Boycott of Israel not the right answer

California Scholars for Academic Freedom has not endorsed the Palestinian Campaign for an Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, calling for colleges to divest from and not cooperate with Israeli colleges, universities and cultural institutions. According to the campaign’s Web site, this boycott emphasizes withdrawing funding and support from Israel and “pressing for resolutions to be adopted by academic, professional and cultural associations and organizations.” While the campaign was founded in April of 2004, the recent events in Gaza spurred California academics to join the call for a boycott ““ a commendable but wrongheaded idea.

Admittedly, the outrage driving the call for a boycott makes sense. The Israeli military is better trained and better armed than Palestinian militant groups. Western governments have expressed support for Israel with rhetoric, money and material. Palestinian casualties were enormous compared to the deaths caused by rocket attacks from Gaza. Supporters of a boycott hope to spur Israeli scholars and academics to protest Israeli policy in Gaza and push for a peaceful solution.

That said, a boycott will not change Israeli policy, will not contribute to peaceful coexistence in the Middle East and will not improve the situation in Gaza. At best, it’s an idealistic but ineffective stand on principle. At worst, a boycott could turn into a publicity gimmick aimed at demonizing the people of Israel.

An academic boycott of Israel sends an incorrect message to Palestinian extremists, and possibly to Israeli leaders. UCLA political science professor Marc Trachtenberg said that pressure on Israeli professors will embolden Hamas and other groups to carry out more reckless attacks by promoting the assumption that support for Israel is dwindling.

“I think that by just taking an anti-Israeli stand, you’re giving a message to the other side that the course of action it has been pursuing is perfectly okay,” Trachtenberg said.

Israeli leaders might feel pushed up against the wall and react aggressively. Israeli citizens ““ including boycotted scholars and students ““ would resent the cold shoulder presented by the rest of the world. Instead of calling for a moderate government policy, they might support a harder line not just toward Hamas, but Palestinians as a whole.

Next, the boycott would be counterproductive. Many people (including former President Jimmy Carter) have compared Israel’s treatment of Palestinians to the treatment of black South Africans before 1994. This is a false analogy. South Africa’s struggle revolved around equal rights, voting rights and political participation. After the black African majority took over, there would still be a South Africa where whites could work, run for office and generally live peacefully. In Israel, the question is: Will there be an Israel? Hamas, the dominant party in the Palestinian parliament, does not recognize Israel. This isn’t about majority rights ““ it’s about survival. The Jewish population of Israel needs a non-negotiable guarantee of its safety for any solution to go forward. A boycott doesn’t provide one.

Even if the South Africa analogy were correct, the academic anti-apartheid movement was toothless. UCLA history professor Edward Alpers was an anti-apartheid activist in the 1980s. When asked about the movement’s effectiveness, he was unsure whether the campus movements were critical.

“The anti-apartheid movement was a global movement, and the academic boycott was a very small part of that,” Alpers said. Disinvestment and college boycotting didn’t free Mandela ““ pressure from an embarrassed community of nations did.

A boycott of Israeli higher education and cultural institutions would alienate a sector of Israeli society that supports coexistence. Contrary to accusations of compliance, Israeli academics have opposed military policy in the territories and worked toward a two-state solution. Palestinian scholar and activist Sari Nusseibeh, president of Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, said in an article from Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz’s Web site, “It is within the academic community that we’ve had the most … pro-peace views.”

The chilling effect of a boycott would set back peacemaking efforts as effectively as a Qassam rocket or an Israeli artillery shell. In the interest of promoting peace, a boycott would stifle academic freedom and pro-peace dialogue. A boycott would still allow Israeli and foreign academics to work, present research and travel as they please, but the boycotting of Israeli institutions would hinder legitimate research not related to anti-Palestinian aggression. Israel’s opportunities for scholarship in archaeology, history, religion and physical geography make it a popular location for travel study and research. The disinvestment of foreign programs would not only hurt the region financially but cut off an important line of communication and cooperation for students and scholars interested in peace.

The boycott as now proposed is dangerous. It can potentially increase terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians and Israeli reprisals against Palestinian civilians. It is based on a false analogy that ignores the fact that the Palestinians’ governing party wants to wipe a nation out of existence. It will alienate peace advocates in Israel’s academic and cultural sectors. It’s against the best interests of the people of Israel, the people of Palestine and any people interested in peace through free dialogue, Bruins included.

E-mail Sukaton at [email protected]. Send general comments to [email protected].