Harry’s Place

gesture politics again, as staff in universities and colleges throughout Britain leave UCU and weaken its capacity to negotiate as a meaningful trade union, the UCU Congress passes a boycott motion, after a very short debate and a procedural wrangle.

it is a victory of sorts for the boycotters, but a pyrrhic victory as they have only weakened the UCU in the long term and opened it up to legal challenge on the basis of discriminatory policies

it won’t matter one bit to Palestinian’s real existence, as hard as it is, but it will make a few posturing radicals happy for a moment

ultimately such policies bring trade unionism into disrepute, sowing the seeds of discontent and achieving nothing tangible for the Palestinians.

what a waste of time.

Modernity: why the soft-pedaling? The travesty is not just the motion itself, but also the complicity of the membership who we are told just does not care, and of the British media who parrot anti-Israel falsehoods like Jenin and al-Dura.

“Trade unions are useful things. Workers represented by effective trade unions enjoy better terms and conditions than those who are not.”

Mmmm. Well, in that case one might say - “cartels are useful things. stockholders of companies participating in effective cartels enjoy better returns that those investing in companies that compete freely.”

In both cases, the logic is flawed, in that it blithely ignores the fact that the advantage gained comes at the expense of others.

British academia is already on the ropes. Not hard to see why.

Maybe when Charles Enderlin loses his final appeal against Philip Karsenty, the full latter-day Drefuss scale of the Al-Durah scam will hit the MSM. I would like to see some of these pundits (and there a re a very large number of them) eat their words. It is difficult to imagine a more shameful scenario, in which a major Western TV station collaborated in misrepresenting a murder, which then launched the second Intifada and the deaths of hundreds, and which the rest of the MSM uncritically sucked up. Is Karsenty the latter day Zola?

Pigs might fly. Too many MSM people have too much face to lose.

Maybe I have misunderstood what is going on here, but it seems to me they are applying a sort of litmus test to Jews and Israelis. They have passed a resolution that discriminates against jewish staff, because their non-jewish staff are not being required, as individuals, to declare their stance on any of the political aims of the union.

I rather hope I have misunderstood this issue. Because if I haven’t, the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

cartels are useful things.

Trade unions are vehicles for collective bargaining, for employees who are free to work in any trade they choose. It is not a cartel for workers, in these circumstances, to negotiate through a voluntary association, for the pay and conditions which will determine a substantial part of their lives and livelihoods.

Trade unions are no more like a cartel, than a buying group composed of independent retailers, operating in a market in which there are also competing buying groups alongside retailers buying direct, is a cartel.

Trade unions may well be cartel like if they negotiate single union, closed shop agreements. But that’s not what today’s trade unions are.

The point about NUS is that it is very ineffective. It is also extremely divisive, and appears to have embarked on a course the end of which is a victimisation of a section not only of its membership, but academia generally.

That’s the specific objection to UCU, at this time. It is a union which specifically damages the aims of the academic institutions in which it operates. As such, it really ought to be replaced by one which is fit for purpose.

Many unions do nothing for their members, perferring instead to pronounce on glamourous, international issues that are neither here nor there for most working people.

Many union heads also behave like spoiled divas, chasing after cameras, microphones and media time instead of better wages and benefits.

Why don’t their stick to their manadates and leave issues of boycotts and such aside.

I notice that Shiraz Socialist is making the point that Tom Hickey seems determined to breach the Race Relations Act.
Is Hickey a racist?

Ohad,

you wrote:

“the complicity of the membership who we are told just does not care…”

quite the contrary, if you read the article at Engage you will see conference activists did not want to put this motion or anything similar to the full UCU membership because it would be rejected, as happen before (when it was the AUT)

this is an example of experienced activists stitching up a union motion, many of them are well versed in these procedures and try to keep as much control as possible away from the membership

so no, I don’t agree that the membership is complicit, until the motion was passed I doubt that many of them even knew that it was going to be tabled.

now the fightback starts, this will be overturned after a long battle I’m sure, but the process will be damaging and I think it is so unnecessary, its an entirely negative and discriminatory approach.

it doesn’t help UCU, it doesn’t help its members or academia in general, all that this motion does is to gratify a few cranks and tired activists, who seem to think that by passing this motion they’re attacking American imperialism or its agent, it is posturing of the worst kind.

who seem to think that by passing this motion they’re attacking American imperialism or its agent

Some of them clearly also think that they are attacking Jewish Power.

Trotskiist groups masquerading as trades unions, like militant tendists masquerading as Labour party branches have done and continue to do fatal damage to the bodies they leech on. As a Labour sympathiser, my respect for the party’s cause dried up as the MT parasites bloated themselves on it and likewise my respect for the union cause does, especially when in this case I see a group of presumably workers of the brain answer the the mind-numbing, atavistic anti-Semite drum-roll.

Most members treat the unions as a charity, or insurance, or a service, or something you just join because it’s expected of you in your department.

Do you think starting a new union will mean that members do any more of the actual, you know, work in a new union? Will they want to be any more active in stopping a new union becoming hollowed out by the SWP?

If not, what would it take to make a new union work?

David T,

now, now it is not called Jewish power, as you know the phrase is “Zionist” power, because no lecturer in UCU would ever want to admit being hung up on the existence of Jews? er, well, maybe?

People need to answer my question. Because it’s at the crux of whether a new union works or not. But if a new union could work, UCU could work.

“Trade unions are useful things. Workers represented by effective trade unions enjoy better terms and conditions than those who are not.”

You better get used to trade unions, ‘cos they’re all about to buy the Labour Party at knock-down price: An absolute steal!

Trade Unions are back!

If you think the last ten years were crazy then just wait until you see the next two!

God (or whatever floats your boat) bless America.

Your lot is lost.

Does Richard Dawkins still support a boycott?

“so no, I don’t agree that the membership is complicit, until the motion was passed I doubt that many of them even knew that it was going to be tabled.”

Who elected the UCU membership?

And who will pay when the UCU loses its legal battle? (I presume groups do not solicit expensive legal advice unless they plan to do something with it?)

And once the UCU pays up for racism, there will be no more union. It will be broke; it will have spent all its time in court (as opposed to say bargaining for better conditions for teachers); and it will be discredited in the eyes of administrators.

So I think the idea of a new union is actually a rather timely one. The UCU is not a union, you see.

Regards,

Inna

Although the proposed boycott will likely be overturned eventually , you have to wonder how much of this anti-semitism manifests itself in university education. It’s extremely disturbing to think that the activists who proposed this boycott are lecturing impressionable, young people.

I drifted into the middle ground of politics from the very left in 1982 because of my troubling experiences of anti-semitism on the left. So whats changed!
I really don’t think these guys understand what they are doing as they are so blinded by their ideology that they are incapable of rising above the fog and trying to understand the conflict in more complex and nuanced ways that “its all the Zionists fault”.

Colin: the Militant tendency was driven out of the Labour Party years ago and is now know as the Socialist Party in England and Wales- SPEW. You are correct to say that the damage they did lives on. In Waltham Forest for example, the longest-serving Liberal Councillors are in Wards where the Milis ran and ran down the Labour Party branches.

UCU recruits lecturers (not academics), and in some institutions other workers on lecturers terms and conditions, in FE Colleges as well as Universities. There are other Unions, notably UNISON, organising workers on other conditions of service in the same institutions, whether quangos or Charities.

Is Hickey a racist?

Are Galloway and Livingstone Antisemites?

The point I am making is that all three would deny the label used in asking the question. But the Stepehen Lawrence Enquiry established that the determinant of whether something is racist depends on whether the victim feels it is racist. Clearly, the law can determine that if an action is ONLY applicable to a single race that is not applicable to other races given a similar circumstance then the racism is proven.

I would say that denial of a Jewish National Home when Mandated by the League of Nations and sustained by the UN is racist and Antisemitic. To criticise Israel isn’t necessarily Antisemitic unless the frame of that criticism is directed towards Israel when it equally (or more relevantly) applies to other well-publicised situations. For example I think that Tutu is being Antisemitic when he criticises Israel for the plight of Gazans and calls it the greatest human rights injustice, when Darfur is obviously worse.

Legal opinion has stated that the singling-out of Jews and Israel in this Boycott (and the way they are to be singled-out) would constitute Antisemitism.

So, is Hickey behaving Antisemitically? Probably. Is he an intentional Antisemite? Maybe not, but the effect of the motion he supports has been ruled to be Antisemitic.

Is Galloway Antisemitic? Well, he may not have hate for Jews in his heart but some of his sayings might be construed to be Antisemitic. Galloway certainly has a radar for Jews. He rails against callers with Jewish conspiracies or Holocaust Denial and yet once assumed a caller was Jewish based on the fact that he was calling from Hendon.

I also believe that trade unions are useful things, but this does lead me to question my continued membership in the UCU. The boycott campaign is a blatant, endless attempt to abuse the union on the part of a minority of activists, who are seeking to take advantage of the inactivity of most members to impose on the union a policy that clearly doesn’t represent the views of most members.

When I was at Cambridge a few years back, the boycott succeeded in mobilising many not very active union members such as myself to turn up to the union meeting to overturn it. The extent of the rebellion was such, that even our SWP union branch secretary admitted that he had been wrong to support the boycott, given the damage it had done to union members unity, and the absence of any kind of mandate from the membership to support it. Hopefully, this sort of backwoods rebellion will always ultimately serve to defeat the boycotters.

Another strategy occurs to me: for opponents of the boycott, instead of simply voting against it, to put forward a motion to extend the boycott to include academics from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and all the other Arab and Muslim states that share blame for the Middle Eastern crisis, and that are ruled by repressive regimes. That might be a way of testing whether the boycotters really are committed to defending human rights, or whether they are simply pursuing their own anti-Western political agenda.

Some of them clearly also think that they are attacking Jewish Power.

As a race with a shared gene pool I don’t think it is wrong to say that Jews have evolved to hold Power. I define “Power” as having demonstrable achievements above their per capita in any host country, and in the Midlle East. It may well be that the gene pool for Jews leads them to have higher than average IQ’s and their desire to integrate into Host communities has driven them to study and entrepeneurship in order to avoid being discriminated against.

Hence, natural abilities and environment may well have driven Jews to acquire status, wealth, position and some of the desired trappings of capitalism. Let me say that I know of Jews from the East End of London and North London who grew up in condemned slums in the 1950’s an ’60’s relying on hand-outs from Jewish charities. I KNOW that the canard of “Rich Jews” isn’t a truth for many poor Jews who rose to greater things. ie Alan Sugar or Phillip Rose.

The point I conclude with is that the idea of “Jewish Power” based on observations of Jewish success have been turned into the sinister “Jews Manipulating non-Jews”. At that point the idea of “Jewish Power” becomes an Antisemitic label.

I rather think its jealousy based on “Jewish Achievement” and that Israel is the iconic Jewish Nation who people feel they can attack without meaning Jews. I think that “Jews” is really in most of their black hearts.

now it is not called Jewish power, as you know the phrase is “Zionist” power, because no lecturer in UCU would ever want to admit being hung up on the existence of Jews? er, well, maybe?

Here is where the word “Zionist” means “Jews”. Its the MPAC UK trick but they aren’t smart enough to know that context is everything.

Gordon Brown is a Zionist (honorary President of JNF) - do they mean him when they speak of Zionists?

They really mean the “Zionists” of Israel and they are 99.99% Jews. “When you say Zionists you mean Jews” said MLK.

As a Jewish academic I refuse to belong to UCU. I can’t join an organisation which actively argues for discriminating against me and even more so against fine scholars and friends from Israel.

It is depressing not to be able to have the other kinds of protections one can receive from a union, but given UCU’s achievements on that score — weak pay deals, insistence on repeated strike action that few can in good conscience carry out because of damage to students, dominance by people whose values are completely different from those of most of my colleagues — perhaps not belonging isn’t such a sacrifice.

Well, I’m in UNISON, not ‘Uck You (as we know them in our branch for their willful attempts to trash single table national bargaining with their claim “We are the key workers in the sector” - like to see how academics get on without Departmental Administrators, Cleaners, lab techs. and Librarians). I very much doubt my institution will engage in any boycotterish activities, especially as we have a Jewish studies department.

Our local Uck You secretary is a Toy Town Trot, during the London Weighting Strikes he was wetting himself over getting out a “Strike newsletter” and playing at striking…

Maven,

there is no such thing as Race.

Some pretty silly things said about unions here. My union (T & G/UNnte - I am a Branch Chair) spends most of its time working on bread and butter issues (and our branch is based on council manual workers and the voluntary sector where the kind of problems you can imagine arise). We are there to represent our members, and we can;t be making total arses of ourselves, having some modest growth in some areas (see Voluntary sector).

Unions do have a role in international issues. My first serious politicval activity in the ’seventies was with the Portuguese Workers’ Co-Ordinating Committe, based in Little Newport Street London, and funded by the T & G. It played in key role in activity in support for the Portuguese: in organising UK support before and after the overthrow of the dictatorship, a cause which I assume even people here would back.

As for the UCU, well my blister is a member in Birmingham Uni (yes that Brum Uni) and she does not have the time to attend meetings. But she is a member and will remain one because frankly if you are to be covered in some way, and if you are lefty in some way, and if you are sensible in any way, a teacher or lecturer has to stand with the unions. As do, or should, all workers.

I will not pronounce at length on the Don’t Buy Yid Boycott - this description gives away my position. It is controversal on the left (a certain individual seemed to assume that my sister in Brum would automatically back her - not so). There is no united front on this call. For example, a leading member of the Socialist Party (ex-MIlitant)that I know is against it. It has been effectively quashed when it has been raised at our local Trades Council.

There are other ways of opposing the politics and military actions of the Israeli State and government. THey are demonstrably wrong whatever you try to explain them away. However, the Middle East is not exactly a political priority - I could list a dozen more pressing international issues, from Central Africa, Iran, to Tibet.

Finally on Unions and international affairs: noticed that the PCS now officially supports HOPI? Loads of bleating from the SWP (and one assumes the Andrew Murray -losing - faction of the CPBers) on this in the Morning Star.

I’m going to set up a new organisation to deal with this: “Non-Jews for Jews for Justice for Palestinians Watch Watch” - watching the watchers of the non-Jews who are watching Jews who are acting to promote the interests of Palestinians. Anyone want to be my vice-president?

I think I am indeed lefty and indeed sensible, Andrew, which is precisely why I don’t want to belong to UCU.

Mmmm… interesting. The UCU boycotting Israel and not Argentina leads me to one inescapable conclusion: if you murder the natives, force convert them, force on them your language (Spanish), approve a Constitution that explicitly calls for bringing European people to populate the “desert” (and whose intellectual father considered indispensable, since Indian and Spanish colonial culture was inferior to Northern Europe culture), force the natives into reservations and then use their ID cards (and those of their dead) to vote in corrupt elections, you will not be boycotted and will be considered a great tourist destination, where the meat is unforgettable, and the neverending landscape of the countryside an amazing experience.

On the other hand, if you don’t expell the population acquired in a defensive war, bring in hundreds of thousands of Holocaust refugees and people from all races completely without means of subsistence of suffering under totalitarist regimes, then you are boycotted.

It seems that the conclusion is that Israel should had expelled or destroyed or force converted to Judaism and Hebrew the Arabs, and then it would be regarded as an enlightened nation. Of course, not at the same level of Holy Europe, but close. Just what Benny Morris said. You don’t respect good people. You only respect ruthless conquerors.

I think I am learning something.

I should have added “and the neverending landscape of the stolen countryside an amazing experience.”

Of course the answer cannot be “that happened a long time ago” since the pauperization and dispossesion of Argentina’s indian population continues to this day (with adult natives coming to Hospitals to die weighing only 30 kilos).

I wonder if the UCU wouldn’t like to boycott Argentina until every European there goes back to where he came from.

Slightly off the point (as usual) but this seemd a useful place to mention a rather interesting straw in the wind as I for one haven’t seen the matter of left antisemitism discussed much outside the contxt of Enage, Harrys Place and associated sites.

The Times today howver has an article about the left leaning interpretations put on Opera today including disucssion of why those who don’t subscribe to this ” credo” don’t get produced or suffer prejudice. There is an interesting comment quoted by the composer James McMillan (so far as I recall on the evidence of some of his works he is a Christian - sorry if that is wrong). He says aout the Composer Steve Reich that he:

“has faced the anti semitic hostility of the liberal left”

because of works such as Tehillim and The Cave about which I know nothing but presume they are if anything at most “Jewish inflected” works rather than rampantly Zionist.

My reaction to this is that while it confirms the points often made here and in a couple of places in Democratiya with which I agree, I am appalled by the implications.

Time to resign from the UCU I think. This is all very devisive, particularly as large sections of high education are in serious fanancial trouble, and many departments are underecruiting in my area (computing/information systems). I want to stay, but can’t. I’m not prepared to be manipulated by a bunch of loony trots.

You should resign - as Lenin put it, ‘Trade Unions can only ever achieve the short term bourgeois demands of the working class’

“you have to wonder how much of this anti-semitism manifests itself in university education”.

How true. I wonder what my off-spring (if I ever get round to having any…) will find when they go to university in, erm, many years time? I wonder if I will be happy for them to go to a British university? Perhaps they will go to school in the States. Perhaps we’ll already be living there…

I’m not in favour of the boycott, but I’m not sure the characterisation of this is entirely fair.

There are some anti-semitic activists on the far left, who support and promote boycott motions like this, and do so in part/entirely because they are racist. Anti-semitism, as with all forms of racism, ought to be opposed by any Trade Unionist and those people exposed.

However, I simply cannot see the argument that it is automatically racist to propose a boycott of Israel full. Was it automatically racist to propose a boycott of South Africa (anti-boer?). Yes, there are worse countries in the world, but then that was true of South Africa in the 1980s. Would any of us said the boycotters then were singling out boers by ignoring the atrocities of, say, Iraq, the USSR, Argentina, Iran, China etc.?

I’m afraid I can’t see the material difference here. The boycott of South Africa affected academics, sports people, and businesses who were not themselves racist, merely white south african, - but it was aimed at the regime’s policies and most decent people accepted that. This seems like a fairly comparable situation.

I tend to agree with most of what is said by the authors at Harry’s Place, including about Israel and the anti-semitic “left”, but I seem out of step on this one.

However, I simply cannot see the argument that it is automatically racist to propose a boycott of Israel full

You missed the point. The process described by the UCU and its possible outcome are deemed racist (Antisemitic) because it requires UCU members to place Jewish students and Israeli professors into a corner whereby they face a boycott if they don’t agree with the inflammatory language of the proposals. The process is racially selective and against the UCU’s own charter. They are required to look at the racial impact of any policy they adopt - and they aren’t.

Legal opinion says its racist/Antisemitic.

Boycotting Israel by not buying Israeli good or using goods that benefits Israel is perfectly legitimate and non-racist - while being impossible to achieve. It targets Israel as a political/economic entity. Targetting ONLY Israeli academics and Jewish students is clearly selective and racist.

“Yes, there are worse countries in the world”

What is peculiar about the UCU case is that it could easily duck the issue of Israeli/Jewish exceptionalism if it simply extended the terms of its call for boycott or special treatment to include any country that is currently engaged in the oppression or occupation of its own or other people (adding an appendix to list such countries which could include Israel but would certainly include China as well). This would be very easily done, but there seems to be a determination to overtly single Israel out as uniquely evil. One can’t hep wonder why.

But the process isn’t only for Jewish students or academics to follow, so I don’t see how that is racially selective or singles out Jewish people at university? So I just can’t understand how this is racial discrimination.

I think it sounds unpleasantly McCarthy-like, contrary to the spirit of academic work, unlikely to achieve anything positive for anyone, and is probably not something the members want or need, and oppose it for all those reasons. But there’s a difference between it being a motion that people oppose, and it discriminating against those people because of your ethnicity/race. I’m afraid I can’t see how it discriminates.

“This would be very easily done, but there seems to be a determination to overtly single Israel out as uniquely evil. One can’t hep wonder why.”

I suspect it’s partly because there are anti-semites who make it an issue, but partly because that’s how campaigns work.

A very similar point could have been made about calls to boycott South Africa - why not boycott all countries that oppress or occupy? You could make the case against people like HOPI - why Iran? Why not all countries?

[For what it’s worth, I suspect Israel engages a large amount of interest because (thankfully, from my point of view) Israel is close to the west, and particularly the USA. It’s therefore seen as something we should have a view on, unlike those ‘irrelevant’ conflicts in places that the west has little to do with, like the Sudan and DRC. It also appears to tie in to the wider modern debate of US-led western superpowers vs ‘anti-imperialist’ muslim counter-hegemony. A lot of anti-Israel activity appears to be proxy anti-western-capitalism activity]

“So I just can’t understand how this is racial discrimination.2

Let’s agree to begin wit, that it is at least discriminatory according to the UK’s anti-discrimination laws in that it discriminates unfairly according to nationality. And then we can agree that the overwhelming majority of the nation it discriminates against will be Jews, that, in fact, it is the only Jewish majority nation in the world. So what signal does that send Jewish faculty and students in the UK? Is it likely to make them more or less comfortable? Given the nature of the Israeli state, which ethnic section of the UK’s student population are most likely to have professional or scholarly links with that country?

See Shalom Lappin on Normblog making the same point much better.

Reader,

I think your problem is that you don’t understand the meaning of the term “anti-semitism” as it’s used at HP. As a rule of thumb, it generally means “any criticism of Israel more severe than David T. and Norm Geras deem acceptable.”

Since P.C. David and Detective Inspector Norm’s opinions on Israel constitute the harshest criticism that is permissable, any opinion, statement or activity more stringent is, by definition, an act of racist hatred.

By these standards, I think you’ll find that the UCU boycott is “anti-semitic” in the extreme.

Absolutely, In Plain English, and about time someone said it in plain English. My sympathies to Reader who has obviously crossed a line that he didn’t see was there, by conceding that there may be a moral and political case for a boycott, regardless of whether it is tactically advisable or likely to achieve desired ends (my doubts about it).

I’ve got no problem with a trade and leisure tourism boycott of Israel (which is what the boycott Israel movers and shakers started with a few years ago) and I would like to think that those on this blog who consider themselves opponents of racism and occupation would support that too, (and yes, I would support that tactic against other oppressive regimes too). any takers for a trade and leisure tourism boycott?

Given how the Israeli government and occupation authorities disrupt, destroy and undermine Palestinian Education it is reasonable to expect demands to be raised in the education sphere. Though I recognise how complicated those demands might be in practice, I would be very pissed off if any trade union I was a member of did not take notice of and try to commit itself to action on international issues.

One of the criticisms of the original boycott resolution a few years back, that I and some other anti-Zionists shared, was that it should have been focussed purely on institutions but the way it was worded in terms of possible exemptions of individuals left it open to McCarthyite loyalty tests. The resolution that has just passed refers to questioning “links with Israeli institutions” and urges members to “discuss” the occupation with individuals including “israeli colleagues”. If that’s antisemitism then I am a banana.

Anyway, I’ve got to pop off to the optician now to sort out a new pair of glasses, because I’m having trouble with my eyes. I’ve looked at the motion three times now and still can’t see the words “boycott” or “Jewish”. But I know, like those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that they must be there somewhere.

“But I know, like those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that they must be there somewhere.”

Right. Just next to the neocons that you see everywhere.

“My sympathies to Reader who has obviously crossed a line that he didn’t see was there, by conceding that there may be a moral and political case for a boycott”

If there is, it should be made, but so far it hasn’t. Also, a boycott would be illegal under UK anti-discrimination law, so the case should explain why this legislation, uniquely, does not or should not apply to Israelis (who are (you may have forgotten it not being mentioned in the motion) largely Jews).

I have noticed that many of those who are sticklers for legality when it comes to, say, the legitimacy of the Iraq war, are surprisingly complacent about it when it comes to discriminating against Israelis (that is, people from the world’s only Jewish majority state).

“any takers for a trade and leisure tourism boycott?” No, and nor of education. The only boycott I would consider supporting would be focussed exclusively, and explicitly on companies facilitating operations in the WB and Gaza and arms companies. This could include a boycott of Ariel College. It would certainly include Caterpillar and such companies. Arms companies are harder, since they don’t tend to produce consumer goods, I think.

Another aspect of any potential reasonable boycott would be that it is very explicit and clear that is it not “attacking” the Israeli people, but is acting firmly in what it perceives as their best interests, as well as the interests of the Palestinian people. It must be explicitly anti-anti-Semitic. And its not about appeasing the conscience of the boycotter’s - it must be focussed on helping the people in the region.

Hamish wrote:

“Anyway, I’ve got to pop off to the optician now to sort out a new pair of glasses, because I’m having trouble with my eyes. I’ve looked at the motion three times now and still can’t see the words “boycott” or “Jewish”. But I know, like those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that they must be there somewhere.”

tut, tut, are you really suggesting that a motion couldn’t be worded who’s consequences were racist, but didn’t necessarily express OVERT racism?

or that such a motion couldn’t couched its wording such that the implication was eventually racist, even if that was not the open intent?

Hamish, you’ve been in politics long enough to know the use of codewords and euphemisms?

but let’s be clear, if you don’t feel that such a motion is anti-discriminatory, then please set out your objective criteria for the selection of Israeli academics and academia (and only them) for reproach?

remembering that such a criteria would have to be applied worldwide (as any good old internationalist would know) to all countries and all people’s and that criteria should be logical and objective, not subjective

“Also, a boycott would be illegal under UK anti-discrimination law”

This is one bit I don’t get either. Is it specifically because of the way UCU are proposing a boycott, or is it that it would always be impossible to have a boycott of academic institutions of any country?

I would have thought it possible to boycott any country as long as there was no discrimination against an individual based on their ethnicity or nationality - but instead was purely about the location of their employer? So as long as whatever is proposed would apply to a non-Jewish academic at an Israeli institution, and would not apply to a Jewish academic at a French institution, then I don’t see the basis of a claim for racial discrimination.

I can understand people who feel concern because most Israeli’s are Jewish, but that surely can’t - by itself - be considered racist, because the logic would have to apply to any criticism of Israel (or China, or many other countries with a dominant ethnic identity), and would make the South Africa boycott illegal - in that case quite obviously as we were specifically boycotting white-run south africa, it was very much the link between nationality and race that was our problem!

Some people do criticise Israel and it’s institutions because they are racist. But some people criticise it because they disagree with it’s policies, and there is a difference.

“remembering that such a criteria would have to be applied worldwide (as any good old internationalist would know) to all countries and all people’s and that criteria should be logical and objective, not subjective”

Why should it apply to all countries? Again, the South African boycott springs to mind - it wasn’t like all countries that denied some or all of their people a vote were subject to the boycott was it? It was specifically South Africa. There was no logical or objective reason why South Africa alone was boycotted, but all the other countries that denied equal civil and political rights to some of their citizens (say because they are gay, or women, or simply because the dictator wants to stay in power) were not.

Any justification for why that country would be subjective. It was still the right thing to do.

(In this case, I do not think a boycott of Israel is the right thing to do, but I find the argument that it’s necessarily racist to propose the boycott of a given country extremely weak).

“The only boycott I would consider supporting would be focussed exclusively, and explicitly on companies facilitating operations in the WB and Gaza and arms companies.”

Since Hamas, Fatah and their aligned clans are responsible for more deaths and hunman rights abuses in Gaza than the IDF, I assume your statement refers to the suppliers of the Palestinians too, right?

“I find the argument that it’s necessarily racist to propose the boycott of a given country extremely weak”

By definition it’s discriminatory, right? Israel is being singled out. So is it political discrimination (which I guess folks feel is okay) or is it based on race or faith or skin-colour etc.?

The UCU folk and their ilk are obviously not going to come out and say “We’re anti-Semitic!” (Never mind that some of their pin-ups in Hezbollan and Hamas have).

So what is it about Israel that causes them to be singled out? What is it that makes Israel different?

Well, let’s look at the facts. Israel is the only Jewish state, the only democracy in the region, the only country in the UN not allowed a seat on the Security Council and the only country threatened with annihilation.

It is not, however, the only country occupying other areas, the only country with an army, the only country accused of human rights abuses nor the only country that has killed civilians in military operations.

So perhaps it’s the fact that Israel is a democracy that is causing it to be singled out? Clearly the UCU types aren’t democratic, so that could be it I guess.

Or perhaps it’s professional jealousy. Union folk are famously dog in a manger types, who knows?

Frankly though, the most unique thing about Israel is that it’s the Jewish state. And if you like Occam’s Razor, which I do, it has to be that.

It is interesting to read HP and see how hung up on race and racial identity people are in Britain when it comes to being Jewish or Muslim. It seems to have taken the place of class conciousness.

I don’t understand the preoccupation myself. Perhaps that is because I’m an Irish/Scottish/Norwegian/French/Native Indian mutt that doesn’t care nor is preoccupied with my heritage.

I’m Canadian and that’s all that matters. All of the rest of it belongs back in the old countries and has nothing to do with me.

The fact that Jews and Muslims can’t let go of the past are causing many of their difficulties in the present.

Let go of the old baggage people, it’s good for the soul.

That might be a way of testing whether the boycotters really are committed to defending human rights, or whether they are simply pursuing their own anti-Western political agenda.

Does one really need a test?

I think that academia is just full of sophisticated anti-semites ( and such) who’ve learned to couch their vulgar bigotry in upscale, nuanced, ten syllable terms.

reader wrote:

“Why should it apply to all countries”

if you are going to select one particular country (and the academics in that country) as uniquely evil or more deserving of reproach, condemnation, etc

then you have to specify on what criteria you make that decision, and part of that measure is why you pick A but not B

that’s the issue now, apartheid South Africa has ceased to exist so your argumentation has to start from that basis and not go round in a loop

if you are going to make a particular choice and you argue that such a choice is not based on prejudice or irrationality, then it is incumbent to specify the basis for that choice, in an objective fashion

thus, when the pro-boycotters pick out Israeli academics then the pro-boycotters are obliged to specify their reasoning and that should stand up to scrutiny, one part of that scrutiny is to state: why should Israel (and only Israel) be selected out of all of the 194+ countries in the world?

I almost hope they do boycott, and everyone sees the damage to the UK economy which will result from the actions of these antisemitic morons:

What a boycott would have cost
JC 15/05/2008
By Leon Symons

A leading economist has said that the UK economy and employment in Britain would suffer badly in the event of an academic boycott of Israel.

Commenting on a new report highlighting the financial impact on Britain if last year’s aborted academic boycott against Israel had gone ahead, Jonathan Hoffman, who has worked for the Bank of England and other major financial institutions, said: “The UK economy would suffer in the event of a hypothetical academic boycott.

“There would be third party repercussions — for example, from US foundations and companies pulling out of Britain, perhaps with legal encouragement from Congress, which would magnify the impact.”

The report, which has been issued as a new boycott is threatened by the University and College Union, concentrates on figures for 2006 and shows that Israel contributed directly about £1.7 billion towards Britain’s gross domestic product on a per capita basis. This made Israel the UK’s 26th most important trading partner per capita, ahead of the USA, Japan and South Africa.

It reveals that there were more than 200 academics and almost 1,000 Israeli students working here. It also examined the jobs Israelis take as well as tourism and cultural and sporting links. The report estimates that there were roughly 14,000 Israelis living in Britain, who contributed around £600 million to GDP in 2006.

The report was commissioned by the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre (Bicom) and was written by business analysis organisation Oxford Economics. The JC understands that Bicom commissioned it last year to highlight the effect that a full academic boycott could have had, not just on academia but on economic links between the two countries.

Bicom decided to go ahead with the study despite UCU dropping, on legal advice, its boycott plans. The UCU is reviving the boycott issue at its conference at the end of this month.

Commenting on the report, Mr Hoffman said: “The UK’s population is more than eight times that of Israel, so it is not surprising that the proportion of UK GDP accounted for by economic links with Israel is small — £1.7 billion is just 0.1 per cent of UK GDP. But this grossly underestimates the loss that the UK economy would suffer.

“Institutions from other countries — for example, Canada, Australia and the European Union — would quickly get drawn in. All in all, I believe there would be a significant loss to UK GDP and to employment if the UCU was foolish enough to try again to introduce a boycott of Israeli academics.”

Apart from economic information, the report reveals that the vast majority of Israelis live in London and the South-East.

It further reveals that in 2006, more than 40 per cent of British-based Israelis were employed as managers and senior officials and 24 per cent in professional occupations.

The report also offered a comprehensive list of joint Anglo-Israeli projects in a number of fields, notably science

I should add that if the pro boycotters can’t provide logical (non-circular) reasoning for their particular choice, then there is the implication that their choice is not logical but based on irrationality, and if it is based on irrationality why pick one particular country (and its academics) out?

there is always the lingering feeling that such irrationality is probably based on prejudice against that particular country, not on a logical set of criteria which could be applied to any and all countries

thus if the selection is based on prejudice (conscious or otherwise) it is discriminatory

“Frankly though, the most unique thing about Israel is that it’s the Jewish state. And if you like Occam’s Razor, which I do, it has to be that.”

Indeed. Although you have to see it also from the point of view of the history of the ideas. The UCU boycotters are just the inheritors of the failures of Trotsky (and the success of the Zionists), of the Zionology “science” of the Soviet Union, and of the Arab genocidal propaganda of Nasser and the Baath. Only thus you can explain why they focus on Israel to boycott.

Jonathan - purely disinterested point of information - can you explain this: “This made Israel the UK’s 26th most important trading partner per capita, ahead of the USA, Japan and South Africa.” Are you saying we do more trade with Israel than with the US?

I don’t think the UCU motion is in fact a boycott, and i think it’s a political mistake to call it one.

Neither is it McCarthyism

What it represents is something much worse–mandatory thought policing and requirements for ritual denunciations and chantings of required political mantras on pain of exclusion.

This is of course the method used by left totalitarian regimes from which UCU, dominated as it is by apparatchiks of the SWP, draws its methods.

It is also seriously misleading to label it simply anti-semitic. There are plenty of loyal Israelis who are not Jews, but who would be outraged by the requirement to denounce their government and agree