What follows is a report by Brian Robinson, a Jewish peace activist, on a debate hosted by Birmingham Association of University Teachers on the boycott of Israeli universities. The debate was hosted at the University of Birmingham on 15th November 2005.
The speakers were:
Dr. Ilan Pappe, University of Haifa, Israel
Dr. David Hirsh, Goldsmiths College, University of London
(both speaking in a personal capacity)
Chair: Dr. William Edmondson, Vice-President, BAUT
The speakers were:
Dr. Ilan Pappe, University of Haifa, Israel
Dr. David Hirsh, Goldsmiths College, University of London
(both speaking in a personal capacity)
Chair: Dr. William Edmondson, Vice-President, BAUT
15th November, Avon Room, Birmingham University.
Very respectably well attended - 150, 160 or so - mostly student types but also several academics. Unusually for me I didn't take many notes, so what follows is a rather impressionistic account made on getting home. Some very union-type people spoke, and not at all as I'd have expected. In fact I was quite surprised because I'd come expecting the audience would be overwhelmingly pro-Pappe (don't waste time wondering why!) but a fair guess would be that it was split 50:50.
Several of the anti-boycott people were, I heard later, Jewish, although a number were not. One lecturer with a strong left-wing stance (I think he had a working men's education background as a lecturer) spoke scathingly - "Why had the British Left such an obsession with Israel?" and went on to support a previous union-type (what on earth do I mean?) speaker's contention that the boycott against S Africa had had very little to do with bringing down apartheid --- in fact (according to this speaker) it was an insult to the black working class of S Africa to whom the credit for destroying apartheid should go. It had (he said) done little more than make white middle class people in the west feel good - as a boycott of Israel would do. (Again, later I heard that these two were from Alliance for Workers' Liberty.)
That point (the S African comparison) was dealt with by Pappe in summing up - he quoted Archbishop Tutu, who had very definitely acknowledged the vital contribution made by the S African boycott (and of course he supports the current call re Israel).
I was also surprised at the tone of some audience criticism of Pappe - allegedly for being "emotional" - I don't know how it would be proper, maybe even possible, to describe the things Pappe spoke of _without_ emotion: these were very clearly the reasons why he wanted to call for the boycott in the first place. I'm writing this without notes, so will just mention a few of the things -- Palestinian women denied treatment for breast cancer, the IDF marksman who boasted that he'd found the best way to stop children throwing stones was to shoot them directly in the eye and he'd developed that skill, going on further to boast that it required a very special kind of qualification in a soldier for that. And still Pappe hadn't seen it all by the time he personally witnessed two soldiers kicking the head of a Palestinian baby like a football.
(There's a point here that I shall leave for others to elaborate. There was some wholly inappropriate laughter from a small section of the audience, and some confusion, of which some made - and are still making - rather much, as to the cause of this morally defective and ego-defensive mirth.)
Pappe was making the point that at each stage, as the occupation and conflict had developed over the years, he had thought "he had seen it all" - until something more horrendous developed. After 10 years of the occupation, there was no call for a boycott, after 20 years, there was no call for a boycott, after 30 years ... the same, until now, after 38 years, "the evil of the occupation persists, it gets worse day by day, week by week, month by month" ... nothing improves ... and the occupation depends for its continuity on the professional people, the doctors, the academics...
Doctors keep it going by treating the effects of torture in Palestinian prisoners to get them ready to be tortured again, soldiers are medically treated so they can be returned to humiliate, wound and kill Palestinians. Academics are asked for, and give, professional advice. Gaza is a prison, and if things go on as they are, the same will be true of the West Bank. After 38 years _nothing_ has led to the ending of this occupation. He has condemned - and tonight condemned again in clear terms - suicide bombing. A non-violent method is called for - one that includes sanctions, boycott and disinvestment.
He answered Hirsh's argument that the boycott would only entrench the Israelis even more - the right wing would dig in deeper. Pappe said that the Israelis cannot be deeper entrenched than they already are. With reference to the "antisemitic" accusation, he said that it was the most _Jewish_ thing to call for a return to ethical, moral behaviour. It was for academics to lead the call, to lead the way. In America, some Presbyterian ministers had done so - here, priests on the whole hadn't, but academics, some of them, had.
He issued a warning. Currently, said Pappe, most Palestinians still want to share the land with Israelis. But that situation is not going to last. In a few decades (he may have said "a couple") that will not be so, and that will lead to a mutually assured destruction.
If anything, David Hirsh was the emotional speaker. As I've said elsewhere he's a large man, with a large voice. It's actually rather easy to find his physical presence a little intimidating, but I'd say it's less a commanding presence than a demanding one. He must have addressed thousands of student, and union, meetings over the years - fluent, articulate, hectoring - "Accusations that I don't really care about the Occupation or Palestinians? - I'm not having it, I'm not having it!". (See more, below.)
It's well known that Hirsh's (and of course Engage's) main point is this business of Anti-Semitism, or the allegation of it. His opening remarks were to warn (as he sees it) the AUT that if they succeeded in getting the academic boycott, they would be "opening up a space for Anti-Semites to flourish". But this seems to be no more than to say what we already know very well - that Anti-Semites, like any other racists, will latch on to anything to further their cause. It's not really an argument against a boycott at all.
I didn't think he stressed enough what I often think is one of Engage's best arguments (it's Jon Pike's) - the criticism/punishment distinction (you can criticise a state all you like without criticising the equally bad or worse ones, but to single out one for punishment is invidious - a boycott being a punishment). I wasn't sure myself how to answer that one until the other day it occurred to me that it wouldn't go down too well if the police were to announce that they weren't going to go after one particular criminal because they couldn't at the same time catch all the others.
An excellent suggestion from the floor related to the possible twinning of British with Palestinian universities, although Sue Blackwell pointed out that that is already AUT policy.
Hirsh angrily rebutted the claim that he and fellow anti-boycotters didn't really care about the evils of the occupation. He highlighted again the work of John Strawson (Strawson, a law lecturer at a London university has been working regularly for the last several years with I think BirZeit and maybe some others) -- but inspiring as his work and ideals are, he sometimes seems the only one doing it (anyone know different?). There was some talk about a medical student exchange programme a while ago, but a few months ago I asked about this (on the Engage website, I have to confess) but as far as I've seen didn't get a reply ...
At the very end, after Pappe's really quite brilliant - and emotionally highly appropriate, no dry ivory tower detached academic he - summing up (he spoke last) I'd felt he'd been given such an unfair time of it that I stood up from my seat in the 5th row and shouted out "Bravo Ilan"!) ... I went up to the platform afterwards - cos I've corresponded with both of them on and off for some time. I told David Hirsh that I thought these were appallingly difficult human problems, reminding both him and Ilan how difficult I'd found it to make up my mind on the concept of boycotting academia, but having thought a lot more about it, I was now definitely on Pappe's side ... He laughed and said that I'd be back in his camp in 2 months. But I really don't think he's right. I don't like being harangued, I don't like false accusations of Anti-Semitism (they act as smokescreen apologetics, they're exaggerated opportunistically, they're counterproductive) and I don't like ad hominem slurs.
Perhaps I should have made more, in this report, of what in some ways may have been one of the most helpful contributions from the floor. A speaker identifying himself as a member (like myself) of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, said he'd have wished for a more 'Buberian' and much less confrontational approach, one that clearly stresses those opinions that we hold in common, the facts on which we agree.
Hirsh had begun his opening speech casting aspersions on the integrity of his colleague. It is true that Pappe's relations with his own university are fraught in a very tangled way, and it's not easy for an outsider like myself to know precisely what happened, especially with the threat of writs flying around, and the - apparently still - threat of disciplinary action against Pappe (seemingly suspended).
But Pappe's own position within Haifa University has really nothing to do with the theoretical and practical justifications for a boycott. If I were to stick my neck out, on the inadequate basis of this one evening of debate at one place with this one self-selected audience, I'd say any call, if it were made now, to boycott Israeli universities would be lost. Perhaps it would depend on the content of the motion and the phrasing, but right now I'd say that there's all to play for.
Brian Robinson (NHS psychiatrist, retired) Milton Keynes
Very respectably well attended - 150, 160 or so - mostly student types but also several academics. Unusually for me I didn't take many notes, so what follows is a rather impressionistic account made on getting home. Some very union-type people spoke, and not at all as I'd have expected. In fact I was quite surprised because I'd come expecting the audience would be overwhelmingly pro-Pappe (don't waste time wondering why!) but a fair guess would be that it was split 50:50.
Several of the anti-boycott people were, I heard later, Jewish, although a number were not. One lecturer with a strong left-wing stance (I think he had a working men's education background as a lecturer) spoke scathingly - "Why had the British Left such an obsession with Israel?" and went on to support a previous union-type (what on earth do I mean?) speaker's contention that the boycott against S Africa had had very little to do with bringing down apartheid --- in fact (according to this speaker) it was an insult to the black working class of S Africa to whom the credit for destroying apartheid should go. It had (he said) done little more than make white middle class people in the west feel good - as a boycott of Israel would do. (Again, later I heard that these two were from Alliance for Workers' Liberty.)
That point (the S African comparison) was dealt with by Pappe in summing up - he quoted Archbishop Tutu, who had very definitely acknowledged the vital contribution made by the S African boycott (and of course he supports the current call re Israel).
I was also surprised at the tone of some audience criticism of Pappe - allegedly for being "emotional" - I don't know how it would be proper, maybe even possible, to describe the things Pappe spoke of _without_ emotion: these were very clearly the reasons why he wanted to call for the boycott in the first place. I'm writing this without notes, so will just mention a few of the things -- Palestinian women denied treatment for breast cancer, the IDF marksman who boasted that he'd found the best way to stop children throwing stones was to shoot them directly in the eye and he'd developed that skill, going on further to boast that it required a very special kind of qualification in a soldier for that. And still Pappe hadn't seen it all by the time he personally witnessed two soldiers kicking the head of a Palestinian baby like a football.
(There's a point here that I shall leave for others to elaborate. There was some wholly inappropriate laughter from a small section of the audience, and some confusion, of which some made - and are still making - rather much, as to the cause of this morally defective and ego-defensive mirth.)
Pappe was making the point that at each stage, as the occupation and conflict had developed over the years, he had thought "he had seen it all" - until something more horrendous developed. After 10 years of the occupation, there was no call for a boycott, after 20 years, there was no call for a boycott, after 30 years ... the same, until now, after 38 years, "the evil of the occupation persists, it gets worse day by day, week by week, month by month" ... nothing improves ... and the occupation depends for its continuity on the professional people, the doctors, the academics...
Doctors keep it going by treating the effects of torture in Palestinian prisoners to get them ready to be tortured again, soldiers are medically treated so they can be returned to humiliate, wound and kill Palestinians. Academics are asked for, and give, professional advice. Gaza is a prison, and if things go on as they are, the same will be true of the West Bank. After 38 years _nothing_ has led to the ending of this occupation. He has condemned - and tonight condemned again in clear terms - suicide bombing. A non-violent method is called for - one that includes sanctions, boycott and disinvestment.
He answered Hirsh's argument that the boycott would only entrench the Israelis even more - the right wing would dig in deeper. Pappe said that the Israelis cannot be deeper entrenched than they already are. With reference to the "antisemitic" accusation, he said that it was the most _Jewish_ thing to call for a return to ethical, moral behaviour. It was for academics to lead the call, to lead the way. In America, some Presbyterian ministers had done so - here, priests on the whole hadn't, but academics, some of them, had.
He issued a warning. Currently, said Pappe, most Palestinians still want to share the land with Israelis. But that situation is not going to last. In a few decades (he may have said "a couple") that will not be so, and that will lead to a mutually assured destruction.
If anything, David Hirsh was the emotional speaker. As I've said elsewhere he's a large man, with a large voice. It's actually rather easy to find his physical presence a little intimidating, but I'd say it's less a commanding presence than a demanding one. He must have addressed thousands of student, and union, meetings over the years - fluent, articulate, hectoring - "Accusations that I don't really care about the Occupation or Palestinians? - I'm not having it, I'm not having it!". (See more, below.)
It's well known that Hirsh's (and of course Engage's) main point is this business of Anti-Semitism, or the allegation of it. His opening remarks were to warn (as he sees it) the AUT that if they succeeded in getting the academic boycott, they would be "opening up a space for Anti-Semites to flourish". But this seems to be no more than to say what we already know very well - that Anti-Semites, like any other racists, will latch on to anything to further their cause. It's not really an argument against a boycott at all.
I didn't think he stressed enough what I often think is one of Engage's best arguments (it's Jon Pike's) - the criticism/punishment distinction (you can criticise a state all you like without criticising the equally bad or worse ones, but to single out one for punishment is invidious - a boycott being a punishment). I wasn't sure myself how to answer that one until the other day it occurred to me that it wouldn't go down too well if the police were to announce that they weren't going to go after one particular criminal because they couldn't at the same time catch all the others.
An excellent suggestion from the floor related to the possible twinning of British with Palestinian universities, although Sue Blackwell pointed out that that is already AUT policy.
Hirsh angrily rebutted the claim that he and fellow anti-boycotters didn't really care about the evils of the occupation. He highlighted again the work of John Strawson (Strawson, a law lecturer at a London university has been working regularly for the last several years with I think BirZeit and maybe some others) -- but inspiring as his work and ideals are, he sometimes seems the only one doing it (anyone know different?). There was some talk about a medical student exchange programme a while ago, but a few months ago I asked about this (on the Engage website, I have to confess) but as far as I've seen didn't get a reply ...
At the very end, after Pappe's really quite brilliant - and emotionally highly appropriate, no dry ivory tower detached academic he - summing up (he spoke last) I'd felt he'd been given such an unfair time of it that I stood up from my seat in the 5th row and shouted out "Bravo Ilan"!) ... I went up to the platform afterwards - cos I've corresponded with both of them on and off for some time. I told David Hirsh that I thought these were appallingly difficult human problems, reminding both him and Ilan how difficult I'd found it to make up my mind on the concept of boycotting academia, but having thought a lot more about it, I was now definitely on Pappe's side ... He laughed and said that I'd be back in his camp in 2 months. But I really don't think he's right. I don't like being harangued, I don't like false accusations of Anti-Semitism (they act as smokescreen apologetics, they're exaggerated opportunistically, they're counterproductive) and I don't like ad hominem slurs.
Perhaps I should have made more, in this report, of what in some ways may have been one of the most helpful contributions from the floor. A speaker identifying himself as a member (like myself) of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, said he'd have wished for a more 'Buberian' and much less confrontational approach, one that clearly stresses those opinions that we hold in common, the facts on which we agree.
Hirsh had begun his opening speech casting aspersions on the integrity of his colleague. It is true that Pappe's relations with his own university are fraught in a very tangled way, and it's not easy for an outsider like myself to know precisely what happened, especially with the threat of writs flying around, and the - apparently still - threat of disciplinary action against Pappe (seemingly suspended).
But Pappe's own position within Haifa University has really nothing to do with the theoretical and practical justifications for a boycott. If I were to stick my neck out, on the inadequate basis of this one evening of debate at one place with this one self-selected audience, I'd say any call, if it were made now, to boycott Israeli universities would be lost. Perhaps it would depend on the content of the motion and the phrasing, but right now I'd say that there's all to play for.
Brian Robinson (NHS psychiatrist, retired) Milton Keynes
Comments
Display the following comment