How to avoid the NATFHE boycott

From Fabian via Harry's Place, a handy covers-all-bases application statement which can be adapted or used by any Israelis thinking of doing PhDs in the UK, who might be worried about how to avoid being boycotted in the likely event that NATFHE passes its latest anti-Israel motions:

Because –hopefully- soon I will be a graduate of an Israeli institution, and having in mind the new boycott that the British university and college lecturers union wants to recommend against Israeli academics that do not expressly reject the policies of the Israeli government, hereby I want to clear my CV and therefore I declare:

• I expressly reject the policies of the actual Israeli government. (Bad Olmert! Bad!)
• I also reject retroactively the policies of the government of Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, Itzhak Rabin, Itzhak Shamir, all the way to Golda Meir, David Ben-Gurion, and the foolish ideas of Theodore Herzl and Ahad Aham.
• I want also to declare that I did not kill a Palestinian and I don’t want to kill a Palestinian.
• I accept gladly the Qassams that the sensible Palestinians launch at me.
• I accept my right of being blown up when taking a bus home, eat in a pizza parlor or go shopping. (To be perfectly clear I want also to accept the right of my wife to be blown up, she really wants me to get a PhD in a British University).
• I did not kill Jesus, but if I had lived in Jesus times, I would have advised the Romans not to do it either.
• I will try not to control the media. (I am throwing away the remote)
• My nose doesn’t have a hooked shape. (Except when I laugh, which I promise not to do much in London)
• I promise to donate to a Palestinian Islamic charity the money that the Israeli state expended to bring me here.
• I abhor the Z-word.
• I was never in the Israeli Army, but if I am called to defend my country I promise to be a refusenik.
• I promise to work so every Israeli soldier becomes a refusenik.
• I promise not to cry when my refusenik neighbors and I are murdered by the glorious Arab armies.
• I am not a friend of George Soros, nor of Steven Spielberg or Ben Shalom Bernanke.
• I hate Ariel Sharon. I hate him. I hate him. I hate him. I hate him. I hate him. I hate him.
• I promise to adopt a Palestinian refugee, his 14 children and 53 grandchildren.
• I promise to give my apartment to this Palestinian refugee with a pre-paid year of rent, since anyway I will be going back to Argentina by his own suggestion.
• When I get back to Argentina I promise not to cry again if honorable Islamic militants blow up another Jewish Community Center there, not even if it is in the same neighborhood in which I live.
• I promise not to sing HaTikva anymore.
• I promise to forget the rikudim (Israeli dances) I have learnt.
• I promise to forget the Israeli books I have ever read. (That goes for you, Ephraim Kishon!)
• I am sorry of my Jewish blood.
• I confess that the Sabbath is boring. (What, not good enough? It is witchcraft! Ok?)
• I agree that the only good Jew is a dead Jew.
  
  May I apply for a PhD now, please?

Now you might regard that as a rather over-egged response to a serious political initiative on the part of the NATFHE London region delegates who proposed this:

Conference notes continuing Israeli apartheid policies, including construction of the exclusion wall, and discriminatory educational practices. It recalls its motion of solidarity last year for the AUT resolution to exercise moral and professional responsibility.........

Conference invites members to consider their own responsibility for ensuring equity and non-discrimination 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.

Here's an indicator of how that policy is likely to operate in action. This, via Engage is a report of the antics of the very NATFHE London Regional conference delegates who put this motion up in the first place. It also shows what their real agenda about Israel is:

When I arrived at the Saturday 18 March (2006) London Regional Council, a discussion was taking place about the Region’s delegation to national NATFHE conference. Various speakers objected to one proposed delegate, Ronnie Fraser. Ronnie is a religious Jew and does not attend Saturday meetings, although he is a delegate to the Region from his branch.

Pete Green (ex-SWP) from Kingsway College said Ronnie should not be a delegate because he was a “Zionist and a racist.” I interrupted, saying that calling Ronnie Fraser a racist was a disgrace, and that the remark should be withdrawn.

Eventually Pete Green did “withdraw” the remark but in such a way that the allegation was both withdrawn and re-stated: Pete Green declared that Ronnie Frazer was not a racist, but that Zionists are racists and that Ronnie Frazer is a Zionist.

Although Pete Green’s remark was awful, at least he was being honest: others were trying to edge “the Jew” out on technical reasons of about his attendance — apparently a cover for political hostility.

The meeting discussed and defeated two amendments which I proposed to the two dreadful conference motions that are now on the NATFHE conference agenda.

The nature of “the debate” is important. It seemed impossible to make clear and direct points in this discussion. For example, no-one denied my characterisation of Hamas as profoundly reactionary, anti-working class, anti-semitic, anti-women and anti-gay, but the meeting still rejected the written criticisms of Hamas; objections to the demonisation of Israel were met with “the Palestinians are oppressed.” Clearly the Palestinians are oppressed, but this is no answer to the point.

Following the meeting I wrote to members of NATFHE’s executive committee asking how this culture of “left” anti-semitism could be dealt with. I got these replies:

Maire Daley: “I think you are wrong on almost everything you say.” Since this is no kind of reply, I asked her to positively state her views. She answered, “No, you may not have clarification — I have responded to you and now have no more time to discuss matters further.”

Andrew Price wrote: “I find the contents and tone of your original communication offensive... The policy of the Israeli Government has caused a lot of suffering to the Palestinian people. Zionism is a form of nationalism which, as a socialist, I oppose. To equate either of these statements with anti-Semitism, a form of racism, is a slur which I resent.”

Again, he avoids the point. I hadn’t objected to Zionism being characterised as a form of nationalism (I think it is), but as racism (which is stupid and offensive).

Mick Jardine wrote: “If there is a way of condemning Israeli government policy on any matter while remaining strongly supportive of a flourishing Israel and not anti-semitic, please advise.”

These three replies are typical of a particular strand of union opinion: short, flippant remarks which fail to answer any point that has been made, but which slot into the lazy, “common sense” “left” view in the union.

Steve Cushion wrote to say that he “supports a complete boycott of Israel. Israel is a colonial settler state and, as such, is built upon racist foundations.”

And, “To criticise Zionism and Israel is not to be anti-semitic, but rather it is criticism of a political philosophy that many of us believe is a blind alley for the Jewish people. The Zionist state’s reprehensible behaviour in the occupied territories has caused an increase rather than a decrease in anti-Jewish feeling in this world… A two state solution in Palestine institutionalises a racist divide in the region and is a bar to peace. The only possible solution is for a secular socialist state from the river to the sea.”

Andrew Price writes, “May I remind you as politely as possible that as an elected member of the Executive I am accountable to my constituency, FE members in Wales, which does not include you… In my view differences between Jews and Arabs have historically been fostered by imperialism. This in no way condones the state terrorism promoted by the Israeli Government against the oppressed people of Palestine. I also believe that the material resources exist in the Middle East to provide a decent life for all. Unfortunately what stands in the way of this is private ownership of the means of production. I therefore support a socialist federation of the Middle East.

“If you want to know more please study either the writings of Leon Trotsky on the Jewish question or contact my party, the Socialist Party. You may be unaware of the fact that as a lay activist I do not have the luxury of time to debate with you.”

This account was written by Mark Osborn, an activist of the Alliance for Workers' Liberty, a small Trotskyist sect which differs from the other Trotskyist sects whose members and ex-members he quotes. in characterising zionism-in-general as a form of nationalism no different from any other form of racism. Almost all the leading members of Engage are former members of the AWL who are now members of the Labour Party. Engage continues to link to AWL publications from its web site, and some of their leading members write for the AWL web site, advocating AWL policies, although they are members of the Labour Party. It accounts for their recurring need to characterize right wing zionist parties, such as Likud, as the equivalents of such murderous Palestinian terrorist groups as Hamas.

It's interesting to note that one of the people he quotes is a member of the NATFHE executive, the decision-making body of NATFHE, and a member of the Socialist Party, which is the rump of the famously disruptive Militant Tendency, which almost destroyed the Labour Party as an electable party in the 1970s and 1980s.

Such are the largely unchallenged activist members of the union which members of the Association of University Teachers voted to amalgamate with. I was a member of NATFHE for something like twenty years before I joined AUT, so I knew what I was talking about when I argued that for AUT to merge with NATFHE would be a disaster, both for the members' interests, and for union democracy generally.

The irony is that NATFHE represents the less prestigious universities-- those that are least likely to attract high flying PhD students from Israel-- and all the post-16 colleges. Those colleges are where training is delivered for electricians, hairdressers, restaurant staff, plumbers, technicians and all the others whose expertise helps to keep our society running. Does anyone seriously imagine that these revolutionary boycotters really represent the views of the lecturing staff who pay for them, and who they are supposed to represent?

Comments

[Neal]

Judy,

As we both predicted - and you are, as always, brilliant -, the bigots were going to return with their efforts to boycott Israel.

As we both predicted, there is no middle ground in which Israeli leaders or policies are conceded to be racist or wrong but should suffer no consequences. That middle ground - based on a lie, viz., that Israeli policy is racist, rather than what it really is, moderately nationalistic - does nothing to prevent boycott demands.

The first step in defending an interest under attack is to adopt an unequivocal position that is limited to the issue at hand. Any good lawyer or public relations adviser will tell you that. Then, as we say in America, hammer away at your position and only that position, staying relentlessly on message.

Some think that by adopting an "even-handed position" (i.e. the boycott petition is bad but occupation is also bad and that we must fight anti-Arab racism by Israelis, etc., etc.) you might somehow peel away some of those who support boycotts.

Instead, the half-way defense suggests that the boycotters have a point. That, frankly, divides Israesl's supporters, not those who support boycotts.

Opposing a bigoted boycott petition is the wrong time and place to take a position on Israel's control of the territories - whether such control is good or evil -. To peel away undecided people, adopt a narrow position regarding which differences of opinion about Israel's control of the territories play no part.

At this point, you now need to remind people, over and over and over again, what the Boycotters' real goal is. As, for example, Sue Blackwell claims, Israel is an illegitimate country. Which is to say, "occupation" has nothing to do with what she and the boycotters are advocating.

A principled response that is directed to a narrow issue - rather than sounding even-handed - will help peel away support for the boycott. And, note, you can hold any view about the territories and, in a different setting under different circumstances, urge the position that Israel to cede land, if that is your view.

When opposing bigots, you must fight fire with fire, not with appeasing equivocation. In this instance, it is as much the place of Jews in Europe as it is for Jews in Israel. Which is to say, if universities must boycott Israeli academics, the next step is to boycott supporters of Israel who work at UK universities. Or, in simple terms, the target will, in due course, become Jews at UK Universities.

[flora]

I strongly support Neal's opinion in every point, particularly his view of the strategy most appropriate to fight the threatened boycott by NATFHE.

[Don]

Too complex for the Brits, who aren't well-known for their depth. I think the oath could be simplified to the one used in the House of Commons prior to Lionel Rothschild's seating thereof.

Merely sear the oath 'on the True Faith of a Christian'. Or a Muslim or what may be. Judaism excluded of course.

[Yehudit]

Wow. Real people really talk like those parodies of lefty splinter groups in The Life of Brian.

And they really do run a large influential organization.

I still can't get my mind around that. Not so much their views, but the fact that they talk like that with no irony at all. I mean, you can't even tease them, it would go over their heads.

That's really scary.

[Paul]

Here is a few more

Many of my friends are Palestinians.

I would not mind living next to a Palestinian.

I would glady give up my Israeli citizenship to a Palestinian refugee.

[yair]

wow, this is a really clear and interesting piece of work. As a jew from holland i'm shocked by the replies you got and the actions taken by this union.
I don't know how you feel, but i feel it's very courageous how you stand up, but it also seems like a battle you can't win. These people seem very set in their ways. Anyway i still am pleased to see people standing up for their ideals like you do against the tide.
I have to say i am terribly disappointed in the british academics though....