jewish Lie-berman is beating the drums of war with Iran.

The US has a lower rate of hospital infection than does most of Europe. The pioneer of hand washing to prevent infections was Ignaz Semmelweis. Even though Dr Semmelweis was not Jewish, his name sounds Jewish, so English docs boycott handwashing. By the way, Iran has already declared war on the US. Virtually all the IEDs which kill our soldiers are made in Iran. Saad bin Laden, Osama's son, has received shelter in Iran. So no one can beat the drums of war better than Ahmadinejad. I suggest you have some British beef. The prions will get you to a British hospital, where you can experience innovations like not changing the sheets

I think that it is an appropriate title to the posting because it points out the inherent hypocrisy of the boycott. Surely if the Brits really were about fairness and equity then wouldn't they have to boycott themselves?

Yeah -- what Adam said. Martha Nussbaum, though I'm not such a big fan of her work, said pretty much the same thing in her Dissent piece this summer. The hypocrisy is quite chilling, actually.

(sigh)...OK, Adam and Monica, one more time....

1. The boycott is not "hypocritical", "unfair", etc., unless you think that the boycott of apartheid South Africa was unfair given the simultaneous and more vicious infamies of the Pol Pot regime, which were greeted with no boycotts at all.

Simply put, political actions are typically not undertaken in the way that your objections suggest; activists do not generate out of thin air a list of malefactors, then proceed down the list in order of beastliness, boycotting the most verminous regime on the list until it's gone, then moving on to #2, etc.

2. We come to choose targets for a congeries of reasons: our personal histories, our interests, how much use our action may potentially have, whether the state in question is more or less open to leverage through citizen action (in this regard, apologists for Israel may take some comfort from the fact that boycott supporters must assume that Tel Aviv has not yet slipped so far towards evil that it is beyond moral persuasion), et al.

3. Cries of unfairness serve to distract attention from the substance of the boycotters' complaints against Israel.

4. In no other case does this sort of end-run around the facts arise. We don't hear critics of, e.g., the occupation of Tibet called Sinophobes, or if we do, these preposterous claims are dismissed as political theater. So should similar claims against the boycott.

5. Israel has shuttered Bir Zeit and other universities for very long periods. It has destroyed schools, made journeys to school impossible for kids, etc. By your own lights, aren't these actions greater insults to academic freedom, the open exchange of ideas, etc., than the British boycott? Were you outraged about these crimes? Did you act against them?

6. Just as a thought experiment, suppose you're right. Suppose I am hypocritical for encouraging a boycott of Israel. So what? What follows from this? Are we any closer to determining if the boycott is just or not? A person who votes for lowered carbon emissions but drives a Land Rover may be in some sense hypocritical, but what does this say about the correctness of her cause? The hypocrisy charge is a personal one, which may say something interesting about her character or level of psychological defense, but what bearing does this have on the issue at hand?

7. Can we have a moratorium on the "double standard", "hypocritical" line of argument, and instead stick with the substantive reasons folks feel that a boycott is appropriate? Disagree if you want, but leave out charges that reveal at best puerile ignorance of political activism, and at worst are simple mud-slinging.

1. Just because one makes blanket statements does not make them inherently true. No, I do not think that boycotts are inherently unfair, at all. Yet I do know that the UK teachers union certainly has not taken up a boycott of Chinese, Sudanese or Saudi universities. Israeli universities are open to all of their citizens, Jewish, Muslim and Xtian. And in fact, perhaps the greatest irony of all of this bunk, the people who would be harmed the most by this boycott would be the Arab and Bedouin citizens of Israel who are seeking to improve their lots in life through an open education system. But, I am guessing your average signator to the boycott knows very little about the actual open, democartic and free system of government and worship that exists in Israel so I suppose I should not be surprised.

2. Such ridiculous actions in the end do so much more damage to any actual movements towards peace and reconciliation. BUT, on the bright side they make wealthy, WASPs feel better about themselves, perhaps waning some of their post-colonial guilt. So at least the boycott has that going for it.

3. Funny you should bring up Tibet; how is that academic boycott of Chinese universities going? Oh right, it doesn't exist. In fact, did you know who built and funded many of the universities in Gaza and the West Bank? It wasn't PLO...I will give you a hint, it starts with an I and rhymes with Fisrael. However, we do generall agree here, because I also believe it to be unproductive for Israel to close access to universities in the PA and the like. However, I do also believe that a government has a right (nay, a moral responsibility to its citizens) to protect itself from its violent enemies. And given Bir Zeit's fascination with martyrs, I would say that perhaps there is reason to be wary of its Hamas connections.

4. I find it funny that someone who won't even reveal her/his identity to worry about the effects of mud-slinging; particularly when using such phrases as "puerile ignorance." But I will let that go. Again, however, we do agree to some extent here; the double standard argument does only go so far...on its own merit this boycott is misguided and ignorant. You cry out for engagement on this issue; but just because an idea is bandied about, does not make it inherently worth even paying attention to. I can claim that the sun revolves around the Earth, does that make it worthy of refutation? Simply put; Israel is a free and open democratic society where all peoples are protected under the law. And all of access to education, including its university system. And maybe, just maybe those universities are keys in helping to overcome the flaws that do exist in its society?

Moreso, the double standard issue is a pertinent one given the simple fact that we are, in fact, dealing with the only Jewish state in the world. And as such, European fascination with the denial of its right to exist as such, certainly fits into a larger historical context.

Mostly, these sad academics realize just how tired and futile their attempts are. The vast majority of the rational thinking world realizes that while Israel certainly has tensions and problems, it is actually much more in line with ideals of democracy and free living than anywhere else in the region. Where gays, lesbians, muslims, Jews, xtians and Bahaii all attend its universities without restrictions. So maybe, just maybe a day will come when we can constructively work to find ways to work on the ills that certainly face all socities. But as long as we are stuck in petty, misguided attempts as the boycott, I fear we are far away. In the meantime I am going to continue to appreciate all that the open and free society that is Israel produces.

I wonder how many people worried about the effect of a boycott on South African blacks. Nobody argued that boycotting the apartheid regime was unfair. But all hell breaks loose when someone talks of boycotting Israel. Maybe its because Israel was the only country supporting apartheid South Africa. Birds of a feather flock together.

Perhaps because rational people realize just how offensive it is to those who actually lived through the horrors of apartheid to use that word so callously and ignorantly?

Adam, I was going to avoid responding to your "more platitudes" reply to my earlier post, but your "random thought" in reply to the poster who brought up South Africa is so off the mark that I couldn't let it go unchallenged.

On whose authority do you have it that describing Israel as an apartheid state offends the sensibilities of those who lived through apartheid? Most of the commentary from black South Africans that I'm aware of seems to support using the apartheid label to describe Israeli behavior. One would expect as much, of course, since most black South Africans are perfectly aware that, as the commenter whose salient point you assiduously ignored reminded us, Israel was a major supplier of arms and intelligence to the apartheid regime.

Since I'm here, let me say a word or two about your previous post. I don't have time to go line by line over it, but it really is a disshevelled bit of business, offering more global generalities than serious argument.

In general, your assurances re the openness of Israeli universities vanish when one considers that Israel rules over all of Palestine at the moment, and has done for 40 yrs. Its treatment of all its subjects is by no means fair and equal.

But even if we restrict ourselves to the Palestinian citizens of Israel, the severe inequalities that are recognized even by defenders of Israel have consequences for access to university.

Much of the rest is simply uninformed: British boycotters as "rich Wasps"? Perhaps you haven't noticed the many Jewish notables who've signed on? Not to mention Pakistanis, all manner of Arabs, even some Catholics, I'll bet. Lots of students, many poor. Bir Zeit's Hamas connections? Bir Zeit is a redoubt of Fatah supporters-in fact, Hamas student organizations were besieged by Fatah people just last month. "The vast majority of the rational thinking world" supports Israeli democracy. Yet in the next paragraph, Europe has a "fascination" with questioning Israel's right to exist. I suppose you could have meant that Europe is not part of the rational thinking world. But maybe you didn't know quite what you meant yourself. Anyway, on and on you go.

I seem to remember reading in one of your earlier posts that you are an educator. I hope I'm misremembering, because this messy collection of unsupported assertions, Israeli 6th grade civics class lessons and unfocussed argument doesn't bode well for your students.

And in the process entirely mischaracterize me and my thoughts.

Of course, clearly any one in the realm of normal thinking would be against the Israeli military support of South African in the 70s and 80s. Misguided decisions of singular governments (in the same way that I would say, disagree with American involvement in Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs, etc...) can be rejected, while still accepting the basic principles of a political system. You see, I prefer to understand that the world is a fairly complex place, and that our historical understanding includes any number of causes and conditions. But, I suppose since am apparently a poor educator I don't know what I am talking about.

My point vis-a-vis Europe was thus; the double standard argument is valid and necessary given the history of European anti-semitism of both the extreme left and right. And in particular within British upper class society. Thus my distinction; power brokers (of any number of forms) can be misguided and do things like organize this boycott (which has not been organized by regular folks), yet the population at large can see through the ridiculousness of the apartheid assertion. I will let an British academic tackle this one:

Ashley Grossman, William Harvey Research Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine, Queen Mary University of London points out, "...I have yet to meet any member of an Israeli University who believes that there should be other than an establishment of a Palestinian state on equal terms with Israel: would that were true of all Palestinian opinion. The organisers of the boycott may state otherwise, but this one is another example of creeping salon anti-semitism that we are now become accustomed to in the UK."

If, say, there were boycotts of all nations with flaws (which would, say, be all nations) then I and others opposed to it would not have an inkling of doubt as to the motivations of its proponents. When there is a boycott of Sudanese (for its policies of genocide) universities and Russian universities (for its actions in Chechnya) perhaps we have something to speak about. Yet you choose to trivialize the double standard issue because it somehow seems unimportant. Mostly, the double standard issue rots away the very tepid intellectual ground that the boycott stands upon.

Re: your point of inequalities in Israel...this is a perfectly valid point, and one that I have frequently and will always attach myself to. Clearly much works needs to be done in Israel surrounding its Arab population. That said, it is also the only place where Arabs of all stripes can practice their faiths freely, participate in a free press and live openly gay lifestyles. Pretty dern good if you ask me. Not utopia, but it's a start.

Re: Bir Zeit, I apologize if it seemed I was overstating. Yes it has strong Fatah ties, say particularly with Marwan Barghoutti. However, it also does have significant Hamas ties and activities, as evidenced by the fact that a shaheed memorial to Yahya Ayyash presides on campus (one of the lovely gents who helped perfect the suicide bombing of children and the elderly).

Consider this (from an article published in June):
"Amal Shkhadeh, an Israeli Arab student studying at Bar-Ilan University, turned to British Higher education Secretary Bill Rammell, who attended the Bournemouth convention, and told him the boycott recommendation also hurt Arab students in Israel." But, the Brits clearly know what is best...

Lastly, while I disagree with you on many points, if you would notice above I also agreed with you on some (though perhaps they manifested in different ways). Yet you still felt compelled to question my credentials as a student/academic/teacher, etc...I will certainly ignore such claims because frankly I am fairly confident in my skills and intellectual prowess--confident enough to not get into a 5 year old-esque pissing contest. Particurlarly to someone who is hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet.

So while you feel compelled to only deconstruct, I will continue feeling comfortable knowing that Israeli scientists and academics continue to change the world in beautiful and important ways.

funny how most supporters of the boycott are opposed to a Jewish state. It is ok to have states that deine themselves as Muslim or Christian, but a Jewish state is offensive. That is anti-semitic
The Palestinians have democratically chosen war. When a nation chooses war, it chooses the inconveniences that accompany war. Yes, students attending plastic explosives 101 at Bir Zeit U may have had classes cancelled. Similarly, classes at Berlin U were suspended due to Allied bombing in 1944-5 because of war that the German people chose to wage. It is anti-semitic to state, as the boycotters do, that the Palestinians have the right to "armed resistance", while Israel has no right to respond

Most Muslims countries have apartheid systems where non-Muslims can't buy land or practice their religions. Saudi Arabia and Iran are the most extreme examples but apartheid systems exist in most Muslim countries. Where's the outrage?

Anyone who believes that Israel is an apartheid country is an ignorant anti-semite. It's such a ridicoulous accusation that it doesn't even dignify a response. The fact is that thousands of Black Sudanese Muslims put their life at risk to enter Israel because they're treated like trash in Arab countries. It's well-known that Arabs are very racist toward Black people. No one cares because Arabs are allowed to be racist, sexist, Jew-hating genocidal terrorists.

It's easy to attack Israel because it's in vogue to be anti-semitic and blame the Jews and Israel for all the problems in the world when 90% of all the conflicts in the world involve Muslims. That is the root of all EVIL!

1. Umm, I would like to disavow myself from the two previous comments...

2. There's a great editorial in the Forward today that touches on some of the points that I was attempting to make above (though in regards to Walt and Mearsheimer and not the UK boycott):

http://www.forward.com/articles/11461/

Favorite part..."The trick follows a typical pattern. Step one: Publish your views in as provocative a manner as possible. Use words like “apartheid,” as Jimmy Carter did in his book, or paint Jewish lobbying efforts in darkly conspiratorial terms, as Walt and Mearsheimer did in a paper published last year. Step two: Dare the Jewish community to lash out at you, then whine about being victimized by bullies. Step three: Implore fair-minded liberals to line up behind you, forcing them to choose between endorsing your vision — however skewed — or becoming part of the censorship juggernaut."

I have to thank my ISP for messing up and not allowing me to catch up with this until the "discussion" had already gone a long way. I am just amazed, as always, at the bad faith of some interlocutors. I guess, though, that as they do not seem to be paying any sort of attention to what some of us actually say, the word "interlocutor" is perhaps not appropriate.
Note, first of all, that I had made absolutely no judgement of value regarding the boycott mentioned in my title. It was immediately assumed, however, by The Anonymous, that I meant it as a criticism of said boycott. It could very well have been meant as a contrast to the rest of the post, as if I had entitled the post, say, "New from the land of the Habeas Corpus". Now I know what the response to that will be: ah, but is it not your intention and is it not your thought that the academic boycott is not good? I particularly anticipate such comments, as they will come from the same people claiming that there should be no regard to the boycott proponents' intentions and (what they refer to as) "psychological makeup".
However, what touches me the most is the vast cynicism of the boycott proponents and their disgraceful ignorance of other issues. They claim to be concerned with injustices happening outside of Israel and/or involving other ethnic/religious groups as Israelis/Palestinians. Yet their entire commentary on this thread -and I have to say that I think Adam's original response was fair and measured (as well as short!)- has been obscuring a grave racial injustice which I would have liked to be brought to light here: the plight of the Gurkhas. The widespread societal racism also displayed through the case of what we can now only call de Menezes's murder by the British police is further revealing of an ambient darkness in Europe, whom those concerned with justice, equality, civil rights and the future of our global society had better address soon.