A boycott would not help the Palestinians
Daphna Erdinast-Vulcan is a professor at Haifa University, and a member of the left Zionist party Meretz. She spoke to Solidarity after the special conference of the Association of University Teachers on 26 May, 2006, which overturned the AUT's previous decision to boycott two Israeli universities, Haifa and Bar-Ilan.
Haifa University is, among all universities in Israel, the one which has the highest proportion of Arab students and faculty. 20% of the students are Arab, and in my department, English literature, 30%.
The overriding spirit of the university is pluralistic. There are all sorts of voices, both on the right and on the left. Some of them are extremely irritating to those on the other side, but there is an acceptance that all these voices should be heard.
I'm not suggesting that there are no tensions. We are living in a state of war. But the conflicts are contained within a general commitment to dialogue.
So why target Haifa University, of all places, for a boycott?
Some pro-boycotters say that the situation of the Palestinians is so desperate that we should support anything which might put pressure on Israel.
How would a boycott of Haifa University improve the situation of the Palestinians? It would be a boycott of some of those most concerned with and committed to the peace process.
In Israel we have 50% who are left of centre, and 50% who are right-wing. So what do you do? Go to demonstrations, sign petitions, and so on, and try to win a majority. That's what I do.
I don't think we should be penalised for not achieving results. British academics have been concerned with conditions in the Third World for thirty years or more, and there are few results to show for it. But I don't think they should be boycotted.
To those who want to do something to help the Palestinians, I would say: come to Israel and Palestine, and see for yourself. Don't believe your newspapers. Offer help in your own field. There is so much that can be done in a positive and constructive way.
But the occupation, the Wall, the expansion of the West Bank settlements...
I'm dead against all that. But I think that eventually a two-states solution will happen. It has to happen. Talk to ordinary Israelis, and they say that they are absolutely willing to give up the Territories and the settlements for a secure and lasting peace.
There is fear and anxiety on both sides, and we have to defuse that.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
A boycott would not help the Palestinians
A total boycott of Israel is the best thing. The occupation needs to end as quickly as possible.
Paul
how will a boycott end the occupation?
We agree that the occupation needs to end as quickly as possible, but I fail to see how a boycott would help bring this about. Do you think that the way to combat people you disagree with is to refuse to engage with them? And that we need to alienate ourselves from the people on the Israeli left who are trying to end the occupation? These are people who are much better placed to bring about change than we are.
And that's not to mention the pragmatic view that even if a boycott were the best tactic, Israel has enough support from the US for any form of economic sanctions to have no effect whatsoever.
boycott the only way forward
Israel citizens must realise that ending the occupation is the best way forward to gaining peace with the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world.
Israel has occupied the West Bank and Gaza since 1967, they continue to develop settlements against international law. The israeli population has put up with a low level war since '67. Without external forces they will not move forward to peace. Sanctions and a boycott are the only realistic mechanisms to apply these external forces.
assumptions
Your argument rests on two assumptions. The first is that your individual acts as a consumer can have a significant effect on the Israeli state, the second that the particular effects of a sustained boycott will force the Israelis to end the occupation.
The first is so naive as to be ridiculous. Firstly, your acts as an consumer are subsumed into the body of social relations that we designate under late capitalism as 'private'. We (as a society, rather than a small minority of Marxists) have a long way to go before we are again aware that the act of purchasing something has a political content. Now, in Britain in 2005, your choice not to buy from Israel is an isolated decision that will be ignored by the vast majority of people who don't even think about what they buy: and since most items are bought not directly from Israeli producers but from wholesalers and supermarkets, the noise made by whatever 'choice' you make to take part in 'ethical purchasing' is drowned out by the weight of the corporate buyers who are concerned only with cost and profit. Moreover, as I argue above, Israel gets sufficient economic and military support from the USA not to be affected by a consumer boycott from a minority of British so-called socialists.
Your claim that external force will necessarily bring an end to the occupation is hardly any better reasoned. The intifada is an external force that has been going on for almost twenty years. It certainly hasn't brought an end to the occupation. Why do you assume that your acts as a consumer, if they are noticed at all, will have the effect that you desire? What will you say? 'Get out of the West Bank and I'll buy your oranges again'?
The best way to combat the occupation is by standing in solidarity with Israelis who are opposed to it.
First the intifada is not an
First the intifada is not an external force. The intifada is the legitimate resistence of the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation. External force is required because we have no evidence that Israel is prepared to end the occupation. Even during Oslo, settlements were be extended in the West Bank.
Boycotts do work with South Africa being an excellent example.
should we be calling on the boycott of UK
.. who else is implicated in occupations and wars, UK, US etc.
Should we be calling on boycott of UK universities, businesses..
.. i am not sure what country i shouldnt boycott...
"the israeli population has put up with".. interesting argument.
the uk population has just re-elected Blair.... i didn't.. so is he all our responsibility..
should we campaign against that .. or boycott ourselves and ask others to do so until we vote otherwise? perhaps tory or liberal?
it seems you think if only the israeli citizens just realised then they could just end the occupation...
like if the majority in the UK had opposed the war ... they could just end it...
and we should rely on external forces to make them...
which external forces should make us get rid of Blair?
i just don't understand why israeli people are the same as the israeli government?
The Israeli people by a stran
The Israeli people by a strange coincidence elect their government. Israeli governments have chosen to continue the occupaton for tens of years. Only an external force can change this status quo.
British people elect the Brit
British people elect the British government - governments that have never been anything other than capitalist and imperialist.
External forces to change the status quo for us too, then?
boycott and occupation
the occupation is a cry in the wilderness. arabs live in the land of israel, and yet israel is willing to consider a demographic solution. the time to act was in 1947 and there is no setting back the clock. meanwhile the only group fighting to end the bloodshed are jews. there is no "peace now" in the PA and there is no acceptance of Israel as a viable neigbhorly state either. until that happens there is no solution. i can cry that i have rights to the east bank of the jordan and that is a cry in the wilderness. so- the solution is acceptance and an end to the bloodshep. stop shelling our children and we will talk. the "occupation" is a direct result of arab terror throughout the entire existence of the return of the jewish people to their homeland.
moderate