Nobel prizewinners denounce the NATFHE boycott

After I posted on Wednesday about the forthcoming battle of the ritual letters for against the proposed NATFHE boycott and blacklisting of any Israeli universities and academics who don't agree to denounce the Israeli occupation, I got an email drawing my attention to a series of articles in the Times Higher Education Supplement opposing the NATFHE proposals.

Several of the articles are subscription only, though it's easy enough to sign up for a two week trial that allows you to read them.

But this one is freely available. And it makes some telling points about the strong opposition of some of the world's most distinguished scholars to the politics behind the whole idea of political bans and demands for ritual denunciations.

Eight top scientists have already reiterated a protest they made during last year's Association of University Teachers boycott debacle.

Writing in The Times Higher, Steven Weinberg, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Texas at Austin, winner of the 1979 physics prize, said he hoped that any boycott would be extended to also apply to him.

Aaron Ciechanover (chemistry 2004), research professor at the Technion in Haifa, Israel, threatened to pull out of two prestigious UK lectures. "I will have to cancel as a pre-emptive measure, as those who invited me will find themselves in an embarrassing situation... in order to abide with the boycott guidelines," he said.

The scientists argued that the proposed action would poison the exchange of ideas at the heart of academic discourse. Frank Wilczek (physics, 2004), professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said:

"The primary value of the scientific community is pursuit of understanding through free and open discourse. The clarity of that beacon to humanity should not be compromised for transient political concerns."

Walter Kohn (chemistry, 1998), professor of physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said: "I strongly oppose all academic boycotts based on religious, political or ideological reasons as intrinsically inimical to academic freedom. Scholars have the great privilege - and duty - to set a much-needed example of human solidarity and co-operation."

David Gross (physics, 2004), Jean-Marie Lehn (chemistry, 1987), Daniel Kahneman (economics, 2002) and Dudley Herschbach (chemistry, 1986) also voiced their opposition to a boycott.

Unfortunately, this one, which includes a full discussion of his position by Steven Weinberg  is a subscription-only link, but here are some of his most powerful arguments:

If the lecturers' union Natfhe votes to boycott Israeli academics who refuse to oppose Israel's policies, then it will deserve the moral condemnation of the world. Israel is a democracy that extends full civil rights to all citizens - Arabs as well as Jews. It is in the course of withdrawing from Gaza and most of the West Bank, and it actively pursues ties with Arab academic institutions.

If the urge to boycott is irresistible, why not boycott academics in Sudan, where a government-supported militia rapes and murders blacks? Why not boycott academics in Saudi Arabia, where no Jew or Christian is allowed to become a citizen? Why not boycott academics in Iran, where courts throw Jews into jail on trumped-up espionage charges? For that matter, why not boycott academics in all countries that have adopted Islamic law (sharia), which discriminates against women and makes it a capital offence for Muslims to renounce Islam?

Perhaps one could look beyond the issue of discrimination and boycott academics in North Korea, which has the most repressive government on Earth, or those in Gaza and the West Bank, where a government of terrorists has just been elected...

It is never a good idea for academics to boycott colleagues in other countries on political grounds. During the Cold War, American and Soviet scientists were careful to keep intellectual communication open; this not only served the cause of science, but promoted personal relationships that led to initiatives in arms control. In a similar spirit, when I ran the Jerusalem Winter School of Theoretical Physics we did what we could to recruit Arab students from Muslim countries whose governments discriminated against Jews. We never dreamt of boycotting them.

The Natfhe draft proposal blames Israel for "construction of the exclusion wall". This barrier does impose a nuisance on both Arabs and Jews. However, it is not being built because Jews do not want to associate with Arabs. It is because they do not want to be murdered by them.

There was no thought of a wall until the intifada in 2002 reached new heights of brutality. In fact, the Israeli wall is not very different from the 13-mile "Peace Line" in Belfast, built to curb violence between Catholic and Protestant neighbourhoods. Even though incomplete, the barrier works: it has already greatly reduced the number of deaths of Israelis at the hands of suicide bombers. Since the wall saves lives, one marvels at the callousness of a call for Israelis to die so that Arabs will not be inconvenienced.

If you do sign up to the trial link, you can compare that with the arguments offered by representatives of those Palestinian organizations who call for the boycott, with their constant refrain that Israel is an apartheid state and the separation barrier is an apartheid wall.

And if you want to dip into the history of the battle of the group letters that lies behind this, Tom Gross has an archive of the letters that were written last year, including the original letter by the wider group of Nobel prizewinners which the THES refers to above.

HAT TIP: PT

Comments

[JJM]

Steven Weinberg makes an excellent point when he more or less asks: why Israel?

Why not Sudan or a host of unsavoury countries that actually do have pretty dubious reputations in terms of "human rights"?

One BIG candidate, with lots of students and academics in the UK:

The People's Republic of China.

But not a peep out of NAFTHE or AUT.

[Inna]

Have just been reading Engage's web site. One woman writes:

"I was recently asked if I would mark exams and dissertations - for very good pay - to cover the work left unmarked by strike action. While I fundamentally disagree with this tactic of not setting/marking, my immediate, unequivocal reaction was no -- I don't scab.

"The re-appearance of this boycott issue and the arguments presented to support it has made me think again. If the branch of the university supports this motion I will scab; in fact, I will actively seek further opportunities to scab.

"I cannot and will not support a union branch that promotes McCarthyite loyalty tests, that adopts a de facto anti-Semitism, that re-creates a system of special categories for Jews (although 'good' Israeli Jews are allowed an academic life -- perhaps they will be given green stars?), and that fatuously claims this is based on 'rights.'

...

"It is not a case of tit for tat; rather they will have drawn a line and thus asked me to stand with them or against them. I feel I must stand against them."

I wonder how many feel (and will do) the same?

Regards,

Inna

[lisoosh]

They might want to add to the section on Saudi Arabia that it also prevents PALESTINIANS from becoming citizens, even those born there which would be considered rather important if they are so invested in Palestinian human rights.

[szenidedatz]

This Israel boycott thing is reminiscent of the Bavarian Academy's expulsion of Einstein in Nazi Germany. It looks like Steve Rose and other idiots have again biten off more than they can swallow.