Here's the text of the letter, first published in the Guardian I believe:

---

Despite widespread international condemnation for its policy of violent repression against the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories, the Israeli government appears impervious to moral appeals from world leaders. The major potential source of effective criticism, the United States, seemsreluctant to act.

However there are ways of exerting pressure from within Europe.

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 state for the purposes of awarding grants and contracts. (No other Middle Eastern states so regarded).

Would it not therefore be timely if at both national and European level a moratorium was called upon any further such support unless and until Israel abide by UN resolutions and open serious peace negotiations with the Palestinians, along the lines proposed in many peace plans including most recently that sponsored by the Saudis and the Arab League.

---

Firstly, I think accusations of anti-semitism are misplaced. The petition has gained signatures from Israeli academics, and the leader of the petition, Professor Steven Rose, is himself Jewish. In fact,

---

from here
Rose is not being anti-Semitic: Jewish himself, he credits his social conscience to his father, who an anti-fascist activist in the 1930s and a lifelong Zionist. Steven Rose even volunteered in Israel's Six Day War in 1967. If anything, he reflects the wide diversity of opinions within the Jewish community a diversity more evident in Israel proper, where the boycott is being taken seriously for its political implications.

---

There are strong arguments against the petition though, debate being focused largely on the journal Jayjay mentions. One of the people sacked, Dr Schlesinger:

---

from The Guardian
was chairperson of Amnesty International in Israel, and has been active in the last 21 months of the intifada in an ethnically mixed group that defies Israeli army blockades to deliver supplies to Palestinian towns in the West Bank. "I don't think [Israeli prime minister] Ariel Sharon is going to withdraw from the West Bank because Israeli academics are being boycotted," she said yesterday. "The idea is to boycott me as an Israeli, but I don't think it achieves anything."

---

I find it hard to see justification for taking action against such a person.

Fristly, I have to admit that I haven't heard all the details of this story so I'm going by what has been said here.

I don't think a boycott of Israeli academics is anti-semitic, any more than the similar action towards South Africa some years ago was anti-white. It seems ludicrous to me that Israel should be treated as a European country for many funding purposes anyway and I certainly have no problem with that support being withdrawn. The main problem with sacking individual academics is that many academics choose to work in another country because they disagree with the climate of their own, and I can't help feeling it would be counterproductive to alienate Israeli Jews who are opposed to the prevailing regime.

---

by Jayjay
I would actually go further than the organisers and call from a ban on anything pertaining to Israel. I certainly won't be visiting the country any time soon, nor buying any Israeli produce.

---

You and me both! I won't buy Israeli produce, and haven't done so for years now. I've even stopped shopping at certain supermarkets because so much of their fresh produce was sourced from Israel that it became difficult to find enough to eat.

---

by White Hart
The main problem with sacking individual academics is that many academics choose to work in another country because they disagree with the climate of their own

---

It should be noted that the academics in question weren't sacked because they were Israeli, they were sacked because they are employed by Israeli universities, and continue to live there.

---

and I can't help feeling it would be counterproductive to alienate Israeli Jews who are opposed to the prevailing regime.

---

Well, quite. This is the problem with a boycott - it discriminates against everyone, regardless of their own feelings or actions on the issue in question. As noted above, the two people sacked were no friends of Ariel Sharon, and it seems likely that in general academics will be among the more liberal members of Israeli society.

The question is whether you can justify this discrimination in pursuit of a broader aim. In this case, I'm really not sure you can.

Firstly, the two academics were not sacked, but removed from an editorial board - their day job is intact, it is their association with the journal that has been ended.

I should also point out that the organizers of the ban did not support or condemn the removals, but it wasn't exactly what they had in mind.

The boycott's held against South Africa also affected the whole population, both black and anti-apartheid whites. Yet it played a significant part in ending that racist regime. I see no reason why it shouldn't be used again to end another racist regime - Israel.

The academic ban will not work in isolation, but if it is a start to a total ban of Israel - from sport, from trade, the lot - then I think this should be supported.

Jay Jay, i really think you should read more about israel. your grasp of the facts is basic and one sided.

Not to metion that your "ban" on all things Iaralie is SO against your anarchist views it's unebelievable!!!

OK Cat, educate me.

I mean, I am right in thinking that Israel was founded against UN approval, and has more resolutions against it than Iraq, aren't I?

Or that the laws of Israel state that it is a Jewish state, thus excluding Arabs from citizenship?

Or that people's homes and lifes are being destroyed by the Israeli army on a daily basis?

I see nothing to persuade me that there is any difference in morality of the Apartheid era South Africa and the Current Israeli state. If you have information to corract me on this then I'd love to hear it.

However, I fail to see how my desire for a hierachy free society and my desire to see full sanctions against Israel are contradictory. Again, you're gonna have to give me some pointers on this one, mate.

---

by Jay jay
OK Cat, educate me.

---

Not my place. i'm just saying, see the other POV, you might be surprised.

---

by Jay jay
However, I fail to see how my desire for a hierachy free society and my desire to see full sanctions against Israel are contradictory

---

You say people should rule themselves. well i havent seen 1 isralie who dissagrees with their goverments actions. arent they free to decide whatd done without the outside influence of others inflicting their views? seems that by the definition of anarchy you gave, they should be free to deside, being adult and free thinking and all.

and this is all i have to say on the matter. i will not comment again and be drawn into a debate that neither side shall win.

Cat, you've said you won't comment again, but I feel I need to address some of the points you've made.

You say that I should try and see things from 'the other POV'. As far as I am aware I've done this. And I can find nothing to merit it. Unless someone comes to me with something solid like 'have you thought about this...' what else can I do? I'm a pretty well read guy, with a strong interest in world politics, so its not like I've made up an opinion on some whim after two minutes of consideration and no information on events.

As for Anarchism, yes, my utopia is one free from hierarchies of any sort, but I also believe that culturally the human race is a long way from being ready for this, and I doubt it will be in my lifetime. But to be an Anarchist does not mean you are against organization or rules. If I see someone attack someone else in the street than I see nothing wrong in refusing to have any dealings with that person, or to actively intervene in stopping the attack as well as future attacks. I see no reason why a state should be treated any differently. And all of this has nothing to do with Anarchism because it has nothing to do with Hierarchies.

As for no Israelis opposing the actions of their government this simply isn't true. As mentioned above, there are Israeli signatories of the petition for an Academic ban. But they certainly aren't in the majority. My problem is that to be an Israeli, you have to be Jewish. All the Palestinians who are ruled by this theocratic state are powerless and are being abused by an oppressive regime. That those who are enfranchised by the Israeli state do not, as a majority, oppose this is of no more importance to me than that most whites in South Africa supported the apartheid regime (at the time), or that whites in the US supported segregation, or that Germans supported the actions against Jews during the pre-War Hitler regime.

I also see no difference between the actions of Israel and those of Yugoslavia in Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Slovenia. Or Iraq and the Kurds (or Turkey and the Kurds). How about Rwanda? Why are all these regimes attacked for their actions, while Israel continues to receive support? Makes no sense to me.

Finally, while I respect your decision, I also disagree with your premise. The purpose of discussion is to help the spread of information and ideas. Personally, I believe in having an open mind. My opinions, while based on certain principles, fluctuate and change. If someone has an argument, or some information I wasn’t aware of, I will consider it. If I find that it isn’t strong enough to change my position, then I won’t, but if it is I will reconsider. I don’t always end up at the same conclusion as the person who made me rethink, but rethink I will. The idea that no one can ‘win’ a discussion doesn’t make sense to me. It isn’t a competition. Anyone taking part with an open mind is a winner.

*Not my place. i'm just saying, see the other POV, you might be surprised*

Words to live by there