"a recent article of Israeli research gains -- compiled to show up any attempts at racist academic "boycotts" "

Why is boycotts in quotes? Are not actual boycotts being called for?

More important, how does information about Israeli research "show up" attempts to boycott? Do the boycotters belittle Israeli research?

Most important, there's nothing racist about a call to boycott. I'd advise leaving that particular page in Abe Foxman's book-find a better one to take.

The call to examine the motives of one's opponent-like terming the boycott racist-is nothing but an attempt to deflect your listener from the substantive and politically interesting questions that the boycott raises. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that the boycott supporters are racist (no, the silly argument that opposition to Israeli policy may not proceed until every other scoundrel is wiped from the face of the earth is not evidence), but even if they were, what effective difference would this make to the rightness or wrongness of their argument? Can't you imagine that someone may arrive at a correct course via unsavory motivations? All that matters is the argument, not the psychology of the arguer.

I'm sure you're aware of the arguments for the boycott (if not, I'd suggest George Bisharat's piece in the SF Chronicle, mid-August, for a brief start) and that you're not convinced. That's fine. Astonishing and regrettable, but fine.

But can't you express your disagreement in a way that doesn't stoop to this preposterous name-calling?

I'm guessing that you support the anti-Foxman side of the Armenian genocide issue. What would you make of a Turkish partisan who addressed the Armenians thusly: "Children are being exploited in Chinese factories. Carnage continues in Darfur. Given these conditions, it follows that your actions against Turkish interests can be motivated only by anti-Turkish racism. Or do you argue that the behavior of Turkey a century ago merits more attention than the suffering of presently living humans?"

It should be clear that the argument contains a false dichotomy; I surely can recognize more than one injustice, and choose to attend to one of them for all sorts of reasons. What I (and you, and everyone else) do not do is consult some table of monstrosity which will lead me to the protest du jour, based on mathematical weighting of all the terrible business afoot in the world today.

So yes, I'm pretty sure that Israel is not the world's worst actor, today at least, although I see its villainy as far more monstrous than you seem to. And yes, I still choose to support any non-violent means to get Israel to change its behavior.

Do you seriously think that, from this evidence alone, and knowing nothing else about me, that you can comfortably predict that I am a racist?

Apparently, Israel does not want to use its medical technology to save the life of this girl after they eliminated most of her family. No amount of technological superiority can teach a people morals.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20415095/site/newsweek/

Someone recently posed the question to me of whether or not I'd sponsor a boycott of Chinese academic research given Beijing's horrendous record of human rights abuses. Couldn't it be argued that by turning a blind eye and deaf ear to intellectual property from universities and laboratories under the command of an authoritarian Communist regime, I'd also be stifling that regime? No, not in any concrete way. The ability for the Chinese government to use its own resources for nefarious purposes will remain unchecked, and there's always the chance -- even in a closed society -- that government-sponsored research will yield findings not at all favorable to the government.

Israeli archaeologists, sponsored by Israeli tax dollars, are every day uncovering new evidence that proves ancient Hebrew geography was a sham, and Biblical myths were just that. Those archaeologists are therefore undermining the very kind of Jewish fundamentalism still permitted in the ranks of the IDF and elsewhere. Good. This is dialectical progress in an open society.

Furthermore, if an Israeli scientist working towards a cure for Parkinson's disease or AIDS is hindered because of a blanket prohibition on considering or transmitting his work abroad, isn't that prohibition more harmful to the greater number of people? Certainly some of those who would benefit by this scientist's knowledge are the very victims of the Israeli government which the boycott purports to help.

That such a contradiction fails to register with the pro-boycott camp ought to making any thinking person suspicious of that camp's true motives. At the very least, its logic is in accord with that of apologists for totalitarianism, ever fond of stupid and menacing slogans like, "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." (Panait Istrati's response to this while touring the Soviet Union is still the best: "I see all the broken eggs. Now where's this omelet of yours?")

When the left had its intellectual and moral bearings, the first lesson it would try to impart is that the state must not be confused with its citizenry. "If I can't hit you, I'll hit the guy standing next to you" is not a sufficient or compelling argument. Even as a "symbolic gesture," an academic boycott is still a form of collective punishment, a term that has become a euphemism for the criminal and bigoted method of responding to a crisis. Anyone claiming to be concerned about Palestinian rights ought to know better than to endorse it.

Funny anon., did you even read that article?

Things are certainly not black-and-white, and while I would agree with you that there is a moral imperative to care for this child, it is also caught up in bureaucratic bullshit (not uncommon for any government run medical care I would dare say). Hopefully in the end all of the functioning human rights organizations that are in Israel will make sure that this girl is cared for. How is the above an absolute indictment of an entire political system and national movement?

But, in fairness, here are some stories that offer a different narrative, by and by (need I remind that for all of its good will, Hebrew U. was the target of a suicide bombing):

http://israel21c.org/bin/en.jsp?enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Articles^l776&enZone=Democracy&enVersion=0&

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/31/60minutes/main581163.shtml

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2007/02/israeli_hospital_treats_palest.html

Michael, I assume from your argument that you wouldn't favor an academic boycott of anyone, under any circumstances.
After all, some undermining research may emerge from any university, anywhere. If that's your position, just say so and have done with all the "racism" bullshit.

Regarding the subversive Israeli archeologists, I don't see any evidence whatsoever that their work has meant a pinch of shit to halting Israel's overall Arabrein project. Perhaps it's a big deal in some Jerusalem salon, but really....
There is a place, though, where the research you describe is having an immediate, real world effect; Columbia University, where the tenure of Nadia Abu El-Haj is being held hostage to the efforts of Campus Watch and associated filth. El-Haj has written a book challenging the conventional wisdom re Israel's ancient past, like the Israelis you cite. Published by a major academic house, endorsed by her peers (and, of course, challenged as well). For her effrontery, professional Zionists are calling for her head, a la Finkelstein.

And this massively subjunctive idea that the boycott is wrong because an Israeli scientist may one day cure Parkinson's?

You're kidding, right? Procrustes had nothing on you. And to compound the howler, you throw in the lovely touch that anyone unconvinced by this sophistry is likely of dubious honesty. There's that motive thing again.

And then you finish with a reference to the heartlessness of Stalinists, a necessary trope in any Eustonian commentary regardless of subject.
Please.

Finally, it would have been really, really nice if you'd actually addressed the points I raised.

Adam, very happy to see that Israelis are not caricature beasts and will actually treat a wounded Palestinian. Does this mean anything to anyone but a pinhead who thinks that one can oppose only irredeemable monsters?
The point is that many, many more Palestinians have been killed or maimed by Israeli aggression than have benefitted from a trip to the hospital. Save this "Israelis are unique in the world for having compassion for their enemies" stuff for Sunday school. It has nothing to do with reality.

Why do I get the feeling we've conversed before?

Now. If I say collective punishment is both ineffective and deplorable, how is this the same as saying that individuals should not be punished? Unless by "anyone, under any circumstances," you were clumsily referring to a single university (Bob Jones, say?) or, again, a whole collection of them existing in one country, your point is a non sequitur. If a single academic is to be boycotted, then at least the target is clear, specific and the reasons chosen for targeting him can be substantiated.

Not so your boycott. It's clear that no matter what the academic's politics, quality of work, or record of opposition with respect his own government, he must be censured by dint of being an Israeli citizen. I'd be quite interested, by the way, to know what your solution to the Columbia problem would be: should the university, if it gives in to Campus Watch, be boycotted? And how will that affect the work of Professor El-Haj, who will have a job there until her contract expires?

I'm sorry my fellow travelers comparison rankled you, but you will at least concede that your line of thought is rather close to Ward Churchill's "little Eichmanns" remark about the victims of the World Trade Center. I haven't heard you advocate a boycott of any other country's academy, so let me ask you straight out: Which ones deserve the same treatment as Israel's, in your view?

As for squelching Israeli research, at least represent what I said with some modicum of accuracy. I said Israeli scientists working towards a Parkinson's cure might yield some useful knowledge, which, according to you, ought to be off-limits to the international scientific community, tout court. I might have also added that stem cell research continues apace in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, unlike in New York and Chicago, so do please wipe that smirk off your face about where future medical breakthroughs may occur.

As for sniffing out motive, maybe you're right and I've rushed to judgment. I'll take it on faith that you meant nothing underhanded or sneaky by "Arabrein."

Also, look up the word "subjunctive" sometime -- it applies to a grammatical mood only, not to historical contingencies.

Oh why the anger, anonymous interwebs dweller? To quote Joey Ramone, "I don't wanna be a pinhead no more, I just met a nurse that I could go for." Besides, I would rather be a happy pinhead than angry any day.

Assuming (and please correct me if I am wrong) that you are the same anonymous poster of the similar boycott chain on the other post? If so, you never ever ever answered my question about why there is an organized boycott of Israel but not the Sudan, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, etc..etc...etc...Why? Because you have no real answer or intellectual base to stand upon. Yet you (and others) bypass the double standard issue entirely, my guess would be because you have no actual answer.

But continue on being angry, it really

Michael-
I thought that the context of my remarks made it clear that by "anyone, under any circumstances" I was referring to nations. I'm happy to make this explicit and thereby render your point...beside the point.

Are you really committed to "collective punishment is ...deplorable"? You then must have opposed the South African boycott.

What about strikes? Surely many of the people adversely affected by a strike are many times removed from the immediate target. Do you therefore suggest a blanket rejection of strikes?

First the ghost of Stalin, now Ward Churchill. When may I expect to be compared to Ahmadinejad? Do you have a particular order in which to trot out the Eustonian Pandemonium of Infamy to tar your opponents, or do you just let the spirit move you and select a devil at random?

I will ignore your question regarding which other universities I deem worthy of boycott. As I've said before, this question never comes up in any political discussion that does not involve Israel, and is diversionary and scurrilous. It functions to change the subject from Israel's actual shortcomings to my imaginary ones.

Regarding my imaginary smirk, I really have no idea what you're talking about. I don't recall saying anything whatsoever about the source of medical breakthroughs. My point was simply that it's a preposterous stretch to forego a boycott against a misbehaving nation because that nation may someday contribute something we'd all value.

Happily, your post finally included a correct assertion-I meant nothing underhanded or sneaky by "Arabrein". As you undoubtedly know, many elements in the yishuv, both Zionist and non-Zionist, favored a more intimate sharing of Palestine with the Palestinians than did the Zionists who ultimately prevailed. We have a fantastically rich historical record revealing the latter's plans to rid Palestine of Arabs, not as a regrettable contingency of war, etc., but as a absolute necessity for the founding of a Jewish state. This mindset has enjoyed an historical through-line since 1948, and now flourishes with the geographical shattering of the West Bank, the Jews-only roads, the wall and the rest of the sorry crimes we're all familiar with. Add to this the ascendance of Lieberman (Avigdor, that is) and his cognates, the psychological commonplace about victims identifying with their victimizers, the Zionist obsession with race (really, a modern democracy which apportions the state's largesse not based just on citizenship but also on nationality-very regressive)....so yeah, I think "Arabrein" captures very well both the behavior of Israel towards the Arabs and suggests a psychological mechanism to explain what would otherwise look like simple moral imbecility. I'm sure you disagree, but you're right that there's nothing sneaky or underhanded about my comments.

Finally, you need to lighten up on the prissy, Mrs. Grundy stuff. Yes, "subjunctive" refers to a grammatical mood. But language has this really neat aspect-you can use it suggestively, allusively, metaphorically. It's really quite thrilling to stretch yourself creatively in this manner-I strongly encourage your having a go at it. Look up "literary flair" sometime.

Adam-
Did your post just peter out at the end there because you realized you didn't have much to say?

Your post suggests you took the "pinhead" remark personally. Let me assure you that's not what I meant at all. I was saying only that one may oppose a party despite that party's having some laudable aspects, that we needn't be Manichean about our politics, and that anyone who insisted otherwise was a pinhead. I was not referring to you.

I didn't feel particularly angry while posting, but who knows...you may have picked up on something. I certainly have felt angry about this and allied issues in the past.

I am the poster with whom you've conversed on the other boycott thread. I thought I'd dealt with the "why only Israel?" issue in numerous posts, but briefly:

1. Your assertion that there are no actions, planned or in effect, against other bad actors is, of course, pure fantasy.
You may have heard of efforts against China for its behavior towards Tibet and, more recently, actions proposed against it's collaboration with African malefactors so as to insure a steady flow of oil. Regarding Sudan, are you seriously suggesting that no organized efforts to challenge the outrages there are underway?

2. I bypass the double standard issue simply because it's a red herring. I don't need to run my activism through some imagined Engine of Appropriateness to convince you of my good faith. As the aforementioned George Bisharat correctly notes, no one opposed the South Africa boycott on the grounds that the crimes of the Pol Pot
regime were worse (which they were), and if anyone had, they'd rightly be laughed at or ignored, as the truly clueless are. Israeli apologists adore this nonsense, however.
I don't need to prove my bona fides by militating against female genital mutilation before I'm allowed to fight for gender equality in pay in the US, despite the infinitely greater horror of the former. These are simple truths, obvious to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with political activism, until the subject of Israel arises, and clouds of mystification darken the cerebra of the otherwise intelligent.

You know, I certainly don't have the inclination to wade through my good friend's bullshit, but it all seems to be based on some weird straw man. He wishes people would argue that the reason the Israeli "boycott" should be supported -- the "boycott" called for is so highly selective that its principal Palestinian proponents attend the institutions they would boycott; but I digress -- is that Israel is not as bad as other regimes. He then proceed to argue vigorously against the argument he has placed in other's mouths.

Uh, that's nice.

In some worlds, you demonstrate the soundness of your argument by identifying the strongest points of its detractors, and showing that even those do not stand. My friend, on the other hand, seeks silly arguments, and then makes a mighty show of windmilling against them.

Meanwhile, in other news, Jews everywhere returned to the practice of censoring their opponents by, uh, arguing with them. Wait -- only the bad Jews. Oh, those wily Zionist Khazar Likudniks neocons!

1. "He wishes people would argue that the reason the Israeli "boycott" should be supported... is that Israel is not as bad as other regimes."
How could anyone so misread what I said?

2. This poster's prose is turgid and talky, and nods towards incoherence.

3. Hope your pretty good at math, 'cause your readin' and writin' isn't happening.

4. Make corrections and resubmit, anon. 8/26 2:40PM. Until then,
Worst.Post.Ever

Since I still go by my rule of considering that all anonymous posters are one, I must say I greatly enjoy the above debate. Looks like some kind of inner debate of a troubled mind...

Anon, you're the one who changed the subject from Israel to Columbia University and then to South Africa, so your unwillingness to answer my question ("diversionary and scurrilous," was it?) is an answer in itself, really.

"What about strikes? Surely many of the people adversely affected by a strike are many times removed from the immediate target. Do you therefore suggest a blanket rejection of strikes?"

The point of an academic boycott is that the people adversely affected would not be many times removed but the very targets of the boycott. (A strike, by definition, attacks an enterprise or industry for the improvement of workers' conditions. It does not profess an antagonism for the consumer, even though he will of course be inconvenienced by the strike. But the main target is still enterprise or industry.) Victims of an Israeli academic boycott will include Arab-Israeli scholars who publish books condemning the very state in which they publish with, I should add, greater ease than any ANC journalist or black historian in Capetown could have published under apartheid.

But since your shoddy moral equivalence demands that Israel is as bad a human rights violator as South Africa once was (and I find this at odds with your earlier assertion that Israel is not as bad as other countries, which of course can't be named because that would be diversionary and scurrilous), and since you seem to have a fondness for historical pedantry, I have a proposition: Write me a 900-word essay comparing the two regimes and their racist policies and how an academic boycott of Israel is justified. If it's good, I'll even publish it in the Shvitz under whatever avatar or Internet handle you wish. As for literary flair, though, if you're going to claim this for yourself, you might first consider a byline.