Note: At the time of the 2005 proposed boycott of Israeli academics and universities by British university teachers, I provided a number of posts on this thinly disguised expression of anti-Semitism. My analysis and detailed backgound on last year's failed effort can be found here.

The New York Times of May 15, 2006 reports that "Britain's biggest union for college and university teachers plans to ask its 67,000 members to consider boycotting Israeli lecturers who do not publicly dissociate themselves from what it called Israel's "apartheid policies."

The NYT piece, in part, goes on to state:

The language is from a resolution to be put before the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education at its annual conference in Blackpool from May 27 to 29.

The move has reopened a fiery debate that seized another college union, the Association of University Teachers, last year. In response to appeals from 60 Palestinian organizations, the Association of University Teachers voted in April 2005 to boycott two Israeli universities, saying it would bar faculty members from Haifa and Bar-Ilan Universities from taking part in academic conferences or research with British colleagues.

Less than a month later, the association voted to overturn the boycott when numerous advocates, including a group of Nobel laureates, argued that university campuses in Israel enjoyed vigorous political debate and were not the most appropriate institutions to boycott.

This year, however, the Association of University Teachers, with 40,000 members, plans to merge with the larger National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, just after its conference in Blackpool. The contentious resolution is one of two relating directly to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The first, concerning Hamas's victory in Palestinian elections, enjoins British academics "to continue to help protect and support Palestinian colleges and universities in the face of the continual attacks by Israel's government" and to 'contact the Palestinian Authority government to reaffirm that support.'

That resolution accuses Britain of displaying "outrageous bias" against Hamas.

...

It is the second resolution up for approval that will revive last year's arguments over the boycott of Israeli academicians.

The second resolution 'notes continuing Israeli apartheid policies including construction of the exclusion wall, and discriminatory educational practices.'

And it 'invites members to consider their own responsibility for ensuring equity and nondiscrimination in contacts with Israeli educational institutions or individuals, and to consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those that do not publicly dissociate themselves from such policies."

David Hirsh, a lecturer in sociology at Goldsmiths College, University of London, and a member of a group called Engage, established last year to fight the boycott call, said the new resolution was "nastier" than the 2005 campaign because it was asking the National Association to "legitimate private, personal boycotts."

At the time of the 2005 proposed boycott of Israeli academics and universities by British university teachers, I provided a number of posts on this thinly disguised expression of anti-Semitism. My analysis and detailed backgound on last year's failed effort can be found here.

Writing in Haaretz, Bradley Burston provides a sharp response to the boycott proposal. For a critical perspective and more information as well as a link to a statement calling for support of the boycott see the comments at yourish.com.

In my post just under one year ago, I observed that It is the subtle anti-Semites who represent the increasing acceptance of anti-Semitism packaged as anti-Zionism. Their numbers appear to be growing and they are the elite dimension of resurgent anti-Semitism in Britain, Europe, and elsewhere. Their efforts to weaken acceptance of Israel’s legitimacy as a sovereign state will continue. For an insightful and informative analysis of the current anti-Semitism in the UK, see Shalom Lappin's January 2006 article The Rise of a New Anti-Semitism in the UK.

In that same post, I also noted that opponents of anti-Semitism, Jews and non-Jews alike, had scored a “win” in the successful effort to overturn the initial AUT boycott decision and I added that important as that win was, the world's oldest hatred shows no sign of disappearing.

The AUT decision to boycott Bar-Ilan University and The University of Haifa has been overturned as indicated in reports by Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, The Guardian and in various reports and articles listed on the website of Bar-Ilan University. The rescission of the boycott decision is, of course, a positive development. For my discussion of a number of the events in the boycott story, including my post with a detailed description and examination of earlier developments, see my earlier posts on this matter listed below.

Most of those involved in direct participation or writing about the boycott can be viewed from the perspective of three groupings.

(1) Determined Radicals and Anti-Semites – Boycott Advocates: This grouping appears to consist of a relatively small number of AUT members. It is, nonetheless, likely that the views they hold are shared by other AUT members who are less vocal and active. These individuals are determined radicals who are deeply hostile to Israel and at least some among them have clear anti-Semitic inclinations. They exploited circumstances and lack of interest or awareness of many, (very likely, a majority), of AUT members to push through the initial boycott decision. While there have been references to possible anti-Semitism in descriptions of these individuals, these descriptions have often been accompanied by their stated denial of anti-Semitism and their expressed concerns for the Palestinians. Some individual Jews are found in this grouping. These are likely persons for whom radical, leftist ideology has paramount importance. Indeed, to some extent, these individual Jewish advocates of the boycott are afforded a kind of heroic status among their fellow radicals. This “Jewish” support for the boycott provides others, so these others would like to think, with cover against the charge of anti-Semitism.

(2) “Respectable” Hostility to Israel and Subtle Anti-Semitism – Boycott Opponents on the Left: This grouping includes individuals and groups who wish to make clear their opposition to Israeli policies but are opposed to academic boycotts as a matter of principle. Their remarks almost always include “free exchange of ideas”, “building bridges”, and the like. What is notable here is the evident desire to be on the side of the angels, that is, to give Israel a good bashing but proclaim that an academic boycott is not the best way to proceed. Opposition to Zionism accompanied by denials of anti-Semitism, are the standard claims. Certainly not all those opposed to the boycott and on the left are anti-Zionist or anti-Semites but a number are. This approach has the obvious advantage of excluding post-Zionist academics, their allies, from attack. The post-Zionists benefit because they play to an anti-Israel, international audience as they call for a boycott even as it fails. Among those found in this grouping are individual Jews, especially among AUT members, who wish to maintain their own leftist credentials (evidence of which is publicly expressed hostility to Israel and Zionism) but are uncomfortable with the underlying anti-Semitism or at least the “appearance” of it among militant boycott advocates. Some of these individual Jews may be in denial with respect to the issue of anti-Semitism packaged as anti-Zionism. For others, ideological commitment may trump any sense of Jewish identity.

(3) Opponents of Anti-Semitism: This grouping includes those who have opposed the boycott as but another manifestation of increasing anti-Semitism in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. Individual academics, journalists, bloggers, and others have written and spoken out about the underlying motive of anti-Semitism in the boycott affair. Many of their observations can be best understood in the context of a number of recent, more lengthy, often scholarly, pieces on the history of anti-Semitism such as this eloquent piece by Cynthia Ozick and this insightful article by Mark Lilla. Many of the individuals and organizations in this grouping are Jewish but certainly not all.

Each of these groupings deserves considerably more analysis. The radicals, motivated by anti-Semitism, often subscribe to a deep anti-Americanism and they generally embrace all positions seen to be “third world”. This leads to willful ignoring of the most heinous atrocities committed by terrorists and various dictatorial regimes. These radicals can be clumsy in their methods and comments but they sometimes succeed in their anti-Israel agenda, witness their temporary success in the AUT boycott. More importantly, wittingly or unwittingly, they serve to mask the radicalism and more subtle anti-Semitism of a fair number of boycott opponents on the left. The latter can distance themselves from the cruder actions of the radicals but offer similar messages without the radicals’ apparent ideological baggage. Their efforts to challenge Israel’s legitimacy as a sovereign state enjoy a degree of immunity from the charge of anti-Semitism. They are, after all, opposed to the boycott. As noted above, certainly not all those opposed to the boycott and on the left are anti-Zionist or anti-Semites but a number are.

It is the subtle anti-Semites who represent the increasing acceptance of anti-Semitism packaged as anti-Zionism. Their numbers appear to be growing and they are the elite dimension of resurgent anti-Semitism in Britain, Europe, and elsewhere. Their efforts to weaken acceptance of Israel’s legitimacy as a sovereign state will continue.

Opponents of anti-Semitism, Jews and non-Jews alike, have scored a “win” in the successful effort to overturn the initial AUT boycott decision. Important as that win is, the world's oldest hatred shows no sign of disappearing. _______________________________________________________

Previous posts on the boycott story:

May 17, 2005 - Israeli - Swedish Teams’ Successful Work On Diabetes: No Boycott Here!

May 15, 2005 - American Political Science Association Condemns British Academics’ Israel Boycott

May 14, 2005 - UK Academic Opposition To Boycott Amidst Anti-Semitism At British Universities

May 12, 2005 - Bar Ilan University’s New Website on Boycott

May 11, 2005 – University of Haifa Claims Defamation By AUT

May 5, 2005 – British Academics’ Israel Boycott: NYT Coverage – Too Little, Too Late

May 4, 2005 – British Academics’ Israel Obsession: Anti-Semitism By Any Other Name… This post provides detailed background on the boycott story.

The Jerusalem Post of May 17, 2005, reports the following:

Scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot and the University of Umea in Sweden have unraveled a mechanism by which fat contributes to the onset of the Type 2 diabetes, which affects one out of 12 adults in the Western world and threatens to double in the next two decades. Their results were published in the April issue of Cell Metabolism.

Imagine if the Swedish scientists at the University of Umea had decided some time ago to boycott Israeli scientists. The scientific community, Swedish and Israeli scientists, and all those who seek greater understanding of diabetes, benefit from this cooperative effort. In an earlier post on the boycott, I noted that one may ask what would be lost if the effort to boycott Israel and Israeli scholars is successful.

The Jerusalem Post report of May 17, 2005 says it all.

Judith Apter Klinghoffer provides a copy of an e-mail by a faculty member at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth concerning the AUT boycott. She has received the faculty member's permission to post it. The e-mail is circulating in Wales and very likely elsewhere in the blogosphere.

From the e-mail: I am writing to you express my dismay at the motion, passed at last week's AUT council meeting, to sever academic links with Haifa and Bar Ilan universities in Israel. This motion violates the very principles of professional academic enquiry; is intellectually shallow; and reeks of anti-Semitism. (boldface added)

Norman Geras continues to provide timely and frequent updates on the boycott story with new reports of opposition to the boycott. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences is now among those publicly stating opposition to the boycott. (via Norman Geras)

Previous posts on the boycott story:

May 15, 2005 - American Political Science Association Condemns British Academics’ Israel Boycott

May 14, 2005 - UK Academic Opposition To Boycott Amidst Anti-Semitism At British Universities

May 12, 2005 - Bar Ilan University’s New Website on Boycott

May 11, 2005 – University of Haifa Claims Defamation By AUT

May 5, 2005 – British Academics’ Israel Boycott: NYT Coverage – Too Little, Too Late

May 4, 2005 – British Academics’ Israel Obsession: Anti-Semitism By Any Other Name… This post provides detailed background on the boycott story.

See my earlier posts on the boycott story.

(Via Norman Geras who has closely followed developments in the British academics' boycott of Israel story.)

The American Political Science Association (APSA) has condemned the decision of the [British] Association of University Teachers (AUT) to boycott Israeli academics. The APSA joins The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in its condemnation of the boycott. This is the letter of Margaret Levy, APSA President, to Sally Hunt, the General Secretary of AUT.

Dear Ms. Hunt,

On behalf of the Council and the Committee on Professional Ethics, Rights, and Freedoms of the American Political Science Association, I am writing to convey the following statement, issued in conjunction with the position expressed by the American Association of University Professors, with respect the academic boycott recently adopted by the AUT.

"The American Political Science Association, through action by its Council and its Committee on Professional Ethics, Rights, and Freedoms, supports the views expressed in the May 3, 2005 statement by the AAUP against academic boycotts. We join in condemning the resolutions of the AUT that damage academic freedom and we call for their repeal."

We hope that these matters can be resolved quickly and in a manner that affirms our common interest in higher education and academic freedom.

Sincerely,

Margaret Levi President

Previous posts on the boycott story:

May 14, 2005 - UK Academic Opposition To Boycott Amidst Anti-Semitism At British Universities

May 12, 2005 - Bar Ilan University’s New Website on Boycott

May 11, 2005 – University of Haifa Claims Defamation By AUT

May 5, 2005 – British Academics’ Israel Boycott: NYT Coverage – Too Little, Too Late

May 4, 2005 – British Academics’ Israel Obsession: Anti-Semitism By Any Other Name… This post provides detailed background on the boycott story.

Growing UK Academic Opposition To AUT Boycott

The Jerusalem Post of May 13, 2005 reports that the faculties of three UK universities, Oxford, Warwick, and Sussex have rejected the AUT boycott of Bar Ilan University and The University of Haifa.

Norman Geras reports on additional UK university faculty opposition to the boycott at Reading and Salford.

See my earlier post of Sunday, April 24, 2005 with updates through May 6, 2005 for detailed coverage of the boycott story and links to my other posts on the boycott.

Anti-Semitism at British Universities

The Jerusalem Post article of May 13, 2005 referred to above, noting the criticism of the boycott by British academics, includes this passage:

The first academics to resign from the AUT, Shalom Lappin and Jonathan Ginzburg, circulated an open letter calling on members to join them in breaking away from the union in protest of the boycott. "For the past several years an ugly campaign of anti-Jewish provocation has been building on the margins of the Israel hate-fest that the boycott supporters have been promoting on campuses throughout the UK," they said in the letter. "There comes a time when an organization discredits itself to the point that it can no longer be taken to stand for the values that it purports to represent. When this point is reached, one has no alternative but to disassociate oneself from it." (boldface added)

See British journalist Melanie Phillips' article for more on increasing anti-Semitism on British university campuses and elsewhere in Britain.

One highly visible case of the distress suffered by Jewish students amidst charges of anti-Semitism on UK campuses is that of the ongoing dispute at the London School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). The SOAS case has been described in the May 12, 2005 issue of The Guardian and the May 12 & May 13 editions of The Jerusalem Post. The Guardian report describes a dossier of evidence documenting alleged instances of anti-Semitic behavior at SOAS compiled by Jewish students. Included among the allegations are:

The screening in the SOAS Student Union of a controversial film, “Promise of Heaven”, which describes Jews as 'having no values or ethics'. Gilad Atzmon, a pro-Palestinian activist and musician, who gave a talk to students this month, arguing: "I'm not going to say whether it is right or not to burn down a synagogue, I can see that it is a rational act".

The Jerusalem Post reports that the Board of Deputies, the elected leadership of the British Jewish community, is threatening legal action if the school does not take steps to address the problem. The Jerusalem Post report includes this:

In recent months, SOAS has witnessed an escalation of anti-Jewish activity, in both severity and frequency. At the beginning of this year, the Islamic Society screened a video which compared Judaism with Satanism. A recent article in the SOAS student union magazine, The Spirit, advocated suicide terrorism against Israeli civilians, and was entitled: "when only violence will do."

Earlier this year, the student union convened an "emergency session" in order to appoint London Mayor Ken Livingstone as "honorary president" of the union, following Livingstone's refusal to issue an apology after comparing a Jewish journalist with a Nazi concentration-camp guard.

In her February 24, 2005 column, Melanie Phillips provided additional material on the situation at SOAS.

Another example of the growing distress suffered by Jewish students at British universities is provided by the experience of Luciana Berger, who, before her resignation, was a member of the National Executive Committee of the (British) National Union of Students. This is an excerpt from her explanation of her April, 2005 resignation which appeared in The Guardian. Her remarks capture much of the increasing concern of Jewish university students in Britain.

Describing the essence and tone of Luciana Berger's words, The Guardian offers this characterization: "It's not a great time to be Jewish at university, says Luciana Berger." (boldface added)

Last week I resigned from my position as a National Executive Committee member, because of a continued apathy within the National Union of Students to Jewish student suffering. In the words of a report distributed by NUS: “Anti-semitism is a very light sleeper indeed.”

When I started my undergraduate course at Birmingham University, as a Jewish student it was a natural step to join the Union of Jewish Students (UJS). When I considered putting myself forward for election within the NUS, I remembered warnings from Jewish students who had done the same, of their struggles to confront a movement riddled with leftwing anti-semitism; of campaigns seeking to ban Jewish student societies in the 70s and 80s, instigated by the General Union of Palestinian Students (GUPS) and the Socialist Workers Party. Former Jewish NUS leaders told me about the reticence of the movement to deal with the growing problem of extremist groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir within local student unions, and their dismay that warnings that terror groups were using campuses as a recruiting ground were ignored.

However, I felt privileged to be able to dismiss these as tales of a long-forgotten era. I was proud to be involved in an NUS that had acknowledged a history of anti-semitism and rectified it under the leadership of a succession of NUS presidents such as Stephen Twigg, Jim Murphy and Mandy Telford.

Sadly, my experience over the past 12 months has not only mirrored the history of those outlined above - in some ways it has surpassed it. The warning signs were there from my first NUS conference, when I was spat at for being Jewish. I, perhaps too readily, dismissed this as an isolated incident. (boldface added)

From Luciana Berger's resignation speech: "... this year NUS [National Union of Students] has been a bystander to Jew-hatred." (boldface added)

Growing opposition among British academics to the AUT boycott of two Israeli universities is an encouraging development. However, as these examples indicate, the larger issue of increasing anti-Semitism on British university campuses and elsewhere in British society remains. The boycott is not an isolated matter, removed from the context of anti-Semitism. The boycott, in fact, is a product of the anti-Semitism so evident among many British academics. Recognition of this reality suggests the likelihood that should the boycott decision be rescinded, other means of expressing the continuing anti-Semitism will soon be devised.