The universities' witch-hunt against the Jews

Terry

Shameful. The Nazis are winning a posthumous victory via the leftofascist movement. That's why we need Israel. A place to which Jews can ultimately go to seek refuge from this racist pseudo-academic scum.

Water

"If the Motion is passed it would expose Jewish members of the Union to indirect discrimination... Additionally, the Union faces potential liability for acts of harassment on grounds of race or nationality" that's terrible and out right injustice. All the Jewish scholars I've come across have been incredibly amiable. This is just despicable, ghastly, and truly wrong.

Water

"If the Motion is passed it would expose Jewish members of the Union to indirect discrimination... Additionally, the Union faces potential liability for acts of harassment on grounds of race or nationality" that's terrible and out right injustice. All the Jewish scholars I've come across have been incredibly amiable. This is just despicable, ghastly, and truly wrong.

"A Time To Speak"

Let them boycott -- if the clique can get it passed. And if the still-sane British academics go along with it.

It is Israel today that is on the cutting edge of research and advancement of knowledge, and creativity in the sciences.

A boycott would be a loss for Britain, not for Israel.

N. Simon

It looks like it won't be too long before the UCU force Jews to wear yellow stars stitched to their clothing...

Shy Guy

"And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse..."
- Genesis 12:3

Nuf said.

Water

Shy Guy sounds like a Karma in a manner of speaking.

Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA

This is indeed a very dangerous move. The next stage will be that academics from British universities whose subject matter deals in any way with Judaism, Israel, or have colleagues in Israel, will also have to pass the UCU test.

No wonder that standards at many British universities are now deplorable. Academia has become a joke.

The sooner that academia begins to invest time and money in teaching and research - the better. Otherwise, the best British students will opt to study elsewhere and British academics will find themselves out of a job.

Ron

This latest attempt is just another reminder of the sad state of the British Academia and to some extent the society as a whole.
Israeli academics are attracted to the UK for many reasons, a major one is familiarity with the language but they should ask themselves whether that’s enough.
Do they really want to spend there time in such a morally decaying institution that is going against its own principals and those of the academic world. It is rather the Israeli academics who should do all to avoid this ‘sick man’ of the European Academia.

Shy Guy

Water
May 28th, 2008 12:28pm

Shy Guy sounds like a Karma in a manner of speaking.

Yeh. Me and Sharon Stone.

john

Boycotts peacefully indicate disapproval. We can recall successful boycotts of South Africa. Is the difference here quite as enormous as the supporters of Melanie Phillips' position seem to maintain? The left is generally identified with the pro-Palestinian cause in a way that the right tends not to be. Does this make them monsters? I would think that the assumption of UCU that left-leaning causes belong to them to promote by right was just as significant a complaint.

Nick

Just wondering: would all those university teachers (and this country badly needs more social scientists) like to press for a boycott of British universities because of Iraq? After all that would give them (even) more time on their hands to mount more boycotts. And i doubt anyone would notice if the country's sociology departments stopped working

Adam B.

When I was growing up, we learned at school how Nazism grew in Germany, how an entire country became psychotic, a mass madness. It seemed distant, as if such a phenomenon was consigned to history. Now, with this disgusting and almost unbelievable step by UCU, I see how these things can develop, in small stages at first, until the madness becomes mainstream, and voices of reason and moderation are sidelined,into the wilderness. The Green Party incidentally has also made boycotting the Jewish state official policy. That's ONLY Israel, no cause for concern in Burma, China, Zimbabwe, Iran etc. It truly is a mass psychosis.

Ravi

Boycotts peacefully indicate disapproval. We can recall successful boycotts of South Africa. Is the difference here quite as enormous as the supporters of Melanie Phillips' position seem to maintain? The left is generally identified with the pro-Palestinian cause in a way that the right tends not to be. Does this make them monsters? I would think that the assumption of UCU that left-leaning causes belong to them to promote by right was just as significant a complaint. You just don't get it do you? The process of the boycott in interrogating members of the UCU as to their beliefs over the rights of Israel and subjecting ONLY Israel professors and students to the point "Either you support a boycott or we don't deal with you" or "If you support the State of Israel then we won't deal with you" is RACIALLY BASED intimidation. This breaches common law and the UCU's own charter. Hence, it is illegal. It is NOT illegal to Boycott Israel or Israeli goods. Go ahead, except it is impossible. I urge everyone to read the legal opinion. It is a master-class in outing Antisemitism and directly linking criticism of Israel to Antisemitism.

Dee Ranged

UCU SHAME, SHAME AND MORE SHAME!

Kim Hartveld

Why not simply reintroduce the Nuremberg Laws and get it over with?

FinanceDoc

john

Just wondering: did you even read the legal opinion linked by Melanie? The issue here is not a "peaceful" boycott as you suggest -- in itself wrong-headed and discriminatory as it fails to deal even-handedly with Arab rejectionism of a sovereign state and relentless acts of terrorism directed at Israeli civilians.

The issue is that with this proposal, the UCU is openly advocating discrimination and harassment against anyone who does not toe the line of the UCU governing board -- including and particularly Jews who can be expected to be sympathetic to the Israeli view.

That's what makes this motion particularly odious and frankly, Nazi-esque.

Brian

Melanie, thank you for publicising this unbelievably shameful day in academia.
Will this hideous Motion also be applied to the Jewish doctors, dentists and research staff who teach at the medical and dental schools within British universities?

It can't be that many years now, before we watch on the evening TV news, gleeful mobs burning books outside British academic and other libraries....

During Mao's 'Great Cultural Revolution' which gripped China forty years ago like a collective dementia, one of the most demented of its images was film of an emminent and frail Chinese professor being paraded through the streets in a rubbish cart wearing a dunce's hat and a placard which apparently proclaimed he had 'erred' in some academic opinion. Young storm-troopers in olive uniforms, brandishing Mao's 'Little Red Book' rained scorn and abuse on him.

Perhaps, if it happens here one day, we will (if we are still around) remember this day when every Jewish academic in Britain - and by extension every Jew - was made the less secure, the less free, the less equal.

Nice Jewish Girl

Melanie, why are you so surprised? The anti-Israel, anti-Jewish liberal left runs the british educational establishment at all levels. Just take a look at some of the Opinion threads on tes.co.uk if you really need evidence of anti-semitism in the education system.

Robert (Kettering)

Interesting that these same Universities and Colleges are receiving money from Saudis without question?!

Maybe the "Union" would like to ask the Saudis and their Islamonazi supporters about their views on women's rights or perhaps Gays?

Quite a worrying development.

N. Simon

In Moscow in 1954 Zionism was a crime. It was outlawed, illegal. Jews could not openly show their support for Israel.

Today leftists in the UK and elsewhere, Stalin's heirs, who include Jews and Israelis, want to outlaw Zionism in Britain and to criminalize its supporters.

We just can't allow this to happen again, here in Britain, today.

N. Simon

In Moscow in 1954 Zionism was a crime. It was outlawed, illegal. Jews could not openly show their support for Israel.

Today leftists in the UK and elsewhere, Stalin's heirs, who include Jews and Israelis, want to outlaw Zionism in Britain and to criminalize its supporters.

We just can't allow this to happen again, here in Britain, today.

Robert Forde

I want to suppress my sense of horror for the moment to ask how the UCU can discuss measures that contravene British and European laws.

Can anybody enlighten me?

Richard Lilley

Is deeply shocking and shaming, a disgrace. My sons an academic I've just rung him up and shouted at him. I honestly used to think Melanie Philips had gone a bit right wing and bonkers when she left The Guardian but I now realise she is a voice of sanity and reason in the increasing Lingua Tertii Imperii of the terrible new order emmerging in the world. The compliment and comparison with one of the greatest voices (German, Nationalist and Jewish) of the terrible 20th century is by way of an apology.

Thinkster

They wonder why Israel exists! Idiots!

phil

hitler rides again it seems -I never thought I would live to see a day that will live in infamy as this day does here .how many millions died to save the world from atrocities like this .what sort of people could dream up such an idea ?I HOPE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE WILL BE MADE TO PAY FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND I MEAN THROUGH HEAVY FINES IN THE COURTS WITH THEIR PERSONAL ASSETS .I have no doubt their morals will not support a loss like that. I have not been one to use the word anti-semitic ,particularly just because someone does not agree with us but this has gone too far and something must be done -Some Jews are of course Zionists and support Israel.but there also are those who do not -only Nuremberg laws would attempt to lump them all together -I am virtually speechless.

Chris

"The Universities' Witch-Hunt Against the Jews" is a somewhat inaccurate title. The post is about the UCU, of which I believe in any case that well under 50% of academics are members. Of these, many have only joined for the legal insurance the union offers.

The national UCU activists are far from representative of their own union, never mind UK academia as a whole! It's a fact of life however that those of us who wish the Union would stick to representing our interests, and avoid political campaigning of any kind, tend to prefer to spend our time doing our actual jobs instead of getting involved in the union...

Brad Brzezinski

john: We can recall successful boycotts of South Africa.

Ravi and Finance Doc gave you good answers and I'll just add that causing South Africa to be handed over to the communist trained ANC is really not working out so well. It's not only racist but is well on the road to being unable to provide basics (electricity, food, water) for its people and the lack of disincentives to violence are finally making the news now that refugees are being burned alive.

To whom will Israel be handed when your boycotts finally succeed?

Water

"Yeh. Me and Sharon Stone." haha

Tina

With all due respect, Chris, it is an umbrella organisation and so claims a group mandate regardless of whether every member is signed up to this filth.

Moreover, it comes on the back of other sinister goings-on in British universities, of which the Aberystwyth post in this archive is just one example.

It's important that people are alerted to these disgusting ideas so they can do what many did to the National Union of Journalists and just resign their membership if they feel they're being roped into a cause they do not support or even vehemently oppose.

That this is going on in British universities suggests the Titanic has gone down and we are now fighting it out on top of the icebergs.

The situation is as unreal as it is repellent.

God help us all.

GaryL

This is not like the Nazis. It is like average antisemitism before the Nazis. The Holocaust, and the easing up of restrictions on Jews after the Holocaust were an aberation. We're returning to normal antisemitism after a half century break.

phil

Chris its good to hear there are decent people in the UCU too,but without wishing to sound patronising it needs the likes of you to stand up and make a noise with these people -i cant remember the full saying but it goes somethiong like this "evil prospers when good people stay silent" its always the same in these groups, the bad ones always turn up and ordinary people just want to get on with their lives ,sometimes its necessary for the good ones to say enough is enough -i hope you will .my good wishes to you

John Doe

This really makes my blood boil. I used to be a member of this union when it was NATFHE and the Socialist Workers moonbats were running the show. They're thugs and psychotics indeed...contradict or challenge their weltanschaung and they tremble and shake with hysterical rage. They suffer from a peculiar pathology ...ideology. Lethal.

Ann

"Boycotts peacefully indicate disapproval. We can recall successful boycotts of South Africa. Is the difference here quite as enormous as the supporters of Melanie Phillips' position seem to maintain?"

Maybe, maybe not. The boycott by Harvard 'academics' of individual South Africans qua South Africans was racist. So is this one.
I wonder how many people who support this latest example of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of British academic institutions, would be OK with compulsory DNA tests on individual academics suspected of being Jewish, to determine whether or not they should be subjected to this discrimination?

Fluffy Ostrich

Melanie, you appear to have induced mass hysteria on this website itself, with the somewhat ludicrous suggestion that the entire educated class of Britain is in decline, as demonstrated by this move. Whether or not it is indicative of intrinsic anti-Semitism, as some of the more excited commentators seem to suggest, is irrelevant, surely, given that the direct racial link that Jewish [and, bizarrely and rather foolishly, Israeli] would have to have to Israeli affairs, is ipso facto unfair.

That said, the Biblical threats and tales of cataclysm and sudden pro-Nazi accusations that have been regurgitated on this post seem to me to be hopelessly over-reactionary. It is, surely, just as wrong to denounce and suppress one side's views as it is to unilaterally side with another?

Seguin

Well, if you British Jews wish to move, you are certainly free to come to the States or Australia.

I would say Canada, but from what I hear, they're heading in this direction as well.

Ann

"Some Jews are of course Zionists and support Israel"

I sincerely hope you are not saying that these people DO deserve to be discriminated against - which, as others have said, brings us right back to Germany 1933.
It also is (still) illegal. I also hope the perps get prosecuted for incitement to racist discrimination.
Oh, it's the old Natfhe, is it? All becomes clear now. It was run by certifiable lunatics when I was a member 30 years ago.

nadeem afzal

I think this step by UCU is a disgrace, Israeli universities are world class and at the cutting edge of research and I hope that UCU will reconsider this very very bad own goal which serves no one and does not help anyone.

nadeem afzal

Israel
Robert Aumann, Germany, Economics, 2005
Aaron Ciechanover, Chemistry, 2004
Avram Hershko, Hungary, Chemistry, 2004
Daniel Kahneman, Economics, 2002
Yitzhak Rabin, Peace, 1994
Shimon Peres, Poland, Peace, 1994
Menachem Begin, Poland, now Belarus, Peace, 1978
Shmuel Yosef Agnon, Austria, Literature, 1966

list of winners from israel with regards to the Nobel prize...

how many from the rest of the Middle East???

Anat

Although a London University alumna and for most of my life an anglophile, I have not set foot in Britain for about a decade now and I don't intend to. Not that anybody will notice, but it allows me to be at peace with myself. Brits visiting Israel are, of course, an entirely different matter, and always welcome.

Ann

"Whether or not it is indicative of intrinsic anti-Semitism, as some of the more excited commentators seem to suggest"

I suppose you regard it as an enlightened, humanistic move indicative of the true spirit of even-handed academic enquiry, right?

For the record, a couple of years ago an academic at Worcester College, Oxford (if memory serves) tried to prevent an Israeli postgrad from cmoing there to do his doctorate purely on the basis of being an Israeli. Perhaps you regard that as non-racist also.
The college and uni authorities, to their credit, disagree with you and discplined this academic for his racist behaviour.

Manuel

When will the odious UCU organise its own Jewish book-burning, followed by its very own kristalnacht?
We are still awaiting the left, the marxists, their islamofacist allies and sundry assortment of pathalogical Jewish haters to organise boycotts of China, Zimbabwe, of all the islamic state sponsors of terror organisations such as Hezbollah/Hamas/Al Queda etc - these are cold blooded killers not freedom fighters, Sudanese muslim mass killers in Darfur, muslim killers in Nigeria? Need we go on?
Anti-Semitism is the new old game,the UCU is a 'worthy' heir of the nazis.

Barry

British anti- semitism has been underrated for a longtime. The UK tennis champion Angela Buxton of the 50's is still not allowed to join the All England club at Wimbledon.No reason is given. Of course she is Jewish.
The coverage of Middle East conflict is hysterical and irrational.Yes anti Zionism and anti-semitism.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Phil, I think you have in mind the quotation attributed to Edmund Burke, usually rendered as ""All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I have never seen the original in context, or I would offer more information.

YA

"how many from the rest of the Middle East???"

A lot: Sadat and Arafat.

It doesn't matter what these stinkers think, or thinkers stink.

The world becomes segregated, anyway. What awaits us, is all- out cantonization. Communal tax, communal education and communal police/defence force.

Let they teach their children Protocols, Islamic law, global worming, multiculturalism, and history of hip-hop music, in their mickey mouse universities.
Run their mediocre economies and enjoy their garbage art.

People with intelligence, decency and humanity will find ways to cooperate, defend themselves, and prosper.
See above, Israel.

And, oh yes, - concrete fences and machine guns in between. If needed.

Brian O'Connor

GaryL wrote: "This is not like the Nazis. It is like average antisemitism before the Nazis. The Holocaust, and the easing up of restrictions on Jews after the Holocaust were an aberation. We're returning to normal antisemitism after a half century break

This is exactly right, and I don't think it can be stressed strongly enough.

What we're seeing is merely a return to European "business as usual." But unfortunately, "business as usual" is not a static state, but a progressive movement.

How chilling is that?

Reid of America

"No British royal has ever paid a state visit to Israel, although Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II, visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem in 1994.

He attended a ceremony honoring his mother, Princess Alice of Greece, for saving Greek Jews during World War II."

I believe the royal family also has a problem with Israel. Are they setting the tone for British society or is it just a coincidence.

I believe Britain and Europe have culturally inbred anti-semitism. It is like the herpes virus. It can be under control but when you least expect it you get a virulent outbreak.

Jeffrey Levine

If this measure doesn't directly link the ideologies of the Brtish, Msulims, and the Jewish left to the actions of the Nazis, I don't know what will. It's time to start pointing the finger at the true neo-Nazis of today. Why not start building the gas chambers again? I've heard the smell isn't that bad.

Fuzzy

The title of the article should be "Universties' Which Hunt Against Zionists".

Zionist oppression and their brand of aparthied should be condemned by every good Jew.

Shalom/Salaam.

Shayla

WHAT??? Are you people insane? I'm an American, but even so, when I see this kind of bigoted stupidity, I get angry.

Did these people learn NOTHING from WWII? Or did they learn something? Only it wasn't good.

Man. If I were in Britain, I'd be taking to the streets.

And I'm not even Jewish!

Thinkster

@Fluffy Ostrich: You are wrong - and I can prove it, sort of. Melanie is spot on, again. a) Until moving to London in 2000 (now Oxford, even worse), I had never in my life even been conscious of being Jewish. (I'm your typical middle class guy who has had an agnostic upbringing, bacon for breakfast, shop in Waitrose etc, but I 'feel' Jewish - and have no chip on my shoulder at all.) Anyway, the moment someone in my social circle publicly outed me (he guessed I was Jewish!), I was treated differently from that moment on. And it made me feel 'different' although I behave just like the rest of the 'lads' (get drunk, fart etc). b) The anti-Israel and anti-American feelings in London and Oxford are everywhere - and I mean everywhere. And this is not due to the specific actions of any (citizen) Jews in the US or UK, but the fantastic propaganda machinery of Israel's enemies in the Middle East. Their ability to brainwash journalists, create typographically excellent protest placards and very professionally designed web sites reminds me of another 20th century entity with first rate PR skills! (Perhaps Mr. H taught the Grand Mufti a thing or two about the value of PR?) Anyway, this business with the UCU is very worrying - and for the first time in my life, I am actually starting to be concerned for my future - and I think when you worry as an individual about your personal security and sense of place in your country of birth (England), the situation is very very serious indeed. So Fluffy Ostrich, unless you are also of our creed, it is best to show a little empathy. (If you are indeed an Israelite, then pardon the comment, but you are doing that thing that Ostriches sometimes do with their heads! Please extract from ground now and look around you - carefully! Thank you.) :-)

Joe Strummer

I'm not Jewish but of Ulster Protestant descent,not that it matters, and I am appalled that sinister and really disgusting proposals like this could even be mooted in the 21st Century against any religious group, race or creed.

Make no mistake, the Jewish community have every right to be concerned as to the vicious and quite evil campaign that is now being waged against them by obviously highly organised and motivated anti-Semites.

This is sheer mindless bigotry at its most naked and nasty and should be opposed at every turn by genuine "liberals" and all other free thinking peoples of the world.

phil

Ahad Ha'amoratzim thank you i couldnt remember it as I was too angry at the time -but the quote is so true

phil

ann if your outburst referred to what I wrote please be good enough to read carefully what people write before you insult them -I have to assume you can understand the written word so please read again and then say sorry phil I misunderstood or if you prefer ask for an explanation .

phil

Fluffy Ostrich ,no doubt you mean no harm but sadly this is the type of thought that allowed the nazis to insidiously gain power whilst the ordinary decent people said "oh they will not really do that "- well they did and then it was too late "in the end not only 6 million Jews died but so did 40 million others besides .if you really care please wake up before this thing gathers too much steam and cannot be stopped -you may not be safe either .

Michael Halbert

And people are willing to pay for the right to be educated by these crypto-nazis?

Positively disgusting - and unfortunately, just one of many signs that the world has gone mad with liberalism.

Brian Gould

Even McCarthy in the fifties didn't single out Jews, or any other racial, ethnic or religious group, in the "UnAmerican activies" witch hunt. So what we're seeing now in Britain is, in a way, worse than McCarthy, because it's McCarthyism plus racism.

George Steiner

I notice much eloquent indignation. But in practical terms it is as useless as a tit on a bull.

As long as antisemitism is cost free it will flurish. Think about it British Jews.

GV

This is neo-antiSemitism. Ignore the great human-rights abusers -- the Iranians, Arabs, Chinese, Russians, etc. -- and pick on the Jews. Well, they may be small in in number but in academia they're huge. We'll see how the British universities fare when Jewish Nobel-Prize winners boycott them.

Lawrence

To those who wonder why Israel is "singled out" for criticism, it's quite simple. Israel is viewed in the Muslim world as an extension of Western colonialism. As such, Israel's bad acts increase Muslim resentment toward the West. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable for Westerners to be more concerned about Israel's human rights violations than those of, say, China.

Regarding Melanie Phillips's Israel obsession, here's an idea: Just move there already.

Laura

Isn't it about time that Jewish and even non-Jewish supporters of Israel turn the tables on these nazis and boycott British academics?

Ravi

The title of the article should be "Universties' Which Hunt Against Zionists".

Zionist oppression and their brand of aparthied should be condemned by every good Jew.

Shalom/Salaam. I guess the Salaam gives it away. Since there is no Apartheid in Israel then there is nothing for any Jew or non-Jews to condemn. You really need to get someone to explain what Melanie has written about. The legal opinion states that the process of their discussion to vote on a boycott, as well as their intention to target Israelis, is Antisemitic. Hence it targets Jews. The process itself is against the UCU's own charter and they would lose any legal challenge should they be so foolish as to proceed. (Please, let them go ahead with the process because I'd love to see them in court!)

LS

"Just because your are paranoid, doesn't mean that everyone isn't after you."

Sarah

I'm reposting this as it didn't seem to get through before and I've added an extract from the UCU website which seems to conflict with the way events were reported by Melanie Phillips.

@chris - you're quite right I think. I'm a member of UCU and (like most academics) don't find union politics very interesting! The only issue which has inspired me to vote has been this one - I've used my vote to try to get anti boycott officials elected. I've never met a single person who says they support this ridiculous and (perhaps unintentionally) demonising move – though I don’t think it’s quite so sinister as some of the posters here do! My university – a new one, and thus perceived to be more left wing perhaps – has major ties with Israel and I’ve never heard anyone object to these. Please don’t assume the people who support the boycott are representative.

A series of motions called for greater links and solidarity with trade unionists from Darfur, Zimbabwe, Palestine and Burma. Delegates debated a Palestinian motion at length and passed one which supported solidarity with Palestinian academics and did not call for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
'Because of the constant misreporting of the motions considered by UCU's Congress, I feel I have to state that we have passed a motion to provide solidarity with the Palestinians, not to boycott Israel or any other country's academic institutions. I made clear to delegates that the union will defend their right to debate this and other issues. Implementation of the motion within the law will now fall to the national executive committee (NEC).'

Nick Kaplan

Fluffy Ostrich: you say “It is, surely, just as wrong to denounce and suppress one side's views as it is to unilaterally side with another?” But this fails to make a distinction between denouncing and suppressing, two fundamentally different activities. As a libertarian I believe it is wrong to ‘suppress’anti-Israel views or even antisemitic views (unless they are incitement to violence). I would also say a right to express such views is also possessed by the BNP. However, this in no way implies it is wrong to denounce these views as the ludicrous, racist or ignorant bile that they happen to be, whether expressed by members of the BNP or by ‘academics’.

Fluffy Ostrich

Thinkster,

Thanks for the views. To suggest that, if I am not of "[y]our creed" and "indeed an Israelite" so as to be able to air my views in a way satisfactory to yourself on the matter, smacks and indeed reeks of a vile combination of cronyism, nepotism and in fact, the very outward discrimination that the offending views are being accused of. In any case, empathy is to be earned, not demanded of another. There are many of us, including myself, who understand the raison d'etre of the Jewish homeland. But, like many other created states, it lacks internal cohesion (behold its politics) altogether, and I disagree with some of its policies. Without wanting to justify myself, as I am not on trial, I have several Jewish friends, who share my views. Lastly, ostriches never do, as a matter of fact, bury our heads. It is a fallacy par excellence.

Nick Kaplan,
I agree with your views.

Hereford

An interesting sidebar to this is the protests outside Nottingham University screaming for academic freedom. The freedom they want is for young men to be free to access jihadi websites which have instructions for the manufacture of bombs. The bias of the academic sector is appauling, clear and obvious. Academe is a cancer on the body of the nation. BTW, before any academics scream that I am a know-nothing outsider, I work in the sector.

Roy

If there is one point in a democratic country a subversive will look to imprint a tender young impressionable and supposedly intelligent brain box; it is the universities. In the days of communistic high fever this was the area the carrier of the time paid particular attention. Strangely it is the leaders and lecturers of these institutions that propagate, fertilise, and cultivate the growth of these implantation's. One would think if any one thing was worth putting about by the intelligentsia it would be for the betterment of the country and not idle discrimination and a miasma of foreign ideology. Can anything of use ever arise from these springboards of thought? Or are they forever to stay springboards of whatever is the subversives flavour of the day?

N. Simon

Fluffy Ostrich,
"But, like many other created states, it lacks internal cohesion (behold its politics) altogether, and I disagree with some of its policies.

Of course people disagree with some policies of nearly every state, including the UK, but do we boycott every country in the world?

As for newly created states, there are so many. If we take the newly created states (less than 100 years) in the middle east, such as Jordan, Lebanon, etc., no-one will totally agree with all their policies either, BUT are they subject to boycotts?

IF people really wanted to boycott Israel, they should throw away their diabetes, heart medications, etc., refuse up to date scanning technology, throw away their mobile phones with voicemail technology, throw away their computers with intel chips, windows oeprating systems, etc., and turn down the latest cancer treatments.

It would be a highly effective boycott, even if hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people would die in the process, but what sort of a boycott would it be, if people weren't prepared to die for their cause?

After all, when women wanted the vote, they were prepared to die in their protests.

No doubt, you won't be posting any more because of your computer having Israeli developed technology.

Goodbye.

Cybertiger

It is difficult to respect a country that ‘defends’ itself by shooting Palestinian children with chilling discrimination … and resists an international ban on the use of cluster bombs. Israel has become the land of bitter lemons … and it’s time those scholarly lemons were squeezed … until the pips doth squeak.

Ann

"Zionist oppression and their brand of aparthied"

You've been listening to the senile Carter, then?

Ann

Phil, I think am entitled to ask a civil question about a section of your post that struck me as objectionable (and still does) and expect a civil answer, but clearly you disagree and think that the appropriate response is to hurl mindless insults. So be it.

Ann

"It is difficult to respect a country that ‘defends’ itself by shooting Palestinian children with chilling discrimination"

Another one of those antisemitic blood libels that should not be allowed to see the light of day on this blog, methinks.
Moderator?

Ann

"like many other created states, it lacks internal cohesion (behold its politics) altogether"

I take it you have never been to Israel, then, since clearly you know nought about it. Not that this stopped you from posting this ignorant nonsense.
Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, which has shown amazing cohesion for thousands of years and still does, as the sense of togetherness in modern Israel proves to anyone who's been there.
Created state, eh? Israel was a state 3000 years ago.
Jordan was invented in 1922, Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Syria and Lebanon around that time, too.

Miranda Rose Smith

My reaction, on reading this, was the same as my reaction to a similar proposal over a year ago. Israel should cut off all contact with Britain, including the sale of medical technology, the medical technology used to treat Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. Then I decided "No. Its wrong to punish sick people, and anyone who would have anything to do with boycotting Israel is so hateful, heartless, and stupid that he wouldn't notice or care if his parents were dying of Parkinson's disease and his children were dying of multiple sclerosis."

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

"In other words, two fingers to the Jews." Well, here's a Jew's two fingers to them!
My late father, 'though not well-educated, was a very wise man in many ways. He warned me many years ago to remember, after he was gone, to watch out for "the signs" and not leave it too late to get away. Looks like the time has come.

Stanislav Koblinski

Recently it's become fashionable for anti-Zionists ("Jew haters" to you and me) to complain that any criticism of them and their antisemitic opinions is "the new Macarthyism".

So what do they call a committee that questions Israeli and Jewish academics in order to judge their politics before allowing them into the university?

Ted Tedford

Cybertiger: It's tedious to spell it out again, but I will, because I'm bored at work, and comments like yours are a pleasure to refute, particularly when expressed in such odious language.

War is a human activity: non-combatants get killed. But this is more likely to happen in conflicts where one side uses non-combatants as human shields while deliberately attempting to kill as many adversary non-combatants as possible, and the other side takes scrupulous care to avoid as far as is reasonable such deaths. Israel holds its armed forces to a far higher standard of accountability than any other in the Middle East, and more so than most in the world. Palestinian and Iranian terror groups *know* Israel has more regard for life than they do - or they would not site weapons systems in school-yards or next to hospitals.

When non-combatants *are* killed, there is an inquiry; and the Israeli government is quick - often too quick - to admit responsibility. Often, as we know, thanks to the efforts of people like Ms Phillips, the supposed deaths of children and massacres of civilians are pure fabrication and distortion: yet there is little or no acknowledgement of this in the world media.

Several countries want to resist the ban on cluster munitions, for sound reasons, both practical and moral. The ban makes no acknowledgement of the possibility of achieving responsible use of these munitions, nor procedural drills that can massively reduce the impact of non-combatant deaths. It seeks to lump professional armed forces, like those of the UK, the US and Israel, in with the far less accountable militaries. In doing so, it further constrains the freedom of action of responsible military powers, while doing absolutely nothing to impair the actions of the irresponsible.

Your post, in singling Israel out for 'punishment', for consequences that are not unique to Israeli policies, is itself evidence of the loss of moral clarity in the west.

Fluffy Ostrich

"senile Carter..."

Not my views, but screamingly indicative of the spirit "Woe betide he that disagree with the Zionist cause".

Ivan

For goodness sake, there is a difference between objecting to the behaviour of Israel the state and the global population of Jews.

The fact that the other side in the middle east troubles are just as bad should not exuse the frankly vile behviour of the State of Israel.

And criticing those who object to such behaviour on the basis of anti-semitism just blur (intentionally?) the logical divide that should exist between Jewish-ness and Israeli-ness.

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Cybertiger: Israel doesn't defend itself by shooting "Palestinian" children; it shoots terrorists who fire rockets from populated areas and use their own children as human shields. And if the Arabs can ignore an international ban on suicide bombings and Kassams (assuming there is one), I see
no reason why Jews can't ignore an international ban on cluster bobms (assuming there is one.)

N. Simon

Cybertiger

The IDF DO NOT target civilians, nor children, but aim for the perpetrators of terror attacks... but when terrorists use school playgrounds to fire their rockets, the inevitable result is that when Israel does retaliate, some innocents are inadvertently killed. AND there are times when the Palestinians have "work accidents" and kill their own innocents, whom they dub as "martyrs" for the cause, as we've seen happen so many times before.

On the other hand, the Palestinians DELIBERATELY TARGET Israeli civilians, especially children, and thousands of Israeli civilian deaths are due to Palestinian terrorists.

phil

Ann you have a way of turning reasonable remarks into hatemail ,nevertheless for the sake of others if not you my comment was that UCU are treating all Jews in the same way no matter whether they were pro Israel or not or even whether they wished to be seen as Jews or not ,that is what the nazi,s did ,and in any case you are well aware of where I stand on all these issues so please use some common sense before you attack not only me but so many others too -needlessly

S Brown

Lawrence: "Regarding Melanie Phillips's Israel obsession, here's an idea: Just move there already."

Do you also tell black Britons to go back to Africa?

London Calling

Which Jews are they?

Those Jews who support occupation of Palestinian Land, of which Arial University was built ?

Or Those Jews who speak out against it?

http://www.yg.co.il/Ariel-College050504/index.htm

Here we have a classic fragment of view, although intertwined with fragments of truth and untruth.

There are many angles to this augment, and I am disappointed that we have only been presented with a small section of it here in which to form a conclusion and I am surprised that although we pride ourselves on Freedom and Democracy, I have yet to date witnessed a balanced view of both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

If it is Freedom of speech that openly allows us to criticise Britain and those within that are not just or truthful and threaten the fabric of our society, then it is wrong in my view to enjoy such freedoms and at the same time remain silent when it suites our own interests or we are in denial of the bigger picture.

With Regards to Arial University
and those who run it and how this has caused concern here in Britain, boils down to one word:

Occupation

And whilst this augment may be iced over with anti Jewish slogans, we need to grasp the thread of injustice that is felt
by the Palestinian people themselves.

“Israeli universities are very important to the fabric of Israeli society and to the occupation.
“Carefully researched material reveals the links of Israeli universities to the army. They house strategic research institutes which do a lot of the type of thinking behind military initiatives. Many high-profile Israeli academics are closely identified with the planning and execution of the occupation strategy,”

http://www.pacbi.org/boycott_news_more.php?id=742_0_1_0_C

About 320 of the 7,000 students at the Ariel college are Arabs, but the local Palestinian population can hardly be said to benefit. The neighbouring village of Salfit lost large tracts of land to make way for the settlement, and soon its residents are to be penned behind the West Bank barrier which will reinforce Israel's grip on the settlement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/26/highereducation.internationaleducationnews

I conclude that the ‘universities' witch-hunt against the Jews’ is an attempt to create an apartheid against Israeli policies in conjunction with Ariel college, who stand accused of being heavily influenced with military initiatives in Israel, and this is the route cause of the Universities and Colleges Union’s argument for a boycott, although I disagree with this stance and whilst it may be at the discussion stage, I am strongly against it.
What is required is an open discussion regarding the influence biased points of view are having on Academia here and in Israel, and the acceptance that there are two points of views and our University’s need to accept both without being partial or aggressive towards innocent Scholars attending regardless of their views, providing they do not impart and force them on others. The University’s have a responsibility to remain un political in all situations and this should also be represented in Lectures also.

earle rosenberg

Hitler lost World War II because he exiled many Jewish scientists and future Nobel Prize winners.
England's future may well suffer the same fate.

phil

Fluffy Ostrich I see you took offense to what "thinkster" wrote and I think you were wrong as there seemed nothing nasty in what he said ,but I will tell you that apart from a few of our own nutters most Jewish people who write here would defend your right to have a different opinion to us provided it is not out and out anti Jewish propaganda ,which yours is patently not -read him again he is one who writes a lot of sense here and many times we get a better understanding of one another by expressing our thoughts freely ,so I hope you will continue .

Miranda Rose Smith

Dear Ivan: Give me one example of "frankly vile behavior of the State of Israel."

Miranda Rose Smith

Note on my previous posting: "Cluster bobms" should be "cluster bombs."

Stanislav Koblinski

Are Chinese students and academics cross-examined on their views of the Chinese occupation of Tibet before being allowed into British universities?

phil

ivan please read what I wrote to fluffy ostrich but also answer miranda -tolerence is a two way street

phil

Cybertiger if you actually had any pips many here would ensure they were squeezed,but you are a brave man and would not dare to say such things face to face .so we will remain amused by your nonsense

Ivan

Phil, an answer to Miranda will come as soon as it gets through moderation, although I suspect her position is rather entrenched. Once you believe in deities allocating real estate then such problems are inevitable, I'm afraid.

But irrespective of position I find it deeply concerning how many posters supporting the Israeli position appear assume congruency between Israel and Jews. For sure this position is possible to understand but it seems to be a rather nasty trick, becuase once you close that boundary it then becomes very difficult to criticise Israel without coming over as anti-semitic. This exacerbates tensions in what is already a very sensitive and complex area and I wish people would stop doing it.

GNO

Jews in this country are being stimatised like no other group. Soon it will be socially unacceptable to openly be friends with Jewish people.

The Fascist Left are winning. Dark days indeed.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

I agree that this is nothing new. Anti-semitism in Europe (including the UK ) is the norm; the temporary suspension of overt anti-semitism in polite circles after WWII was the exception, not the rule.

See what Orwell had to say in april, 1945, when the true horror of the Nazi genocide was finally made public. Antisemitism in Britain. An excerpt:

** Here are some samples of antisemitic remarks that have been made to me during the past year or two:

Middle-aged office employee: “I generally come to work by bus. It takes longer, but I don't care about using the Underground from Golders Green nowadays. There's too many of the Chosen Race travelling on that line.”

Tobacconist (woman): “No, I've got no matches for you. I should try the lady down the street. She's always got matches. One of the Chosen Race, you see.”

Young intellectual, Communist or near-Communist: “No, I do not like Jews. I've never made any secret of that. I can't stick them. Mind you, I'm not antisemitic, of course.”

Middle-class woman: “Well, no one could call me antisemitic, but I do think the way these Jews behave is too absolutely stinking. The way they push their way to the head of queues, and so on. They're so abominably selfish. I think they're responsible for a lot of what happens to them.”

Milk roundsman: “A Jew don't do no work, not the same as what an Englishman does. ’E's too clever. We work with this 'ere” (flexes his biceps). “They work with that there” (taps his forehead).

Chartered accountant, intelligent, left-wing in an undirected way: “These bloody Yids are all pro-German. They'd change sides tomorrow if the Nazis got here. I see a lot of them in my business. They admire Hitler at the bottom of their hearts. They'll always suck up to anyone who kicks them.”

Intelligent woman, on being offered a book dealing with antisemitism and German atrocities: “Don't show it me, please don't show it to me. It'll only make me hate the Jews more than ever.”

I could fill pages with similar remarks, but these will do to go on with. Two facts emerge from them. One — which is very important and which I must return to in a moment — is that above a certain intellectual level people are ashamed of being antisemitic and are careful to draw a distinction between “antisemitism” and “disliking Jews”. The other is that antisemitism is an irrational thing. The Jews are accused of specific offences (for instance, bad behaviour in food queues) which the person speaking feels strongly about, but it is obvious that these accusations merely rationalise some deep-rooted prejudice. To attempt to counter them with facts and statistics is useless, and may sometimes be worse than useless. As the last of the above-quoted remarks shows, people can remain antisemitic, or at least anti-Jewish, while being fully aware that their outlook is indefensible. If you dislike somebody, you dislike him and there is an end of it: your feelings are not made any better by a recital of his virtues. ** [Sorry, don't know how to block quote on this blog]

Read the whole essay at http://orwell.ru/library/articles/antisemitism/english/e_antib

phil

Ivan the problem is people post here with items they have read from propaganda sites deeply offensive to both Jews AND Israel without ever checking the authenticity of those pieces-I refer to both Jenin and Lebanon for example -accusations are routinely made ,found to be untrue and never given the same publicity as the original -this as you can imagine is very provoking as we wish for high standings both for ourselves and from Israel -that was its ambition and what we all strive for -personally I wish the other side had such ambitions and peace would be a realisable objective ,sadly that does not seem to be the case -some here respond with real anger as you will have seen but most try to debate in a reasonable way -you will have found out who to ignore so exercise your privilage

James McClellan

I'm an Academic at a British University and at most 1-2 of my Departmental colleagues belong to the ridiculous rabble that masquerades as the UCU. Motions such as the one discussed by Melanie Phillips largely explain why.

Lawrence

S. Brown wrote:

"Lawrence: "Regarding Melanie Phillips's Israel obsession, here's an idea: Just move there already."

Do you also tell black Britons to go back to Africa?"

My answer: To the extent that any such people put the interests of their "homeland" over those of Britain, yes.

As I stated rather clearly, Israel's bad acts create problems for the West. Those in the West who interfere with the West's efforts to rein in those bad acts are, like Ms. Philllips, putting Israel's interests over those of the West.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Of course, the people that Papertiger and his ilk respect are those who fabricate atrocity stories (with the help of the gutter media), brainwash their children with hatred and incite them to commit murder, among other things. As for the clusterbombs, he/she should take a long hard look at his own country's record on this, and at its general record over the last two or three centuries.

Ann

"senile Carter..."

"Not my views, but screamingly indicative of the spirit "Woe betide he that disagree with the Zionist cause"."

Utter tosh. Carter IS senile, or at least, I regard that as the kindest interpretation for his ignorant antisemitic rants. He screeches about Israeli 'crimes against humanity', but cares nothing about real crimes against humanity in China, Sudan, Iran etc etc.
His idiotic claim about '150 Israeli nuclear bombs' is another example. What, he went and counted them? All the way from Gaza? This prat has not been in office for what, 25 years; he knows nothing.

He was a useless man in office, the worst president in 50 years. He certainly has not become any more intelligent with age.

Steve

Well, I’ve always felt that inside every non-judgemental multi-cultural liberal there is a raving Nazi trying to get out.

Ann

Nonsense, Phil. The hate mail is all coming from you. I asked a civil debating question. You seem unable to take even the mildest possible criticism of a single sentence maturely, flying instead into a hissy fit.

Ann

"The fact that the other side in the middle east troubles are just as bad should not exuse the frankly vile behviour of the State of Israel"

And you have first-hand knowledge of its behaviour? How, pray? Have you ever been there? Or do you believe the non-stop stream of hate, distortions and lies emanating from Al Beeb?

"And criticing those who object to such behaviour on the basis of anti-semitism just blur (intentionally?) the logical divide that should exist between Jewish-ness and Israeli-ness"

This divide is constantly being ignored by the Jew-haters, who simply use anti-Israel hate-speech as an alibi for what they are really saying, which is directed against Jews, and then whine when this weasely tactic is exposed.

Ann

I can't decide if Lawrence is taking the mick or is being serious. Israel's 'bad acts' consist in defending itself against genocidal savages. I am sorry that Lawrence finds this so inconvenient, but I suspect Israel is going to continue defending itself all the same.

Israel is one of only a handful of civilised countries that actually does something to defecd western values against a new Dark Ages.

Ann

I can't decide if Lawrence is taking the mick or is being serious. Israel's 'bad acts' consist in defending itself against genocidal savages. I am sorry that Lawrence finds this so inconvenient, but I suspect Israel is going to continue defending itself all the same.

Israel is one of only a handful of civilised countries that actually does something to defend western values against a new Dark Ages.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

So, Lawrence would dare to tell those UK-born Islamofacists who have blatantly run down this country , have burnt the national flag in the streets, have incited their fellows to hostile action against the state, have openly declared their intention to replace British law with Sharia, etc. etc. to "go back where (they) came from" or accuse them of "dual loyalty" (an oft repeated slur against Ms Phillips)! I don't think so! Those declarations are strictly reserved for use against Jews who have the temerity to speak up for themselves and for their brothers and sisters in the land of Israel.

Fluffy Ostrich

Many thanks, phil, for your last comment at 1.34. I was not in fact offended by thankster, despite the mood of my responding message. I shall make sure I eat before posting the next time, as food appears to alter my outlook for the better! [smile]

I do find this comment objectionable and shall desist from comment:

"...is one of only a handful of civilised countries that actually does something to defend western values against a new Dark Ages."

Ravi

It is difficult to respect a country that ‘defends’ itself by shooting Palestinian children with chilling discrimination … and resists an international ban on the use of cluster bombs. Israel has become the land of bitter lemons … and it’s time those scholarly lemons were squeezed … until the pips doth squeak Are you on the same medication as Dhimmi Carter? What you are really saying is "Israelis deliberately target Palestinian Children" (ie being discriminate). Antisemitic Blood Libel again.

Stanislav Koblinski

Ivan says:

"But irrespective of position I find it deeply concerning how many posters supporting the Israeli position appear assume congruency between Israel and Jews."

Perhaps because many of those who criticise Israel are only doing so because they really want to criticise Jews and the excuse that they're only anti-Zionists, not antisemites is used for protection.

The one thing that antisemites hate more than hating Jews (or Israel) is being called an antisemite.

Remember:

You can take the Jew out of Israel, but you can't take Israel out of the Jew.

Ravi

As I stated rather clearly, Israel's bad acts create problems for the West. Those in the West who interfere with the West's efforts to rein in those bad acts are, like Ms. Philllips, putting Israel's interests over those of the West. So Gordon Brown should move to Israel because he's the Honorary President of the JNF. Various ministers who object to the boycott too should have to resign then? Any Jewish member of Parliament should be forced to resign if they don't denounce Israel. Perhaps the many Jewish Entrepeneurs should sell up and take their business with them. Have you got your black shirt and swastika yet? Which high street is in for a bit of window smashing tonight eh? You imply that any Jew who has an affinity with the only place they won't meet Antisemitism in the street and workplace ought to go there - which is an Antisemitic concept itself. At this point I have to pay homage to Britain's 300,000 Jews who are able to run British opinion so well and control the other 60m. Daft isn't it?

atheling

Why don't they just ask Jews to wear a yellow Star of David, and "relocate" them to "camps" in order to indoctrinate them to the "correct" view?

After all, it's not like they have to reinvent the wheel... there ARE precedentes. /sarc.

Ivan

Ann "And you have first-hand knowledge of its behaviour? How, pray? Have you ever been there? Or do you believe the non-stop stream of hate, distortions and lies emanating from Al Beeb?"

As it happens, I have very high level primary sources particularly with respect to the 40s and 50s, and a _considerably_ closer insight than most into current international Jewish politics. So no, this isn't necessarily from the BBC or any other mainstream source.

All this puts me in a position to see the sheer claptrap that has been spouted (on both sides) in this thread.

But my main concern in this matter is the number of people on the Israeli side who simply fail to see how anyone could object to the country and the way she behaves.

I was particularly amused by those opposing a boycott because it represented collective punishment. This might be justified if collective punishment was not what Israel openly enforces on the Palestinians. It is this sort of double standard that has earned Israel her flat-track bully reputation.

TrueJihadi

'As I stated rather clearly, Israel's bad acts create problems for the West. Those in the West who interfere with the West's efforts to rein in those bad acts are, like Ms. Philllips, putting Israel's interests over those of the West.'

It's an interesting argument since it assumes the West is in an existential conflict with Islamicist imperialist militants who would be more easily defeated if Israel were not there. 'Reining' in Israel is a tactical rather than strategic gesture, a means of gaining time to regroup for the greater fight ahead.

Groovy Times

I agree with George Steiner. Although anti-Semites come in all shapes and sizes, they are, by and large, cowards who project their own nasty little insecurities and sordid fantasies onto an easy target. Anti-semitism is religiously and traditionally embedded in the European physche and therefore the demonisation of the Jewish state finds fertile ground within national institutions like British universities.
However, those people who believe Israel in particular and Jews in general are the moral antithesis to their 'enlightended' world view would be less vocal in their criticisms if they felt their own personal safety were compromised by such comments. Jews - despite the anti-semitic fantasy of wielding almost unlimited power in pursuit of their own diabolical ends - just don't threaten people on a personal level like this. How many of these Israel bashers do you think would really dare to stick their heads above the parapette if they could expect a reaction comparable to that of the Prophet Mohammed cartoons? Of course, Elvis puts it best: 'A little a less talk, a bit more action please.'

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

According to an entry by Eve Garrard on Normblog, the motion passed. Before the vote, a motion was presented to put the issue to vote of the entire membership. The delegates defeated that motion by a large margin. The delegates then voted to decide the larger motion at once, without allowing opponents of the motion to speak. Curiously, the proposer or the motion was nonetheless permitted to speak twice. According to the story on Normblog, this stifling of the debate made little difference, as the great majority of the delegates had come prepared to punish Israel.

Zkharya

Ivan,

a boycott of Israeli academia will adversely affect British Jewish departments and institutions. Israel comprises 41% of world Jewry. It is the largest, or second largest Jewish community in the world. It is a far more important centre for Jewish and Hebrew studies than the UK. To separate British Jews from such an important centre, or discriminate against them for maintaining their ties with it, is to discriminate against British Jewish academics

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Ivan, how interesting that when Ann asks whether you have first hand knowledge about events in ISRAEL, you reply that you have "closer insight than most into current INTERNATIONAL JEWISH politics." (Emphasis added.) I suppose I should be grateful you said politics and not conspiracy, but your answer speaks clearly just the same. I have to go now -- currencies to manipulate, governments to control, christian babies to kill, bubonic plague to cause and all that.

Ivan

Stasya: "Perhaps because many of those who criticise Israel are only doing so because they really want to criticise Jews"

That is no excuse for those defending Israel to make the same assumption (and there is pleanty of that above)

The problem with your point is that you create a position where it is next to impossible to criticise Israel without implicitly criticising the entire global Jewish community.

I happen not to want to do this, not least because there are many positive aspects to Jewish culture that are expressed well in Israel, but it is obscured by unacceptable behaviour that undermines the public perception of the country, and - as you point out - by extension the wider Jewish global community.

Ann

"This might be justified if collective punishment was not what Israel openly enforces on the Palestinians"

And this from someone who has 'very high level primary sources particularly with respect to the 40s and 50s, and a _considerably_ closer insight than most into current international Jewish politics', by his own modest estimation. LOL.
Since he didn't deny my statement that he'd never been to Israel, we now know that he has this 'insight' without ever having been there.

Ivan

Zkharya,

I think you are mistaking me for someone who has said that they support the boycott.

When I started reading this thread I was ambivalent. After reading it, I begin to see that it might not be such a bad idea.

The arguments against have just been so poor, and made so arrogantly, that maybe this is the sort of kick that the country needs.

aside to phil: I did post an answer to Miranda but it didn't seem to get through. I can't be bothered to fight censorship of this form so if she wants an answer she will just have to contact the moderators herself.

Stanislav Koblinski

Collective Punishment? Another antisemitic meme repeated parrot-fashion without any basis in international law or any moral authority.

Several points here deal with "collective punishment", I quote perhaps the most important ones.

International Law and Gaza: The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense

# The bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties to individuals or groups on the basis of another's guilt. None of Israel's actions involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties.

# There is no legal basis for maintaining that Gaza is occupied territory. The Fourth Geneva Convention refers to territory as occupied where the territory is of a state party to the convention and the occupier "exercises the functions of government" in the territory. Gaza is not territory of another state party to the convention and Israel does not exercise the functions of government in the territory.

...

Dugard asserted that Israel's closure of its borders with the Gaza Strip constitutes illegal "collective punishment." Yet there is nothing in international law that requires Israel to maintain open borders with such a hostile territory, whatever its sovereign status. Exercising legal counter-measures against a hostile entity does not constitute "collective punishment" under international law. Dugard's refusal to level the same charge against Egypt, which also kept closed its border with the Gaza Strip, underlines the bias that accompanies the legally inaccurate statement.

Dugard was not alone. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour denounced Israel's "disproportionate use of force." UN Undersecretary-General for Political Affairs Lynn Pascoe told the UN Security Council that collective penalties were prohibited under international law (Financial Times, Jan. 22, 2008). UNRWA Commissioner General Karen Koning Abu Zayd joined the chorus by criticizing Israel's "sporadic" electricity supply to Gaza and its border closures and called on the international community to act (Guardian, Jan. 23, 2008). Unfortunately, these skewed assertions and misstatements of international law by UN officials framed how international public opinion views the illegal Palestinian actions in Gaza and the merits of Israeli defensive actions, and especially Israel's legal right to defend itself.

...

Collective Punishment:

While international law bars "collective punishment," none of Israel's combat actions and retorsions may be considered collective punishment. The bar on collective punishment forbids the imposition of criminal-type penalties to individuals or groups on the basis of another's guilt. None of Israel's actions involve the imposition of criminal-type penalties.

Examples of retorsions are legion in international affairs. The United States, for example, froze trade with Iran after the 1979 Revolution and with Uganda in 1978 after accusations of genocide. In 2000, fourteen European states suspended various diplomatic relations with Austria in protest of the participation of Jorg Haider in the government. Numerous states suspended trade and diplomatic relations with South Africa as punishment for apartheid practices. Obviously, in none of these cases was a charge raised of "collective punishment."

Ivan

Ahad,

What are you on? I said what I meant. Do you really think that there are no networks of NGOs, funding networks and so on? I am not going to pretend that they are trying to take over the world - most I encounter are just trying to e.g. make sure that Jewish kids get a reasonable start in life, and a jolly good thing too.

I find it incredible that you are so willing to twist my words. It is enough to give a less robust soul a bit of a complex.

Groovy Times

Notice the way Ivan paints himself as an objective and fair-minded observer to illustrate his moral and intellectual superiority over these one-dimensional, over-emotional and hysterical Zionist/Jew-lovers. Added to the mix is the spectre of dark, conspiratoral forces behind this forum who try to silence the voices of reason. And then there is Ivan's barely concealed malicious glee at the prospect of punishing the Jewish state. Sitting on the fence over the academic boycott until reading this forum? I don't think so Ivan. Classic anti-Semitism.

Ivan

Ann,

Can you just clarify for me whether you are maintaining that there is absolutely no policy of collective punishment of any form, and no IDF spokesman has ever admitted to such? (the implied contradiction to my statement got a little bit lost in the general abuse)

Ivan

Groovy Times,

What glee? The whole area is a sorry state of affairs. I don't associate any particular pleasure with having to navigate through such a mess, or for requiring any sanctions. As I said, the way that you guys are reacting to debate are making my mind up for me, really.

Alexandrovich

Ahad Ha'amoratzim: you call reactionary, ranting 'asking'?

Stanislav Koblinski

As I said, the way that you guys are reacting to debate are making my mind up for me, really.

Do not the legal arguments against your accusations of "collective punishment" have any effect on your "mind"?

Stanislav Koblinski

Here's something else for Ivan's mind to get to grips with:

Is Israel Bound by International Law to Supply Utilities, Goods, and Services to Gaza?

* British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Development Secretary Douglas Alexander recently alleged that Israel's decision to respond to ongoing Palestinian rocket attacks by limiting the supply of fuel to Gaza violated international law. The new UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, Robert H. Serry, also asserted: "Israeli measures amounting to collective punishment are not acceptable. We call on Israel to meet its obligations toward the civilian population of Gaza under international law." Yet international law does not require Israel to supply Gaza with fuel or electricity, or, indeed, with any other materials, goods, or services.

* Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention permits states like Israel to cut off fuel supplies and electricity to territories like Gaza. It only requires Israel to permit passage of food, clothing, and medicines intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers, and maternity cases. Moreover, Israel would be under no obligation to provide anything itself, just not to interfere with such consignments sent by others. Article 70 of the First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 creates a slightly broader duty regarding the provision of essential supplies, but it does not list fuel and electricity as items for which passage must be permitted.

* Dependence on foreign supply - whether it be Gazan dependence on Israeli electricity or European dependence on Arab oil - does not create a legal duty to continue the supply. Absent specific treaty requirements, countries may cut off oil sales to other countries at any time. In addition, neither Israel nor any other country is required to supply goods in response to its foes' resource mismanagement or lack of natural bounty.

* There is no precedent that creates legal duties on the basis of a former military administration. For instance, no one has ever argued that Egypt has legal duties to supply goods to Gaza due to its former military occupation of the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, control of airspace does not create a legal duty to supply goods either. For instance, UN Security Council-ordered no-fly zones in Iraq and Libya were not seen as the source of any legal duty to supply those countries with electricity, water, or other goods.

Read it all.

Andy Gill

These UCU activists are truly frightening thugs, and worse than the BNP. Britain should fight tooth and nail to eliminate their influence on our academic instituions. If this illegal motion is passed, I hope the UCU will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Ivan

Stasya,

I refer (as per the original reference in terms of the impact on academics) to collective punishment in the generally understood term in common language, rather than the precise legal term. I don't think that anyone is claiming that criminal-type punishments would be being meted out as part of an academic boycott, let alone those that would conform to the strict definition of "collective punishment", which is after all what we are comparing to.

David M

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 05/29/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2008/05/web-reconnaissance-for-05292008.html

Groovy Tiimes

Sorry Ivan. I apoligise. I must concede, it is an emotive subject, and one where many armchair critics believe they are qualified to judge without placing the conflict within it's proper political and historical context, and why Jews would feel particularly sensitive towards any criticism that is incapable of showing empathy towards the tragedies that have engulfed and devoured them as a stateless and powerless people, and continue to threaten them today.

Ann

"The problem with your point is that you create a position where it is next to impossible to criticise Israel without implicitly criticising the entire global Jewish community"

That is a problem of your own making, you and many others like you who hurl ignorant and hysterical accusations at Israel with obsessive regularity, but apply far less strict standards to the Arabs intent on annihilating it. Hmm ... I wonder why ...

Ann

"When I started reading this thread I was ambivalent. After reading it, I begin to see that it might not be such a bad idea"

Bingo. 'Suddenly' he is in favour of a racist boycott. What a surprise.

"The arguments against have just been so poor, and made so arrogantly"

LOL. From someone who has 'high-level insight' without ever visiting the place.

Ann

Excellent, Stanislav. Trotting out ill-informed references to 'international law' is a standard tactic of antisemites. Cf. the nonsense over the security fence, which has been declared 'illegal' in ignorance of the law and ignorance of the facts (e.g. completely bypassing the simple fact that the Green Line was never an international border).

Groovy Times: spot on! It really is almost embarrassingly easy to spot them ... if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, are we supposed to be so dim that we'll be fooled into thinking that it's a pony? I don't think so.

Lawrence

Ann wrote:

"Israel's 'bad acts' consist in defending itself against genocidal savages."

Perhaps you've forgotten that Israel has moved 1/2 million Jewish civilians into the Occupied Territories. That's the primary bad act to which I referred. Of course, many other bad acts flow from that.

So long as you kick and scream every time a group of British citizens takes action to oppose this nonsense (nonsense which, I repeat, has real consequences for Britain and the rest of the West), don't be surprised when your loyalties are called into question.

Ivan

Ann,

I distinctly recall hurling a bit of abuse at arabs in an earlier post (in fact in a couple). Go back and check. And if the original post were a rant about how suicide bombings and rocket attacks were justified, believe me I would be takling this whole subject from another angle.

What astonishes me is the degree to which you and others jump to put words into my mouth and motives to my posts. I have had a lot of abuse pointed my way and even been called a classic anti-semite (which, given my personal circumstances, would be rather amusing if it wasn't so sad)

You might not want to believe it (and in a sense I can understand why) but I strive to take an objective position on this issue; I am not trying to set bear traps or trick people.

But I am concerned that the sort of abuse directed at me would be quite enough to turn many a curious punter to an anti-semitic position, and this I find extremely worrying.

And the sad fact remains that to the average punter in the UK, it is far easier to sympathise with the desperation of the proto-suicide bomber in Gaza than the rather rabid arguments that have been expressed against me (which have mostly been abuse with a bit of legalese). This does not bode well in any sense.

Anyway, it is getting late here so I will leave you to abuse me in peace now.

Ivan

Groovy Times,

Apology accepted. Thanks.

Ravi

Perhaps you've forgotten that Israel has moved 1/2 million Jewish civilians into the Occupied Territories. That's the primary bad act to which I referred. Of course, many other bad acts flow from that. Since the West Bank and Gaza are part of the Jewish National Home decribed by the Mandate for Palestine 1922 then why is it "Occupied Terroristory" in a perjorative sense. Its "Occupied" by Israel with the right of Occupation and by Palestinians with the right to civil and religious acknowledgement but not political control,

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Ivan, you told Stasya that your accusations of collective punishment are based on the vulgar misunderstanding of the term and are not based on what the term really means. Thank you for that refreshing bit of honesty. And again, I find it telling that when asked what you know about the situation in Israel and about Israel's actions, you replied that you are an expert about international Jewish politics. And yet you accuse those who defend Israel of conflating the two.

Zkharya

Ivan,

If you are primarily interested in 'kicking' the (not a few Anglo-Jewish) posters on this thread for their arguments against a boycott, your protesting you do not, in fact, support a boycott sounds a little strange, if not disingenuous.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Lawrence, perhaps you have forgotten a few facts yourself. Many Jews lived in the "Occupied Territories" until they were driven out or killed by Arab armies in 1948, in violation of international law and UN resolutions. Not one Jew was allowed to remain in the land that the Arab armies invaded, whereas those Arabs who remained in what became Israel were welcomed and have the vote and full civil and legal rights. Israel was the first country in the middle east where Arab women had the right to vote (and until recent elections in Iraq, the ONLY such country). The nefarious settlements occupy 5% of the disputed land, and 95% of them are within 5 miles of the Green Line. The land was purchased from the owners of record, and any roads or other infrastructure, if not privately purchased, was taken under power of eminent domain just like public improvements in the UK, and full compensation was paid to the lawful owners. Many of the settlements are on the site of Jewish farms or villages that were driven out by the Iraqi forces in the 1948 war. UN Resolution 242 calls for adjustments in the 1949 armistice lines, and does not obligate Israel to vacate the "Occupied Territories" until such time as there is a comprehensive peace treaty with secure and recognized borders. And, of course, the war to exterminate Israel began long before Israel captured these lands in 1967 -- as witness the Arab nations launching the 1967 war in which Israel obtained these lands.

You seem quite willing to overlook worse acts by the Arabs, including their announced goal of genocide. You have set yourself up as the arbiter of Britain's national interst, and any who disagree with you are called disloyal and urged to leave. Many might think that it is against the interests off the UK to accommodate the savages who send human bombs to blow up the very hospitals that give them free medical treatment, children in pizza parlors, and commuters on buses, commit honor killings against their own daughters and stone homosexuals. Perhaps it is you who betray Britain's interest, and it is you who should leave and take up residence in Gaza or Bethlehem, where I am sure you would be welcomed.

Lawrenceisanidiot

'So long as you kick and scream every time a group of British citizens takes action to oppose this nonsense (nonsense which, I repeat, has real consequences for Britain and the rest of the West), don't be surprised when your loyalties are called into question.'

Lawrence is a classic antisemite. If the pro-Palestinian lobby ends up primarily comprising such people, it will ultimately have the result exactly opposite to the one intended: the exodus of Anglo-Jewry.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Ivan, how intersting that you say the tone of Israel's supporters on this thread would inpsire an objective observer to dislike (at the least) Jews, not to dislike supporters of Israel. The moreso given that some of the comments you object to have come from non-Jews. Therre is a word for people who blame all Jews for the actions of some Jews. It is a word that you have already objected to.

Ann

"Perhaps you've forgotten that Israel has moved 1/2 million Jewish civilians into the Occupied Territories"

And your point? That this part of the historic Jewish national homeland (as also promulgated by the League of Nations) should be Judenrein? Nothing antisemitic about that, of course ...

Zkharya

Lawrence,

most of those half million live in suburbs of Jerusalem which the Clinton paramenters and Geneva Accords envisaged remaining within Israel, even as Arab East Jerusalem (mainly a complex of Arab villages that grew and merged from 1948 on) will be part of a Palestinian state.

Most of the current 'colonization' i.e. the building of flats or blocks of flats is within that territory envisaged by the above parameters as existing within a Jewish state, in exchange for Israeli territory from elsewhere e.g. a Gaza-West Bank high way, an enlarged Gaza and West Bank.

If Lawrence objects to Jews' consolidating their position in the own Makkah from which they have been largely dispossessed for 2000 years (and ethnically cleansed by Jordan from 1948 to 1967) he knows where he can stick it.

Stanislav Koblinski

Ivan on May 29th, at 2008 6:02pm, you said this:

I was particularly amused by those opposing a boycott because it represented collective punishment. This might be justified if collective punishment was not what Israel openly enforces on the Palestinians. It is this sort of double standard that has earned Israel her flat-track bully reputation.

I posted links and extracts from those links to show that your accusation that Israel metes out "collective punishment" has no basis in law or morally.

Then, at 2008 8:01pm, presumably responding to me, you say the following:

Stasya,

I refer (as per the original reference in terms of the impact on academics) to collective punishment in the generally understood term in common language, rather than the precise legal term. I don't think that anyone is claiming that criminal-type punishments would be being meted out as part of an academic boycott, let alone those that would conform to the strict definition of "collective punishment", which is after all what we are comparing to.

You were indeed accusing Israel of "openly enforcing collective punishment" in legal terms, and you compared it directly with Israeli/Jewish victims of any eventual boycott.

I think you're being dishonest by twisting terms to suit your ends.

Do you wish to apologise for accusing Israel of collectively punishing Gazans, in the full legal sense of the term?

Stanislav Koblinski

But I am concerned that the sort of abuse directed at me would be quite enough to turn many a curious punter to an anti-semitic position, and this I find extremely worrying.

a) I see no abuse hurled at you Ivan.

b) Blaming the Jews themselves for antisemitism is another old trick used by their "critics".

c) Don't worry about us turning "many a curious punter to an anti-semitic position". They don't need much encouragment, and we simply can't live our lives any longer worrying what others may think of us. Not since we left the stedtl anyway.

Two quotes from Golda Meir for you:

“How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to.”

“Above all, this country is our own. Nobody has to get up in the morning and worry what his neighbors think of him. Being a Jew is no problem here.”

Adam B.

Lawrence, you are wrong. There are about 300,000 Jews living in what you describe the "occupied territories" (occupied from whom?, not half a million. Why not exaggerate further and call it a round million? Secondly, your questioning the loyalty of British Jews is an old antisemitic canard. I don't see British Jews blowing up underground stations do you? Thirdly, in response to your support for a boycott, answer me this question: why ONLY Israel? Why not Zimbabwe, Burma, China, Iran, Syria, Libya, Russia, North Korea Cuba, Vietnam, Sudan?

Rob

Jews of the UK will have to make the faithful decision that European Jews had to make for decades. Exile to Israel or America.

Josep

If your a Saudi studying in the UK
will the UCU make sure that you don't hate western civilization before they "associate" with you? shouldn't they be forced to denounce actions of their own government as well? i don't get it

M. Delphia Block

During WWll, Hitler offered six millions Jews to any country that would take them - none obliged! You remind us of Prime Minister Winston Churchill's argument in a paper written in 1937 that Jews were "partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer."

Steve

As a British Scientist who is Jewish, I have never felt more compelled to leave Britain to live in and support Israel. I feel saddened that a no doubt minority of the union have an axe to grind and / or anti-Semitic viewpoints, the rest of the union did not stand up to be counted.

A great harm has been done against the British education system this week. Not because the boycott will reduce learning in this country (as there are MANY academics who are not in the UCU, but the negative view from other academics will likely be a reason to avoid working with British academics.

Lawrence

Adam wrote:

"Lawrence, you are wrong. There are about 300,000 Jews living in what you describe the 'occupied territories'."

Well, that will be news to the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice. Both bodies have determined the West Bank and East Jerusalem to be occupied territories. The Jewish population of those areas is, as I said, 1/2 million--300,000 in the West Bank and 200,000 in E. Jerusalem.

"Secondly, your questioning the loyalty of British Jews is an old antisemitic canard. I don't see British Jews blowing up underground stations do you?"

I never suggested that all British Jews or that only Jews have questionable loyalty. Many Jews, however (many on this board, apparently), oppose other Britons' efforts to rein in Israel's bad acts (e.g., its mad settlements policy). Such bad acts are clearly detrimental to the interests of Britain and the rest of the West.

"Thirdly, in response to your support for a boycott, answer me this question: why ONLY Israel?"

I believe I've already addressed this issue a few times. In particular, see my first post at 7:08am yesterday.

Ann suggests that I'm anti-semitic. That's a matter of interpretation, I suppose. It's quite an ironic charge, though, coming from someone who explicitly referred to Israel's foes as "genocidal savages".

MattG66

Excellent piece Melanie.

A general appeal to the regular commenters here. People like 'Ivan' and 'Lawrence' are just here to wind a few jews up. Why do you think they even end up at this blog - because they love Melanie's writing and opinions?!

They are sat at the computer with one hand on the keyboard and one under the table. Each time someone gets angry with their vague waffle they are able to pleasure themselves a little.

Best to ignore and stay on topic. There is no argument to be won there and frankly their opinions matter not a jot.

Back on to the actual topic of the original article; it is a truly apalling situation, but at the same time an enlightening one. No rational person can now pretend that there is not a virulent strain of anti-semitism running through the UK (as i say, you can ignore the Ivans of this world, and the public outside of this thread probably do) and union motions such as this makes it hard for the Guardianistas to pretend it is genuine concerns about Israels behaviour that upsets them. Motions like this show that it is antisemitism, pure and simple.

Jerry

Lets get some perspective here. I write an academic, member of the UCU, and friend of Israel.
First, I was dismayed by the motion passed by the UCU Congress. I think it is debatable as to whether we can really describe the motion as one of boycott, but it reveals the toxic sentiments of the activist on the left, which have always been there.
However for Melanie and correspondents to this discussion to portray this as evidence of a concentration of anti-semitism in British academia is both untrue and unhelpful.

First consider the UCU. We know when the real boycott motion (which was withdrawn latterly due to legal threats) was passed in 2007 informal surveys of UCU members showed a majority rejected the anti-Israel position. As anyone involved in trade-union politics knows, it is very easy for a vociferous activist minority to hijack policy; in part this is a failure of moderates to step up to the plate, but in my experience (and in my case) this is because most of us are too busy getting on with our careers and doing our jobs to get into professional political grandstanding. However I will certainly be tabling a motion to the next general meeting of my UCU Branch explicitly rejecting any form of boycott of Israeli academia, and I have no doubt others will take a similar approach elsewhere. The Union's democratic processes do offer a route to allow ordinary members to correct congress's wrong.
Of course we may fail, and I certainly then would need to consider my position in the Union.
This discussion should also take account of the broader political/social millieu in the UK presently. That a significant number of academics should hold a negative perception of Israel, and minority of these demonstrating an "almost" anti-semitic fervour should not really be that much of a surprise. This simply mirrors the broader public perception of Middle East politics, and is reinforced by misleading/biased reporting by organisations such as the BBC.
Indeed Melanie, the Union representing your own profession, the NUJ, have in place a boycott of Israeli goods! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

phil

Do any of you find it strange that in our normal lives we do normally not come across raving anti-Semites? and yet on this part of our lives we find quite a few and unfortunately some who post quite mild criticism to start with are attacked so vehemently by one or two that they post increasingly angry accusations and protests-?Some of our more intelligent posters respond with sensible debate and information which requires sensible responses whilst others just post rants (one in particular)-all this does is turn someone with whom we might not agree in to an angry poster who will respond like most of us in that state i.e lash out -I note that Ivan who posted originally with criticism of Israeli actions(I don't agree with him) has been involved in an enormous amount of increasingly angry postings both to and from despite his protestations of innocence -we seem to have the ability here to turn quite ordinary posters into ones so angry that their responses begin to turn irrational and we do ourselves no favours-

There are those like lawrence with whom l would have no truck and for those with good memories the fragrant patricia .they deserve all they get.but for goodness sake lets us debate with people who have a different view to us in a decent manner and maybe we will persuade them to alter their views, I do not want turn people who have a different perspective into ones who will hate Jews
And for those who may respond "nice phil going on again" no I am not I am just pragmatic and I want to have a normal debate without entering into a slanging match which achieves only a negative result I know most of you speak with passion and clarity and for the best of reasons ,but one in particular causes more anger than the rest of us put together

Stephen

The motion singled out Ariel College as a particular example of colonisation. Interestingly Ariel College is giving local Arabs educational opportunities that they might not otherwise have had.
http://www.ariel.ac.il/www1/news/news-cjs-121205.asp

phil

Jerry well said ,but I suppose I would say that anyhow as it is what I have said before -it needs people like you to stand up to these lefties as a representative of what I truly believe is the majority of ordinary Brits-we mostly want a beer and a chat with our friends and do not attend the meetings of nutters,but this is how they get their way ,so I am particularly encouraged to hear that you will stand up to them ,but please do not let them make you leave-this country needs people with your courage and endeavor and I applaud you .

Dawn

If you do to one group, it must be applied to all groups. Period.

Ravi

Ann suggests that I'm anti-semitic. That's a matter of interpretation, I suppose. It's quite an ironic charge, though, coming from someone who explicitly referred to Israel's foes as "genocidal savages". Thank you for your permission. I think you are an Antisemite and some of Israel's foes are genocidal savages. Some of Israel's foes are well-dressed suits, senile Presidents, Raving African Clerics and Chardonnay Antisemites.

Harvey

Let the UCU adopt the policy and then challenge through the courts .If it is proven to be rascist and discriminatory then damages would be awarded . I doubt whether the UCU has any indemnity insurance for this sort of action .

Bankrupt the Union and donate the award to charity!

Anthony Julius put that summer vacation on hold for the time being !

Derek Vinyard

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/30/israelandthepalestinians.highereducation

oh dear oh dear looklike Israel is involved in it's own blockade!!!!!

some of the comment have made me laugh..please keep up the gud work!!!!

Adam B.

Lawrence, your argument, as I understand it, is this: it is right that Israel is singled out, because the PERCEPTION of Israel in the Islamic world is that it is part of the West, (being a domocracy, having a free press and independent judiciary). Therefore, because the genocidal regimes and terrorist organizations in Iran, Gaza, the West Bank and Syria hate the West, it is right that we ostracize and vilify Israel, so that they leave us alone. This has nothing to do with human rights, it is about throwing a bone (Israel) to the fascistic despotism that permeates the Islamic world. It is moral cowardice of the first order. Once you feed Israel to the wolves, they will come after you anyway. Secondly, you seem to have a high opinion of the UN. This is an organization which appoints Libya to head human rights, and Zimbabwe economic development. It is a corrupt, morally degenerate organization, over half of whose members are not democracies. And I'm meant to be impressed about their pontifications about what is legal? Guess how many times the UN has condemned Israel? 1000. And China (small matters of being a dictatorship, occupying Tibet with an iron fist, no free press, political prisoners, the massacre of Tianenmen square, the support for the genocide in Sudan, arms to Zimbabwe) - not one single condemnation. So frankly I couldn't care less what the UN says, and neither should anyone who cares about human rights or democracy. Thirdly, you say that loyalty to britain is not just a question mark for Jews. So I take it you're equaly xenophobic about all minorities?

Harvey

Oh Dear Derek

Gud??

phil

Derek Vinyard I know you cant spell but methinks you cant read either-get a spellchecker son ,and try a pair of rose tinted specs -life will be very GUD then.

D-Dawg

This is... ridiculous?

And no, I'm not talking about the motion, but rather the connotations towards some collusion between the far left, Nazis and 'Islamists' in some unholy alliance against the Zion. This at a time when Nazi groups like the BNP are in fact siding with Israel in helping them whip up Islamophobic hysteria (the likes of which Melanie is certainly not averse to herself).

Were the anti-apartheid campaigners calling for a boycott of South African goods labelled racists? Was that campaign also illegal and discriminatory for forcing South Africans to 'take positions' on apartheid in their country?

Unbelievable.

Pericles

well if there are any books you should read then they are:

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

and A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn......

"I love reading jihadwatch and dhimmiwatch and frontpage.com, they are my only form of fiction"
anon

derek vinyard

ooooooo those comments really hurt me!!!!! please the muslims are coming, the muslims are coming, help! help! help!....................................................................dhimmi dhimmi?? was that not a word in the exorcist?????

phil

Lawrence your quote--"Ann suggests that I'm anti-Semitic. That's a matter of interpretation, I suppose. It's quite an ironic charge, though, coming from someone who explicitly referred to Israel's foes as "genocidal savages"

Ann makes a lot of accusations mostly wrong ,but in your case I think she got it right .
I dot suppose you would propose any of us for your golf club would you ?by the way I repair divots and pitch marks ,do not swear and I am 8 handicap ,would that get me in

"Regarding Melanie Phillips's Israel obsession, here's an idea: Just move there already."

That,s pretty sick Lawrence,and that is what has moved me to agree with Ann ,who I never agree with -the opinions you espouse are not worth our time but its raining and it is amusing me ,-have a nice day

George Steiner

It is not productive to beat a tired horse. But you fellows are still doing it.

The difference between the pinkos of the UCU and you fellows is this. If the UCU succeeds, they will win an important vitory. If they fail, they would have learned some tactical lessons, which will help them next time. If there is a financial cost, it will not matter because it is other people's money.

On the other hand you fellows are just having a super time pounding your keyboards.

Adam B.

D-Dawg:
1. The BNP is, and always has been, anti-Israel. Read its disgusting literature.
2. How is Israel "whipping up" Islamophobia? This is an utterly groundless assertion. In reality, the Islamic world is whipping up anti-semitism. Read some newspapers from the Islamic world. Then read Israeli newspapers. Spot which is the more hateful and racist.

john doe

How can the moderator pass a recommendation for a book by Noam Chumpsky or Howard Jinn? These men are traitors and seditionists.

Josep

to Lawrence

in response to your comments at 7:08 am. Wouldn't it be a good idea not to single out Israel because of what you say are their "bad acts". Such acts increase tensions in the Arab states and many people from the Arab states move to the the UK some of which hold very violent and secret intentions despite their high level of education, as per the Glasgow attempted attack done by doctors. Shouldn't the USU also ensure that they arn't dealing with these types of people as well, if anything to ensure their own personal safety.

Sarah Vey

When adults (in this case intelligent society) become afraid of their adolescent offspring (and for that you may read the likes of the SWP-inspired UCU) then said offspring grow up to be thugs.

I am a university lecturer who is not a member of UCU. I support Israel. Thankfully my university will nothing to do with this and frankly no organisations other than profoundly toxic ones will, and to their detriment.

Ann

"It's quite an ironic charge, though, coming from someone who explicitly referred to Israel's foes as "genocidal savages".

It's a factual reference to the Hamas charter, which quite explicitly calls for the killing of all Jews in Israel (and indeed, everywhere). Perhaps you don't regard this agenda as genocidal or savage. After all, they are only Jews.

Ann

"Indeed Melanie, the Union representing your own profession, the NUJ, have in place a boycott of Israeli goods! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black."

What nonsense. Melanie has spoken out strongly against that. BY your own admission, you have not spoken out against the UCU's antisemitic motion, being too busy with your ordinary life. Talk about a craven attack on someone who has done a lot more than you have done.

Ann

"Were the anti-apartheid campaigners calling for a boycott of South African goods labelled racists?"

They were, by people thinking rationally.

Ann

"and yet on this part of our lives we find quite a few and unfortunately some who post quite mild criticism to start with are attacked so vehemently by one or two that they post increasingly angry accusations and protests-?"

So basically you are saying, "Let's not criticise people who are mildly antisemitic, because that might make them even more antisemitic".

You couldn't make it up.

Lawrence

Adam wrote:

"Lawrence, your argument, as I understand it, is this: it is right that Israel is singled out, because the PERCEPTION of Israel in the Islamic world is that it is part of the West..."

Yes, that's the foundation of the argument. It's not an invalid "perception", though, in the sense that the West (America, in particular) provides significant financial, military, and diplomatic support to Israel.

"It is moral cowardice of the first order."

That would only be true if Israel were "the" victim. Almost all parties to that sordid mess are both victim and aggressor. So long as Israel maintains the illegal settlement of 1/2 million Jewish civilians in the occupied territories it will never have the high moral ground.

"Secondly, you seem to have a high opinion of the UN."

Well, I said nothing regarding my opinion of the UN. Let's put aside for the moment, however, the issue of whether the UN generally has an anti-Israel bias (which you're probably right about) and consider two salient facts.

1. America abstained on that particular resolution (446). Given that America generally vetoes anything with even a hint of unfairness to Israel, it's reasonable to assume it did not find that resolution particularly unfair. Therefore, it's difficult to argue that that resolution merely reflects anti-Israel animus.

2. You completely passed over the ICJ ruling. That ruling was 14-1 against Israel, finding that the West Bank and E. Jerusalem are occupied territories under international law, finding that the Jewish civilian settlements are illegal, and finding that the wall being built to protect those settlements (or to confiscate the land around them) is also illegal.

If you decide to argue that the court's opinion was wrong, you're going to have to explain the 14-1 result.

"So I take it you're equaly xenophobic about all minorities?"

The issue is not "xenophobia". I recognize that all human beings have multiple loyalties--family, firm, religion, country, etc. It's an elementary principle of good citizenship, though, that in world affairs one's primary loyalty must be to the community in which one is a permanent member.

Have I been too rash to judge some people as possibly disloyal? Perhaps. I'll think about it. As I've stated several times now, though, there's certainly cause for concern when people like Ms. Phillips write ad nauseum about Israel and frequently attack any organization that tries to rein in Israel's bad acts.

If anyone can direct me to an article of hers in which she acknowledges that on issues where Britain's and Israel's interests clearly diverge (e.g., the settlements) she is with Britain, I'll gladly rescind my comment.

Bruce Jackson

What a load of twaddle. The UCU is promoting a message aligned with today's comments by Desmond Tutu: "My message to the international community is that our silence and complicity, especially on the situation in Gaza, shames us all. It is almost like the behaviour of the military junta in Burma " Of course, maybe you'd just say that Archbishop Tutu is also expressing anti-semitic views...

Ann

"Of course, maybe you'd just say that Archbishop Tutu is also expressing anti-semitic views..."

Of course he is. His hysterical anti-Israel comments are totally ignorant and totally biased and far stonger than his condemnation of the atrocities in Darfur. Case proven. Next!

Ann

"So long as Israel maintains the illegal settlement of 1/2 million Jewish civilians in the occupied territories"

LOL. You can screech 'illegal' all you like - they are not.

If one has a strong stomach, and wants to see the stupidity, illiteracy and vile antisemitism of what passes for a 'serious political party' in this country, email the 'Green party' and ask about their policies vis-a-vis Israel. You'll receive an ignorant rant that 'quotes' resolution 242, among other things. Only, it completely MISquotes it, and claims that 242 'requires Israel to withdraw unilaterally from all the territories occupied in 1967'. Slight problem: this is a complete lie. 242 does not mention 'all' territories, only 'territories', AND quite explicitly makes this contingent on a final peace settlement in which Israel's enemies undertake to guarantee her security.

Harvey

Got it in one Bruce !

Criticising Israel is not anti semitic but singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction including academic boycott out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is certainly anti semitic.

Israels human rights record is far better then any other country in the region .The Israeli government's harshest critics are Israelis both inside and outside the government!
But then there is Iran , a totalitarian Islamofascist state which demands the eradication of Israel.Homosexuals are strung up from cranes in town squares and yet academia remains silent on the issue .No boycotts ,no divestment just business as usual.

The same is true for Saudi Arabia and many other fundamentalist Arab states and still silence.

Chechyna was more or less obliterated by the Russians -why is Russia not the subject of a boycott.

In Darfu ,some 300,000 African tribespeople have been wiped out by Arab militia the Janaweed under the benign eye of what passes for Somalian government. Why no boycott of Somalia ?

China ,Burma ,North Korea ,Algeria ,Syria .An endless list of failed,despotic tyrannies and yet it is only Israel which merits such close scrutiny and demonisation.

Sorry Bruce ,you can spin it however you like . Unless you can provide answers to the above ,it is as it is -pure unaldulterated antisemitism generated by the unholy alliance of the far left and the Islamofascists.

I hope that this will be tested through the courts and found to be rascist and discriminatory.

In the meantime we are under no illusions as to the underlying motives of this latest attempt to demonise Israel!

Adam B.

Lawrence, you write that your view would only be moral cowardice if Israel was “the” victim. I think it is. We could have a lengthy debate about this, but I believe that since its inception, Israel has had to ward off several genocidal attempts by her neighbours to destroy her and her people. I do not believe Israel is the aggressor. Israel fights back. You call this aggression. I call it survival. Therefore I consider your position to be one of moral cowardice.

You seem very upset that Jews live in the Old City of Jerusalem. If you’ve ever been to Jerusalem, you would know that there is no East and West Jerusalem, but rather Old and New Jerusalem. The Old City is home to the Temple Mount and the Kotel, the holiest place on earth to Jews (the equivalent of Mecca to Muslims). I didn’t notice any international courts ruling that the Jordanian occupation of the Old City between 1948 and 1967 was illegal. Why not? After all, the Jordanians had taken it by force of arms in 1948; no international body had awarded it to Jordan. In addition, the Jordanians destroyed every ancient synagogue in the Old City, and used the Jewish gravestones from the Mount of Olives as paving for roads. No international court had anything to say about that. By contrast, there is freedom of religion in Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In fact, there are even laws (discriminatory in my view) banning non-Muslims from the Temple Mount. And from whom are these lands occupied? The Jordanians? The British, who had it before them, or the Ottomans before? As for the ICJ’s ruling, can you direct me to its ruling regarding the Chinese occupation of Tibet and the suppression of its culture? Or the use of suicide bombers and indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilians by the Palestinian administration in Gaza? Is that legal? Or the use of Sudan’s airforce to bomb defenceless villages in Darfur? Or the persecution of minorities in Iran? What, you mean they haven’t even investigated these matters?

You believe that there is such a thing as an impartial international law, equally applied. This is patent nonsense, and you must know it. There are only interests and political agendas, and “international law” is applied selectively and politically. In fact in the case you cite, I believe China was the chair and Cuba made a case against Israel. Two shining examples of freedom, democracy and human rights. Therefore, I really couldn’t care less what the ICJ says. I will change this view when international law is applied equally and fairly.

You must surely understand the sensitivity around your charge of being disloyal, it is a groundless charge as old as the hills. And frankly, I don’t think most Britons are that loyal to the UK unless it involves a football match (a very sad state of affairs). What makes you so loyal, and can you prove it? And if you knew Melanie’s writing, you would know that she is a staunch defender of Britain and traditional British values, which have been systematically undermined by 40 years of the liberal and left wing agenda.

anglicus

Three things spring to mind here. MP knows who I am or thinks she does.
1. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.(read how you will)
2. Now you know how the right wing? professor felt when he was hounded out.
3. Who owns the media, why are they not speaking up in defense of their friends?
We have a common enemy but nobody has the guts to say so.

anglicus

Now we know why.
http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s18&SecId=18&AId=60402&ATypeId=1

Jerry

Ann
Ouch but you completely miss the point. First Melanie appears to slur the entirety of UK academia; this is as appropriate as us lumping Melanie in with the grouping in the NUJ which decided to boycott Israeli goods (and of course I know she condemned this action). Still (and I may be worng) I'll bet she has a NUJ membership card!
Second, myself and many colleagues in other institutions speak out regularly at our branch level about barmy resolutions proposed and passed at Union congresses. We are to busy getting on with our lives to become delegates at Congress..yes absolutely...do you have any idea how unreal the lives of the activists who drive agendas such as that voted on by UCU are..they are in fact some of the saddest people I have ever come across which no doubt explains their hateful politics..do you have any experience of Union politics Ann..? Methinks not!

Brian Gould

Harvey asks, why no boycott of Iran, Algeria, Syria and other countries?

There's a pretty straightforward answer, which is by no means the whole answer but at least it's a starting point: in the whole of the Middle East and North Africa, Israel is the only country that has any universities worth boycotting.

Wilf

Shocking! But I sense a change in the wind. Doesn't behaviour like this suddenly seem so old and cliched? It seems to belong to another era, like a speckly newsreel from the 70s.

I think resistance to archaic anachronisms like this is growing. Time to rouse yourselves from your comfy torpor, all you idle good people.

Time to put steel in your souls and to rise up and cry "Back to the Grave, You Foetid Corpse!".

Toby

The boycott was initiated by a "union" dominated by ultraleft wing Trotskyites and Leninists.

Let’s remember that it was Lenin who started the program of eliminating the enemies of “the people” which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of million of people all over the world.

These creeps are every bit as bad as the Nazis and their open embrace of antisemitism makes them indistinguishable.

Ceecee

Please support the Jewish people in their fight against this unfair discrimination. You will be blessed if you do.

Ann

"do you have any experience of Union politics Ann..? Methinks not!"

Jump to wild conclusions, why don't you.
I think I have said before on this thread that I was a member of Natfhe some 30 years ago, and was very familiar with what was going on. I remained a member for as long as I was teaching at one particular institute, because my contractual position was vulnerable and they were the only union there, IIRC. I discontinued my membership the moment I could, because of their adolescent politicking.

Ann

Adam, re your last post: you put the case very clearly and cogently. Excellent.

phil

Adam B-i think this is the second time ever I have agreed with ann-your post was marvellous and I doubt you will be hearing from Lawrence again -well done

phil

D-Dawg your ignorance precedes you like pinocchio,s nose -how dare you suggest an alignment between the BNP and Israel which serves to illustrate your total lack of knowledge-perhaps you would enlighten us at to what is "the Zion" but on second thoughts don,t bother ,you obviously don,t know -I suggested earlier today that we all engage with people of different persuasions bur I realise that there has to be some exceptions -I will leave you to Ann I am sure you will like her -just hope it stops raining I am getting fed up with the likes of you and Lawrence

phil

Ann
May 30th, 2008 10:23pm

"
So basically you are saying, "Let's not criticise people who are mildly antisemitic, because that might make them even more antisemitic".
"
You couldn't make it up.

No Ann no.this is so typical of what you do-just read, take 3 deep breaths, and then think before you write,which I think you did when applauding Adam B-first time I think
-
You even attacked me a few days ago when I was writing what you think anyhow !!can,t you see that not everyone who has criticism of Israeli politics is anti -semitic (a term I hate)-if you were right you could accuse half the Knesset -maybe you already have (lol)- If you write calmly with facts rather than anger,you may well persuade others to your way ,as I have in the past -I have no wish to argue with you as I know basically you are loyal to the same cause but I think you hurt us by steaming in full blast at anyone who has a different view-so why not try another way and we will all get on better .

ENDiana.com

Call it the Galileo syndrome: Jews and anti-anti-semetics in general must renounce reality or face expulsion.

Harvey

In my previos post I stated Darfu as situated in Somalia. It is of course in Sudan -another failed country.

To Wilf

Whatever it was you were on at 3.18- pass it on please!

I am not surprised that there was no response to my previous post challenging the pro boycott lobby to answer why there is no reciprocal call to boycott the litany of states truly deserving of the unions attention.

Incidentally the same challenge went out on the CIF website .I am pleased but not surprised that again the silence was deafening!

john doe

Harvey and Adam B: Excellent posts challenging the Jew haters here and the pro-boycott cowards.
Some people are just like stuck records...'occupied territories' 'occupied territories' over and over again like a malignant demented mantra. It's like trying to communicate with deranged obsessives in a lunatic asylum who are incapable of the slightest paradigm shift because of their illness.
You can talk about the Jewish Homeland,The Mandate, Arab occupied Judea and Samaria, the right of conquest, the spoils of war and so on until the cows come home but it's utterly futile. The best way to treat these irrational haters is ignore them and they will just crawl away to some God forsaken corner with their bitterness and rancour, their hatred of life....and Jews....and eat themselves up inside.

Ann

"No Ann no.this is so typical of what you do-just read, take 3 deep breaths, and then think before you write ... You even attacked me a few days ago when I was writing what you think anyhow"

Phil is clearly one of those patronising juvenile saddos who one criticises at one's peril (what I mean is, at the risk of dying from laughing so much at his pompous nonsense). I dared disagree once with one of his sentences, now he follows me around the thread, hurling non-stop screeching abuse.

"not everyone who has criticism of Israeli politics is anti -semitic (a term I hate)"

The term is descriptive of what it is used for: pathological Jew-hatred. I prefer to hate the phenomenon, wherever it occurs, not the term that is used to refer to it.

Phil is barging into an open door, as one says in Israel: nobody says that any and all such criticism of Israeli politics is antisemitic. However, we are talking about hysterical Israel-bashing in cases where it is based on lies and blood libel, and is fundamentally biased. That is antisemitism, and I will continue to refer to it as such with or without Phil's patronising permission.

Steph

2 great uncles one on each side of my family died to help keep England out of Hitler's hands.

Now the Nazis are alive and well. We should have let Hitler have you since you now love Hitler.

phil

Ann --""Phil is clearly one of those patronising juvenile saddos who one criticises at one's peril (what I mean is, at the risk of dying from laughing so much at his pompous nonsense). I dared disagree once with one of his sentences, now he follows me around the thread, hurling non-stop screeching abuse"

thank you Ann I feel rejuvenated ,and I am glad to hear you can laugh ,I really doubted it .I was wondering what you would come up with and its wonderful-hardly an insult in sight ,but I have to say I searched for the screeching and cant find any -keep up the good behavior and you will make some friends ,I wont detain you now as Lawrence is waiting to hear from you with D dawg in Dereks vinyard-have a glass on me - pesquera,ribero del duera 2004 is excellent or failing that try the Protos reserva it will make you amazingly tranquilo

Lawrence

Adam wrote:

"Lawrence, you write that your view would only be moral cowardice if Israel was “the” victim. I think it is. We could have a lengthy debate about this..."

Yes, I suppose we could.

"You call this aggression. I call it survival. Therefore I consider your position to be one of moral cowardice."

Well, at the very least you've acknowledged that there are two sides (How else could we have a lenghty debate?) to the issue of whether Israel is an "aggressor", and you've further acknowledged that I believe it to be one.

As such, you implicitly undermine your own claim that my position is one of "cowardice". Being a coward involves an element of intent.

I could only be a coward if I believed Israel deserves the level of Western support it receives (which I clearly do not) and, nonetheless, I wanted to withdraw that support just to appease angry Muslims.

"As for the ICJ’s ruling, can you direct me to its ruling regarding the Chinese occupation of Tibet and the suppression of its culture?"

The ICJ can only rule on matters brought before it. You're probably right that some other human rights issues don't make it to the ICJ for political reasons, but it doesn't follow that the ICJ's findings are dictated by political considerations.

"You believe that there is such a thing as an impartial international law, equally applied. This is patent nonsense, and you must know it."

The first sentence contains a very broad assumption that cannot be drawn from anything I've written. (In fact, recall that in my most recent post I acknowledged that I think there is an anti-Israel tilt within the UN political system, which is where some international law is made.) The second sentence essentially contradicts the first--it would be quite difficult for me to "believe" something which I "know" to be "nonsense".

"In fact in the case you cite, I believe China was the chair and Cuba made a case against Israel."

I believe you're correct that the presiding justice was from China. But there were 14 justices who signed the court's opinion. They came from each continent, including a few from Europe.

Do you really believe they were all incorrect (anti-Semitic bias?) and the lone dissenting justice (an American Jew) was correct? Given those numbers (and the substance of the legal issues--more on that later), isn't it much more likely it was the Jewish jurist who was unable to be impartial?

"You must surely understand the sensitivity around your charge of being disloyal, it is a groundless charge as old as the hills."

Yes, I understand there's a sensitivity around the subject. And, as you may recall, in my most recent post I acknowledged that I need to think carefully before making that judgement.

To say "it" is "groundless", though, suggests that's always and everywhere the case. Clearly that's not true. (Most prominently, of course, think of the espionage for Israel matters in America.)

Indeed, given the zeal with which British Jews defend Israel on this board and elsewhere (and the loyalty that implies), it's reasonable to believe that many Jews (perhaps understandably) have a very difficult time being impartial regarding Israel. As such, it's not unreasonable for non-Jews to be concerned about the ability of many Jews (though not all) to navigate the waters of home country interests vs. Israeli interests.

Having said all of that, I think most of your comments directed to me were made in the spirit of providing information and your good faith perspective, and I appreciate that.

Ann wrote:

"LOL. You can screech 'illegal' all you like - they are not."

I'm concerned to learn that you were a teacher of any kind. Clearly you should accept Phil's advice and take a few breaths before you unleash your emotional inner self.

If you had done so with the instant issue, you would have addressed the ICJ ruling to which I so clearly referred, rather than having ranted about 242.

The ICJ ruling primarily rests on Article 2 of the UN Charter (which has considerable more force than a resolution) and on the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Phil wrote:

"your post [Adam's] was marvellous and I doubt you will be hearing from Lawrence again -well done"

Sorry to disappoint you. Some of your thoughts are quite helpful, but perhaps you've been contaminated by those who you believe share your "cause" (as you call it).

Not to worry, though, I won't post again.

Stanislav Koblinski

Do you really believe they were all incorrect (anti-Semitic bias?) and the lone dissenting justice (an American Jew) was correct? Given those numbers (and the substance of the legal issues--more on that later), isn't it much more likely it was the Jewish jurist who was unable to be impartial?

If you actually take the trouble to read Judge Buergenthal's declaration you'll see that his arguments rest entirely on points of law.

The ICJ ruling primarily rests on Article 2 of the UN Charter

That's highly debatable.

See here:
International Court of Justice - Ruling on Israeli Security Wall - Buergenthal Declaration (dissenting opinion) July 9, 2004

1- The court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case, and that it involved only a dispute between Israel and the UN, rather than a dispute between Israel and the Palestinians or another party.

2- The court ruled that provisions of international law regarding right to self defense are inapplicable, since there is no state involved other than Israel:

3. On the other hand, the court ruled that the West Bank is occupied territory, asserting that:

95. The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. If those two conditions are satisfied, the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties.

Thus, to achieve its finding, the court held at the same time that there exists an armed conflict, and that territories are occupied territories of another state, but also and at the same time asserted that Israel has no right to defend itself in that conflict, because there is no other state involved.

Read it all

Adam B.

Lawrence, the following link may, I think, change your opinion of the ICJ.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53584-2004Jul15.html

This paragraph stood out: "Moreover, the court had no jurisdiction to take this case. It is a court of arbitration, which requires the consent of both parties. The Israelis, knowing the deck was stacked, refused to give it. Not only did the United States declare this issue outside the boundaries of this court, so did the European Union and Russia, hardly Zionist agents."

I am glad you have admitted that there is a political agenda behind what goes before this "court", and the anti-Israel bias of the grotesque UN. However, your view that it is right to single Israel out, as being in Britain's interest, is still very troublesome to me. Your view is not based on any morality, or concern about the big abusers of human rights (Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea etc) but rather what is expedient for Britain (to appease Islamic radicals). This is not an admirable position!

Stanislav Koblinski

The ICJ ruling primarily rests on Article 2 of the UN Charter (which has considerable more force than a resolution) and on the Fourth Geneva Convention.

If you see my last comment you'll note that it is in fact Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that is cited by the ICJ.

Stanislav Koblinski

here is Article 2 of the UN Charter. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the ICJ judgment on the Israeli security barrier.

Note also that "Palestine" is not a "state" (nor has it ever been one) so subsequently neither is it a member of the UN.

Ann

"The ICJ ruling primarily rests on Article 2 of the UN Charter"

Whichever article it rests on, it's ignorant and wrong in law and wrong in fact, because it rests on the idiotic premise that the Green Line has ever been an international border. It has never been anything of the sort.

Instead of worrying about my former career as a lecturer, I suggest you learn to read. Mind you, that applies equally to those idiots on the so-called ICJ which is not a court of law at all but a jumped-up political kangaroo court, whatever it calls itself.

Adam B.

Thanks Stanislav for the info. And thanks also Phil and Ann for your kind comments. I just wanted to say that it pains me that you both tear each other apart - you're really on the same side you know. There are assorted Israel bashers (some of whom are real anti-semites) and nutjobs out there - we should be putting our energies into rebutting them, and spread the truth about the Middle East rather than fighting each other! (Sorry if this sounds preachy!)

Robin

Now, come on people. Stop picking on Ann. Politeness, reasoned arguments (supported by facts) is what we like here. Abuse should be infrequent. Well, not more than once a day.

:-)

Ivan

Phil, I pity you. With friends like Ann, who needs enemies?

It is such a shame that the Ann's of this world hijack these debates. There are some extremely complex and (to my mind at any rate) intellectually interesting issues in this area but they get completely ignored.

For instance, the concept of national allegiance (which is, if I have understood correctly, one of the root causes of Lawrence's position) is extremely non-trivial, and affects Islam in the UK as well as Jewry. The fact that such subjects can seemingly not even be broached in public is to all our disadvantage.

Ann

"It is such a shame that the Ann's of this world hijack these debates"

It is entirely predictable that someone like Ivan would set himself up to decide who is a proper participant in this debate and who isn't. It is entirely consistent with his approach, which is based on ignorance about Israel, as he admitted himself.

Newsflash, Ivan: you don't own this site. You don't make such decisions. Your pompous pronouncement is laughable.

Edward

The obvious question to the UCU, if they demand testing Israeli and Jewish positions on Israel, does the UCU have tests for Arab and Muslim positions?

Will the UCU ask Arab/Muslims whether they denounce Al Qada? Denounce Hamas, Hezbullah? Denounce the Finsbury Park mosque, which celebrated the the “Magnificent 19” of 9/11? Denounce the genocidal declarations against Israel by President Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Denounce Wahhabism? Denounce current day slavery in Sudan? Denounce Baathist Syria?

Ann

Thanks, Adam. I thought that one could disagree about specific points and about subtle issues, and did not think I deserved to be stalked constantly and attacked personally. Clearly I was wrong, but I really it's of no consequence.

Thanks to Robin also ;-)
Believe me, unlike some people here I can both dish it out AND take it, without breaking into a sweat ;-)

Ann

Stanislav, I wish everyone had your knowledge and your ability to analyse things logically.

London Calling

Its not religion or Land that separates us, but Ignorance…

Science Daily

If a common heritage conferred peace, then perhaps the long history of conflict in the Middle East would have been resolved years ago. For, according to a new scientific study, Jews are the genetic brothers of Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese, and they all share a common genetic lineage that stretches back thousands of years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/05/000509003653.htm

Lawrence

Sorry for breaking my promise not to post again, but Stanislaw is simply wrong.

If one refers to the court's majority opinion (rather than to the opinion of the sole dissenting jurist, as he has done), the court reviews "the rules and principles of international law which are relevant" to its opinion.

The very FIRST source of law identified is Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter.

Raoul

Never mind - the very country, Israel, which these truly anti-Semites despise, will be there for Jews, and Britain will be left the poorer for it.

Mike

And to-day we read that Palestinian students who won grants from the Fulbright scholarship programme to study in the United States, are detained in Gaza because Israel won't allow them to travel. Similarly, another student is about to lose his scholarship to study engineering at Nottingham University so he can return to Gaza to help his people. It's difficult to find anything so mean, petty and vicious as these examples.

Raoul

The tunnel-vision obsession with Israel, and Israel alone,where any sin is concerned,is a clear indication of the sickness of society, and British academia gets the top grade.

phil

Adam B ,Robin.Ivan-I don't enjoy "dishing it out" to Ann especially as I know she is very loyal to the cause we support ,but I believe strongly that she causes us all harm by using such violent language

-I post when I have something of value to say(my opinion I know )(lol)and I try to use reason not abuse -Ivan for instance knows I do not agree with some of what he says but we do manage to exchange views without abuse ,in that way we may change our opinions ,hopefully his to mine.

I have said before I have good friends who do not agree with Israel's methods but I know they are not anti-Semitic ,my belief is that they are ill informed and I try to change that perception by reason and information-that is very different to the method employed by Ann that does not get us anywhere -there is no necessity to even reply to those who are so offensive ,we will not change the minds of those that really hate Jews -I admit to doing it sometimes but usually with humour as the likes of patricia quite honestly make me laugh.Adam you work so hard and I admire your energy and perception .Ivan I will continue to try to change some of your opinions and ensure that you know that most of us here have compassion and seek a just and fair peace for both sides ,and Robin I agree ! :)

phil

Melanie if you read these numerous posts -I sent two emails to you asking where on the UCU agenda was the relevant debate and perhaps they didn't get through-I do want the info as I want to take it up with them-I think you are aware of my opinion and I intend to say my piece to them too ,particularly as I do not think it is a majority view as has been said my members here -hope you can help.

phil

Lawrence I cant argue with the opinions expressed so eloquently by both you and Stanislav.but could you clarify your legal qualification and perhaps Stanislav too ,so at least we can judge who is likely to be right .This is a most complex matter for the uninitiated and it would help me at least to make my own judgement.Iam quite used to using councel,and I know the importance of using an expert opinion -I would be obliged

Sergey

"to study engineering at Nottingham University so he can return to Gaza to help his people."
To help with what? Modernize Qassam rockets so that more Israely children were murdered? Had it ever come to your mind that Shin Beth may have better knowlege of applicants background and their ties with HAMAS which rules in Gaza, than Fulbrait Commitee or Nottingham University?

Stanislav Koblinski

Lawrence says:

Sorry for breaking my promise not to post again, but Stanislaw is simply wrong.

If one refers to the court's majority opinion (rather than to the opinion of the sole dissenting jurist, as he has done), the court reviews "the rules and principles of international law which are relevant" to its opinion.

The very FIRST source of law identified is Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter.

Not according to my source, which quotes the actual judgment. Will you, please Lawrence, give a link to your source? Without that your claims mean nothing.

Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter reads as follows:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

As I've already pointed out that Article has no bearing whatsoever on the ICJ's decision, it is wholly inapplicable because it refers to member states of the UN, which "Palestine" is not. That is exactly why the case was judged as being between between Israel and the UN itself because the ICJ has no jurisdiction over non-members.

Here, once again, is what the actual judgment, not the dissenting judge, has to say. Please read it carefully before responding with your link:

International Court of Justice (ICJ) Ruling on the Israeli Security Barrier ("Wall") - July 9, 2004

95. The Court notes that, according to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, that Convention is applicable when two conditions are fulfilled: that there exists an armed conflict (whether or not a state of war has been recognized); and that the conflict has arisen between two contracting parties. If those two conditions are satisfied, the Convention applies, in particular, in any territory occupied in the course of the conflict by one of the contracting parties.

I have searched through the opinions of all the judges here and the only mention of Article 2 of the Charter is to be found here, Opinion of Judge El Araby (surprise surprise! Could he be suspected of not being impartial?)

3.1. The prohibition of the use of force, as enshrined in Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter, is no doubt the most important principle that emerged in the twentieth century. It is universally recognized as a jus cogens principle, a peremptory norm from which no derogation is permitted. The Court recalls in paragraph 87, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States (resolution 2625 (XXV)), which provides an agreed interpretation of Article 2 (4). The Declaration “emphasized that ‘No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.’” (Advisory Opinion, para. 87). The general principle that an illegal act cannot produce legal rights ¾ ex injuria jus non oritur ¾ is well recognized in international law.

Is this "the sole" occurrence of any mention of Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. It is NOT the "very FIRST source", it is the opinion of another judge.

Please provide a link, if you can, to back up your claim.

I have also searched http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=5a&case=131&code=mwp&p3=4">Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004 (note it is not and never was a "judgment") and have found several mentions of Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention but only one of Article 2 of the UN Charter.

Over to you.

Stanislav Koblinski

phil,

There is no need for Lawrence or I to clarify our qualifications, legal or otherwise.

Lawrence claims that the ICJ opinion was based on the UN charter but provides no documentary proof of this.

I say that he is mistaken and the "Article 2" he refers to is in fact an article of one of the Geneva Conventions, not the UN Charter, and I have gone to the trouble of finding documentary proof of my claim.

In all legal matters exact wording is of prime importance. One cannot make claims that cannot be backed up. I look forward to Lawrence providing proof of his claim.

FinanceDoc

Like so many misinformed Brits, Lawrence's arguments hinge on a single massive misconception fed by the British media and various other anti-semitic actors: that Jewish settlements are illegal. Has he ever wondered why despite the occasional grunt of indignation about settlements being "unhelpful", there has never been a concerted effort by the international community to block or reverse Jewish settlements in the disputed territories? It is because they are entirely legal by international law.

The Balfour Declaration called for "close settlement of the land" by the Jews in their ancestral homeland of Palestine. It did not limit this settlement to the current sliver of land known as Israel -- an area by the way, never recognized by the Arabs as a Jewish sovereign.

The Balfour declaration was adopted into law by the League of Nations and subsequently grandfathered across with all other League of Nation resolutions to the United Nations -- the body which is today, so openly hostile to Israel.

Although Churchill gave 76% of the Mandate away to the Hashemite Arabs as a reward for good behavior during the war and the UN subsequently attempted to hand half of what remained to the Arabs living in Palestine, a Jewish sovereign on just 12% of the land originally reserved for Jewish settlement was flatly rejected by the Arabs who immediately attacked Israel with the stated goal of eradicating the nation and murdering its Jewish inhabitants. The Arabs lost that war -- and the subsequent three wars – along with the last unassigned 12% of territory now alternatively referred to as the West Bank or Judea and Samaria, depending on whose narrative you adopt.

Those are the facts and they are recognized by all who know history – despite the sound and fury fueled by relentless counter-factual propaganda issued by the Arabs and the BBC.

Ann

"It's difficult to find anything so mean, petty and vicious as these examples"

Clearly, to some people the vilification of the entire Jewish nation is not mean, petty and vicious.
Don't worry: we know exactly where you come from.

Nick Kaplan

What I find quite amusing is how the left, when it comes to Israel (or for that matter anything to do with apparently native vs. non-native populations), find a certain affinity for both property rights and national sovereignty, values which, in all other contexts, they don’t just ignore but treat with utter disdain. I think this has a lot to do with their hatred of Israel and of colonisers such as Columbus. The reason the left believe Israel has no right to exist is because they have spent so long arguing against property rights that they haven’t the slightest idea how they come about and thus the left are totally incapable of seeing why the Israelis are entitled to the land they live on and why the Palestinians are not. Property rights are not gained by living on a piece of land, they are gained by adding value and mixing labour with that land. In prehistoric times there was no such thing as property either private or collective, there was merely environment which was not owned by anyone or anything and hence anyone could settle on it without violating the rights of any other. Prehistoric man was thus little more than a parasite, living off the land and doing nothing to add to its productivity. Palestinians likewise did not add anything to the land they resided on, they merely used said land for sustenance and when the Israelis settled (which they could legitimately do as nobody owned anything) Palestine was little more than an arid desert. It would thus be perverse to say Palestinians owned this land, they merely resided on it in the same way prehistoric man resided on African lands and Red-Indians resided on but did not own the lands of North America. The Israelis on the other hand (who purchased the land which was being used productively) utterly transformed the land that was resided on unproductively by the Arabs. Israelis mixed their labour with the land, increasing its productivity and bringing it into some causal relation with human desire satisfaction. Thus the Israelis turned a sprawling mass of arid desert into a highly sophisticated, productive and developed country, thus achieving property ownership where they resided. This process is what entitles the Israelis to their land and it is this process the left have never understood, hence why they can’t understand Israel’s legitimate right to exist and to defend itself.

Roslyn Pine

FinanceDoc.

Absolutely correct.
The League of Nations Charter on Palestine was ratified in 1922 and taken over into Article 80 of the UN Charter upon the dissolution of the former. It remains binding until the present time, and thus the area of Jewish settlement in allocated in international law includes Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Arabs have never accepted this even though they were given Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Trans-Jordan, which were carved out of the Ottoman Empire, for their settlement.
Further, a ruling was made in 1970 by Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the ICJ in the Hague, that as far as Judea and Samaria were concerned:-
"Where the the prior of territory had seized that territory unlawfully (ie.Transjordan in 1948), the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defence(ie. Israel, when attacked in 1967)has, against that prior holder, better title". Which is what always happens in war---the aggressor, on losing, cedes territory---many examples of that.
Also, little-known, but very important, every Israeli Government of every political hue employed the services of the expert lawyer, Plia Albeck,(who had pro-Arab leanings)and based on her detailed knowledge of Ottoman, British, International and Israeli law, settlements, post 1967, were only allowed on state land, ie ownerless land.

Martin

As a UCU member, I'm ashamed that Trotskyites & their Islamofascist buddies have penetrated our union.
They describe themselves as "rank & file", Peace Activists, & Stop the War activists. In fact they are sinister & fascistic, and should not be allowed to pollute our students' minds. They should have no more influence in our union or our colleges than the National Front, which they so closely resemble.

Ann

Phil's obsessive vindictiveness and non-stop attacks on me, simply because I had the temerity to criticise one of his posts, is a wonder to behold.
He thinks that his methods are the only ones possible, and that anyone who uses others is a villain. How sad.
His belief that people who were not antisemites suddenly become antisemites by reading my posts, is laughable. Well, it would be if it weren't so deluded and silly.
Appeasing antisemites by refraining from calling them thus doesn't work. Conversely, standing up to them (a) shows them that they can't have it all their way, (b) may dissuade at least some of them from implementing their antisemitism in real life, as distinct from posting lies on this board.
It's instructive, when looking at his posts, that others than me use the term 'antisemitism' without attracting his ire. This tells us that he is conducting a personal vendetta.

He claims that I don't post factual comments. That's nonsense.

Not sure who attacked my mention of resolution 242 and called it a 'rant' - was it Lawrence? That would figure. It's relevant, since like the fence 'judgement' it is used by ignorants as a means of attacking Israel, e.g. by completely misquoting it and claiming that it (242) demands immediate withdrawal of Israel from ALL the territories occupied in 1967 (that's a LIE) without any preconditions such as a peace treaty (that's a LIE also).
Similarly, as I have said (but perhaps Phil has difficulty grasping this), the 'judgement' is based on the nonsensical notion that the Green Line was ever an international border. This, and other such fantasies, have been shown here in detail by excellent posters such as Stanislav, Roslyn, Kaplan, Adam and FinanceDoc to be pure unadulterated nonsense.

Lawrence

Stanislav wrote:

"Is this "the sole" occurrence of any mention of Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. It is NOT the "very FIRST source", it is the opinion of another judge."

Well, as I suggested earlier, you should look at the majority opinion, not the various concurrences and the lone dissent.

I'm afraid I'm not terribly computer savvy, so I can't link directly to the opinion. Go to the ICJ's web site (www.icj-cij.org), though, and you can find the opinion (from July 2004) in the docket files.

If you do so, you will find this:

Paragraph 86: "The Court will now determine the rules and principles of international law which are relevant in assessing the legality of the measures taken by Israel."

Paragraph 87: "The Court first recalls that, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter...[followed by quote from Charter]."

Stanislav wrote:

"As I've already pointed out that Article has no bearing whatsoever on the ICJ's decision, it is wholly inapplicable because it refers to member states of the UN, which "Palestine" is not."

Clearly you're wrong that it has "no bearing" on the ICJ's decision. As indicated, it's the first source of law identified in the majority opinion.

Secondly, you're apparently not reading all of paragraph 4--"...or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Phil wrote:

"Lawrence I cant argue with the opinions expressed so eloquently by both you and Stanislav.but could you clarify your legal qualification and perhaps Stanislav too ,so at least we can judge who is likely to be right."

Thank you for the compliment. I am a solicitor by profession, but in my work I only occasionally dealt with issues involving international law, so I do not claim to be an expert.

The qualified experts on this issue are, of course, the jurists of the ICJ. As I indicated before, they found 14-1 that both the West Bank and E. Jerusalem are occupied territories under international law, that the settlements are illegal, and that the wall (or security barrier, if you like) being built in the occupied territories is illegal.

What is the likelihood that people like "FinanceDoc" and "Roslyn Pine" and, of all people, "Ann" know more about international law than the ICJ? If it had been a 9-6 ruling, or even a 11-4 ruling, one might be able to infer that there were good legal arguments on both sides of the issue. But it was 14-1.

And, as I previously noted, the lone dissenter was an American Jew. This further supports my concern that many Jews (many on this board, quite obviously) are so emotionally attached to Israel, or to the idea of Israel, that they are unable to be impartial and think clearly when issues regarding Israel are raised.

phil

try remembering the yeshiva students who were killed recently in jerusalem Mike-how mean was that -more or less?

Dr. Irene lancaster FRSA

George Orwell said it all over60 years ago:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-university-boycott-of-israel-and-thinking-outside-the-box.html

phil

Ann you must be truly paranoid -I have no clue as to which of my posts you criticised and frankly I do not care -you are entitled to do that-All I have ever asked of you is to stop this incessant vitriol that pours forth from you as I believe it harms the cause for which we are both passionate -Í read all the fascinating postings here and they seem to make their point without abusive statements .please try it you obviously have the intellect to do so -that I hope is my last word to you and hopefully you will get on with your life without having to address me again

Stanislav in the interests of fairness I had to ask both you and Lawrence the same question ,I have never doubted you ,and as Lawrence says he is no expert on international law I will have to take his word on that .

Lawrence when you refer to the judge as an American Jew-it says a lot to me of how you think of us ,you might as well have called him a Jewboy ,it is little different.Most people would have referred to him as the Jewish judge and then perhaps I could have given more weight to your arguments ,but you have subtly defined yourself and now I cannot trust anything you say -I lived with your type of attitude in my early years of my professional life but happily that attitude is now one of a few dinosaurs -perhaps you should read "to kill a mockingbird" it may open your eyes to the fact that people are worth what they say and do ,not what they were born as .

I would have to accept I cannot compete with the intellectual brilliance of Stanislav ,Nick ,and Water which I much admire, but I can say it how it is and I have done and will continue to do so.

Lawrence

I really do want this to be my last contribution to this matter, so let me offer what I hope will be taken as a good faith suggestion (prefaced by an observation).

Contrary to how some may have read my comments, I do not think that "dual loyalty" (so called) is, by itself, a problem. As I wrote earlier, all human beings have multiple loyalties.

But if one is going to be a good citizen, the loyalties have to be ordered. When the secondary loyalty comes into conflict with what should be the primary loyalty, the former must be put to the side. (This is not just an issue with Jews and Israel. The secondary loyalty could be to the EU, for example.)

For those of us who are not Jewish, perhaps it would be easier to trust that most Jews are capable of reasonably sorting those loyalties if we saw more nuanced pro-Israel positions taken. (That's the suggestion.)

Clearly there are many Jews who do so, and there appear to even be many Jews who care very little about Israel. But in my experience (limited as it is, which is true for all of us in all things), many Jews have great difficulty with this.

Many comments on this board are examples of that. As I suggested in an earlier comment, much of this appears to be equivalent to kicking and screaming on behalf of Israel--never admit that Israel's behaviour is often problematic (legally, morally, and generally for the West), and rabidly attack anyone who says otherwise.

Where is the acknowledgement that Israel is, in fact, many times a bad actor? Regardless of the legality of the matter, where is the acknowledgement that the settlements--and all of the conflict they create-- are bad for Britain and the West?

If your goal is to be an effective advocate for Israel while not inviting charges of problematic loyalty, I think it would be helpful to consider those issues carefully.

Best of luck.

Stanislav Koblinski

Lawrence,

Thank you for your response. I have indeed read the entire ruling, and not just the dissenting judge's opinion, as I made plain in my previous post. I even quoted from it and posted a link to it, for your reference.

The court does indeed recall, as you quote, para 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter. That is the one and only reference made to it in the entire ruling. To "recall" something is not quite the same as determining that it is the basis for the opinion - which it most certainly is not.

The only other reference to be found to it is in Judge El Araby's opinion, which I also quoted and gave the source.

You feel entitled to discard the opinion of one of the judges because, in your words:

"... the lone dissenter was an American Jew. This further supports my concern that many Jews (many on this board, quite obviously) are so emotionally attached to Israel, or to the idea of Israel, that they are unable to be impartial and think clearly when issues regarding Israel are raised."

I therefore feel that I too am entitled to discard the opinion of Judge El Araby on the grounds that as an Arab he would be unable to be impartial and think clearly when issues regarding Israel are raised.

I will also add that I find your comments regarding Judge Buergenthal to be offensive in the extreme.

Let's now begin to dispel some misunderstanding regarding the ICJ and its function, in particular with regard it's "ruling" on the Israeli security barrier:

The ICJ can only voice opinions upon request. Its decisions are non-binding and can not be taken as setting legal precedent or shaping International Law. It acts as an arbitrator/mediator between parties in disputes.

Arbitration/mediation can only take place when both parties agree to abide by the opinions of the arbitrator/mediator. Israel, rightly so, refused to take part in this fiasco which then invalidates the entire process.

"Palestine" is not a member of the UN, neither is it a state, and it is precisely for this reason that the ICJ was obliged to frame it's process as being between the UN and Israel instead of between "Palestine" and Israel. It is also precisely for the above reasons that Article 2 of the UN Charter has no relevance, because, as already stated, "Palestine" is neither a member of the UN nor a state.

You also say:

Clearly you're wrong that it has "no bearing" on the ICJ's decision. As indicated, it's the first source of law identified in the majority opinion.

It IS NOT the "first source". I refer you to page 7, which is long before the paragraph you quote:

Applicable law. United Nations Charter - General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) - Illegality of any territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force - Right of'peoples to self-determination. International humunitarian [continues, but does not mention Article 2 of the UN Charter]

You will note that it says "United Nations Charter - General Assembly resolution 2625", NOT United nations Charter Article 2 para 4.

I see no point in splitting hairs further with you Lawrence. You, the ICJ and the UN in general are experts in contradiction and hypocrisy when it comes to applying international law to Israel. Your comments about posters here, and pro-Israel Jews in general being biased is really rich coming from somebody who derides the opinion of a judge because he is "an American Jew".

I wonder if you feel the same way about the Jews you come across in your own solicitor's practice.

Stanislav Koblinski

Lawrence, you ask:

Where is the acknowledgement that Israel is, in fact, many times a bad actor?

Where have you acknowledged that "Palestinians" commit "bad deeds"? Or are all their "bad deeds" excusable as having been caused by those bad Israelis?

You really are only succeeding in offending more people and digging yourself deeper into a hole.

I would be delighted to see you continue this debate, but for your own good perhaps you really should end here.

Roslyn Pine

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the UN.
Given the obsessive/compulsive nature of the latter's relationship with the world's only Jewish state, and the disgraceful hatefest that took place under its auspices in Durban 2001, one cannot take its impartiality seriously.
Further,the ICJ is subject to veto by the any of the 5 members of the Security Council, and its rulings are only binding where a state agrees to submit to its rulings.
When one examines the list of countries from which its judges are selected, such as Morocco, Jordan, Venezuela, China, Russia etc.one can discount any notion of fairness vis a vis Israel. Its a bit like the Pythonesque scenario of Libya chairing the UN Council for Human Rights.
Furthermore, the UN charter regarding the Mandate for Palestine still holds good today and takes precedence over the rulings of the ICJ which conflict with it.

As to the poster who says that the "settlements are bad for Britain" I assume that he means that anything that is to Israel's advantage is deleterious to our trade with the Arab world.
He needs to look at history which teaches us that you can never appease a bully, and that ultimately you have to stand up for what is right.

Tim

I was horrified by the facts disclosed in Melanie's article. When I started reading these comments I thought I wasn't racist. Now I'm not so sure. But I'm fairly confident I'm anti-Ann (generally) and pro-Phil (generally). I look forward to Ann's put-down.

John Doe

Here's Bob Dylan's song about Israel's predicament..it speaks eloquently:

Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man,
His enemies say he's on their land.
They got him outnumbered about a million to one,
He got no place to escape to, no place to run.
He's the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully just lives to survive,
He's criticized and condemned for being alive.
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin,
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in.
He's the neighborhood bully.

The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land,
He's wandered the earth an exiled man.
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn,
He's always on trial for just being born.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized,
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize.
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad.
The bombs were meant for him.
He was supposed to feel bad.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, the chances are against it and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him,
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac.
He's the neighborhood bully.

He got no allies to really speak of.
What he gets he must pay for, he don't get it out of love.
He buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Well, he's surrounded by pacifists who all want peace,
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease.
Now, they wouldn't hurt a fly.
To hurt one they would weep.
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Every empire that's enslaved him is gone,
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon.
He's made a garden of paradise in the desert sand,
In bed with nobody, under no one's command.
He's the neighborhood bully.

Now his holiest books have been trampled upon,
No contract he signed was worth what it was written on.
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth,
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health.
He's the neighborhood bully.

What's anybody indebted to him for?
Nothin', they say.
He just likes to cause war.
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed,
They wait for this bully like a dog waits to feed.
He's the neighborhood bully.

What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers?
Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill,
Running out the clock, time standing still,
Neighborhood bully.

Stanislav Koblinski

Somebody calling himself Mike said:

And to-day we read that Palestinian students who won grants from the Fulbright scholarship programme to study in the United States, are detained in Gaza because Israel won't allow them to travel. Similarly, another student is about to lose his scholarship to study engineering at Nottingham University so he can return to Gaza to help his people. It's difficult to find anything so mean, petty and vicious as these examples.

Yes really, now read on:

Israel 'surprised' at Fulbright row
Officials in the Prime Minister's Office Saturday night expressed "surprise" at State Department criticism of Israel for reportedly not letting seven Gazan students leave the Gaza Strip on Fulbright scholarships, saying that the State Department did not directly contact the PMO about the issue.

According to the officials, there is an individual in the PMO whose job it is to facilitate the passage for humanitarian needs of certain individuals from the Gaza Strip.

"Israel has an interest in seeing future Palestinian leaders go to Western democratic countries to study," one official said.

"In the past, many countries have approached us, and we have made it possible to facilitate study abroad. In this case they just did not approach us, and assumed it would be impossible."

On Saturday night Israeli officials said the students would be allowed to leave for their studies.

Ann

"never admit that Israel's behaviour is often problematic"

In your case, Lawrence, it's more like "never admit that Israel's enemies are genocidal maniacs whose behaviour is that of savages, because if I did admit that, and that Israel is defending itself quite legitimiately, I'd have no stick with which to beat Israel and manifest my irrational hatred".

I note that you have now promised at least three times not to post any more.

Lawrence

Phil wrote:

"Lawrence when you refer to the judge as an American Jew-it says a lot to me of how you think of us ,you might as well have called him a Jewboy.."

No, I did not mean to attack him as a person. I did not know that calling him an American Jew was offensive. Given that the ruling was 14-1, though, and that he was the lone dissenter, and that the issue involved Israel, one would have to be intellectually blind not to ask whether his Jewishness affected his reasoning in the matter.

"you should read "to kill a mockingbird"

I've read the book. Quite good. I do not think of Jews (or Jewish people, if you prefer) as anything less than full human beings. When the issue is Israel, though, it's perfectly reasonable for me to raise the issues I have.

"I would have to accept I cannot compete with the intellectual brilliance of Stanislav ,Nick ,and Water which I much admire..."

Well, despite their alleged brilliance (and I don't intend that in a mean-spirited manner), they're apparently arguing in favor of a position which was accepted by only 1 judge out of 15. You need to fully consider (and explain) that before deciding that Stanislav et al are correct.

Stanislav wrote:

"It IS NOT the "first source". I refer you to page 7, which is long before the paragraph you quote:"

Good Lord, you really are splitting hairs. It is the FIRST source of law identified in the Court's consideration of whether Israel is acting illegally. That's what we're discussing, is it not?

Earlier legal issues the court addressed were procedural. You MUST know that if you read the opinion and if you have legal training.

"Where have you acknowledged that "Palestinians" commit "bad deeds"? Or are all their "bad deeds" excusable as having been caused by those bad Israelis?"

In an earlier post I said something to the effect that 'all parties to the sordid mess are both victim and aggressor'. If you want me to be more explicit, I will: the Palestinians are often bad actors, too.

Though the temptation may be great, it really is necessary for me to move on now. No more posts. Have at me if you will.

Take care.

Ann

"What is the likelihood that people like "FinanceDoc" and "Roslyn Pine" and, of all people, "Ann" know more about international law than the ICJ?"

Ad hominem nonsense. You know exactly nothing about my qualifications.

Many posters here have shown, in great deal and excellent factual analysis, why those amazing legal minds got it completely wrong in fact and wrong in law (we can spend a great of time showing why the claim that the settlements are 'illegal' is as nonsensical as the rest; I think it was Roslyn who made an excellent start by showing that Jordan had nil legal claim to the West Bank, and that there was no other legal claim to it as good as Israel's in 1967. My apologies if it was some other poster).

As a 'solicitor', it would have been nice if you were capable of addressing the specific factual and legal points rather than make personal attacks on those posting them. But who knows? Maybe you are not a solicitor at all. For the sake of the profession, I hope so.

john doe

And here's Dylan's song, accompanied by appropriate images.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlHlXHimo_g

Roslyn Pine

John Doe.

Thank you so much for Dylan's "Neighbourhood Bully".
Absolutely brilliant. Should be on every school syllabus.

Simon

This is disgraceful. Basically, if anybody says or thinks the wrong thing on Israel, the occupation, Jewish history etc, then they're going to be ostracised, demonised and outlawed.

But enough said about the usual atmosphere on Melanie Phillips' blog (perpetrated by her usual cronies) .....

Peter

I thought the Spectator was supposed to be a British publication devoted to commentary on the whole spectrum of world issues and problems but yet this particular commentator, Melanie Phillips, persistently bombards readers with allegations and hype concerning by and large one issue.

Much as I appreciate this may appeal to a particular class of readers, I do not believe that they represent the majority interest or what the majority is interested in.

Please can we have some variety or can Melanie Phillips limit herself to commentary in the Jewish Chronicle/Jerusalem Post?

Cohen

Peter:
The Spectator has every right to devote its attention to whichever topics it chooses.

Quite naturally, it has a particular interest in the issues raised regularly by Melanie Phillips.

Clearly, you are not aware that proprietary interests attached to the Spectator and the other publications you have mentioned coincide.

If you don't like that, I suggest you don't contribute.

Adam B.

Lawrence, your views about "dual loyalty" are simply appalling. Can you prove YOUR loyalty, and that you are always, exclusively, loyal to the UK in every instance? Why must Jewish people have to prove something to you? Why don't YOU prove yourself? From Hitler's Germany to Stalin's Soviet Union, the Jews are accused of not being loyal enough. I'm reminded of Anne Frank's father, a winner of the Iron Cross for bravery in WWI. It didn't mean squat, because even when a Jew could prove his loyalty, it didn't matter to those who were hellbent on destroying them. How awful that our discussion has come to this - what you're really saying is that you don't trust Jewish people as being loyal. Tough! I don't trust you!

john doe

Roslyn Pine: Thanks for pointing the fundamental rottenness of the ICJ, the Human Rights Council and just about everything else at the UN. The UN is a veritable theatre of the absurd, a theatre of cruelty where fair is foul and foul is fair in our very out of joint time. To take the ICJ seriously as a moral authority is either hopelessly naive, downright disingenuous or unforgiveably cynical. I think we've seen examples of all three dysfunctional mental states on this thread.

Shy Guy

Totally OT: here's the latest neighbourhood bully. :)

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Re London Calling's quote from Science Daily, this is not some dazzlingly new piece of information. It just goes to show that you can pick (all sorts of things' let's not be gross) but you can't pick your relatives!

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

I am not one of the "many Jews [who]have great difficulty with this" referred to by Lawrence in his final (really, truly ??)"contribution". Melanie has often been asked where her loyalty would lie if Britain and Israel were to be on opposite sides in war. In that situation, she and the rest of us (including those 'good' Jews who wrote that pathetic letter to the Guardian on Israel's 60th)would not be given a choice. We'd all be interned.

phil

mike have you also been detained-accusations but no response -we await with baited breath

phil

Lawrence if you are still there and I am sure you are reading our reactions-the legal niceties are way beyond my knowledge but I do know that if you took away the reasons for the wall ,there would be no wall may I suggest you try this site that would perhaps enlighten you far better than anything I can say to you http://www.mythsandfacts.com/Conflict/mandate_for_palestine/mandate_for_palestine.htm#015-enjoy and lets hear what you have to say

Roslyn Pine

The best example of how a Jew's absolute loyalty to his country was repaid is that of the distinguished German Jewish Nobel prize-winning chemist, Fritz Haber.
Through his discovery of the synthesis of ammonia, he literally saved the German people from starvation through the production of cheap fertilizer after WWI, which his process facilitated.
In addition, the Haber process enabled the Germans to manufacture vast quantities of explosives.
He served in the armed forces in WW1 (unusual for a scientist) for which he was awarded the highest decoration, the Iron Cross.
During Hitler's rise to power and the anti-semitism that ensued, Haber converted to Christianity to be fully accepted as a German.
To no avail, he fled Germany in 1933 having returned the Iron Cross in disgust.
There was an additional irony in that from his work on poison gases, the scientists working in his institute developed Zyklon B, which, of course was used in the extermination of millions of Jews in the Holocaust, including members of his own extended family.

Interesting to note that since WW11 and the fleeing of so many distinguished Jewish scientists, Germany never regained its pre-eminence in the sciences.
Today, it ranks behind tiny Israel in high tech, which is now second only to Silicon Valley.

Ravi

This is disgraceful. Basically, if anybody says or thinks the wrong thing on Israel, the occupation, Jewish history etc, then they're going to be ostracised, demonised and outlawed. Yup! You got it! If anyone says anything that re-writes Jewish History to negate any legitimacy about Jews and/or Israel, if someone selects Jews or Israelis for race hate - they are going to get ostracised and sued - just like you would do if you did the same thing to Muslims or Islam. Actually, you are MORE likely to be ostracised if your target is Arabs, Islam or Muslims.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

May I take the liberty of writing a post script to Roslyn Pine's last comment:

That's why each and every one of those pathetic Jews who wrote to the Guardian with their assurances that they were not going to celebrate Israel's 60th deserve a good kick in the pants!

Soo Grabbit and Run

Just to return everyone to the subject of this blog .

The UCU were made aware of the illegality of their boycott last year .They chose to ignore legal advice and worse still failed to inform their members.

The same legal advice is true of this latest attempt to proscribe Israeli academics and institutions as it contravenes both UK and EU rulings on rascism and discrimination.

It may well be ,judging from the relative quiet this time ,that the boycott will be allowed to proceed in order to test it in Court. In the likely event that the boycott will be dismissed as both rascist and discriminatory ,the UCU will face exacting penalties and costs.Hopefully in that scenario they might even face bankruptcy . This may be a long way down the line but it will be interesting to see how it eventually pans out.

Meanwhile I hope the UCU members are made a little more aware as to how their money is spent in the event of litigation.

Sybil

Brad I heartily agree with you --do these "kind souls"know what is happening in South Africa at the moment? they burn people in the streets --and South Africa was boycotted for this???

Mike

Phil: Relax.......read that bit of news and thought it appropriate to post it. I'm not in the mood right now to join forces with anyone. I'm enjoying the garden, sailing when the weather allows, catching up with some good reading....you know...quite mundane, but enjoyable nonetheless. Hope you are enjoying your summer.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

As to Lawrence's demand that British Jews prove their loyalty to the UK, how ironic that it was that very sentiment in France during the Dreyfus affair that led Theodore Herzl to organize the modern secular Zionist movement, and that same attitude throughout Europe that led to the extermination of 1/3 of world Jewry from 1939 to 1945 -- two (of many) seminal events leading to the establishment of the very state that the UCU and their sympathizers like Lawrence so despise.

Edward

I'm shocked that supposedly "progressive" universities would engage in McCarthism.

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a supporter of Israel and Jews"? If so, you will not be permitted to work here.

Sad how low the left has fallen, in bed with fascists.

The other Harvey

Thinkster, erm, thinks...

'They wonder why Israel exists! Idiots!'

1. Israel behaves abominably
2. People object...
3. Thus proving Israel should exist.
QED

Ahad H'amoratzim

The other Harvey, let's re-examine your points.

1. Israel behaves in a way that is permitted by international law yet is universally condemned at the instigation of nations who behave much much worse, and is singled out for disporportionate condemnation and smeared for acting "abominably" while nations who truly act abominably (China, Cuba, Syria, Sudan, not to mention non-nations such as
Hamas and the PLO) escape criticism and often lead the chorus against Israel.

2. People who point this out are accused of everything under the sun, and, if they are Jewish, are accused of disloyalty to the nations where they live.

3. Ploticians, would-be genocides, leftists, anti-semites and their dupes clamor for a loyalty test for Jews and then wonder why some think that the Jews need a state of their own.

2. Those w

phil

Mike haver a good summer and read the right stuff:) fiskless

phil

soo grabbit -I ACTUALLY WROTE THE SAME THING SEE BELOW ON28/5 so I hope you are right

I HOPE THE ONES RESPONSIBLE WILL BE MADE TO PAY FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE AND I MEAN THROUGH HEAVY FINES IN THE COURTS WITH THEIR PERSONAL ASSETS .I have no doubt their morals will not support a loss like that. maybe Lawrence will act for us :)

Headless chicken

re Dual loyalty / loyalty tests

The demand to prove loyalty - whether applied to muslims or Zionist Jews - is both pretty distasteful and almost certainly counter-productive.

I'm a pretty lapsed Anglican, but forced to choose between the CofE and the British state, I think I might very well find an added fondness for the prayer book, church music, etc - if for no other reason than that I would resent being asked to choose.

There are questions that are best not asked and this is one of them. But if they are going to be, my guess is there would be plenty of non-Jews and non-muslims that would fail it.

Come to think of it I'd probably fail it, CofE or no. Why? My daughter was born in the UK, has lived all her life here and has my name on her birth certificate, but when I wanted to get her a passport the British state told us where to go - apparently though I am, she's not British. Now it happens that my daughter is just about the most important thing in my life, and if the British state is going to give her a big "go-away", then I feel pretty much the same way about it. Another point I know, and fortunately most of the time I don't actually think about it.

But don't please press the point with me or anyone else.

Gene Russell

I can't believe this is happening in Britain.

Jack

Sorry but this is not against Jews it is against the academic institutions of Israel.

An article that misrepresents the truth is clearly misrepresenting the truth.

Roslyn Pine

Jack.

You do not have to be Einstein to make the connection between this boycott which is directed against only one country on the planet and the fact that that country is the only Jewish country on the planet.
Obviously, UCU are not going to say openly that their target is Jews as that behaviour is only pc in Arab/ Muslim countries.
However, open anti-semitism is not far beneath the surface in Europe, and this daibolical resolution of UCU has brought it one step closer to respectability.

Edward

"Sorry but this is not against Jews it is against the academic institutions of Israel."

If it's OK to boycott Israeli academic institutions, then it should be OK to boycott other components of modern Israeli society?

The UCU is engaging in McCarthyism.

Jack, your comment that misrepresents the truth is clearly misrepresenting the truth.

phil

jack may I say that is the most naive statement on the whole of this thread .
why pick on the academic institutions ? if they had said the army or the government I could understand their position even though I would be suspicious,but academia-no sir we all know what that is about ,and so should you .

Joanne

"This is not like the Nazis. It is like average antisemitism before the Nazis. The Holocaust, and the easing up of restrictions on Jews after the Holocaust were an aberation. We're returning to normal antisemitism after a half century break."

This is exactly right, a very astute comment. By the way, when Germans talk today about drawing a line on the Holocaust, even for some valid-sounding reasons, I suspect that what they're really drawing isn't a line but a circle...a full circle. Not back to Nazism, since that was a lethal combination of race hatred, economic privation, and militarism that was permitted to gel at that particular, over-heated historical moment. Rather, to some extent it's a return to the "normal" antisemitism that existed when Germany was considered very civilized, under the Kaisers and Weimar.

Come to think of it, I don't know if, in Britain, there is a return to the an antisemitism that existed before. There are some strands of continuity between British antisemitism before WWII and now, but there are new aspects, too. Today, antisemitism comes mainly from the left, whereas before, it came mainly from the right (at least it did after the Dreyfus Affair).

verna

It seems that instead of entering the 21st Century, we are back at the middle ages. What are the considerations and expectations for tomorrow? An Inquisition?

I applaud the narrow mindeness of these Brits who have the Djihad under one arm: and the inquisition of the Jews under the other.

Their blindness, and intolerance is grand.

And, what can be added? What can be expected from people pulled by oil and money?

No, it does not surprise me at all. The biggest bigots are unmasking their faces, it was high time.

Sincerely,
V.G

Ceecee

Anti-Semitism is sickening. It is completely disgusting. I hate anti-Semitism. I hate it on the right and I hate it on the left. Anti-Semites are cursed by God, and they are liars too. Stay away from this abomination, regardless of whether it is practiced by right wing or left wing people.

John Mullen

It is quite dishonest to identify political objection to a state (Israël) with racist objection to a people (Jews). Most Jews do not want to live in Israël. The government of Israël claims to speak for all Jews, but this is a terrible lie.