No subject

ches of the AUT adopted resolutions supporting it. It peaked on 22 April 20=
05, when the AUT conference adopted as union policy the boycott of two Isra=
eli universities, Bar-Ilan and Haifa, and a more limited action against the=
 Hebrew University of Jerusalem. However, a vehement backlash counter-campa=
ign, orchestrated by the pro-Israel lobby, led to the overturn of this reso=
lution on 26 May.=20



In my opinion, insufficient clarity in the April resolution may have contri=
buted to its subsequent revocation. Although the main text of the resolutio=
n speaks in general terms of boycotting institutions rather than individual=
s, it relies for detail on an earlier Palestinian call for boycott. The res=
olution says:=20



'Council resolves: =E2=80=A6 That the boycott should take the form describe=
d in the Palestinian call for academic boycott of Israeli institutions.'=20



This Palestinian 'call', quoted in the AUT resolution, also seems to intend=
 a purely institutional boycott. The specific boycotting measures it demand=
s are:=20



(a) Refrain from participation in any form of academic and cultural coopera=
tion, collaboration or joint projects with Israeli institutions; Advocate a=
 comprehensive boycott of Israeli institutions at the national and internat=
ional levels, including suspension of all forms of funding and subsidies to=
 these institutions;=20



(b) Promote divestment and disinvestment from Israel by international acade=
mic institutions.=20



Note the repetitive emphasis on 'institutions' . However, the Palestinian t=
ext immediately muddies the water by making the following proviso:=20



(c) Exclude from the above actions against Israeli institutions any conscie=
ntious Israeli academics and intellectuals opposed to their state's colonia=
l and racist policies.=20



This proviso is clearly well meant, but it negates the institutional nature=
 of the proposed boycott. If the boycott is to be truly purely institutiona=
l, as seems to be demanded by clauses (a) and (b), then the exemption of 'c=
onscientious Israeli academics and intellectuals' is totally irrelevant. An=
d of course it raises all those unanswerable questions as to what would con=
stitute sufficient proof of 'conscientiousness', what degree of 'opposition=
' is being demanded, who would be authorized to judge this, and what proced=
ures would be used in the adjudication.=20



So the Palestinian text ends up being highly ambiguous as between calling f=
or institutional and individual boycott. And the AUT 22 April resolution in=
herited this ambiguity from the Palestinian text, which it incorporated and=
 endorsed.=20



This made the resolution harder to defend than would otherwise have been th=
e case.=20



Most damaging was the opposition to the AUT boycott resolution expressed by=
 some of the Israeli academics who are known to be opposed to the occupatio=
n and active in defence of Palestinian rights. Although - as befits academi=
cs - they produced all sorts of sophisticated theoretical arguments in supp=
ort of their position, I am pretty sure that at the back of their minds was=
 the shocking feeling that the proposed boycott might face them with the un=
enviable choice between the sad irony of being wholly innocent victims of '=
friendly fire' and the humiliation of having to prove (how and to whom?) th=
eir righteousness.=20



Of course, the overturning of the AUT resolution is by no means the end of =
the story. The struggle will go on, and it will no doubt have many ups and =
downs. I can only hope that the lessons of the past will have been learnt b=
y the advocates of boycott.=20



Footnotes:=20



[1] According to press reports, this actually happened in June 2002. If so,=
 I find it inexcusable. A person penalizing an Israeli academic on the mere=
 grounds that s/he is Israeli cannot be regarded as progressive: it is reac=
tionary to categorize and treat individuals according to their nationality.=
 If, as reported, the person dismissed was in fact an opponent of Israeli p=
olicies, this only adds irony to the affair.=20



[2] The letter said: "Odd though it may appear, many national and European =
cultural and research institutions, including especially those funded from =
the EU and the European Science Foundation, regard Israel as a European sta=
te for the purposes of awarding grants and contracts. (No other Middle East=
ern state is so regarded). Would it not therefore be timely if at both nati=
onal and European level a moratorium was called upon any further such suppo=
rt unless and until Israel abide by UN resolutions and open serious peace n=
egotiations with the Palestinians, along the lines proposed in many peace p=
lans including most recently that sponsored by the Saudis and the Arab Leag=
ue." This clearly calls for reassessing the status of Israel as a state for=
 academic purposes. The letter does not call for any other action.=20



* Israeli dissident, a socialist and (therefore) anti-Zionist. Founding mem=
ber in 1962 of the Socialist Organization in Israel (Matzpen). Now living i=
n London. Mathematician, emeritus professor at London University.