Source: Jerusalem Post

Single article (for printing): UK 'regrets' NATFHE boycott decision, Talya Halkin (Updated 30/5/06)

By Talya Halkin, 28/5/06, Updated 30/5/06

A motion to boycott Israeli academics, which was approved on Monday by a vote of members of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, Britain's largest academic trade union, has provoked a wave of condemnations from Israeli and British officials and from senior academics and universities in Israel and abroad.

"Around the world this proposal has been rejected as an act of blatant discrimination," said Israel's Ambassador to the UK, Zvi Hefetz. "As a means of promoting dialogue and coexistence in the Middle East, an academic boycott of Israel is counterproductive in the extreme."

Following the vote, the union's official statement declared that "[The] Conference notes [the] continuing Israeli apartheid policies, including [the] construction of the exclusion wall, and discriminatory educational practices.

The call to consider a boycott of Israeli academics was passed with 106 votes in favor, 71 votes against and 21 abstentions.

"By pursuing such a policy, NATFHE will isolate its members and their students rather than isolating Israeli academics, who are [in] the forefront of international cooperation on academic study and research, including with Palestinian universities and institutions elsewhere in the Arab world," Hefetz added.

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Lord Triesman also expressed regret at the boycott vote. "We believe that such academic boycotts are counterproductive and retrograde. Far more can be obtained through dialogue and academic cooperation," he said.

The boycott motion approved by NATFHE will only be effective for three days due to a merger between NATFHE and the Association of University Teachers, a smaller union, which is scheduled to take place on June 1. NATFHE has indicated that the new body will not be bound by the decision.

Last year the AUT voted to boycott Haifa and Bar-Ilan universities, charging them with complicity in Israel's "suppression of the Palestinians." The council of the association reversed the decision after objections by leading scholars and academic organizations.

Following NATFHE's vote on Monday, University of Haifa President Aaron Ben-Ze'ev said the university strongly condemned the boycott decision.

"Any attempt to connect politics and academic research is pure McCarthyism," Ben-Ze'ev said. "The university will continue working in collaboration with its colleagues in Israel, Britain and elsewhere, in order to protect the principle of academic freedom," he said.

Professor Gerald Steinberg, director of the Interdisciplinary Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation and a member of the IAB executive committee, added that "Such political actions ... destroy the academic process, since we will no longer be able to trust the objectivity and professional detachment of academics who are involved in 'silent boycotts,' the journals they edit, and the peer review processes in which they participate."

"None of the developments in our region interest these people behind the boycott," said Professor Wistrich, an expert on anti-Semitism at Hebrew University. "This is a real obsession."

Education Minister Yuli Tamir also expressed strong criticism of the boycott motion, as did Zevulun Orlev, chair of the Knesset's Science and Technology Committee.

The Academic Friends of Israel in Britain also released a statement condemning the boycott.

"This only brings dishonor and sheer ridicule upon NATFHE which can be rightly called and remembered as a racist and discriminatory union," the statement said. The organization said it would continue its policy of exposing academics who boycott Israeli institutions and academics, and added that it believed anyone who pursues such an action is guilty of breaking discrimination and equal opportunities laws as well as university rules and their own contracts of employment.

"There are countless Palestinian and Arab collaborations with Israel in agriculture, medicine, science and many other fields, as well as burgeoning links between academics in this country and Israel," said Ronnie Fraser, director of the Academic Friends of Israel. "If the sponsors of this boycotting campaign succeeded in something, it is only to undermine further progress, collaboration and peace in the Middle East and to marginalize the standing of NATFHE, its successor union, the UCU and British academia."

The International Advisory Board for Academic Freedom (IAB) at Bar-Ilan University also expressed its deep dissatisfaction with the boycott decision.

IAB Chairman Yosef Yeshurun, provost of Bar-Ilan University, added that while pro-boycott activists were a marginal group, the majority of union members were not necessarily aware of the intricacies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the range of political opinions on Israeli campuses, and could be personally influenced by the boycott decision in the long-term. While senior Israeli scientists would not be hurt by such decisions, he said, the results could be detrimental to young scholars.

Yeshurun also said that the IAB would budget funds for collaboration with English academics in order to encourage scientists to work against the boycott.

Source: Israel National News

Single article (for printing): INN: Sharp Reactions to UK Teacher Vote to Boycott Israel Academia 29/5/06

23:05 May 29, '06 / 2 Sivan 5766
by Hana Levi Julian

The 69,000-member National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) voted to boycott Israeli academic professionals and institutions of higher learning unless they “dissociate themselves” from Israel’s “apartheid policy” in Judea and Samaria.

The reactions to the decision were swift.

The British government at once released a statement condemning the move In an effort to contain the damage. A statement by Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Lord Triesman, the UK expressed its regrets and called the decision “counterproductive and retrograde”. Triesman was careful, however, to add, “We also recognize the independence of the NATFHE”.

Triesman served as deputy general secretary of the union in 1984. He also served as general secretary for the Association of University Teachers (AUT) trade union from 1993 to 2001.

Israel Education Minister Yuli Tamir slammed the NATFHE on the vote. She had already spoken last week with the British minister for higher education and asked him to step in to prevent the boycott. “The decision to boycott academic institutions is a move worthy of condemnation and revulsion,” she said. “Those who are implementing this boycott are harming academia’s freedom and turning it into a tool for political forces.”

In an appeal to the international community, NRP Knesset member Zevulun Orlev wrote to parliament members in Britain, France and Germany to demand they join with Israel in condemning the action. Orlev, chairman of the Knesset Science Committee, told his European counterparts, “This is a test of the free world. We expect you to condemn this anti-Semitic and racist decision and to help institutions of higher education in your countries tighten their cooperation with science, technology and higher education institutes in Israel.”

Professor Yehezkiel Teler, Vice Chairman of the Higher Education Council called the decision an echo of the Nazi boycott prior to World War II. “Now Britain is politicizing academia, in opposition to every academic value accepted in the world,” he said. “This will come back on them like a boomerang,” he predicted.

Haifa University, represented by its president, Aharon Ben Ze’ev also slammed the decision as a political move unbefitting an academic organization. “Any attempt to create ties between politics and academic research is simply McCarthyism,” he said.

Professor Yosef Yeshurun, the rector at Bar Ilan University, called the decision “negative”. He added that it “destroys bridges instead of building them”.

Israeli and British student groups organized campaigns against the boycott. Itay Shonshein, the head of Israel’s National Student Union, called on the British National Union of Students to protest as well.

“Students in Israel who serve in the IDF are convinced that the picture drawn by the lecturers is one-sided and unfair,” said Shonshein. He described the union’s decision as “inciting and racist”.

The head of the New York-based Anti-Defamation League, Abe Foxman also joined the condemnations. “The approval of the NATFHE resolution calling for a boycott of Israeli academics and institutions represents a stunning setback for academic freedom,” he said.

There were actually two motions which were voted on, both making reference to political issues involving relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The first called upon the NATFHE membership to help aid, protect and support PA institutions and universities, and to maintain ties with the PA. The first vote also accused Britain of “scandalous incitement” against Hamas, according to the Ynet news service report.

The second motion called for the boycott against “Israel’s persistent apartheid policy”. The new security fence was cited as part of the “apartheid policy”. In addition, the union leveled accusations of discriminatory practices in the education system.

Both motions were approved in a vote of 106 to 71 with 21 abstentions. In addition to boycotting Israeli institutions and academic professionals, union members will also no longer submit articles to Israeli research journals.

Three days before the vote, the British newspaper The Guardian printed a letter signed by more than 600 professors and other academics, urging the union to drop the motion. A petition with more than 4,700 signatures was also sent to NATFHE president John Wilkin by the Scholars for Peace in the Middle East organization, based in the U.S.

The pressure intensified the union’s secretary general, Paul Mackney's, determination to push the motion through. “I have received literally thousands of emails seeking to ‘educate’ me on the foolishness of our stance in support of the rights of Palestinians,” he said on Saturday.

“Many emails berate threats to deny academic freedom for Israeli professors but fail to mention that academic freedom in Palestine is a hollow joke,” he said. He added that more PA Arabs than Israelis have been killed since the beginning of the current intifada in September 2000, that 185 PA schools have been shelled or fired at, as opposed to ‘one Israeli school’, and that the unemployment rate is higher among PA Arabs.

“I will not be bullied into silence,” he said. Mackney denied that the boycott was an expression of anti-semitism. “Criticizing the Israeli government does not make me anti-Semitic, any more than criticizing Bush or Blair makes me anti-Anglo-Saxon,” he added.

The union members were also urged to condemn the freeze on funds to the PA initiated by the European Union and the United States after terror organization Hamas took over the government. A number of Western nations decided to cut off funding to the Hamas-led PA government until it complies with Quartet demands to formally recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce terrorism and uphold agreements negotiated by the previous PA government.

Union spokesman Trevor Phillips said the motions were not a call to boycott Israel, but rather to recommend to its membership that each institution and academic professional consider taking action privately.

According to a report by Ynet, the AUT is expected to merge with the NATFHE in the near future, thereby renewing the boycott for the AUT as well.

Source: The Guardian

Single article (for printing): Guardian: Lecturers back boycott of Israeli academics 30/5/06

By Benjamin Joffe-Walt, Tuesday May 30, 2006

Britain's largest lecturers' union yesterday voted in favour of a boycott of Israeli lecturers and academic institutions who do not publicly dissociate themselves from Israel's "apartheid policies".

Delegates at the annual conference of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (Natfhe) in Blackpool narrowly backed the proposal, despite mounting international pressure from those opposed to a boycott, including a petition from more than 5,000 academics and a plea from the Israeli government. The decision was greeted with disappointment and anger by anti-boycott campaigners last night, but Palestinian groups issued declarations of support.

Presented on the final day of the Natfhe conference, the motion criticised "Israeli apartheid policies, including construction of the exclusion wall, and discriminatory educational practices" and invited members to "consider the appropriateness of a boycott of those that do not publicly dissociate themselves from such policies".

After failed efforts to prevent the debate, speakers outlined the litany of difficulties experienced by Palestinian students and lecturers living under occupation, including the number of Palestinian schools shelled by the Israeli army.

"The majority of Israeli academics are either complicit or acquiescent in their government's policies in the occupied territories," said Tom Hickey, a philosophy lecturer from the University of Brighton, member of the union's national executive committee and proposer of the motion. "Turning a blind eye to what an Israeli colleague thinks about the actions of their government is a culpable blindness."

Delegate John Morgan, who seconded the motion, said there was no academic freedom for Palestinians.

But the union's general secretary, Paul Mackney, spoke against the motion: "Most of us are very angry about the occupation of Palestine," he said, "but this isn't the motion and this isn't the way. Any motion to boycott requires the highest level of legitimacy. As far as I can see no more than a couple of branches have discussed this motion. You cannot build a boycott on conference rhetoric."

Natfhe delegate Ronnie Fraser, chair of Academic Friends of Israel, the primary opponents of the motion on the conference floor, said he was "not happy at all", adding that the vote brought "dishonour and sheer ridicule" upon the union.

Last year the Association of University Teachers (AUT) elected to impose an academic boycott on two Israeli universities. But after an international outcry and a revolt by members it reversed the decision.

Yesterday's boycott resolution will have an official shelf life of less than three days, as on Thursday the two unions will merge, forming the world's largest higher education union with more than 110,000 members. The resolution will only be advisory to the new union. But proponents say the Natfhe decision is important and represents a step change in the wider boycott campaign against Israel.

Aharon Ben-Ze'ev of Haifa university told the Guardian he was "very disappointed", adding: "This ... will only serve to impede the peace process and strengthen extremism on both sides. I never say to British colleagues if you don't subscribe to my beliefs I will boycott you."

David Hirsh, an AUT member, added: "It may not have anti-semitic motivations, but if you organise an academic boycott of Israeli Jewish academics but no one else in the world, that is an anti-semitic policy. What's Natfhe going to do? Set up a committee before which Israeli academics will be hauled?"

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel sent its support, saying British academics had "proved once again that they are up to the challenge of meeting injustice".

Stephen Rose of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, who began the boycott campaign with a letter to the Guardian in 2002, said he was delighted, adding: "We recognise that this has not been an easy decision faced with the extreme pressure put upon the union by outside forces." He said the vote was "a historic step forward" in "helping persuade our Israeli academic colleagues that it is time to cease silent complicity with the illegal acts of the Israeli state".

But he warned that this was likely to be the start rather than the end of the debate. "I expect those people who oppose it to mobilise on UK campuses and around the world in the weeks ahead."

Backstory

The first rumblings of an academic boycott surfaced in 2002 when Stephen Rose, professor of biology at the Open University, wrote to the Guardian arguing for a moratorium on European funding of Israeli research. The campaign gathered pace at last year's AUT conference in Eastbourne where delegates voted to boycott Bar-Ilan and Haifa universities because of their alleged complicity in the Israeli government's policies. The move provoked a storm of international protest and a month later the boycott was overturned at a special conference.

Source: Ynet News

Single article (for printing): Ynet: Britain slams Israel academic boycott 29/5/06

Moran Zelikovich, 05.29.06, 19:46

Foreign Office minister condemns UK lecturers' union decision to boycott Israeli lecturers, saying 'we believe such academic boycotts are counterproductive, retrograde'; MK Orlev: Decision anti-Semitic, racist

The decision by a UK teachers' union to encourage the boycott of Israeli academic institutions which do not renounce "apartheid policies" has sparked reaction in Israel and abroad.

The National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) voted in favor of the boycott on Monday.

British Foreign Office Minister Lord Triesman said his office regrets the decision.

"We regret today's decision by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education to vote in favor of boycotting Israeli academics and institutions," Lord Triesman said in a statement.

The statement continued: "We believe that such academic boycotts are counterproductive and retrograde. Far more can be obtained through dialogue and academic cooperation."

Education Minister Yuli Tamir said the decision is "revulsive" and should be condemned.

"He who issues the boycott harms academic freedom and turns it into a tool for political players," she said in a statement.

The chairman of the Knesset Committee for Science and Technology, MK Zevulun Orlev, asked his British counterpart to condemn the decision.

"We expect the British to decry the anti-Semitic and racist decision to encourage institutions for higher education to tighten cooperation with Israeli academic institutions," Orlev wrote in a letter addressed to members of the British parliament.

'Same racism that apartheid regime exercised'

Boaz Toporovsky, head of the Tel Aviv University Student Union said the decision contravenes freedom of expression, a pillar of academic life.

"In the enlightened and western world, freedom of expression is of utmost importance, especially in academia," he said.

"What they are doing to us is the same racism that the apartheid regime exercised against blacks in South Africa and not otherwise as we are being accused," he added.

Haifa University on Monday rejected "with disgust" the UK lecturers' union decision.

"Any attempt to mix politics with academic research is McCarthyism," President Prof. Aaron Ben-Ze’ev.

The Israeli Embassy in London said it is encouraged by messages of condemnation received from around the world.

"This proposal has been rejected around the world, which sees in it manifest discrimination," a statement read.

The Academic Friends of Israel, a UK body set up to resist the boycott and fight anti-Semitism at UK educational institutions, described the approval of the boycott as "a dangerous path."

Hagit Klaiman, Roee Nahmias and Ahiya Raved contributed to the report

Source: Ynet News

Single article (for printing): Ynet: UK educators shun Israeli academics 29/5/06

Hagit Klaiman, Published: 29 May 2006

One of Britain’s biggest teachers’ unions votes to shun Israeli academic institutions that don't renounce 'apartheid policies'

LONDON - Britain's National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) Monday approved an academic boycott on Israeli higher education institutions that do not condemn Israel’s “apartheid policy.” NAFTHE, which with a membership of 67,000 educators is one of the UK’s largest teachers' unions, voted 106 to 71, with 21 abstentions, in favor of the boycott during a Blackpool convention.

The move to boycott Israeli academics reopened a front which formerly involved a different British teachers’ association, the Association of University Teachers (AUT), which advanced a motion in April of last year to shun Haifa and Bar Ilan Universities. Responding to the urgings of Palestinian organizations, AUT declared the boycott and decided to exclude the two institutions from conventions and research projects.

A month later following a wide Israeli lobbyist campaign, the union voted to cancel the boycott. Soon after Monday’s Blackpool summit, the two teachers’ organizations are expected to unite into one association.

At the Blackpool summit, two motions were put to vote. The first called to help aid, protect and support Palestinian institutions and universities in light of the continuing attacks by the Israeli government, and to maintain ties with the Palestinian government to underscore this support. This motion also accuses Britain of scandalous incitement against Hamas.

The second motion called to renew last year’s boycott, and mentions “Israel’s persistent apartheid policy,” which includes the construction of the security fence and other discriminatory practices in the education system.

'Consider your conduct'

The motion invites members of the organization to consider their conduct to promise equality and non-discrimination in academic ties with Israeli academic institutions, and to way shunning those that don’t publicly distance themselves from such a country.

Natphe spokesman Trevor Phillips told Ynet that the organization did not take a decision to boycott Israel, but to recommend to its members to take such a decision on a personal basis. It seems that the organization decided to soften the formulation of the boycott to appear as if it is it not forcing its members to carry it out, but only calling on it to take a personal decision according to their conscience.

Phillips added that he does not believe he is a member of a racist organization, and that it was in insult to think this "only because the organization was criticizing Israeli government policy."

Meanwhile, union members heard an urgent recommendation to condemn a decision by the EU and the US to end the flow of funds to Palestinian institutions following the rise of Hamas to power, and called on the restrictions to end.

Vice Chairman of the Higher Education Council, Professor Yehezkiel Teler, said that the decision by a British lecturers' union to boycott Israeli academic institutions in Israel was reminiscent of the boycott in Nazi Germany.

"Now Britain is politicizing academia, in opposition to every academic value accepted in the world. This will come back on them like a boomerang. They are isolating themselves and those who boycott will in the end by boycotted. It is a shame that England is leading this anti-democratic and anti-academic step," said Teler.

British Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Lord Triesman said in response: "We regret today's decision by the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education to vote in favour of boycotting Israeli academics and institutions."

"The British Government has a record of supporting academic freedom for academics throughout the world. We also recognise the independence of NATFHE. We believe that such academic boycotts are counterproductive and retrograde. Far more can be obtained through dialogue and academic cooperation," the minister said in a statement.

Source: The Associated Press

Single article (for printing): AP: British academics' union votes to boycott Israeli academics 29/5/06

LONDON

Members of Britain's largest college teachers' union on Monday voted to boycott Israeli academics over what members termed "apartheid" policies and discriminatory practices toward Palestinians.

The 69,000-member National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) passed the motion at its annual conference in the northern English city of Blackpool. Two parts of the proposal passed with a show of hands, while a third went to a vote.

But union spokesman Trevor Phillips said the motion will only act as an advisory policy and will not necessarily be adopted, as the union is to merge this week with the Association of University Teachers, or AUT, to become the University and College Union with more than 100,000 members.

Ronnie Fraser, director of the Academic Friends of Israel, said his group would continue fighting the boycott and called the union's move "racist." "If the sponsors of this boycotting campaign succeeded in something, it is only to undermine further progress, collaboration and peace in the Middle East and to marginalize the standing of NATFHE," Fraser said.

The third section of the motion called on union members to consider if they should refuse to cooperate with Israeli academics or Israeli research journals that do not "disassociate themselves" from the policies described in the motion.

It said members had a responsibility to ensure "equity and nondiscrimination" in Israeli education institutions and was passed with 106 members in favor, 71 against and 21 abstentions, Phillips said.

The first two parts of the boycott motion noted Israel's "apartheid practices" toward Palestinians, including the construction of a wall between Israel and the West Bank, and called for more meetings in secondary schools and universities on the subject.

Delegates also said a potential humanitarian disaster could be caused by withholding EU and U.S. aid since Hamas won the Palestinian election in January.

The proposal reopened debate sparked last year, when the 40,000-member AUT voted to boycott Israel's Haifa and Bar-Ilan universities for actions which it said undermined Palestinian rights and academic freedom.

That union said it targeted Bar-Ilan University for its links to the College of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank settlement of Ariel. It accused Haifa University of threatening to fire an Israeli political science lecturer for supporting a student's research into allegations of killings by Israeli troops.

The universities said many elements of the allegations were false, and the move was condemned by the Israeli and British governments. The decision was overturned after a month. Some British academics continue to push for ties to be cut.

Professor Richard Seaford, a classicist at Exeter University, told the British Broadcasting Corp. this week that he and other academics were already engaged in an informal boycott, refusing to submit work to Israeli journals or collaborate with Israeli academics.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science urged the union to withdraw the motion, calling it "antithetical to the positive role of free scientific inquiry in improving the lives of all citizens of the world, and in promoting cooperation among nations, despite political differences."

Blog reports

Source: Jon Pike on Comment is Free

Single post (for printing)Jon Pike - A travesty of democracy, 1/6/06

1st June 2006

Natfhe's move to boycott Israeli academics was a gesture forced through by a tiny, SWP-organised minority.

Yes, it's another piece about the Natfhe boycott. But no, I'm not going to rehash the arguments. My intention is to understand what happened at Natfhe conference and to try to explain it to those many people who will be surprised by this decision. I also have a couple of questions commenters can answer.

First, a bit of history. The AUT, my union, voted by a very narrow margin (of four votes) to boycott two Israeli universities, and then, overwhelmingly, to overturn that boycott. What happened between these two votes to make the AUT change its mind? Was it "Zionist pressure"? Was it "slanderous emails"? That's what Steven Rose says. But there is another, more straightforward explanation. Judge for yourself.

At the following universities, AUT branches had meetings of the membership about the boycott between the two meetings of council: Bath, Bristol, Keele, Imperial, Oxford, Warwick, Cambridge, Birmingham, the LSE, Manchester, King's College London, University College London, the Open University, Goldsmiths, London, Leeds, York, Lancaster and Kingston.

The Scottish council of the AUT consulted its branches, debated the matter, supported positive links and opposed a boycott. Thousands of AUT members turned out and voted. Here are three snapshots.

At University College London, where the branch executive is dominated by supporters of the boycott, the boycott resolutions were voted down by 10 to one, with over 150 members at the meeting. At a big meeting at the Open University, I debated with Steven Rose. The resolution I supported was passed, and Steven's was defeated. We wanted to ensure that delegates opposed the boycotts and passed a mandating resolution, (though Steven went on to ignore that).

At Birmingham, Sue Blackwell's new call, with new "evidence" for a boycott of Haifa was defeated. At branches up and down the country, on all the big campuses, there were debates and meetings. Not a single branch supported the specific boycotts of Haifa and Bar-Ilan; one or two thought boycotting was not wrong in principle; one or two thought there should be action taken against Ariel College, which is actually in the occupied West Bank. But there was no majority in any branch for the sort of boycott proposed by Natfhe or for the boycotts of Bar-Ilan and Haifa.

Contrast Natfhe. The Natfhe boycott simply has not been discussed by the members. At Natfhe's conference, the strongly pro-Palestine general secretary opposed the boycott resolution for precisely this reason. He asked for a show of hands of those branches that had discussed the matter. Two hands went up.

We know that there was some discussion at Middlesex, and the vote went (as far as I'm concerned) the wrong way: 10 to six. That's 16 members of Natfhe. There was a pro-boycott vote at one of the three campuses at UEL, where about a dozen members voted. So the UEL delegate might have a defence. There may have been a vote at Brighton, but lots of the staff there know nothing about it, and are bemused at the shooting to national fame of their Natfhe rep, Tom Hickey, And that's it: perhaps 30 members.

So this is what happened. A bunch of the far left, organised by the SWP but with no mandate on the matter from their members, pushed though a gesture resolution. The SWP is in a strong position in Natfhe because of its arcane regional structure and because ideological zealotry counts for a lot when the time of academics and teachers is so squeezed. The story will be familiar to anyone who has participated on the left in organisations where small numbers of committed activists can dominate and can get way out of line from the views of the membership.

That's why participative local branch meetings are so important.

But on the boycott issue, these simply didn't take place. The unrepresentative delegates have damaged Natfhe, not just because of the politics of the boycott but by the way in which they pushed it through, without discussion by the members. Who thinks this? Among others, the general secretary of Natfhe himself.

Remember this: thousands of AUT members had the chance to take a vote last year; thousands took that opportunity. This year, apart from the delegates, perhaps fewer than 50 Natfhe members voted on the boycott.

If I'm wrong, Natfhe delegates (Coventrian, AndreBreton, anyone else) please let me know; if you're a member of Natfhe, let me know whether you were consulted. Delegates, let me know, in the comments, how you consulted with members before voting to commit them to this policy. Let's see if we can get past the 150 mark. Why150? Well, let's see whether Natfhe managed to consult more members than turned up to a single branch the AUT - at University College London. So far, we are certain about 16, , at Middlesex.

So just give me the name of the branch, the numbers voting and when the vote took place. You can do this anonymously. Perhaps I know nothing and I'll be deluged with outraged citations of big meetings, membership votes and so on. But perhaps you'll patiently explain to me that "that's not how democracy works in Natfhe". Perhaps there's some strange, metaphysical form of representation that can dispense with actually asking the members of your union what they think. OK, explain away.

But if I'm right, then it's clear what we have here: contempt for the members and a travesty of democracy.

Commentary by Andre Oboler, ZOTW Special

Single post (for printing)David Hirsh - Say no to an eye for an eye (with ZOTW commentary) 2/6/05

While I feel this article is a valuable contribution to the debate, I must say that I disagree with it. While David's position and actions are very constructive from a left perspective. I also think the ADL's actions are constructive from a non UK (and non left) perspective. They were not the only ones to propose such a boycott of the boycotters, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has done the same (and possibly first!)[1].

While this might not be a valid leftist position, not everyone is a leftist. It takes all sorts of action for all sorts of people. For a US academic, refusing to review a paper by Richard Seaford [2] [3] might be decent and positive action, though you may morally object.

Boycotting an academic for discrimination in their academic duties and role within the academic community may for many be morally justified, where as a boycott based on nationality and political beliefs never is. The difference is that for such a boycott to be legitimate only academics who have ACTUALLY boycotted other academics would qualify. This is not thought police (as the boycott's list is) but rather repercussion for actions within academia which are (for legitimate reasons related to academia) unacceptable to the community.

References:
[1] http://www.zionismontheweb.org/academic_boycott/UK_boycott_redolent_of_Nazi_campaign.htm
[2] http://www.zionismontheweb.org/academic_boycott/an_academic_boycott_is_on.htm
[3] http://www.zionismontheweb.org/academic_boycott/seaford_boycotts_israel.htm

Say no to an eye for an eye

Vote of shame

Spare us the analogies

Surprise, surprise NATFHE passes boycott motion

UK to Israeli Profs: Class Dismissed